Shooting in Trafalgar

[EdC]

Reminds me of Guy's latest hypothetical:

18-year-old shot by property owner in Trafalgar | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com

Ordered the kid (yes, I'm 58, and 18 year olds are kids to me) out of the car, then shot him when he "thought he was reaching for something"

Of course, all the facts aren't in. What do you all think?

 

[jeremy]

Sounds to ma like he shot a Thief...

 

[esrice]

Oh boy. . . . .

Sounds dicey.

 

[Westside]

IMHO

this will most certainly end up as a test case in the courts. Lets look at the facts as of right now.

1)The property owner left his home to investigate an alarm at another property.
2)The alarm occurred at 3am.
3)The property owner ordered the "victim" out of the car.
4)The "victim" was shot in the abdoman as he "reached for something"
5)the property owner then handed his firearm to his wife to reload while he turned, I am hypothesizing, her firearm on the passenger in the first car.
6) a second car arrives and the male property owner opens fire on the second car as "it attempted to run them over".
7)the second car was found later abandoned with bullet wholes in it.

SO,

There is clearly a reasonable argument to be made that the property owner could have just called the police when the alarm went off and stayed safe at home.
Also, by initiating the confrontation by stopping the car and ordering the "victim" to get out he created a situation with unlimited variables. I think that simply reaching for something has been proven to not be enough of a reason to shoot someone. You must have a reasonable fear for your life to use deadly force in self defense. And, the property owner I am sure was high on adrenalin when he ordered the "victim" out of the care and would have been very reactive to any movement.

However I still have several questions left un-answered.

1) Does this property/alarm have a history of false alarms occurring?
2) Did the property owner call the police before leaving for the second location?
3) Why did the property owner not stay in his car and wait for LEO's to arrive when he verified that this was indeed not a false alarm?
4) Did the property owner verify a "reasonable threat to his life"? This could be he was pulling out a weapon shaped object, he rushed at the property owner. Basically anything other than he "reached for SOMETHING".


I will have to follow this story and see how it plays out.

BTW IANAL

 

[esrice]

I too am curious what he reached for. If the "BG" did indeed have a gun in the car, I'm thinking the police and news would've reported such.

 

[jeremy]

I too am curious what he reached for. If the "BG" did indeed have a gun in the car, I'm thinking the police and news would've reported such.

All depends on the "Spin" they are wanting to achieve.

 

[indycruzr]

The news media isn't going to report to much, just what the police are willing to say at that time. Based on what was in the article we don't have a lot to go on. Perhaps the follow-up report, if there is one, will have more details.

 

[femurphy77]

Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

 

[$mooth]

So it could be that some kids were lost, pulled into the business' parking lot (says driveway alarm, not building alarm) to figure out where they were going. I'm guessing it's a silent alarm since they hung out while the owner came down the street. Crazy guy orders them out of the car; kid reaches to unlatch his seatbelt and gets shot.

not saying that's what happened, but definitely a questionable shooting based on what was presented in the article.

 

[IndySSD]

So it could be that some kids were lost, pulled into the business' parking lot (says driveway alarm, not building alarm) to figure out where they were going. I'm guessing it's a silent alarm since they hung out while the owner came down the street. Crazy guy orders them out of the car; kid reaches to unlatch his seatbelt and gets shot.

not saying that's what happened, but definitely a questionable shooting based on what was presented in the article.

Why would you reach BACK into your vehicle after stepping out of it to unlatch your seatbelt?

 

[hoosierdoc]

Second car came from *behind* the building. Hrm. Hard to be lost and parked behind a building on private property.

If they rule the first shooting wrong, does it make it impossible for the second to be OK since kids will say they were in fear for their lives?

I'd check laundromats for young people washing stool out of their shorts.

 

[GuyRelford]

This is going to be interesting!!

 

[$mooth]

Why would you reach BACK into your vehicle after stepping out of it to unlatch your seatbelt?

Reckley told deputies that as the driver, later determined to be Zachary Chittum, Morgantown, was getting out of the vehicle, he reached for something inside. Reckley fired at him, hitting him in the abdomen, Cox said.

As the driver was getting out doesn't mean he had stepped out. The process of me getting out of my vehicle include taking my key out, grabbing my wallet from the cup holder(sometimes I leave it there), unlatching my seatbelt, etc. Since the shooter states that he reached for something inside as he was getting out, who knows what that means.

 

[indytechnerd]

As the driver was getting out doesn't mean he had stepped out. The process of me getting out of my vehicle include taking my key out, grabbing my wallet from the cup holder(sometimes I leave it there), unlatching my seatbelt, etc. Since the shooter states that he reached for something inside as he was getting out, who knows what that means.

You gonna do all that while at gunpoint, or just GTFO the vehicle?

I'll echo everyone else in saying this is prime fodder for TFT. Guy, you gotta keep an ear on this one for us.

 

[edsinger]

Castle Doctrine case?

 

[pinshooter45]

These drive way alarms rarely false alarm. If its like my Brother-in-laws it's a Photo interrupter system or "electric eye" they are set at car height so that when a car breaks the beam the alams sounds off for as long as the beam is broken. Probably won't hear any more about it unless the property owners are charged. The news won't be interested in following up on the justified use of a Firearm if that is what is determined.

 

[ryknoll3]

IMHO

this will most certainly end up as a test case in the courts. Lets look at the facts as of right now.

1)The property owner left his home to investigate an alarm at another property.
2)The alarm occurred at 3am.
3)The property owner ordered the "victim" out of the car.
4)The "victim" was shot in the abdoman as he "reached for something"
5)the property owner then handed his firearm to his wife to reload while he turned, I am hypothesizing, her firearm on the passenger in the first car.
6) a second car arrives and the male property owner opens fire on the second car as "it attempted to run them over".
7)the second car was found later abandoned with bullet wholes in it.

SO,

There is clearly a reasonable argument to be made that the property owner could have just called the police when the alarm went off and stayed safe at home.
Also, by initiating the confrontation by stopping the car and ordering the "victim" to get out he created a situation with unlimited variables. I think that simply reaching for something has been proven to not be enough of a reason to shoot someone. You must have a reasonable fear for your life to use deadly force in self defense. And, the property owner I am sure was high on adrenalin when he ordered the "victim" out of the care and would have been very reactive to any movement.

However I still have several questions left un-answered.

1) Does this property/alarm have a history of false alarms occurring?
2) Did the property owner call the police before leaving for the second location?
3) Why did the property owner not stay in his car and wait for LEO's to arrive when he verified that this was indeed not a false alarm?
4) Did the property owner verify a "reasonable threat to his life"? This could be he was pulling out a weapon shaped object, he rushed at the property owner. Basically anything other than he "reached for SOMETHING".


I will have to follow this story and see how it plays out.

BTW IANAL

Where do you get this legal standard for justification in using deadly force? It isn't in the Indiana Code. The standard is "prevent severe bodily injury" which is defined as: bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes:
(1) serious permanent disfigurement;
(2) unconsciousness;
(3) extreme pain;
(4) permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ; or
(5) loss of a fetus.

While you can argue that it may be wise for someone to be in fear for their life before employing deadly force, please don't spread the false information that it is required by law.

 

[GuyRelford]

You gonna do all that while at gunpoint, or just GTFO the vehicle?

I'll echo everyone else in saying this is prime fodder for TFT. Guy, you gotta keep an ear on this one for us.

You betcha. It actually has a lot of similarities to my last scenario!

Guy

 

[fire259]

Additional info in this article.

The Brown County Democrat - Brown County Indiana - One teen shot, three others arrested in southern Johnson County

 

[snapping turtle]

"Kevin Reckley shot him with his double-bareled shotgun".

Close range double barrel blast to the stomach OH MY.

I live in the country in Madison county. It often takes 15 to 20 minutes for the County sherrif to arrive in the area as I am in the very south/west corner.