testtest

Indiana man accused of killing house cleaner charged

There is so much fail on the part of the homeowner. This case is going to be used in classes as an example of what not to do.

And while his attorney is well respected in the 2a community I don’t see how he is going to keep this guy out of prison.

Indiana has a castle doctrine however even there any force has to be reasonable.

1 He didn’t call 911 until after the shooting.

2 he retrieved his gun taking several seconds

3 A family member was also in the house and apparently didn’t feel threatened enough to start a call to 911

4 The homeowner did no verbal challenger

5 Police reported no signs of forced entry

6 he shot bljndly through a door than claimed he didn’t want to harm anyone.

So not sure how “fear” can be claimed with all of the above.

The comments from some trying to defend this dude will give you brain herpes!


 
ECS686 said:
There is so much fail on the part of the homeowner. This case is going to be used in classes as an example of what not to do.

And while his attorney is well respected in the 2a community I don’t see how he is going to keep this guy out of prison.

Indiana has a castle doctrine however even there any force has to be reasonable.

1 He didn’t call 911 until after the shooting.

2 he retrieved his gun taking several seconds

3 A family member was also in the house and apparently didn’t feel threatened enough to start a call to 911

4 The homeowner did no verbal challenger

5 Police reported no signs of forced entry

6 he shot bljndly through a door than claimed he didn’t want to harm anyone.

So not sure how “fear” can be claimed with all of the above.

The comments from some trying to defend this dude will give you brain herpes!


Click to expand...
i cannot find any comments
 
Here is todays Fox59 Indianapolis station article on this:

“It could be that all twelve people view that differently, so that’s the hard part with these kinds of self-defense cases, is what objectionably would a reasonable person do, and sometimes that varies from person-to-person,” she said. ” It’s hard to separate that because that statute does require both the subjective belief, so his belief, and the objective belief. There are two components to the statute. It’s hard to say one or the other, but I do think it will come down to there will be a lot of gun rights information surrounding this.”

In a prepared statement, Andersen’s attorney Guy Relford indicated that Indiana’s “Castle Doctrine” of self-defense would apply to this case and, “law allows a person to use reasonable force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an unlawful entry into his home.”

“Once self-defense is put in front of the jury, it is the State’s burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Benson-Kooy. ”This does require two different components; the self-defense statute does have two different components, so it’s not only what he was feeling, what Mr. Anderson was feeling that day, but also as citizens in a jury, what we believe someone reasonable would do that day.”

Benson-Kooy expects that Andersen’s mental health status and life experiences will be raised during the trial to explain his actions that morning.

”It will be imperative to know what led up to the fear and not just that day, but what in his history made him so fearful that day.”


 
shanneba said:
Here is todays Fox59 Indianapolis station article on this:

“It could be that all twelve people view that differently, so that’s the hard part with these kinds of self-defense cases, is what objectionably would a reasonable person do, and sometimes that varies from person-to-person,” she said. ” It’s hard to separate that because that statute does require both the subjective belief, so his belief, and the objective belief. There are two components to the statute. It’s hard to say one or the other, but I do think it will come down to there will be a lot of gun rights information surrounding this.”

In a prepared statement, Andersen’s attorney Guy Relford indicated that Indiana’s “Castle Doctrine” of self-defense would apply to this case and, “law allows a person to use reasonable force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an unlawful entry into his home.”

“Once self-defense is put in front of the jury, it is the State’s burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Benson-Kooy. ”This does require two different components; the self-defense statute does have two different components, so it’s not only what he was feeling, what Mr. Anderson was feeling that day, but also as citizens in a jury, what we believe someone reasonable would do that day.”

Benson-Kooy expects that Andersen’s mental health status and life experiences will be raised during the trial to explain his actions that morning.

”It will be imperative to know what led up to the fear and not just that day, but what in his history made him so fearful that day.”


Click to expand...
In Indiana we have all the respect in the world for Guy Relford. He even co authored Indiana’s self defense immunity law that prevents one from being civilly sued if 1 your ruled justified or 2 you are acquitted.

That said a lot of folks on Indiana Gun Owners keep sharing the Indiana Code in Castle Doctrine the issue I see is they (and most sharing anyway) are the ones beating on their chest, and are the smooth brain open mouth breathers that we cringe when we hear those types talk theor talk at the gun store)

They are fixating in one or two single words.

With all I laid out in my privious post which is in the PC Affidavit I just don’t see how this can be explained away

And hypothetically I can only come up with a couple extreme scenarios where shootjng through a wall or door (with no clear view of the target)

1 you see in a ring camera or a window an armed person mule kicking the door or etc

2 someone is actually shooting into your house.

3 Russians and Red Dawn is going down!

The other issue even if (hypothetically) he gets acquitted the self defense immunity law is a state law and does not protect him from a Federal Civil Rights charge and or lawsuit. .
And even though some have argued me on that because “we have the right admin in charge” that means nothing. George Bush 41 won California in 1988 so all Republicans were US Attorney’s and they are the ones that charge and convicted the 4 Police Officers in the Rodney King incident of Federal Civil Rights after acquittal of state criminal charges.

And I see advocacy groups for the family pushing that however I thjng the homeowner is going to be hit and will be suprised if he doesn’t try and plea deal out.


We shall see!
 
Some of those comments after the article are disturbing.

“I'll ask for whoever it is to identify themselves. If they don't respond immediately I consider my life to be in danger.”

Good luck if that’s an LEO on the other side of door who was preoccupied and didn’t “respond immediately”. What if it’s a deaf person knocking?

I certainly can’t put myself in the shooter’s position (no idea what he was thinking), but if I were on the jury, I would have a lot of questions about the decisions he made.

I can say, unequivocally, that I will not shoot through a closed door unless someone is shooting at me from the other side. Even then, I’d be very concerned about rounds traveling across my neighborhood since I can’t see my target to actually hit it instead of innocents.

Knocking, banging, keys in locks (which should indicate the person “might” think they’re where they should be), “thrusting” - whatever that is, does not seem to warrant deadly force. As long as the door is closed and locked, there is time to call 911. And if you had time to load a gun that was apparently unloaded, you might have had PLENTY of time to call 911.

Just another set of circumstances that should make most people sad.
 
Lab4Us said:
Some of those comments after the article are disturbing.

“I'll ask for whoever it is to identify themselves. If they don't respond immediately I consider my life to be in danger.”

Good luck if that’s an LEO on the other side of door who was preoccupied and didn’t “respond immediately”. What if it’s a deaf person knocking?

I certainly can’t put myself in the shooter’s position (no idea what he was thinking), but if I were on the jury, I would have a lot of questions about the decisions he made.

I can say, unequivocally, that I will not shoot through a closed door unless someone is shooting at me from the other side. Even then, I’d be very concerned about rounds traveling across my neighborhood since I can’t see my target to actually hit it instead of innocents.

Knocking, banging, keys in locks (which should indicate the person “might” think they’re where they should be), “thrusting” - whatever that is, does not seem to warrant deadly force. As long as the door is closed and locked, there is time to call 911. And if you had time to load a gun that was apparently unloaded, you might have had PLENTY of time to call 911.

Just another set of circumstances that should make most people sad.
Click to expand...

a lot of the tough talkers would be singing a different tune if their Daughter was a door dash driver or cleaning lady and killed under the same circumstance. They’d want his head in a stock.

Another issue if you don’t at least try to communicate with someone we will even say aggressively knocking shouting for helo for say escaping someone else intending harm and they need help are you just gonna shoot through the door because “I was scared”?

I mean we could go on but this is gonna be an examine if everythjng not to do.
 
Last edited:
Shooter failed basic rule of all when firing a gun.
Know your target and what’s beyond it.

Shooting thru a door and not even knowing who/what/where is the target results in a massive lack of judgement that killed an innocent.
 
ECS686 said:
a lot of the tough talkers would be singing a different tune if their Daughter was a door dash driver or cleaning lady and killed under the same circumstance. They’d want his head in a stock.

Another issue if you don’t at least try to communicate with someone we will even say aggressively knocking shouting for helo for say escaping someone else intending harm and they need help are you just gonna shoot through the door because “I was scared”?

I mean we could go on but this is gonna be an examine if everythjng not to do.
Click to expand...
I can recall one time, and one time only, I was awakened by furious pounding on my door around 2 am.

It was an on duty cop wanting to know if I knew if my neighbor parked his truck somewhere in the neighborhood besides his driveway. (He was investigating a DWI hit and run - pretty sure my neighbor back then (long gone) was deeply involved in drugs).

I don’t have a doorbell camera (not sure they were around back then), or a peephole, and I didn’t think to look out the window about five feet to the left of front door. I just opened it enough to see it was a cop, opened the rest of the way, and we talked.

I suppose I could have shot through the door and been well into my life sentence (if not finishing up on death row as Texas doesn’t take kindly to killing peace officers). Back then, the only gun I owned was a Colt Mustang .380 so may not have gone through the door!

I agree though, there will be a lot of in depth analysis.
 
"In a prepared statement, Andersen’s attorney Guy Relford indicated that Indiana’s "Castle Doctrine" of self-defense would apply to this case and, 'law allows a person to use reasonable force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an unlawful entry into his home.'”

Hunters are required (for oh so many reasons) to identify their target before a shot, mostly so they don't shoot another hunter. I guess this lawyer's argument justifies "sound shots" that kill or would others when hunting.

I'm pretty sure the Castle Doctrine wasn't written for 5 year olds, but this lawyer's argument seems to imply if you were scared (whatever that means) you could shoot. You don't shot thru a door at something on the other side without actually identifying the threat. This has happened a number of times in the past few years. This person -- and others who do the same crap -- does not need a firearm. No one broke a window and tried climbing in. No one tried to kick down the door.

If this attorney can get this guy off based upon the argument above, it'll be incredible... incredibly wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top