Indiana’s self defense laws and the Stand Your Ground Law Could be reviewed

[Fedempl]

Here we go again, this time a review of our self-defense laws. Guy made a great statement and something for all of us to think about before we make that decision.

Zimmerman case sparks debate about Indiana?s ?stand your ground? law | Fox 59 News ? fox59.com

 

[Classic]

The legislature can review it any time but the Zimmerman case was NEVER about "stand your ground".

 

[Fedempl]

The case was not about "RACE" either, but that is not stopping the DOJ from investigating about any civil rights violations. The call is also to review our self defense laws, not just stand you ground.

 

[dmarsh8]

I'm definitely taking some of his classes. This was the part I was wondering about wheni first heard about the incident.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So everyone knows,

1. The Indiana Supreme Court abolished the duty to retreat in the 19th century.

2. In 2005 the Indiana General Assembly, catching the wave after a state with 25 electoral votes finally became a majority rule state abolished the duty to retreat, simply acknowledged the lack of a duty to retreat (the duty instructions were silent).

3. This "review" whatever that it will simply reinforce existing law as did the Florida review.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Indiana doesn't, technicly, have a "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground" law, because neither of those phrases appear in the text of any Indiana Code. The phrase that does appear in Indiana law is "duty to retreat" and in IC 35-41-3-2, that phrase is always prefixed with the phrase, "does not have a", as in "does not have a duty to retreat". If someone wants to call that a CD/SYG law, so be it, but I prefer to use the phrase that is actually present in IC 35-41-3-2, and is the concept upon which the entire section of IC is predicated. That phrase is "reasonable force".

It's not true that under Indiana law, you cannot claim self-defense if you are the initial aggressor. If you are the initial aggressor, and debateably, George Zimmerman was not the initiator of aggression, you must commit an affirmative act to communicate your desire to cease combat and flee the encounter (see: IC 35-41-3-2(g)(3)). The only argument regarding the Z-man being the initial aggressor is to claim that merely following someone you deem suspicious is a form of aggression. The first clearly overt act of aggression in the case was after Trayvon confronted George asking "Yo, you got a problem?" George replied, "No, I don't have a problem." Trayvon then said, "You got a problem now." It wasn't until after all that that Trayvon sucker-punched George in the nose, breaking it. That was the initial act of aggression.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The case was not about "RACE" either, but that is not stopping the DOJ from investigating about any civil rights violations.

An investigation isn't always a big deal. Sometimes you investigate just so you can say you did and discovered that there was no criminal activity. Its a lot easier to explain to the boss (and to the public) that you looked into something and found nothing as opposed to you never bothered to look into it.

 

[CathyInBlue]

An investigation isn't always a big deal. Sometimes you investigate just so you can say you did and discovered that there was no criminal activity. Its a lot easier to explain to the boss (and to the public) that you looked into something and found nothing as opposed to you never bothered to look into it.

Which is precisely why I have no fear whatsoever as long as the DoJ just continues to say that it's investigating. Let them investigate until the next Presidential election. I don't care. But as soon as they claim they have enough to move forward with a pressed charges, I wanna see just what they claim they have that warrants such, because I don't think any such thing exists.

 

[74J10]

The case was not about "RACE" either, but that is not stopping the DOJ from investigating about any civil rights violations. The call is also to review our self defense laws, not just stand you ground.

This case was 100% based on race. 2 black guys, no trial, clearly self defense. 2 white guys, no trial, clearly self defense. 1 black guy, 1 half white guy, goes to trial after finding the one DA that was willing to take the case when clearly there wasn't enough evidence to warrant a case.

I see this all too often now about how this trial was not about race. It was ONLY a case because of RACE.

 

[LPMan59]

An investigation isn't always a big deal. Sometimes you investigate just so you can say you did and discovered that there was no criminal activity. Its a lot easier to explain to the boss (and to the public) that you looked into something and found nothing as opposed to you never bothered to look into it.

not a big deal at all. kinda like the CIA interrogator investigations.

Holder (Obama) is doing this to play to his far left base. He can then say to the centrists, "Look, we're just investigating. No charges have been filed." Then it will be quietly dropped....probably in November, 2014