call for review of indiana self defense codes

Redhorse

Master
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jun 8, 2013
1,896
48
To be honest it looks like this guy only wants to review it. The article did point out the Zimmerman case wasn't about stand your ground which brings into question, why are they bringing this up now? Why can't they just leave this guy alone also?
 

GodFearinGunTotin

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Mar 22, 2011
40,276
113
Mitchell
Yeah, I think we should review laws from time to time. I'll bet this democrat will not be interested in the suggestions I'd like to see implemented though.
 

Redhorse

Master
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jun 8, 2013
1,896
48
I seriously doubt indiana is going to implement a CA style law. We seem to be a state that allows self defense, I doubt they're going to change it any time soon.
 

Rhoadmar

Expert
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Sep 18, 2012
1,301
48
The farm
Democrat Clyde Kersey. I wonder if this is indicative of a pattern?:stickpoke:
 

Kirk Freeman

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Mar 9, 2008
45,094
113
Lafayette, Indiana
Ok, let's review.

1. In 1877 the Indiana Supreme Court abolished the duty to retreat in case entitled Runyan v. State of Indiana.

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."

2. Duty to retreat safely is a minority position. Six states have such a duty now.

3. In 2005 a state with a large number of electoral votes, Florida, abolished its duty to retreat.

4. In an outbreak of MeTooism the Indiana General Assembly in 2005 believed that "dammit, boy, just don't stand there, write down that we don't have no duty to retreat no how." Understand that at the time, 2005 not a single court in Indiana's 92 counties was instructing juries that a person had a duty to retreat. It was crystal clear that there was no duty to retreat.

5. Indiana codified the lack of duty to retreat in 2005.

6. If the General Assembly repeals the 2005 statute, we still have no duty to retreat.

7. If the General Assembly reimposes a duty to retreat, however unlikely, it still does not change the reasonable man/person standard for self-defense and would not apply to a fact pattern such as Florida v. Zimmerman.
 

Phil502

Master
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Sep 4, 2008
2,933
48
NW Indiana
You shouldn't have to retreat and you especially shouldn't have to prove in court that you attempted to retreat "enough". For some people you could never retreat enough, leaving only your own death as an acceptable alternative to self defense.
 

GodFearinGunTotin

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Mar 22, 2011
40,276
113
Mitchell
Ok, let's review.

1. In 1877 the Indiana Supreme Court abolished the duty to retreat in case entitled Runyan v. State of Indiana.

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."

2. Duty to retreat safely is a minority position. Six states have such a duty now.

3. In 2005 a state with a large number of electoral votes, Florida, abolished its duty to retreat.

4. In an outbreak of MeTooism the Indiana General Assembly in 2005 believed that "dammit, boy, just don't stand there, write down that we don't have no duty to retreat no how." Understand that at the time, 2005 not a single court in Indiana's 92 counties was instructing juries that a person had a duty to retreat. It was crystal clear that there was no duty to retreat.

5. Indiana codified the lack of duty to retreat in 2005.

6. If the General Assembly repeals the 2005 statute, we still have no duty to retreat.

7. If the General Assembly reimposes a duty to retreat, however unlikely, it still does not change the reasonable man/person standard for self-defense and would not apply to a fact pattern such as Florida v. Zimmerman.

I did have to look up "justiciable" to make sure it was a real word...

jus·ti·ci·a·ble (j
ubreve.gif
-st
ibreve.gif
sh
prime.gif
schwa.gif
-b
schwa.gif
l) adj. 1. Appropriate for or subject to court trial: a justiciable charge.
2. That can be settled by law or a court of law: justiciable disputes.
However the definition I found doesn't seem to fit the finding of the court.


 

Pinchaser

Shooter
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Nov 26, 2012
765
18
I seriously doubt indiana is going to implement a CA style law. We seem to be a state that allows self defense, I doubt they're going to change it any time soon.
The idiot politician who signed-on to weakening Indiana's SD laws, in any way, would get about 17 votes in the next election and 12 of those would be family members. Not gonna happen.
 

Kirk Freeman

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Mar 9, 2008
45,094
113
Lafayette, Indiana
However the definition I found doesn't seem to fit the finding of the court.

Fine, you tell a 19th century Supreme Court justice that he cannot write. He will beat you with his cane and then say "And good day to you, sir. I say good day!"

justiciable=appropriate, or what have you learned is the law's favorite word . . . right, reasonable.
 

femurphy77

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
29   0   0
Mar 5, 2009
19,109
113
S.E. of disorder
To be honest it looks like this guy only wants to review it. The article did point out the Zimmerman case wasn't about stand your ground which brings into question, why are they bringing this up now? Why can't they just leave this guy alone also?


Because SOMEBODY has to do SOMETHING. Remember "In chaos, there is profit".
 

MisterChester

Master
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
May 25, 2013
3,383
48
The Compound
Is there anything in IC that says you must apply reasonable force? And does it differ from let's say you're walking on the street, or on your property, or in your home/dwelling?
 

GodFearinGunTotin

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Mar 22, 2011
40,276
113
Mitchell
Fine, you tell a 19th century Supreme Court justice that he cannot write. He will beat you with his cane and then say "And good day to you, sir. I say good day!"

justiciable=appropriate, or what have you learned is the law's favorite word . . . right, reasonable.

He'd probably rip my 2013 Ipad out of my hands, whack it with his cane, and throw some 19th century law book at me :D
 

IN71vet

Marksman
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Jun 16, 2013
155
16
Noble County, IN
So if they succeed in eliminating stand your ground laws, does that mean we can starting getting in the face of ne'er do wells and they have to run or risk going to jail?
Not saying we should take that action, but lawmakers never think their ideas through.
 

Bunnykid68

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Mar 2, 2010
23,512
83
Cave of Caerbannog
Ok, let's review.

1. In 1877 the Indiana Supreme Court abolished the duty to retreat in case entitled Runyan v. State of Indiana.

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."

2. Duty to retreat safely is a minority position. Six states have such a duty now.

3. In 2005 a state with a large number of electoral votes, Florida, abolished its duty to retreat.

4. In an outbreak of MeTooism the Indiana General Assembly in 2005 believed that "dammit, boy, just don't stand there, write down that we don't have no duty to retreat no how." Understand that at the time, 2005 not a single court in Indiana's 92 counties was instructing juries that a person had a duty to retreat. It was crystal clear that there was no duty to retreat.

5. Indiana codified the lack of duty to retreat in 2005.

6. If the General Assembly repeals the 2005 statute, we still have no duty to retreat.

7. If the General Assembly reimposes a duty to retreat, however unlikely, it still does not change the reasonable man/person standard for self-defense and would not apply to a fact pattern such as Florida v. Zimmerman.
Nice post as usual sir

Is there anything in IC that says you must apply reasonable force? And does it differ from let's say you're walking on the street, or on your property, or in your home/dwelling?

Read Kirks post, we have case law protecting us as well
 

Site Supporter

INGO Supporter

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
491,324
Messages
8,867,657
Members
48,149
Latest member
Fusioneclipse
Top Bottom