call for review of indiana self defense codes

[Kirk Freeman]

This is why I love indiana. A lot of people here want to act like they hate it here but at least the legisture recognizes our rights unlike New York or California.

The Indiana legislature did not do anything.

The duty to retreat safely was abolished in 1877 by the Indiana Supreme Court. In 2005 the General Assembly (finally I guess) decided that we better write that down 128 years later.

BTW, there is no duty to retreat in California. I wonder if washed up musicians will boycott California???

 

[BehindBlueI's]

How many have seen the recent new reports of Smash Mobs? Youthful miscreants running through stores, mall, or streets vandalizing property as they go. A mob headed your way would seem to present a significant threat of bodily harm. Retreat, if possible, would be my choice. If this youthful bit of fun continues, I fear someone will fear for their life and act accordingly.

While it occurs, its over-hyped and made to seem like its much more prevalent than it is. I'm unaware of any such incidents in Indiana that have resulted in injury or death, and I'm unaware of any such activity locally, period.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Pffffft, leave it to the poooo-leece to underplay the mob actions in Indianapolis.

Just look at this video of a mob breaking out in Indianapolis, complete with ominious music. Look at the reaction to these poor Docker-wearing sheeple.

Your responsibility to be ready to listen to music never ends:

Flash Mob Surprises Indy 500 Travelers at Indianapolis Airport - YouTube

 

[Kirk Freeman]

On the history of "stand your ground" (i.e. the abolition of the duty to retreat):

Stand Your Ground | New Doctrine | Over 136 Years Old

 

[bingley]

O"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."

I just looked up this word, and it means "subject to trial in a court of law." It doesn't mean "justifiable." It sounds like if the "reasonable exercise" has led to a death, then you'll have to be tried.

 

[brotherbill3]

On the history of "stand your ground" (i.e. the abolition of the duty to retreat):

Stand Your Ground | New Doctrine | Over 136 Years Old

Thanks; I followed (well read, near the end of the GZ trial - and then kept up) all the daily summaries and such through the verdict; and watched some of the testimony links from L.I. and Mr. Branca. I guess I'll have to pay more attention to the site for some stuff. ... Thanks for all the input Kirk.

 

[Pitmaster]

This was written by an attorney over on subguns. The last sentence succinctly summarizes Stand Your Ground.

The "Stand Your Ground" modification to the pre-existing self-defense laws in every state, is a relatively minor thing, with two key parts.

1. The laws usually allow you to stand your ground instead of fleeing. Without this, when you're attacked, you have to look around for a safe route to retreat, then turn your back and run away if you can.

That can get you killed. And mostly, you can't really determine whether you could retreat safely or not. People are killed driving away from attackers on foot; bullets travel far.

2. The other part is this: It shifts the burden of proof about whether self-defense was needed.

Let's look at 2 possible outcomes from the same situation:

Betty is waiting for a bus at 3 AM. There are no cameras, no witnesses. A large man comes at her and says "I'm going to strangle you to death, Jane!" He comes at her and she shoots him in the head. He falls down, dead.

There's no prior history between them. "Jane" is his ex-girlfriend, Betty looks kind of like her. Betty has no proof at all of the attack, and there's no obvious motive.

With SYG in force, the prosecutor has to disprove her claim of self-defense. Since there's no evidence either way, Betty is acquitted (or not charged at all.)

Without SYG, Betty still has no proof at all of the threat, but now she loses. She called the cops, admitted the shooting, so the state's case of a killing by Betty is proven. She has nothing to prove the attack, and the jury is told that her explanation is self-serving. They convict her.

So, our society has to determine which is worse:
- a murderer going free when there are no witnesses or useful forensic evidence, or
- a crime victim being sent to prison for defending herself.

With SYG, some murderers go free, but none of the justified self-defenders are convicted.
Without SYG, we sweep up all of the murderers we catch, as well as some percentage of the innocent who fought back successfully.

Remember, a lot of the time we have a history between the killer and the corpse, we know of prior threats or motives for murder. Or we have video, or a witness, or a confession or other incriminating statement. Or the "defender" shoots the "attacker" 6 times in the back. If you watched the Zimmerman trial, you saw what forensics can reveal.

It's only when we have no proof of bad motive that SYG really kicks in. It prevents the conviction of the victims who had the bad luck to be attacked in some out-of-the-way spot (which is where muggers tend to strike.)

Be informed. The media are lying to you, SYG is not a license to kill, it's society choosing to avoid sending people to prison for defending themselves when there are no witnesses around.

 

[KG1]

This was written by an attorney over on subguns. The last sentence succinctly summarizes Stand Your Ground.

That last sentence is why SYG did not play a part in the Zimmerman trial despite Obama and Holder and all the rest whom decry SYG laws.

It's also why the defense chose not to invoke it because there was evidence to corroborate Zimmerman's plausible explanation of the events that took place.

The jury agreed with that evidence.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I just looked up this word, and it means "subject to trial in a court of law." It doesn't mean "justifiable."

I looked up the actual text of the Indiana Supreme Court. The Court uses "justifiable".

Apparently INGO has uncovered Kirk's First Law of the Internet error.

Here is what the Indiana Supreme Court wrote in 1877:

"The weight of modern authority, in our judgment, establishes the doctrine, that, when a person, being without fault and in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self-defence, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable."

Somehow, some way, justifiable became transformed into justiciable. This one letter has created mass confusion. I apologize if anyone was confused.

 

[Redhorse]

The Indiana legislature did not do anything.

The duty to retreat safely was abolished in 1877 by the Indiana Supreme Court. In 2005 the General Assembly (finally I guess) decided that we better write that down 128 years later.

BTW, there is no duty to retreat in California. I wonder if washed up musicians will boycott California???

Seriously? Wow talk about a mistake. Sorry guys

 

[Cemetery-man]

He must be under pressure from Stevie Wonder who publicly stated he will boycott any state with SYG laws.

 

[Redhorse]

Good for Stevie wonder.