INGO Member on Channel 13 news tonight

[Liberty Sanders]

Well, well, well....

It seems my interview caused some hurt feelings amongst the Carmel elite.

Just before I went out for a social engagement this evening my attorney called.

The Carmel prosecutor early on had offered me a "plea bargain," if it can be dignified by calling it that. He said that he would graciously allow me to plead guilty to the charge and pay nothing but court costs. I informed my attorney to respond that I would decline the offer. I doubt seriously that he conveyed my response using the exact language that I used.

It seems that the prosecutor called my attorney today and told him that the generous offer to allow me to publicly admit that I'm a degenerate gun nut and pay for the privilege is "off the table" (as if it were ever on it) and that he was going to use my interview to "impeach" me.

Stay tuned...

 

[Stschil]

Change of Venue, Change of Venue!!

Though I doubt that it would be approved in a civil matter.

That prosecutor is a dbag. Sounds like you've stepped on his toes and outed him for the fool that he is.
"You can't handle the truth!" Jack Nicholson

 

[jeremy]

I might just have to come over and watch this one...

 

[Hotdoger]

Can't wait for your lawyer to impeach their star witness .

I still would like to khow who and what they cited your neighbor for.
And what evidence they used for the citation.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

He was cited for allowing the dogs to run at large, the evidence being that they were still out when the officer got there.

 

[henktermaat]

This is gonna be good.

 

[redbaron]

I wish you the best of luck LS! I would love to be there to help show support, but it is a little out of reach for me.

Sounds like you got the prosecutor a little nervous, but in true form, he's still trying to bully you around and make you think this is a good deal for you.

 

[TriggerWork]

Well, if you were my neighbor I would shake your hand and offer to pay your fines. Most of the time the law can not (or will not) see the common sense in an action.

 

[critter592]

Yep you rubbed his nose in it so now he's "gonna get you".


Little man syndrome.

 

[Fargo]

BTW The prosacutor of Hamilton County is D. Lee Buckingham II, who was a deputy prosacutor under the inept Sonia Kleerkamp.

Seems some things never change.

Ordinance violations are usually tried by the city attorney, not the actual prosecutor's office. With as many ordinance violations as Carmel writes, they probably have an at least competent attorney handling them. I've seen some city attorneys who probably didn't know where the courtroom was without the aid of google maps.

Best,

Joe

 

[DarkRose]

Hey, that's great news. Will your supporters be made to stand outside or can we enter the proceedings?

From all the times I've been in civil court, the only proceedings that are routinely sealed are family court. and juvenile court. Custody/divorce/child support/neglect/etc.

I think some others can be closed to the public in certain situations.

Not 100% positive, just a citizen who's spent time in quite a few custody hearings for my son.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I still maintain that the law is very clear and the officer's expectation of LS would have had him in violation of it:

IC 35-46-3-12
Torture or mutilation of a vertebrate animal; killing a domestic animal
Sec. 12. (a) This section does not apply to a person who euthanizes an injured, a sick, a homeless, or an unwanted domestic animal if:
(1) the person is employed by a humane society, an animal control agency, or a governmental entity operating an animal shelter or other animal impounding facility; and
(2) the person euthanizes the domestic animal in accordance with guidelines adopted by the humane society, animal control agency, or governmental entity operating the animal shelter or other animal impounding facility.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally beats a vertebrate animal commits cruelty to an animal, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if:
(1) the person has a previous, unrelated conviction under this section; or
(2) the person committed the offense with the intent to threaten, intimidate, coerce, harass, or terrorize a family or household member.
(c) A person who knowingly or intentionally tortures or mutilates a vertebrate animal commits torturing or mutilating a vertebrate animal, a Class D felony.
(d) As used in this subsection, "domestic animal" means an animal that is not wild. The term is limited to:
(1) cattle, calves, horses, mules, swine, sheep, goats, dogs, cats, poultry, ostriches, rhea, and emus; and
(2) an animal of the bovine, equine, ovine, caprine, porcine, canine, feline, camelid, cervidae, or bison species.
A person who knowingly or intentionally kills a domestic animal without the consent of the owner of the domestic animal commits killing a domestic animal, a Class D felony.
(e) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that the accused person:
(1) reasonably believes the conduct was necessary to:
(A) prevent injury to the accused person or another person;
(B) protect the property of the accused person from destruction or substantial damage; or
(C) prevent a seriously injured vertebrate animal from prolonged suffering; or (2) engaged in a reasonable and recognized act of training, handling, or disciplining the vertebrate animal.
(f) When a court imposes a sentence or enters a dispositional decree under this section, the court:
(1) shall consider requiring:
(A) a person convicted of an offense under this section; or
(B) a child adjudicated a delinquent child for committing an act that would be a crime under this section if committed by an adult;
to receive psychological, behavioral, or other counseling as a part of the sentence or dispositional decree; and
(2) may order an individual described in subdivision (1) to receive psychological, behavioral, or other counseling as a part of the sentence or dispositional decree.
As added by P.L.193-1987, SEC.15. Amended by P.L.41-1998, SEC.2; P.L.132-2002, SEC.1; P.L.7-2007, SEC.1; P.L.171-2007, SEC.10; P.L.111-2009, SEC.14.

(emphasis mine)
The officer expected LS to kill the animal when he did not reasonably believe it to be necessary. Too, the officer himself did not believe it necessary or he would have done so himself when he arrived and found the dogs running free. (if he did believe that and did not kill the dog(s), he was derelict in his duty to protect the public at large.)

LS, I am sorry I will not be able to attend your hearing as I will be on duty. FWIW, though, consider me there in spirit and supportive of your position and actions as described. Do feel free to show this message to your attorney for use as needed.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[djjdnap]

So when Liberty wins this case, would it be safe to say that if something like this happened to someone else, this case would be used to get them off?

I mean i've been chased by dogs in my younger years. And I could see it now though, riding bikes and dog starts chasing.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

The plot thickens...

I just got a call from my attorney. He asked me if I had seen the comments received by WTHR from viewers in response to my interview. I had not.

They're here: Carmel man fights fine over gun discharge during dog attack - 13 WTHR

They are 100% in support of my actions. No surprise there...most people outside the Carmel court system have some commmon sense.

Carmel is in an uproar. My case has been reset for MARCH 29TH!, fully 2 months from now, and my case will be the only one heard that day.

The Carmel prosecutor now says that he needs "more time" to prepare his case.

The strategy here is clear: they're waiting an excessive amount of time to allow public sentiment to die down. A light bulb has been turned on, Carmel is running for cover, and they're hoping that in two months time that bulb will burn out and they can again carry on in darkness.

Also, the prosecutor asked my attorney, "You're not going to make some kind of a 2nd Amendment case out of this, are you?"

This clearly is a 2nd Amendment case. I wasn't arrested for firing a gun. I was arrested for owning one.

This case isn't about me. It could have been any citizen who was in my fix. And it sure isn't about the fact that the officer didn't "take care" of me because I'm a retired LEO. Rights are the same for everyone! So is truth and common sense.

Some of you have said you'd have shot the dogs, a viewpoint with which I have no argument. Others commend me for not shooting the dogs and say they'd love to have me as a neighbor, remarks that move me greatly.

But WHATEVER your viewpoint, I know that every person on this board, had they been in my shoes, would have used their firearms SAFELY, with full regard for the lives and the property of innocent bystanders. The City of Carmel says there is no room for that in their city.

This isn't about getting me off the hook. It's about making sure they can never do this again.

Is the light still going to be shining on Carmel two months from now?

 

[jeremy]

So much for a fair and speedy trail...

 

[Armed Eastsider]

The plot thickens...

I just got a call from my attorney. He asked me if I had seen the comments received by WTHR from viewers in response to my interview. I had not.

They're here: Carmel man fights fine over gun discharge during dog attack - 13 WTHR

They are 100% in support of my actions. No surprise there...most people outside the Carmel court system have some commmon sense.

Carmel is in an uproar. My case has been reset for MARCH 29TH!, fully 2 months from now, and my case will be the only one heard that day.

The Carmel prosecutor now says that he needs "more time" to prepare his case.

The strategy here is clear: they're waiting an excessive amount of time to allow public sentiment to die down. A light bulb has been turned on, Carmel is running for cover, and they're hoping that in two months time that bulb will burn out and they can again carry on in darkness.

Also, the prosecutor asked my attorney, "You're not going to make some kind of a 2nd Amendment case out of this, are you?"

This clearly is a 2nd Amendment case. I wasn't arrested for firing a gun. I was arrested for owning one.

This case isn't about me. It could have been any citizen who was in my fix. And it sure isn't about the fact that the officer didn't "take care" of me because I'm a retired LEO. Rights are the same for everyone! So is truth and common sense.

Some of you have said you'd have shot the dogs, a viewpoint with which I have no argument. Others commend me for not shooting the dogs and say they'd love to have me as a neighbor, remarks that move me greatly.

But WHATEVER your viewpoint, I know that every person on this board, had they been in my shoes, would have used their firearms SAFELY, with full regard for the lives and the property of innocent bystanders. The City of Carmel says there is no room for that in their city.

This isn't about getting me off the hook. It's about making sure they can never do this again.

Is the light still going to be shining on Carmel two months from now?

I think its pathetic that an incident like this gets blown up so big. Only in Hamilton County would that happen.

You clearly had no ill intentions. You didn't choose for those dogs to attack you that day.

It just makes me wonder what would happen if you would have had a human attack you, And you shot him. All this over you shooting into the ground because of a dog attack, what would the repercussions be if you had shot another human in self defense?

It sounds like they are trying to paint a picture of you as a criminal, simply because you own a gun. I will never understand why so many police officers are so anti 2a.

Best of luck to you.

 

[4sarge]

Thru your attorney I would let them know that Yes, You intend upon pursuing this as a 2nd Amendment Rights Issue and I would vigorously seek help from the NRA, GOA and every other group interested and I would also request that the TV Reporter revisit your case right before the next continuance. They will Not want the publicity or the light of day shining on this case

 

[beclende]

Sorry to hear that they are dragging this out.....LS I hope that this all works out for the best and the Carmel PD admits their mistake. You know that an extra two months isn't going to make INGO forget about your case....

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Sorry to hear that they are dragging this out.....LS I hope that this all works out for the best and the Carmel PD admits their mistake. You know that an extra two months isn't going to make INGO forget about your case....

I got the definite impression from my attorney that they are very concerned about how many people may show up to support me. That's why I'll be the only case so the courtroom will be clear.

They don't want any people there other than 2nd Amendment supporters to hear the case tried.

 

[Muddy_Ford]

I can't believe that the judge would give them a continuance. They have had 3 months already. This isn't a capitol murder case, it's just a simple ordinance violation!