Man charged with murder after indianapolis protests

[rooster]

I’m sure this has been talked about elsewhere but I can’t find it anywhere.

man shot someone during an altercation at the protests last year, told the first cop he found and handed over his weapon. Jury is now deliberating murder charges. More than a few lessons to be learned from this one.

Trial of suspect in deadly shooting after downtown protests ends in hung jury

Tyler Newby is facing a charge of murder for the killing of 18-year-old Dorian Murrell.

www.wthr.com

 

[BehindBlueI's]

He may walk. He's got disparity of force due to numbers. Let's see who's narrative the jury buys.

I've had a lot of INGOers tell me they could shoot someone for a punch because sumdood sumwhere died from a single punch and I've told them our prosecutors do not agree (and that well predates the current one). Unless there's a big disparity of force (if you're Estelle Getty and he's Mike Tyson, well, blast away) you're probably going to have a jury decide if you were justified or not.

 

[Drewski]

If the story gets traction (and maybe even if it doesn’t) it’s going to be all about race. White patriarchy, downtrodden POC. Kid had no reason to act out thusly, what with his gun and white skin and all. It’s not like there are countless videos of said POC stomping the life of everyone else in similar situations. It was just a push.

 

[jwamplerusa]

Watched a piece on 59, and I can't decide if the judge is trying to enable an acquittal or conviction.

If I understood the story correctly the judge ruled the prosecutor could not move forward with a manslaughter charge, but also ruled the jury could not be told what the deceased was doing prior to the shooting (which sounded an awful lot like violent criminal activity).

I am concerned this could be a righteous SD shoot, but is being prosecuted on a political basis due to the proximity in time and place to the mostly peaceful burning, looting, and murdering.

 

[BigRed]

Nothing good happens after midnight; especially at a "mostly peaceful protest."

 

[KMaC]

Hung jury, 2nd trial next year.
The kid probably saved his own life because his attackers had just killed someone else and were still wandering the downtown alleys looking for new victims.
But the judge says since kid didn't know the attackers were killers intent on violence, the jury shouldn't hear what the choir boy was doing just before his death.
Kid could have saved himself a lot of trouble by just staying home.

 

[BigRed]

Listenening to some folks talk about this at the shop today, I was amazed at how many thought an aggressor must be armed before one under attack has the right to defend himself with deadly force.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If I understood the story correctly the judge ruled the prosecutor could not move forward with a manslaughter charge

It sounds like the prosecutors neglected to argue one or more elements of the crime of manslaughter. If you don't make all the required elements, you can't charge it. Think of two elements of robbery, you must take property and you must do it by force or threat of force. If you are charged with both theft and robbery but the prosecutor never mentions any force then robbery is off the table but the theft charge can move forward.

I think the prosecutor tried to argue that manslaughter was a lesser but included charge which makes sense to me but that level of legal technicalities is above my understanding. Apparently the judge disagreed.

but also ruled the jury could not be told what the deceased was doing prior to the shooting (which sounded an awful lot like violent criminal activity).

Legally irrelevant if the shooter did not know it at the time of the shooting. You cannot hindsight a shooting into being good or bad. The defense admitted he had no way to know about the prior criminal acts, therefore it could not be part of his decision making process to use lethal force. Note this is the same concept as mistaken fact shootings that are justified. If I point a realistic toy gun at you and you shoot me, the fact it later turns out to be a toy is also legally irrelevant because you didn't know it when you made your decision.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

He may walk. He's got disparity of force due to numbers. Let's see who's narrative the jury buys.

I've had a lot of INGOers tell me they could shoot someone for a punch because sumdood sumwhere died from a single punch and I've told them our prosecutors do not agree (and that well predates the current one). Unless there's a big disparity of force (if you're Estelle Getty and he's Mike Tyson, well, blast away) you're probably going to have a jury decide if you were justified or not.

Ya I wouldn’t even think of shooting over a punch, unless I was 80 or handicapped maybe.


Curious, is there a point where punches do become “serious bodily injury or death”? I mean, if he’s hitting you over and over, and you’re not fighting back, is there a point where self defense is “allowed”? The Trayvon martin case is similar, but I believe he was beating his head against concrete, in talking just punches to the face repeatedly? (I know this isn’t legal advice, and I won’t say “BBI SAID!” to a judge, just curious in your experience what you’ve encountered with this situation, if you have)

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Ya I wouldn’t even think of shooting over a punch, unless I was 80 or handicapped maybe.


Curious, is there a point where punches do become “serious bodily injury or death”? I mean, if he’s hitting you over and over, and you’re not fighting back, is there a point where self defense is “allowed”? The Trayvon martin case is similar, but I believe he was beating his head against concrete, in talking just punches to the face repeatedly? (I know this isn’t legal advice, and I won’t say “BBI SAID!” to a judge, just curious in your experience what you’ve encountered with this situation, if you have)

Sure. I'm assuming you mean self defense by lethal means. The elements are the same as any other lethal force decision. You can use lethal force to prevent serious bodily injury. SBI has a specific definition in the Indiana Code. If you can articulate you were going to be knocked unconscious, that would be both preventing SBI and it would be pretty easy to articulate the loss of control of your firearm would place you at grave risk.

All the standard factors of disparity of force, etc. come in to play as well.

I think this guy's issue is, at least per the media coverage, is he's not able to articulate anything other than the person he shot was "standing over him." Being able to observe and articulate pre-attack indicators would likely help his case, given the numbers.

 

[BigRed]

Sure. I'm assuming you mean self defense by lethal means. The elements are the same as any other lethal force decision. You can use lethal force to prevent serious bodily injury. SBI has a specific definition in the Indiana Code. If you can articulate you were going to be knocked unconscious, that would be both preventing SBI and it would be pretty easy to articulate the loss of control of your firearm would place you at grave risk.

All the standard factors of disparity of force, etc. come in to play as well.

I think this guy's issue is, at least per the media coverage, is he's not able to articulate anything other than the person he shot was "standing over him." Being able to observe and articulate pre-attack indicators would likely help his case, given the numbers.

I believe I was in immediate danger and feared for my life. I have no further comment until I have met with my attorney.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I believed I was in immediate danger and feared for my life. I have no further comment until I have met with my attorney.

That's doing yourself a disservice, but I won't rehash it again. I've put up my recommendations of what to say before you shut up, and oddly enough when I attended Massad Ayoob's class that covers setting yourself up for legal wins his advise was almost exactly the same I think if I independently came up with the same material Massad did it's probably a good idea. Anyone who's interested can try and search for it.

 

[BigRed]

That's doing yourself a disservice, but I won't rehash it again. I've put up my recommendations of what to say before you shut up, and oddly enough when I attended Massad Ayoob's class that covers setting yourself up for legal wins his advise was almost exactly the same I think if I independently came up with the same material Massad did it's probably a good idea. Anyone who's interested can try and search for it.

Thank you... I will see if I can locate it. Do you recall the tread or sub?

 

[Twangbanger]

Sure. I'm assuming you mean self defense by lethal means. The elements are the same as any other lethal force decision. You can use lethal force to prevent serious bodily injury. SBI has a specific definition in the Indiana Code. If you can articulate you were going to be knocked unconscious, that would be both preventing SBI and it would be pretty easy to articulate the loss of control of your firearm would place you at grave risk.

All the standard factors of disparity of force, etc. come in to play as well.

I think this guy's issue is, at least per the media coverage, is he's not able to articulate anything other than the person he shot was "standing over him." Being able to observe and articulate pre-attack indicators would likely help his case, given the numbers.

Bolded part, there's food for a thousand late-night discussions. Left field example, I can think of a whole lot of boxing and MMA bouts I've watched, where the guy was not going to be knocked out...until he was. It can literally be the next one that is thrown, and the entire thing usually hinges on whether the guy saw it coming or not. It's like getting hit by a car...the one you see coming, isn't the one that's going to kill you. The people in crashes who really get badly messed up, will all tell you - they never saw it coming.

This is what's kinda creepy about defending from dogs, as an aside. You're probably going to have to wait until he's latched onto you and something is mangled, before you're "justified" capping the beast, because dogs being threatening and barking is just what dogs do. And, once the dog is locked-on, there's a super-good chance that capping him means capping yourself, pretty close to where he's biting you, if you're not super-gifted with presence of mind while being bit.

But in the case of punches...waiting until you find out if you're knocked out, to decide if you're going to be knocked out, isn't an effective plan. So it's back to this whole "articulating" bullsht again. The law seems to almost take the position everybody is expected to have some baseline level of Mike Tyson in them.

I have never been a fan of the "disparity of force" thing. Once again, everything about the law seems written to make lawyers indispensable.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Thank you... I will see if I can locate it. Do you recall the tread or sub?

I don't, sorry. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/massad-ayoobs-mag-40.460250/ is where I talk about it matching up with Massad but it doesn't look like I went into specifics. Maybe I didn't post it here, but I thought I did when someone gave advice along the lines of "call 911, say there has been a shooting, and then hang up."

Cut N paste time:

911 call:

Being the caller lets you set the narrative from the start. Plan your statement now. The 911 call is not the time to ramble or to detail a justification of your actions. . Keep it simple and brief, perhaps using the following script:

****

I need police and an ambulance (if someone is hit, you or the bad guy).

My name is (YOUR NAME) and I’m at (YOUR LOCATION). Someone just tried to (rob me at gunpoint/kidnap me/whatever) and I had to shoot them in self-defense. I am a (YOUR DESCRIPTION) and I will cooperate with officers when they arrive. The suspect is a (DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION IF KNOWN) and is injured. Send an ambulance. (If you are also injured, mention it here).

(There are no other suspects OR information that will help apprehend the outstanding suspect such as: another suspect (DESCRIPTION) fled towards the laundromat). Please send help.

If you are armed, tell them that. (IF you can safely holster, do so. If you feel you must continue to hold someone at gunpoint be prepared to drop the gun WITHOUT TURNING when commanded to do so by responding officers).

(The statement is in a clear, concise format that an investigator who listens to your 911 tape can gather several things from and it increases your safety. It initiates a self-defense claim early in the investigation. It is the bare essentials of what is needed to investigate the crime you were a victim of and apprehend any outstanding suspects. It sets an expectation in the minds of responding officers that you are the good guy and reduces the chances of you being confused with your assailant.)
****

Then your at the scene/at the station statement:

***
Re-establish you are the victim. You can reuse the 911 script.

Help the investigators help you.

Identify witnesses. If a man across the street was on in his driveway and saw it, say something. If he doesn't answer the door today, they know to come try again later since he's a witness.

Where is evidence that might be missed or destroyed? See a firefighter accidentally kick a shell casing under an SUV while treating the wounded? Say that. We had an incident were the justified shooter and the criminal exchanged shots, the criminal was wounded, threw his gun down a storm drain, then got into a car and was taken (and thrown out) nearly dead at a local ER. He died shortly thereafter and without giving a statement. If you don’t tell officers the gun is in the storm drain, how likely is it that it will be missed? How important is that evidence to corroborating your story?

That’s it. A “public safety statement” followed by a brief statement specific to scene preservation, which helps the officers help you by preserving evidence and identifying witnesses before they disappear. Ideally, you’ll have an attorney who will respond to the scene and advise you further, but I have literally never seen that for a non-LEO.

***


You want your lead detective believing you are justified because he's the one who's going to write up the probable cause to put in front of the screening prosecutor (assuming your case doesn't go to grand jury). Facts are facts, but spin and narrative building generally creeps in at some point. I never covered for anyone, but I did argue for someone that was legally in the wrong to not be prosecuted because they acted without malice. Stupidly, but without malice. Had they not given a statement, I can guarantee you they would have been charged with Criminal Recklessness because the prosecutor only relented as a favor to me. That person was factually guilty. They likely would have been convicted on a felony.

****

I've got a much longer and more detailed version that I wrote for a commissioned work, but that's the gist.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Bolded part, there's food for a thousand late-night discussions. Left field example, I can think of a whole lot of boxing and MMA bouts I've watched, where the guy was not going to be knocked out...until he was.

Sure. And if you have prior knowledge that a given person is an MMA fighter, boxer, wrestler, etc and that creates disparity of force issues that can be a legal factor in shooting earlier than would otherwise be reasonable. But you can't just say "well, it could happen" any more than you can shoot someone with a holstered handgun but their hands nowhere near it because they *could* draw it and shoot you.

Note that does not mean you have to know them personally. Cauliflower ear? Sunken knuckles? Those are articulable facts that someone probably has significant fighting training/experience. Do you know they've been violent in the past? If a guy punched a bouncer last week, the bouncer this week who knows that can use that information in his decision making. Etc. Etc.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I've got a much longer and more detailed version that I wrote for a commissioned work, but that's the gist.

Is there going to be a book signing in the future? More importantly, will there be snacks?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Is there going to be a book signing in the future? More importantly, will there be snacks?

I have gotten the framework done and a pretty well known fellow onboard with a publisher and foreword, but I stalled out due to too many irons in the fire. Maybe I'll get back at it in 2022, as my plate has cleared somewhat now.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I have gotten the framework done and a pretty well known fellow onboard with a publisher and foreword, but I stalled out due to too many irons in the fire. Maybe I'll get back at it in 2022, as my plate has cleared somewhat now.

You get it published and say where for the book signing, you know INGO will show up. We'll discuss snack options later.

 

[Twangbanger]

Sure. And if you have prior knowledge that a given person is an MMA fighter, boxer, wrestler, etc and that creates disparity of force issues that can be a legal factor in shooting earlier than would otherwise be reasonable. But you can't just say "well, it could happen" any more than you can shoot someone with a holstered handgun but their hands nowhere near it because they *could* draw it and shoot you.

Note that does not mean you have to know them personally. Cauliflower ear? Sunken knuckles? Those are articulable facts that someone probably has significant fighting training/experience. Do you know they've been violent in the past? If a guy punched a bouncer last week, the bouncer this week who knows that can use that information in his decision making. Etc. Etc.

I totally don't buy your analogy between the holstered gun and a punch(%). A holstered gun with the owner's hand nowhere near it, is in no way comparable to a blow that is headed toward your head. One doesn't show intent to harm; the other clearly does. Once a blow is in the air, it absolutely _could_ happen. Anytime blows are being thrown with intent, you're in danger of being knocked out. It can literally be the next one that's thrown, that incapacitates you. I think anyone who doesn't recognize that, prosecutor or otherwise, either isn't being reasonable, or simply hasn't observed and has no concept of how dangerous strikes can be.

What I'm getting at is that "our prosecutors" not liking people using deadly force in response to a punch is kind of a crummy deal, because it's hard to know and articulate precisely when you're about to get knocked out. Once the sht starts, it's on and anything can happen. People get knocked out (mostly) because they didn't see it coming. Prosecutors expecting people to "weather a series of blows" until some seemingly-arbitrary point where you finally cross a line and can articulate that at **this** precise point in the barrage you were in danger of being knocked out, whereas at **that** point in the barrage it had not been established yet - is silly.

I know you're not defending the prosecutors' position; just saying it's a crummy deal for anyone justifiably trying to defend themselves against an altercation they didn't want or start. It sends the message that anyone who's "not female or a child" is basically expected by the law in this town to demonstrate a certain level of Mike-Tyson-ness and weather some arbitrary level of punches, before being deemed justified in using deadly force.

(%) Here's what I was mainly reacting to:

...I've had a lot of INGOers tell me they could shoot someone for a punch because sumdood sumwhere died from a single punch and I've told them our prosecutors do not agree (and that well predates the current one). Unless there's a big disparity of force (if you're Estelle Getty and he's Mike Tyson, well, blast away) you're probably going to have a jury decide if you were justified or not...

What is that number? How many have to be thrown before you cross that line? It's a standard that we don't apply to any other form of deadly force.