Indiana Couple Kills Leopard in Backyard

[BowMan]

Perhaps that would be deemed as homicide by the law because from the report it appears the home-owner fired before warning what he thought was an intruder. Also worth noticing is that the intruder was not actually inside the house and was not yet perceived to be armed or engaging in any hostile actions.

[xl_target]

xl_target wrote:
In this case, he didn't know it was a Leopard, he wasn't trying to scare it away. He was trying to kill whatever he thought was after his pets. Is that justified? I don't know, I wasn't there.

> Since he didn't know what was that trying to encroach upon his pets - Yet he took a shot - It could have been a burglar - I shudder to think the consequences thereafter
Briha

Yes, he violated one of the rules of gun safety; make sure of your target and what is behind it.
Would he have been justified if it had been a burglar? Depends on the state and their castle laws or their stand-your-ground laws.

Perhaps that would be deemed as homicide by the law because from the report it appears the home-owner fired before warning what he thought was an intruder. Also worth noticing is that the intruder was not actually inside the house and was not yet perceived to be armed or engaging in any hostile actions.

Once again, it depends on the state, the city, etc. People have been arrested for firing warning shots because it is against city ordinances. They would have been fine if they had shot the intruder but were charged because they fired a warning shot (discharging firearms in city limits). When politicians make laws "for your own good", they sometimes make no sense.
Depending on the state, you don't have to have an intruder in the house, they can be on your property and if you feel threatened, you could be justified.


If it had been a burglar, in Indiana, he would have been justified under their laws:

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
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; 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.

LINK
the emphasis is mine.

Please note that I have been trying very hard to make these observations without posting my opinions. I have been trying lay out facts.

[Mark]

As hinted at, the real tragedy here is someone purchased a baby/juvenile leopard at some point and then it was either released or allowed to escape somehow, and then no one notified the local game warden there was going to be a non-indigenous wild animal loose and it most likely could have been safely trapped quite easily.

In regards to the legality/wisdom of shooting something unknown, there was this quote:
lives in that area, which had seen a number of attacks against dogs and cats recently.

Does anyone know exactly how many animals (which would have been someones pet) have been killed, and for how long this has been going on? Neither do i. I will say that my cats and dogs are part of the family here and I am very protective of them. Had this been a stray dog doing the killing no one would have even noticed.

[dr.jayakumar]

at least they reported to the authorities,here they would have buried the cat and rest is history.
regards
dr.jk

[BowMan]

If it had been a burglar, in Indiana, he would have been justified under their laws:
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
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; 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.

The pivotal question here as in all such cases of SD shootings is a reasonable perception of grave danger. While I agree with you to a certain extent but there is so much more to the actual conditions of the shooting which work (or in some cases do not work) to build up this perception of reasonable perception of threat.

To bring out the legal nuances let me quote verbatim from the book Combat Shooting by Massad Ayoob about cases he has documented which touch upon Castling and Stand your Ground Laws;

In an Eastern state, a dentist who didn't quite grasp the "home as castle" thing found a burglar in his home. He confronted the man at gunpoint. The burglar turned and ran out the door. As he ran, the homeowner shot him in the back...and was convicted of wrongful homicide and sent to prison.

You can expect the judge and jury to see the shooting as motivated by anger and revenge. Was it necessary to shoot the fleeing burglar? Therein will lie the fulcrum that determines whether the verdict see-saws towards guilt or innocence.

Another case which needs special mention here;

A young husband and father whose home was located in a in a neighbourhood that had suffered home invasions heard his wife scream in terror that people were breaking in. He grabbed his hunting gun, a Smith & Wesson .44 Magnum, and rushed downstairs. Perceiving movement at the front of the house, he flung open the front door. In the dim light, he saw a strangely dressed young man moving jerkily towards him, holding a metallic object the homeowner couldn't identify. He aimed the .44 at him and screamed for him to freeze. The man continued to advance and finally, at close range, the homeowner fired from the open doorway and killed him.

The deceased turned out to be a Japanese exchange student, holding a small camera, and dressed like John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever. His strange movements apparently an attempt to mimic disco dancing, in keeping with his character: he was en route to a pre-Halloween costume party and came to the wrong address.

In criminal court, the shooter was tried and acquitted...but in civil lawsuit that followed, he was hammered. One strong theme that came out of jurors comments after the verdict in the case was that the slain man was actually not inside the dwelling space. The jurors conclusion was that with the bad guy outside, the good guy had ranged outwards to engage the potential threat had been "looking for trouble" and was therefore culpable.

The lesson: Barricade inside! If the bad guy forces his way into the actual living space of your home, now your use of deadly force is much more clear cut and much more solidly defensible.

Please note that I have been trying very hard to make these observations without posting my opinions. I have been trying lay out facts.

I really appreciate this XL and I believe so am I. Thanks for bringing up this interesting discussion even though it has meandered so far away from the initial topic.

Here is a link to the book from which I quote and I recommend to everyone.