home invasion in Terre Haute

[Captain Morgan]

Wouldn't be surprised to see the shooter facing charges. The threat was over and the suspects were driving away. https://local.nixle.com/alert/5158268/

 

[TTravis]

I bet that car smells like ***t. It will be interesting to see what the prosecutor does or does not do.

 

[CathyInBlue]

If it happened within the Terre Haute city limits, it's up to Jared Moddesitt, who, despite protestations of members of the Vigo Co. Prosecutor's office that he's a gun nut himself, is an extremist against privately used firearms, to make that decision. The entire Vigo Co. Prosecutor's office can't be bothered to stay up to date on changes in firearms laws, so the homeowner might be brought up on charges for the mere possession of a concealable firearm in violation of territorial law.

 

[in625shooter]

If it happened within the Terre Haute city limits, it's up to Jared Moddesitt, who, despite protestations of members of the Vigo Co. Prosecutor's office that he's a gun nut himself, is an extremist against privately used firearms, to make that decision. The entire Vigo Co. Prosecutor's office can't be bothered to stay up to date on changes in firearms laws, so the homeowner might be brought up on charges for the mere possession of a concealable firearm in violation of territorial law.

Terry Modesitt is the Prosecutor and will decide on any charges. There are an office of Deputy Prosecutors that work for Mr Modesitt. Not that I agree with every call the Prosecutes Office makes they do try to do a fair job. As far as Terre Haute and some's "territorial claim" In most cases folks have faired better in Vigo County than they would have in some other places. There was a case in Vigo county back in 1999 (different prosecutor) where a home owner investigated noises in the garage. There was an intruder/burglar there. Burglar rushed past homeowner (who had a 30 30 rifle) knocking him to the ground. The burglar was fleeing away ad knocked the homeowner down getting past him. Homeowner did a hip shot at the fleeing burglar (couldn't see glasses were knocked off) and happened to hit the kid in the back of the head. So yes the kid died. By state law the Prosecutors Office could have been in the right legally to try and charge the home owner but they chose not to because the prosecutor stated on the news "The home owner had the right to be there and the perp did not" It didn't hurt the perp had a lengthy record of petty theft etc but it could have become a legal night mare for the home owner.

Personally I feel they made the right call on that. I also feel IF the story this time from Terre Haute today pans out the same thing will happen HOWEVER I feel there is a lot more to this story yet to be released. Most houses are not invaded at random. The case I told from 1999 the perp actually worked for the home owner and new what he was after. I have suspicions that when the facts come in it could change the dynamics of it Hope I'm wrong but we will see.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I was fully aware of the case you mentioned and am confident in saying that no one from the Vigo Co. Prosecutor's Office from 1999 is still working there today.

 

[in625shooter]

I was fully aware of the case you mentioned and am confident in saying that no one from the Vigo Co. Prosecutor's Office from 1999 is still working there today.

The Prosecutor from that case is the #2 man in the Office today. In fact several of the deputy prosecutors have been employed by the office through several past prosecutors. Only the prosecutor is elected. Everyone else usually are given the option to stay on. There are cases where politics come into play no different than with a Sheriffs DEPT with a new Sheriff

 

[CathyInBlue]

That being true, I am shocked at how he could make such a quality decision in 1999 and be so horrendously ill-informed when it came to my case. Regardless, I have zero confidence in the ability of the prosecutor's office as it stands today to make quality decisions, especially where it comes to residents defending themselves with firearms.

 

[in625shooter]

That being true, I am shocked at how he could make such a quality decision in 1999 and be so horrendously ill-informed when it came to my case. Regardless, I have zero confidence in the ability of the prosecutor's office as it stands today to make quality decisions, especially where it comes to residents defending themselves with firearms.

Only you know what did/didn't happen (not asking) as for quality decisions well two different people will usually give a different answer. It could be they just concurred on who handled the case. Often time the decision to "prosecute" rest solely on how "certain" the Prosecutor is on winning the case at a jury trial if they think the accused decides fight it. If it is too much an uphill fight often times that is the reason the decline to press charges. sometimes if that's the case they will go for a plea bargain to get something if the feel it is only a technicality on not winning a jury trial. I've seen about every which way pan out. Now whether ill informed was ill informed or not I couldn't tell you.

 

[CathyInBlue]

In October, 2012, the Vigo Co. prosecutor's office denied the existence of IC 35-41-3-2(i), (j), &(k), which became effective in March 2012. They denied its existence so strenuously, they had my lawyer convinced it didn't exist, and I'd given my lawyer a copy of PL161-2012 which implemented them.

Now, to be clear, this is not a question of whether it became effective before or after the May date of the THPD's assault upon me in my own back yard. They claimed they didn't exist at all.

I suspect what they did was to just reach up onto their shelves for their hard copy of the published statutes from 2011, flipped it open to 35-41-3-2 and read the old version and thought that was that. As far as they are concerned, if it's not in the paper version of the law, it's not the law. Nevermind what changes the GA has made in the meantime with effective dates between now and the date of pulp publication.

I might call that professional misconduct and/or legal malpractice, but I definitely call it incompetence.

 

[in625shooter]

In October, 2012, the Vigo Co. prosecutor's office denied the existence of IC 35-41-3-2(i), (j), &(k), which became effective in March 2012. They denied its existence so strenuously, they had my lawyer convinced it didn't exist, and I'd given my lawyer a copy of PL161-2012 which implemented them.

Now, to be clear, this is not a question of whether it became effective before or after the May date of the THPD's assault upon me in my own back yard. They claimed they didn't exist at all.

I suspect what they did was to just reach up onto their shelves for their hard copy of the published statutes from 2011, flipped it open to 35-41-3-2 and read the old version and thought that was that. As far as they are concerned, if it's not in the paper version of the law, it's not the law. Nevermind what changes the GA has made in the meantime with effective dates between now and the date of pulp publication.

I might call that professional misconduct and/or legal malpractice, but I definitely call it incompetence.

Not to get off topic but incompetence is abound everywhere at times. Cathy, I don't know you from Adam other than a couple threads here and there on INGO and I in no way mean this in a disrespectful way. You owe no explanation to me but If it were me from your paragraph you just put would have hired a different Attorney if they were not representing my best interests. Especially if it was in fact a case of a Prosecutors Office not staying updated to a changed IC as you say it happened, I will add that the IC you mentioned covers the "Public Servant" and that whole defending ones self against. That in its self is a slippery sloop and probably hard to win unless you can prove beyond a doubt that said "public servant" was acting out of role. Courts traditionally side with the LEO/public servant etc etc etc. .

 

[CathyInBlue]

It would have been trivial for me to prove that the officers in my case were acting beyond the limits of the law, but the judge and prosecutor in my case surpressed any testimony from me with regard to my reasonable beliefs about the law. A cursory examination of the law cited above will show that that is a crucial component to the statutory affirmative defense afforded me. Meanwhile, officers of the THPD were given carte blanch to opine (quite provably erroneously) about what they thought the law was. Once denied any meaningful affirmative defense, the outcome was, indeed, a foregone conclusion.

I therefore renew my utter skepticism with regard to anyone in the Vigo Co. prosecutor's office knowing the law from a roll of quilted Northern in their bathroom.

 

[Captain Morgan]

Follow up

https://local.nixle.com/alert/5162661/