call for review of indiana self defense codes

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Redhorse

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 8, 2013
    2,124
    63
    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

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,582
    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 - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 8, 2013
    2,124
    63
    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.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    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
    3,018
    63
    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

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,582
    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
    47,969
    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%
    30   0   0
    Mar 5, 2009
    20,268
    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

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,582
    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
    23,515
    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
     
    Top Bottom