Man who shot Notre Dame student acquitted

[mlang2000]

Man who shot Notre Dame student acquitted

copy righted material removed by spasmo. Reminder to everyone that you may not copy and paste articles that are not written by you or are copy righted material.

 

[derekb]

This is good news.

 

[littletommy]

I would not fire a shot through a door personally, but I wasn't there. Good for him.

 

[panderson]

This is very good news. A person should be able to defend their home. What if the people at his door where not "drunk" (not verified) students but criminals looking to do harm? Would he still be facing charges? The thought that this would even be taken to trial is ludicrous.

 

[srad]

The thought that this would even be taken to trial is ludicrous.

Taken to trial TWICE by DA Michael Dvorak-- BOO! on him for grinding his axe at taxpayers expense for a case he "believed there was enough evidence for a conviction", yet the jury delivered a not guilty verdict in less than an hour of deliberation.

Can't judge or naysay Hammons on his reaction, but after reading this the thought of time, stress, & $$ spent to defend myself in court (not to mention the potential to be separated from my family in the state pen for up to 3 yrs)... my approach may be to have sights drawn on that door waiting behind cover.

 

[1911Shooter]

Good for him. It wouldnt have been my first choice to fire, but his home and family were being protected. I hate that someone was hurt in the process, but atleast it was the person in the wrong and not him or his family. Good call on the jurys part.

 

[AJBB87]

I honestly don't see how he got off after firing through the door...

but good for him.

AJB

 

[Hooker]

I'm don't think his decision to shoot through the door was a good one. I would have to know for certain that whoever was on the other side indeed meant to do me harm before I could fire. This drunk couple might have realized after a few more seconds that they were in the wrong place and left. If they did manage to get inside, the homeowner would have then seen there was no threat. Maybe it's just me, but I think he was premature in his actions. Having said that, I am glad he was acquitted. I don't believe he belongs in jail.

Lesson of the day: don't get so drunk that you don't know where your own house is.

 

[panderson]

I agree with the posters here that firing through the door was probably not the best decision. I would have probably taken cover as stated before but we have the option of hindsight. If we were in the same situation you cant say for sure what you would or wouldn't have done. Im just glad no one was killed in this instance and hopefully a valuable lesson can be passed on to people from both sides.

 

[Gabriel]

I honestly don't see how he got off after firing through the door...

This.

 

[Expat]

I am a bit surprised. I wonder how much that the victims were drunk ND students played into it. If it had been local HS kids it might have had a different outcome.

 

[Necessary Evil]

I don't know about shooting blind like that, but then again, are you supposed to wait till the person has already gotten in your living room?

If that becomes the standard, it's a problem

I mean what about practical jokes?

What if the neighbors come home drunk and try to walk into your house? I know someone who did that.

I'm sure the gentleman did what he thought was best for him and his family, but unless you have X-Ray vision, you shouldn't be shooting through doors

 

[aijk]

How bad would he have felt if it was family. He should have called the cops and NOT shot through the door. But if they had broke in, i say blast away.

 

[revance]

I honestly don't see how he got off after firing through the door...

but good for him.

AJB

(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another 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.

You do NOT have to wait for them to get into your home before defending it. This guy yelled at them to go away and they continued to try to break in. He had every reason to believe that someone trying to break in (especially after being yelled at) intended to harm him.

I personally would not shoot through a door because:

1) I have a steel door and penetration will be a problem
2) I risk hitting someone other than the intruder.

But he HIT THE INTRUDER! There never should have been charges filed in the first place.

 

[revance]

How bad would he have felt if it was family. He should have called the cops and NOT shot through the door. But if they had broke in, i say blast away.

Do you have family members who would attempt to force their way into your house after being yelled at to go away?


Sorry, I don't feel very sorry for someone who got so drunk that they tried to break into a home because they thought it was theirs even though someone inside is yelling at them to leave.

 

[littletommy]

Do you have family members who would attempt to force their way into your house after being yelled at to go away?


Sorry, I don't feel very sorry for someone who got so drunk that they tried to break into a home because they thought it was theirs even though someone inside is yelling at them to leave.

+1 Agree.

 

[Indy317]

I honestly don't see how he got off after firing through the door...

IC 35-41-3-2 Use of force to protect person or property
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another 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

IC 35-41-1-10 "Dwelling" defined
Sec. 10. "Dwelling" means a building, structure, or other enclosed space, permanent or temporary, movable or fixed, that is a person's home or place of lodging.

************************************************

Cases like this are why folks should not just save up six months of bills as an emergency fund. You should in addition have at least $10,000 to get a half-way decent lawyer (at least to start with) to represent you. Everyone is so big on the language in the Indiana Code when it comes to minimizing your liability. That language obviously means nothing.

To me, the law above clearly puts this guy in the right. A state trooper did the same thing about five or so years ago at his eastside Indy home. It recently happened somewhere else as well. This sounds more to me like "Well, this wasn't want the guy though, and we have a poor college student shot, something HAS to happen!" type logic.

 

[sadclownwp]

As a recent college graduate, I can say with all honesty, I am very glad this man was rightfully acquitted. Really if the student was dumb enough to get drunk enough to now know his own home, he really didn't put enough value into his own life and he payed the price for it. Well one less stupid person to pollute the gene pool.

 

[long coat]

It was a girl that was shot in the arm.

Why was the homeowner even charged?

 

[Indy317]

Why was the homeowner even charged?

Even though I think the law is crystal clear, not much will stop a dedicated prosecutor from going through with charges. They aren't paying for the prosecution out of their own pocket. Also, politics are used when it comes to law enforcement within the counties. The S. Bend Police are under the mayor's office. The mayor is part of the Democrat political party. The county prosecutor is also a Democrat. Which party usually sides with:
#1: Let government deal with everything?
#2: Guns should only be for cops?
#3: Some criminals need treatment and compassion, not jail time?

Just goes to show you, where you choose to live can absolutely impact your life. There have been a handful of these sorts of shootings, yet not everyone is charged. These differences affects folks not only with their physical freedom, but also financial freedom as well.

The personal feelings of those who control government can come into play in these situations. The prosecutor felt, himself, that they could get a conviction. While his office might have wasted money on two trials, that money doesn't come from his bank account, nor does he take a cut in pay for loosing. The state doesn't even have to reimburse the defendant either.

This entire incident might be another reason to avoid living in counties where Democrats are in control of law enforcement, from the police dept./sheriff's office to the prosecutor's office.