Indiana’s stand-your-ground law provides that a person (1) is justified in using deadly force against someone (including a law enforcement officer) and (2) has no duty to retreat if the person has a reasonable belief that force is required in order to prevent any of the following:
Serious bodily injury to the defendant or a third person;
The commission of a forcible felony (one that involves the threat of force or involves risk of bodily injury);
The unlawful entry of the defendant’s home or curtilage (the area around their home) or their (occupied) vehicle;
Trespass or unlawful interference with property in the lawful possession of the defendant, a member of their immediate family, or a person whose property the defendant is authorized to protect (i.e., an employer protecting their employees); or
The hijacking (or threat of hijacking) of an airplane on the ground in Indiana or Indiana airspace.
So the homeowner has to show that they reasonably believed deadly force was needed to stop this woman and her husband from entering their home. That’s it. That’s all they need to prove to use this defense.
I for one do not for a moment think that it was justified, but in a town named Whitestown, who can say what the police and prosecutors will conclude?
who can say what the police and prosecutors will conclude?
Prosecutorial discretion is the real issue in most of these cases. If it were brought before a jury it could easily be argued that they tried literally nothing else before killing this person, so how could they reasonably believe anything? But it may never get to a jury because the DA might be a racist dirtbag who just decides to never press any charges.
Illinois law does not apply in Indiana where this incident took place. Indiana has a pretty robust stand your ground law.
Indiana’s stand-your-ground law provides that a person (1) is justified in using deadly force against someone (including a law enforcement officer) and (2) has no duty to retreat if the person has a reasonable belief that force is required in order to prevent any of the following:
Serious bodily injury to the defendant or a third person;
The commission of a forcible felony (one that involves the threat of force or involves risk of bodily injury);
The unlawful entry of the defendant’s home or curtilage (the area around their home) or their (occupied) vehicle;
Trespass or unlawful interference with property in the lawful possession of the defendant, a member of their immediate family, or a person whose property the defendant is authorized to protect (i.e., an employer protecting their employees); or
The hijacking (or threat of hijacking) of an airplane on the ground in Indiana or Indiana airspace.
So the homeowner has to show that they reasonably believed deadly force was needed to stop this woman and her husband from entering their home. That’s it. That’s all they need to prove to use this defense.
I for one do not for a moment think that it was justified, but in a town named Whitestown, who can say what the police and prosecutors will conclude?
Prosecutorial discretion is the real issue in most of these cases. If it were brought before a jury it could easily be argued that they tried literally nothing else before killing this person, so how could they reasonably believe anything? But it may never get to a jury because the DA might be a racist dirtbag who just decides to never press any charges.