Self-defense is often described as a fundamental right — but in practice, it is one of the most misunderstood and narrowly defined concepts in criminal law.

In this episode of Closing Arguments, Indianapolis attorney Jack Razumich takes a deep dive into the law of self-defense in Indiana, examining how doctrines like Stand Your Ground, Castle Doctrine, and no duty to retreat actually function inside a courtroom — not just in theory, but in real cases with real consequences.

The discussion begins by breaking down the legal foundations of self-defense: what the law requires, how “reasonable force” is evaluated, and why a claim of justification does not guarantee immunity from prosecution.

From there, the episode analyzes two recent Indiana cases with starkly different outcomes:

1. State of Indiana v. Curt Andersen, arising from a fatal shooting through a door in Whitestown, Indiana, resulting in a manslaughter charge.
2. State of Indiana v. Maclean Murt, stemming from a confrontation at a Fishers bar that led to a murder charge.

Why was one case charged as manslaughter and the other as murder? What role did context, perceived threat, proportional force, and decision-making play in each outcome?

This episode explores where self-defense ends, where criminal liability begins, and why invoking self-defense is often far more complex — and far riskier — than people realize.

Chapters:

0:00 - Introduction

2:40 - The law of self-defense in Indiana

7:54 - "Standing your ground" and the "castle doctrine"

15:58 - State of Indiana v. Curt Andersen

22:21 - Andersen's argument and claim of self-defense

28:47 - The law doesn't recommend warning shots

34:41 - The claims made in State of Indiana v. Maclean Murt

42:49 - Making critical decisions in a split second

46:05 - Closing remarks