Strengthening Indiana's Self-Defense Laws

[Doug64]

An interesting case on defensive gun use in Indiana involving a man who made an intuitive self-defense judgment call that may have saved his life but saw him found guilty of battery with a deadly weapon because he'd violated the state's objective reasonableness standard:

Indiana Supreme Court Overturns Conviction and Strengthens State's Self-Defense Laws

bearingarms.com

Basically, in Indiana, if you now make a judgment call involving using potentially lethal force and you get it right, you cannot be found guilty of assault no matter how limited your information was or how unreasonable your decision would have looked at the time. Get it wrong, though, and you can find yourself up on assault and even murder charges.

 

[phoenix2020]

Seems reasonable.

 

[Integrityrespec]

An interesting case on defensive gun use in Indiana involving a man who made an intuitive self-defense judgment call that may have saved his life but saw him found guilty of battery with a deadly weapon because he'd violated the state's objective reasonableness standard:

Indiana Supreme Court Overturns Conviction and Strengthens State's Self-Defense Laws

bearingarms.com

Basically, in Indiana, if you now make a judgment call involving using potentially lethal force and you get it right, you cannot be found guilty of assault no matter how limited your information was or how unreasonable your decision would have looked at the time. Get it wrong, though, and you can find yourself up on assault and even murder charges.

The Court noted that the “robust self-defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed” does come with limits, but none of them "require martyrdom in service of reasonableness", adding that "Turner didn’t have to take a bullet as the most reasonable thing to do; the law permitted him to save his own life."

Somebody gets it. The left is so damn stupid. They believe in protecting criminals, and would be murderers as the expense of law abiding citizens trying to save their own life because the left will not.

 

[Grand Mal]

The Court noted that the “robust self-defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed” does come with limits, but none of them "require martyrdom in service of reasonableness", adding that "Turner didn’t have to take a bullet as the most reasonable thing to do; the law permitted him to save his own life."

Somebody gets it. The left is so damn stupid. They believe in protecting criminals, and would be murderers as the expense of law abiding citizens trying to save their own life because the left will not.

Oh look. Another rightist making up stupid shit so he can tell us how stupid his made-up shit is.

 

[Rich2018]

An interesting case on defensive gun use in Indiana involving a man who made an intuitive self-defense judgment call that may have saved his life but saw him found guilty of battery with a deadly weapon because he'd violated the state's objective reasonableness standard:

Indiana Supreme Court Overturns Conviction and Strengthens State's Self-Defense Laws

bearingarms.com

Basically, in Indiana, if you now make a judgment call involving using potentially lethal force and you get it right, you cannot be found guilty of assault no matter how limited your information was or how unreasonable your decision would have looked at the time. Get it wrong, though, and you can find yourself up on assault and even murder charges.

But then whether you get it "right" or not is someone else's judgment call.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Indiana has some of the strongest "stand your ground" laws in the country.
If a person is on your property, you have told them to leave, and you believe they are a threat to you or any person on your property, even if it is another stranger - you have the right to use lethal force.
In Indiana, if someone is breaking into your shed, and no one is even in the shed - you can shoot them.

It is awesome.

 

[Rich2018]

Indiana has some of the strongest "stand your ground" laws in the country.
If a person is on your property, you have told them to leave, and you believe they are a threat to you or any person on your property, even if it is another stranger - you have the right to use lethal force.
In Indiana, if someone is breaking into your shed, and no one is even in the shed - you can shoot them.

It is awesome.

Well if you're on your own property, I don't think any state requires you to retire in the face a a physical threat. .

 

[JMB1911A1]

Well if you're on your own property, I don't think any state requires you to retire in the face a a physical threat. .

CA Democrats proposed a bill that would force “duty to retreat” under all circumstances.

 

[Doug64]

But then whether you get it "right" or not is someone else's judgment call.

Here's the facts of this case, from the beginning of the Court's opinion:

Antonio Turner was one of three students studying organic chemistry at a classmate’s home, tucked away in a quiet neighborhood just outside of Indianapolis. While they were studying, the classmate’s jealous love interest, Dequan Briscoe, repeatedly called her. And when he learned Turner was at her home, Briscoe twice threatened to “pull up” on Turner—to attack him—which Turner heard over the speakerphone. Shortly after hearing the threat, Turner walked outside to his car, and moments later, he sensed that the unfamiliar car screeching towards him down the sleepy street was an ambush. Since he didn’t have time to reach the house and had nowhere to hide, he turned while running and fired four shots into the car, wounding Briscoe. Turner fired based on his intuition—he didn’t recognize the car, couldn’t see through its darkly tinted windows, and wouldn’t have recognized Briscoe if he saw him. But that intuition proved prescient. It turns out Briscoe was aiming a handgun to shoot Turner just before Turner began firing.

 

[Rich2018]

CA Democrats proposed a bill that would force “duty to retreat” under all circumstances.

Even in one's own home ?