The combination of those factors absolutely establishes imminent deadly force. The firearm was not holstered, it was in hand. And the laws which apply are those of the State of Indiana.
See: Indiana Code § 35-41-3-2, which allows the use of reasonable force against an imminent threat and permits deadly force in specific situations without a duty to retreat. Indiana Code §§ 35-41-3-2(c), 35-41-3-2(d), 35-41-3-2(e), and 35-41-3-2(i) outline this: whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
See Part (d)
(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other 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, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
Furthermore, under Indiana code 34-23-2-1, a wrongful death claim can only be filed if the deceased would have been entitled to bring a personal injury claim had they survived.
Our decedent here was committing an unlawful act (aggravated assault and battery) when he was killed. He would not have been entitled to bring a personal injury suit.
The only possible success for a wrongful death lawsuit would be based on getting a racist jury that wants to punish a White man for shooting a Black man. That is a long shot in Indianapolis, and in this case, the decedent is an Indian man. It is not going to work.
“Indiana Code § 35-41-3-2”
You are quoting a piece of Indiana law, and my quoting is coming from 18 US code 924
(3)For purposes of this subsection the term “crime of violence” means an offense that is a felony and
(A)has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another
Standing at the driver’s window, with his right hand on top of the vehicle, and his left hand at his side talking does not reach the level of physical force at any of the three descriptions. It is being assumed. The only force used in that sequence was from the shooter. The guy outside was the only person that was receiving physical force. And saying he used force against the car is not part of the sequence. That is over. It’s the same as if a person throws a knife at you, and it misses, can you shoot him if he is standing there calling you names? Nope, the threat is gone unless it returns and this one didn’t.
I’ve seen this before in cases. The one I really got interested in happened in Seattle where three kids broke into a house, one attacked the homeowner who shot him, the second brandished a gun, he got shot, but the third was shot as he was fleeing across the front yard. All three were killed. I agree with the first two. But the third one was no longer a threat and shooting him running away should have been obvious. The homeowneer was exonerated for all three in a jury trial. Interesting like this one. DEtails are sometimes over looked by juries tht play the emotion card.
wy69