This past weekend, I covered a case where a man shot a suspected thief outside of the home. Reading the headline, I was prepared to think that the homeowner crossed the line, but it wasn't that cut and dried. I gave my take, but I'm not a lawyer.
Jonathan Turley is, though. He's a law professor, and he saw the story, too.
Maybe he saw it here. I don't know, and it doesn't matter. What does matter is the question of whether this was a case of self-defense or if the homeowner screwed the pooch.
In his affidavit, Fort Wayne Police Detective Brian Martin stated: “Based upon the investigation, Pickens knowingly armed himself and voluntarily exited the safety of his residence to confront Taylor,” concluding that there was “probable cause to believe Pickens recklessly killed Khadolphee D. Taylor by engaging in conduct constituting a plain, conscious, and unjustifiable disregard of harm, the disregard involving a substantial deviation from acceptable standards of conduct.”
He is being held without bond and could be facing up to six years in prison for reckless homicide.
The Indiana Stand Your Ground provision states in pertinent part:
“A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other 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; 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.”
Turley doesn't try to litigate it in his column, which is probably for the best.
But as Turley is probably a lot smarter than I am, I'm going to do the opposite. I'm entertaining like that.
See, it's obvious that everything hinges on whether the police's read on the need for force is shared by a jury, because this will need to be addressed in Pickens's defense.
It's worth noting that Taylor reportedly advanced on Pickens after being told not to, so I think that ramps up the anxiety a bit and could result in a legitimate case of believing he was in danger. It might not. Other details would matter, including if a reasonable person believes what would follow would be beyond a butt-whipping. You ain't gotta like getting your kiester kicked, but unless the altercation gets beyond that point, you generally can't act with lethal force.
Someone tries to American History X you while you're leaning on a curb, that's different.
The nuances of Stand Your Ground are real, and they're generally ignored by the media who focuses on cases that aren't Stand Your Ground and pretends that these nuances are unevenly applied. They're not.
Turley is right to note that the police didn't feel the situation warranted lethal force. I'm inclined to take them at their word, though they're people and can easily be wrong. If they're not, though, the Pickens is in a heap of trouble.
And — here's the part the New York Times will never get — he'll deserve it.
I get his fear. I get his beliefs were probably pretty legitimate to him at the time, but he left his home in the first place, confronted the suspected thief, then shot the person who was unarmed and who was clearly under the influence of something, but hadn't done anything beyond not stopping walking. That last part might be enough, but it might not.
I hate that a person is dead, but this will be an interesting case to watch.
