Jump to content

Indiana v Doroszko: Can criminals use lethal force in self defense?


Euler

Recommended Posts

courts.in.gov

South Bend Tribune

Law enforcement officials don't dispute 19-year-old Kyle Doroszko's claim that he was being robbed at gunpoint when he opened fire himself, killing another teen, Traychon Taylor, in April 2019.

 

Prosecutors still charged Doroszko with murder, however, arguing he did not have the right to use force to defend himself because he was trying to sell marijuana and possibly a gun.

 

Now, the case is shaping up to be the latest to test the limits of an Indiana law that denies self-defense rights to someone who is committing a crime - even a low-level or nonviolent offense - at the time they use force.

...

But Doroszko's self-defense claim centers on an issue with broader statewide implications, and one that Indiana courts have wrestled with for many years: What types of crimes should take away a person's right to use force to protect himself?

...

In court filings, Doroszko notes Indiana's law is unusual because it denies self-defense to anyone committing a crime, with no exceptions, while other states with similar laws exclude only those committing a "forcible felony."

 

He cited an opinion in which two Indiana Supreme Court justices said a "non-violent crime with no inherently predictable violent outcome should not negate the defense of self-defense."

 

Doroszko also argues the "committing a crime" exception is "unconstitutionally vague" and improperly forces juries, rather than lawmakers, to make policy decisions about which crimes negate a self-defense claim.

 

"It is absurd to suppose," Doroszko's attorney, John Kindley said in a statement emailed to The Tribune, "that a person whose life is threatened while he or she is engaged in a non-violent activity that the government deems a crime - such as selling marijuana or prostitution - must just allow themselves to be killed, or be charged with murder if they successfully defend themselves."

...

In Indiana, courts have tried repeatedly to clarify the meaning of the state law. The Supreme Court has said applying the law literally would lead to absurd results - such as denying self-defense rights to a person whose handgun license expired one minute before a confrontation, or someone who hasn't paid their taxes - and leave many defendants with no defense at all.

...

[Joel Schumm, an appellate attorney and professor at the Indiana University McKinney School of Law,] recently made arguments before the state Supreme Court on behalf of Anthony Gammons, who was convicted of murder in Marion County in a shooting he claimed was self-defense. Prosecutors said he had no right to defend himself because he was carrying a handgun without a license.

 

At Gammons' trial, the court instructed the jury that a person cannot claim self-defense if committing a crime "directly and immediately related" to the confrontation. In closing arguments, the prosecutor emphasized the point, telling the jury a person "can't be doing anything illegal at the time" of the confrontation, and "self-defense doesn't apply here."

 

Schumm says the court's instruction to the jury and the prosecutor's remarks lowered the standard required by previous Supreme Court opinions, which held that a crime must have not only been related, but actually "caused" or "produced" the confrontation.

 

The court and prosecutor in Gammons' case essentially told the jury it could not even consider self-defense as an option, regardless of the evidence, Schumm told the Supreme Court in March.

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's a non-violent act, I don't see why your self-defense rights should be taken away.

 

Let's say that you're jaywalking, and someone attacks you with a pipe. Should you just accept that you might be hurt or killed?

 

What about speeding 15 miles over the speed limit?

 

Running a red light?

 

Selling scalped concert tickets?

In a park after closing time?

 

Now some people may say that selling weed is much much different. Or prostitution... but while that may be true, if you believe (as I do) that self-defense is a human right, human rights can't be removed so easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

( :cool: dealing in methamphetamine (IC 35-48-4-1.1);

© manufacturing methamphetamine (IC 35-48-4-1.2);

 

I have no idea why the smiley shows up, I didn't put it in there.

Edited by Mick G, Today, 04:06 PM.

 

The smiley face and the copyright symbols show up when a B or C are in parenthesis. After pasting add a space after the letter.

(b )

(c )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

( :cool: dealing in methamphetamine (IC 35-48-4-1.1);

© manufacturing methamphetamine (IC 35-48-4-1.2);

 

I have no idea why the smiley shows up, I didn't put it in there.

Edited by Mick G, Today, 04:06 PM.

 

The smiley face and the copyright symbols show up when a B or C are in parenthesis. After pasting add a space after the letter.

(b )

(c )

 

If you just paste or type in outline form you get

(B)

©

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO you never lose the right to self defense regardless of the circumstances. After all the right to self defense doesnt derive from law, it is an "inalieanable right"

 

You can throw all sorts of strawman arguments or hyperboles out to justify one side or the other, and very few actually apply.

 

For example someone used the silly argument [Running a red light? Selling scalped concert tickets? In a park after closing time?

Those are offenses that involve the police, "I ran a red light and then killed the cop that pulled me over."

"It was justified, the cop had a gun."] ... thats not a valid argument...... if the cop got out of his car shooting at you for running the red light then you would absolutely be justified in killing him

 

Couldnt a similar argument be made that he was not selling drugs or guns or anything? he was simply being robbed at gunpoint. the act of selling ceased once the robbery began..... therefore he was maybe a misdemeanor criminal acting in self defense..... would your argument then change that the guy running the red light has no self defense rights when that cop starts shooting for the violation?

 

A known arsonist with a lighter in his pocket is not burning down buildings.... he simply has the tools for the job at the time...... can he not defend himself?

 

The right to self defense is absolute under any circumstance.....despite what the unconstitutional laws may say. Even if during the commission of a crime..... by removing his right to defend himself then you are giving the armed robber the right to convict and punish him. You cant have it both ways.

 

What if this turned out differently and the guy "selling" ended up dead? Is the robber culpable? His crime was misdemeanor purchase (a citation), or petty larceny. Is that enough to void your right to life?

 

From reading these forums Im often left with the belief that half the members commit felonies all the time through their purchase of cannabis and firearms. Still a Federal law.

 

Many on these forums have often said "concealed is concealed" when discussing posted locations. Do those people (many of you) lose the right to self defense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interpretation of the law is particularly interesting since in Indiana it denies self-defense to anyone committing a crime, with no exceptions, even misdemeanors.

 

Which is the point of the discussion. I dont believe anyone is arguing that under Indiana law this guy is innocent. I believe everyone is arguing that the law is incorrect and unconscionable let alone unconstitutional.

 

As mentioned, can you not defend yourself if someone threatens your life while jaywalking? That after all is the commission of a crime, despite your argument that it involves the police (which is incorrect).

 

IMO there should be no law at all in this regard, however if one stipulates that there should be, then at the very least it should be very narrow in its scope and interpretation.

 

Indiana is wrong in this regard, plain and simple. There is no argument to be made otherwise. For the states sake they should hope he pleas, as if this were to be taken to a Federal level for violation of civil rights (which it clearly is) the law will be tossed and all will walk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Schumm says the court's instruction to the jury and the prosecutor's remarks lowered the standard required by previous Supreme Court opinions, which held that a crime must have not only been related, but actually "caused" or "produced" the confrontation.

...

Common (case) law counts as much as statutory law. Did Doroszko selling marijuana cause a situation in which someone (the robber) could justifiably shoot Doroszko?

 

This case is in the news because the defense is challenging statutory law in Indiana. In most states, including Illinois, the prosecution would not have a case for murder, except for the felony murder against the robbery accomplices.

 

The average American commits 50 federal felonies per day. It's easy for the police to say anyone (everyone) is not just a criminal, but a felon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt under current law he is going to jail. The law is absolutely wrong.

 

Also no doubt that if Mr Kindley has the above mentioned ambitions then this will be his benchmark case. If hes worth 2 nickels it will only take 1 of them to get this law overturned and his client compensated for a civil rights violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, that's a tough one.

Guy is selling drugs and guns then shoots someoene trying to rob him.

The shooter was in the process of comitting a crime when he shot the robber.

 

Also, the article mentions Indiana's "handgun license". I assume they mean concealed carry permit.

 

94023b36f7693ee8effc6331b362ee3e.jpg

 

It is a *license to carry handgun* concealed or open carry

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I see how it necessarily directly relates to the lives of cops.

 

I do see how it endangers the lives of people parking in a no parking zone, or failing to use their turn signal. They have lost their right to defend themselves. Even if someone pulls a gun on them.

Facing the risk of a murder charge by using lethal force to protect an officer endangers officer safety given how vague the law is. Also since cops commit may be forced to commit minor offenses in the course of their duties including but not limited to traffic offenses they are technically violating this law and at risk of this law on the whims of the prosecution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cop nonsense was a poor attempt by Raw Power to compare a criminal engaged in a criminal act under Indiana state law to this.

A cop isn't going to shoot you for: What about speeding 15 miles over the speed limit? Running a red light? Selling scalped concert tickets? In a park after closing time? This isn't about that, it's whether under the law as written in Indiana puts this guy in prison for life w/o parole, life w/ parole or they throw the law out and he gets charged with drug trafficking. Cops writing tickets has nothing to do with this case.

breaking the law is breaking the law whether theres a cop or not...... if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around does it make a sound?

 

Lets use a different example....... lets say Im driving in the fast lane.... the speed limit is 55 and Im doing 60.... somebody behind me wants to go faster but I cant get over due to traffic..... when I can get over the guy is thoroughly road raged and starts trying to run me off the road....... I pull over... he pulls over and approaches my vehicle with a gun........ do I have to allow him to shoot me in Indiana? I was breaking the law by disobeying the speed limit...... I will go to prison if I defend my life now?

 

Silly law...... and silly as applied in this very case. He should be charged with intent to or actual selling of and or possession of whatever illegal items he had....... he did not commit any crime in defending his life .... despite what the law says..... my toddler grandchild could get this tossed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...