You may remember my thread a couple of weeks ago regarding the woman who shot the motorcyclist as he approached her SUV at a stoplight.

 

The case was brought before a grand jury last week, and she was indicted on aggravated battery and criminal recklessness.

 

From the story:

 

The grand jury report said Parrish’s use of deadly force was “unreasonable under the circumstances.”

Amen.

I'm interested in Hearsay's reaction. I got the impression he felt I was only reacting to biased media coverage. :lol:

I am not surprised. The Grand Jury only hears one side of the story (the prosecution's) does not hear any defense testimony or evidence, an indictment is merely a charge and not a conviction, and the grand jury's opinion that the force used was unreasonable is not biding upon either court or petit jury and is merely advisory.

 

The new Castle Doctrine will come into play in this case and it will be i nteresting to see how the court deals with it.

 

I didn't say you were overacting RM, did I?

I am not surprised. The Grand Jury only hears one side of the story (the prosecution's) does not hear any defense testimony or evidence, an indictment is merely a charge and not a conviction, and the grand jury's opinion that the force used was unreasonable is not biding upon either court or petit jury and is merely advisory.

 

The new Castle Doctrine will come into play in this case and it will be i nteresting to see how the court deals with it.

 

I didn't say you were overacting RM, did I?

 

I'll dredge up your words. :lol:

 

She did testify at the hearing.

Here you go.

 

 

RM, this is a case of the public pre-judging a situation based upon media reports. There is a whole other side to this that the defense attorney, who is an intelligent young man, won't reveal unless it becomes necessary. However, the police department is already trying this case in the media. All I need do is refer you to the Duke lacrosse rape case to remind you of the dangers of pre-judgment.

 

I have one fact and one fact alone that is relevant. What, in the name of the Good Lord, is that guy doing EXITING HIS MOTORCYCLE and approaching her at an intersection in live traffic? Having a friendly little chat? Offering her corrective driving tips? No, he was P.O.'d and was going to give her a piece of his mind.

 

According to the Kentucky Trial Court Review, there were 411 incidents of traffic-related assaults in Metro Jefferson over the last 18 months. One of our more prominent Bardstown citizens was in downtown Louisville 2 years ago and a 'window-washer' reached through his open window at a stoplight with a concealed knife and stabbed him 16 times. He lived. Ask him if he wished he had his concealed carry.

 

It is PRECISELY the New Albany situation that the 2nd Amendment becomes important. We don't know who means us harm and who doesn't, but the quick flash of a pistol, defensively (as in the lady's situation the year before) deters a lot more crime than the police ever solve.

 

We simply do not have time to stop and ask questions.

 

The new Castle Doctrine will come into play in this case and it will be i nteresting to see how the court deals with it.

 

?

 

What burden is placed on the person who is defending their "castle" to show that they feared for their safety?

For reference, this is the Indiana version of the Castle doctrine:

HOUSE ENROLLED ACT No. 1028

AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning firearms and self-defense.

 

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

 

SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]: Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:

(1) is justified in using deadly force; only and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

(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, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

© With respect to property other than a dwelling, or curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the

force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:

(1) is not justified in using deadly force; unless and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

only if that force is justified under subsection (a).

(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:

(1) on the ground in Indiana:

(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and

(B) until the aircraft takes off;

(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or

(3) on the ground in Indiana:

(A) after the aircraft lands; and

(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.

(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and ©, a person is not justified in using force if:

(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;

(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or

(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.

(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:

(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;

(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or

(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight

It seems that under the Indiana law, if she's able to convince a jury she was truly fearful, she is justified.

 

There are other parts of the testimony of witnesses I wonder if will be allowed.

 

The son, it turns out, is 15 or 16.

 

There is apparently at least one or two witnesses that saw him kicking the guy who was shot, while he lay on the ground.

 

There's also been a report that she may have been kicking him as well.

It seems that under the Indiana law, if she's able to convince a jury she was truly fearful, she is justified.

 

There are other parts of the testimony of witnesses I wonder if will be allowed.

 

The son, it turns out, is 15 or 16.

 

There is apparently at least one or two witnesses that saw him kicking the guy who was shot, while he lay on the ground.

 

There's also been a report that she may have been kicking him as well.

 

Well that just seems unnecessary.

Well that just seems unnecessary.

 

 

To be clear, the kid hasn't (and as far as I know) will not face any consequences, as far as I know. So, I'm pretty sure this won't be allowed in court.

What burden is placed on the person who is defending their "castle" to show that they feared for their safety?

 

The initial person to disprove is on the Commonwealth.

I've of mixed feelings on this.

 

Should the woman have sat and watched as the man approached her and waited for him to produce a weapon? If she had would she hav had time to defend herself?

 

I've got to tell you with the loons that appear to be out and about these days if someone got off of a vehicle like that and approaced me I would be scared to death and would be looking for someway to defend myself. IMVHO as soon as the man started approaching her he was threatening her and she was justified in defending herself. I know my opinion has no legal standing but that's just the way I see it. It is not in dispute that the man approached her, While it may have been over the top I don't think the woman should be charged and the man has no one to blame but himself. He should never have gotten off of his motorcycle and approahed her.

It seems that under the Indiana law, if she's able to convince a jury she was truly fearful, she is justified.

 

There are other parts of the testimony of witnesses I wonder if will be allowed.

 

The son, it turns out, is 15 or 16.

 

There is apparently at least one or two witnesses that saw him kicking the guy who was shot, while he lay on the ground.

 

There's also been a report that she may have been kicking him as well.

 

I missed that. Only reports I've seen claim the boy kicked him. If so, the boy should be charged even if she's acquitted.

I am torn on this as well. Though I will say, I am glad that she got indicted, this can help to dissuade others from recklessly brandishing their weapons and firing them, in the future. Whatever happens in this case, I am certain the truth will come out, either way. I am ok with the outcome.