In these cases the defendant will likely have to demonstrate both that they felt an appropriate level of fear and that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would also have felt an appropriate level of fear.
If one of the two isn't kosher then the claim will probably not fly.
English
-
Edited by Britton: 7/9/2015 12:21:27 AMIndeed, but if a person already lost their life then what's accomplished outside of determining if they are right or wrong? Reactionary things typically help nothing. This concerns me a lot. I was a firefighter, and I often had to go onto people's property with heavy equipment most people would not want there to fight wildfires. Many times people would demand I leave, but the law in Florida states that my duty to protect the public from loss of property and life overrides the individual's desire for me not be on their property. Under this law, a person could justify causing a firefighter harm or even death for simply doing their job when the land owner may not want them too.
-
Well this law would only be able to help a resident avoid an indictment if the public official in question was acting so far outside the color of law that the grand jury felt comfortable resolving the case outside of court. That's not going to happen often after a public servant gets shot or stabbed on the job, even if they have a poor excuse for getting themself shot in someone's home. So the goal isn't to protect life, it's to discourage illegal behavior on the part of public officials and reduce the chances a bad actor could get away with victimizing someone, then causing them an unjust criminal trial for daring to resist. It's not that meaningful in legal terms, it's just a modern piece of criminal law based around the Fourth Amendment and the John Kills Black Elk Supreme Court ruling that being a public official doesn't nullify a citizen's right to self-defense. It is meaningful on social-political terms though, because of the message it sends to Indiana voters and civil servants about the priorities of the state in regards to resident's civil rights.
-
I understand that. But how the citizens interpret this law is what I worry about. And if cops know that people may be more willing to attempt to use lethal force on them, they may also be quicker to use lethal force to protect their own lives as well. Escalation of force my friend.
-
Those concerns are valid, that's mostly what I meant by socially-politically relevant. This law could embolden some people with scary ideas to act out their fantasy ideas of 'defending yourself'.