testtest

Indiana man accused of killing house cleaner charged

Danny81 said:
"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.
Click to expand...
This is the same link that folks are sharing on INGO.

They are getting fixated on the word “prevent”

Is shooting through a door from the stairwell and killing somebody that was knocking on the door (when thwre wasn’t enough things out of sorts so the Police stated thwre were no signs of forced entry) enough to convince a jury it was “Reasonable force” covered by “preventing”


I just don’t see how this is going to get explained away like a lot of folks are hoping for. (Which I have questions on why anyone that thinks this whole thing is normal and are dismissive of it)
 
The military veteran told police he was “terrified” when he heard those unknown persons in the dark try to open the door to his home so he retrieved a black Glock 48 semi-automatic handgun he had purchased in September but never fired, clumsily loaded the weapon, took up a position toward the top of the staircase leading upstairs in his house and fired one shot directly into the closed and bolted front door.


“They are going to get in. What am I going to do? I have to do something,” Andersen is quoted as telling detectives after the shooting. He said he feared the unexpected visitors “were going to beat him.”

Detectives described Andersen as “emotionally distraught” after the shooting and that he “became upset and immediately put his head down on the table” after being told that the woman he fatally wounded was part of a cleaning crew arriving at the wrong address.


Andersen told detectives that he was a 20-year+ Navy veteran who had served as a Psychiatric RN, and while he had owned two guns privately after his military career, the only time he had ever fired a weapon was during his time in the service.


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.”

Okay, so how did they know he "clumsily" loaded his weapon? Sounds like they are trying to gin up the anti-gun rhetoric.

And now, they want to use his 20+ year Navy Veteran status as a Psychiatric RN, his "mental health status" and "life experiences" as a defense? I highly doubt that as a Psych RN, he would be involved in any "combat" situation or what have you to claim any type of PTSD. Maybe I am wrong. As a veteran myself, I get tired of this PTSD claim for everything that happens in life. I fully understand those who have returned injured, wounded for life, missing limbs from actual combat. But it seems that anytime anybody faces any hardship in life, they want to blame it on some form of "mental anguish/pain" to excuse their actions. Maybe I am out of line on this, maybe I will be proven wrong as this case moves forward, but I just cannot excuse his total lack of Firearms 101 rules. Unless he dealt with some individual/individuals while he was on the job that posed a threat to him or threatened him, I really don't see where he has any excuse for his total lack of responsibility. Not to mention that if he specialized in the Psychiatric field, he should know better.
 
ECS686 said:
killing somebody that was knocking on the door
Click to expand...

That's not what I heard described. I heard "trying keys in the lock" and some sort of contact (maybe knocking, maybe jostling, likely not kicking or banging). Contextualizing it as merely knocking on the door doesn't seem correct.

In any case, shooting down from the top of the stairs through the door at an unknown target? Yeah, no.

Also: The charges seem right - there's clearly probable cause to believe he fired the shot that killed someone, and if it goes to trial it will hang on one word in Indiana's "castle doctrine," - reasonably. Emphasis below is mine:

(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
Click to expand...

Let's look at the law phrase by phrase:

  • "prevent or terminate" - can clearly be argued this was to prevent
  • "unlawful entry" - they were at the wrong house, so this would have been unlawful entry, even if only a mistake on their part
  • "attack" - no basis to claim attack, but reasonable to assume impending attack if unlawful entry is made? That'll be up to the jury.
  • "on the person's dwelling" - his house, so yes, the law applies
The prosecution will argue that it was not reasonable to fire through a not yet breached door to prevent unlawful entry into his dwelling.

The defense will argue that it was absolutely reasonable - awoken from sleep, no expectation of anyone trying to get into his home, more than just knocking / actual attempts with the door knob/keys, time of day/pre-dawn, and perhaps even recent crime trends of burglaries/home invasions in the city.

The jury of his peers that weren't smart enough/motivated enough to get out of jury duty will decide what's "reasonable." Think about that next time you groan about jury duty.

If he's smart, IMO, he goes for a non-jury trial and pins hope on the lawyer judge deciding reasonableness.
 
mreed911 said:
That's not what I heard described. I heard "trying keys in the lock" and some sort of contact (maybe knocking, maybe jostling, likely not kicking or banging). Contextualizing it as merely knocking on the door doesn't seem correct.

In any case, shooting down from the top of the stairs through the door at an unknown target? Yeah, no.

Also: The charges seem right - there's clearly probable cause to believe he fired the shot that killed someone, and if it goes to trial it will hang on one word in Indiana's "castle doctrine," - reasonably. Emphasis below is mine:



Let's look at the law phrase by phrase:

  • "prevent or terminate" - can clearly be argued this was to prevent
  • "unlawful entry" - they were at the wrong house, so this would have been unlawful entry, even if only a mistake on their part
  • "attack" - no basis to claim attack, but reasonable to assume impending attack if unlawful entry is made? That'll be up to the jury.
  • "on the person's dwelling" - his house, so yes, the law applies
The prosecution will argue that it was not reasonable to fire through a not yet breached door to prevent unlawful entry into his dwelling.

The defense will argue that it was absolutely reasonable - awoken from sleep, no expectation of anyone trying to get into his home, more than just knocking / actual attempts with the door knob/keys, time of day/pre-dawn, and perhaps even recent crime trends of burglaries/home invasions in the city.

The jury of his peers that weren't smart enough/motivated enough to get out of jury duty will decide what's "reasonable." Think about that next time you groan about jury duty.

If he's smart, IMO, he goes for a non-jury trial and pins hope on the lawyer judge deciding reasonableness.
Click to expand...
While Indiana has no difference in a locked or unlocked door aomeone coming through or attempting to come through the threshold it would have been legal

My point was from the homeowners own statements (since he didn’t know how to STFU) and his spouse was there they talked him into charges sooner rather them later.

If the precedent gets set that it’s ok to shoot through doors at noises on your porch I sure wouldn’t want to be a postal, UPS FEDEX or Amazon driver!
 
ECS686 said:
While Indiana has no difference in a locked or unlocked door aomeone coming through or attempting to come through the threshold it would have been legal

My point was from the homeowners own statements (since he didn’t know how to STFU) and his spouse was there they talked him into charges sooner rather them later.

If the precedent gets set that it’s ok to shoot through doors at noises on your porch I sure wouldn’t want to be a postal, UPS FEDEX or Amazon driver!
Click to expand...
Or Girl Scout trying to balance a box of cookies and knock. Or anyone hanging those "door knockers" on door handles, in the gap between frame and door, etc. Anyone doing anything other than knocking.
 
ECS686 said:
If the precedent gets set that it’s ok to shoot through doors at noises on your porch I sure wouldn’t want to be a postal, UPS FEDEX or Amazon driver!
Click to expand...
Which is likely the reason they put the package down, sometimes ring the bell and immediately return at haste to their vans these days.
 
ECS686 said:
If the precedent gets set that it’s ok to shoot through doors at noises on your porch I sure wouldn’t want to be a postal, UPS FEDEX or Amazon driver!
Click to expand...
pfftt...

most of the times, all those SOB's fling our packages either in the front yard, or on the roof, or in the driveway, or even at the neighbors house...

i think they are safe from getting shot
 
mreed911 said:
Okay, great? I'm glad you know what that is, but don't assume we do.
Click to expand...
So your on a forum that has a thread about legal stuff and commenting and even sharing your thoughts.

So are you just sharing links and researching google to sit at the adult table or did you actually know the state codes and federal court cases?
 
ECS686 said:
So your on a forum that has a thread about legal stuff and commenting and even sharing your thoughts.
Click to expand...
You're referencing one party to a SCOTUS case and expecting people to know which case, especially with an organization whose Google results around "Girl scotus scotus" is all about boys in the girl scouts and trans rights.

Is that the case you're referring to? If so, what does it have to do with this?

I'm calling you out for exactly what you're commenting on - some vauge girl scout reference without any actual meaningful contribution to the discussion.

If you have any specific comments on my talk about Indiana law as written in my earlier comment, but I suspect you don't.
 
mreed911 said:
You're referencing one party to a SCOTUS case and expecting people to know which case, especially with an organization whose Google results around "Girl scotus scotus" is all about boys in the girl scouts and trans rights.

Is that the case you're referring to? If so, what does it have to do with this?

I'm calling you out for exactly what you're commenting on - some vauge girl scout reference without any actual meaningful contribution to the discussion.

If you have any specific comments on my talk about Indiana law as written in my earlier comment, but I suspect you don't.
Click to expand...
Respectfully you are the one throwing Indiana code around (which I have given testimony and been cross examined in both state and federal court in Indiana so while I’m not a lawyer I have an idea how it works)

The case I referred to was it is not considered trespass for Girl Scouts or trick or treaters to knock on one’s door.

Most should know the reference. However anytime a gun owner is involved emotions get ramped up.

The dude screwed up and is going through the wringer and someone else gets to decide if he pays for it and how much.

But a lot of the folks that keep sharing the Indiana code are acting like they have the “gotcha” because the word “prevent” is in it.

Even with castle doctrine you still have to use reasonable force.
And unless someone has a reasoning problem shooting through a door at a cleaning crew, Girl Scout or whatever is not gonna get looked at as reasonable.
 
ECS686 said:
Respectfully you are the one throwing Indiana code around (which I have given testimony and been cross examined in both state and federal court in Indiana so while I’m not a lawyer I have an idea how it works)

The case I referred to was it is not considered trespass for Girl Scouts or trick or treaters to knock on one’s door.

Most should know the reference. However anytime a gun owner is involved emotions get ramped up.

The dude screwed up and is going through the wringer and someone else gets to decide if he pays for it and how much.

But a lot of the folks that keep sharing the Indiana code are acting like they have the “gotcha” because the word “prevent” is in it.

Even with castle doctrine you still have to use reasonable force.
And unless someone has a reasoning problem shooting through a door at a cleaning crew, Girl Scout or whatever is not gonna get looked at as reasonable.
Click to expand...
This is a more helpful reply than "girl scouts scotus." Thanks for expanding your thoughts and contributing.

I don't think it will hinge on prevent. I think it will hinge on reasonable. I also think we agree on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top