An Indiana gun owner will not face charges after shooting and killing a man during a confrontation, after prosecutors determined the shots fired were in self-defense.
Hancock County Prosecutor Brent Eaton says the incident started when the driver of a Dodge Journey began closely following a Volkswagen Jetta. According to eyewitnesses, the Journey got to within a foot of the Jetta, and perhaps even as close as six inches from the rear bumper. When the two vehicles entered a construction zone, they slowed down and eventually stopped because of traffic.
At that point the driver of the Dodge Journey exited his vehicle and approached the Jetta, threatening bodily harm to the driver. The Dodge driver began walking back toward his own vehicle but then turned and came back toward the Volkswagen. That’s when the Volkswagen driver exited his vehicle with his handgun.
As the Dodge driver approached, the Volkswagen driver told him: “I wouldn’t do that. Don’t do that. Go back to your car.”
The Dodge driver continued advancing toward the Volkswagen driver. The Volkswagen driver then fired several shots, striking the Dodge driver in the front and side of his body. There is no evidence that the Volkswagen driver ever left the immediate area of his vehicle or approached the Dodge.
The Dodge driver retreated to his vehicle, where he later died. The Volkswagen driver called 911 and reported that he had shot someone.
Eaton says an independent eyewitness, who didn’t know either man, told police that the driver of the Journey told the Jetta driver that he “shouldn’t be driving on my road that fast, mother******,” and described his demeanor as “very hostile.”
The eyewitness said he heard the driver of the Journey also exclaim, “Oh, you’re gonna get your gun? You afraid? You gonna get your gun? Well, come on, get out.”
When describing the encounter, the witness stated: “If I was put in that predicament, if I was the guy in the Volkswagen, I would have been scared for my life.”
Eaton went on to cite the applicable Indiana law, which states that a person is justified in using deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if the person “reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
The evidence in this case establishes that the Dodge driver followed the Volkswagen at an extraordinarily close distance; exited his vehicle and initiated the confrontation; aggressively approached the occupied Volkswagen; threatened bodily harm; challenged the Volkswagen driver to retrieve a firearm and exit the vehicle; briefly turned toward his own vehicle; and then renewed his approach despite repeated verbal warnings to stop and return to his vehicle.
In the comments below the prosecutor’s Facebook post, several individuals took issue with Eaton’s decision not to charge the armed citizen.
One argued the armed citizen “had the gun, the victim had no weapons,” adding “this doesn’t equate to the fear for his life defense. The math doesn’t math.”
Sure it does. First of all, the Jetta driver had no way of knowing if the man who threatened him with bodily harm had a weapon of any kind. All he knew was that a guy was threatening to hurt him. Additionally, the Dodge Journey was behind the Volkswagen Jetta, which means the driver could have easily decided to use his SUV as a weapon. He’d already driven within inches of the Jetta. It’s not unreasonable to be concerned that he’d plow into the car if given the opportunity.
Another commentator declared she “just didn’t realize laws had changed and we could shoot someone who was being an a****** and being verbally abusive and aggressive/ threatening but without a weapon,” adding “I just thought when we had the option to get in a vehicle and lock the door, that was our only option.”
Again, the Dodge driver wasn’t just being a jerk. According to eyewitnesses he’d been driving dangerously and aggressively towards the Jetta, and threatened to hurt the Jetta driver. Indiana’s statute on the use of deadly force doesn’t require that someone display a weapon before their intended victim can act in self-defense. The would-be victim just has to have a reasonable belief that they’re in danger of being seriously injured.
The driver of the Dodge knew that the Jetta driver was armed, and was warned to return to his vehicle. Instead, he continued to approach the armed citizen. That, in conjunction with the threats he’d made moments before, gave the Jetta driver the reasonable impression that his life was in danger.
Like virtually every other road rage incident, this tragedy could have been avoided if the driver of the Dodge had simply complained to himself about the jerks on the road these days. Heck, he could have called 911 and reported the Jetta was driving too fast if he wanted. Instead, he made multiple bad decisions, first chasing after the Jetta, and then exiting his SUV to go threaten the driver when the two cars were stopped in traffic. The Hancock County prosecutor made the right call here, and this tragedy would only have been compounded had he decided to charge the Jetta driver with any kind of crime for defending himself and his female passenger.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Bearing Arms’s pro-Second Amendment reporting that delivers defensive gun uses like this? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
