Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,009 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 27 May 2020 - 10:22 PM

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.
...


Edited by Euler, 27 May 2020 - 10:22 PM.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#2 Bitter Clinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,511 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 28 May 2020 - 05:14 AM

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.



#3 Mick G

  • Members
  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 28 May 2020 - 07:27 AM

The law used to be that if you were in the commission of a crime and somebody was murdered that everybody got charged.

This law still applies, that fiasco in Georgia has 3 people charged with murder and only one dead guy.

Since marijuana is still illegal in Indiana AND the main argument is whether the PD had a rifle when they arrested Doroszko in his parents home.

My take is Indiana treats most weed offenses like crack under state law. If this was crack deal gone bad, would there still be a dispute?

I went to a crack house, they tried to rip me off with a gun so I shot and killed one of them.

It puts in a different perspective that way doesn't it?

Doroszko’s case has already seen legal drama after he claimed he caught officers lying under oath about interactions that were captured on video.

That's whether they had a rifle with them when the arrested him."They lied under oath" or they were simply mistaken.

Doroszko’s vehicle sped away, and while he struggled with Taylor, he drew a handgun and shot Taylor twice, according to the documents.

Along with the murder charge against Doroszko, prosecutors filed felony murder charges against Branch and Jeremiah Williams, alleging they caused Taylor’s death by participating in the attempted robbery.

 

Murder 2, 25 years to life because it was committed in the commission of a crime.



#4 Raw Power

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,652 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 16

Posted 28 May 2020 - 08:05 AM

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.


Edited by Raw Power, 28 May 2020 - 08:08 AM.


#5 Mick G

  • Members
  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 28 May 2020 - 09:48 AM

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.

Selling a schedule 1 substance and then murdering someone?

Murder 2, it's no different then a PCP deal gone south in Indiana.

Criminals committing criminal acts have no "human right to self defense" to murder someone.

The second shot is what puts him behind bars for 25 years.

There are two others that also charged with murder because it was a criminal act.

You wave any possibility of justifiable homicide when you are involved in a criminal act.

Let's say you stick to the facts of the case, "Let's say that you're jaywalking, and someone attacks you with a pipe."

What about speeding 15 miles over the speed limit?

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."

Criminals killing other criminals while engaged in criminal acts is what this case is about.



#6 Raw Power

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,652 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 16

Posted 28 May 2020 - 10:13 AM

If you think weed and PCP are similar drugs, you've never been around either of them. I've seen the effects of both first hand. They're not even close.



#7 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 14,373 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 28 May 2020 - 10:26 AM

You guys can disagree without being disagreeable.  Just saying.  


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#8 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,009 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 28 May 2020 - 12:27 PM

courts.in.gov
...


Apparently courts.in.gov doesn't maintain permalinks to cases. The case # is 71D03-1905-MR-000004, which you can enter at the search portal.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#9 Mick G

  • Members
  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 28 May 2020 - 12:51 PM

If you think weed and PCP are similar drugs, you've never been around either of them. I've seen the effects of both first hand. They're not even close.

For the purpose of law, they are both Schedule 1 which means they have no medicinal use.

Under federal law they are the same. Heroin, PCP, Weed, Coke, Crack, all schedule 1.

I have helped junkies out who were dope sick so I think I know a bit about it.

 

It boils down to a felony criminal act committed during a felony criminal act.

You tried to deflect it into a moving violated.

It's Murder 2, look it up in law library.

If the SA wanted to actually make a point, they could invoke the felony murder rule.

He will plead to Murder 2, plain and simple.

 

Please stay on topic, I have no need to know about your experience with PCP and marijuana.



#10 carry

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,016 posts
  • Joined: 26-November 13

Posted 28 May 2020 - 01:13 PM

What happened to "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ???  



#11 Mick G

  • Members
  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 28 May 2020 - 01:57 PM

The Gun Control Act of 1968. Federal law also blocks the sale of guns to people who have been found guilty of unlawfully possessing or using controlled substances within the past year. This includes marijuana, which, though legalized in many US states, remains illegal under federal law.

When this guy committed a crime which resulted in another crime, neither should have had guns.

Simply put, if the gangbangers in Chicago did not have guns and had to settle things with their fists like men,

then we wouldn't have this BS. This guys a drug dealer with a gun and not any different then a common gangbanger.

This BS happens, criminal behavior leading to more criminal behavior which leads to murder.

The antis read this and use it against law abiding citizens. (us) In the end people who follow the law get punished. (us)

I have no empathy for this criminal, the dead criminal or the other two criminals also charged with murder.

Simply put if people are engaged in criminal behavior it's much harder to murder someone if you don't have a gun.

While executing a search warrant at Doroszko’s home, officers found a safe in his room with thousands of dollars in cash and a Glock handgun with the same caliber as some of the ballistic evidence gathered from the scene of the homicide.

This wasn't some small weed deal and it's basically an attorney who is willing to throw law abiding gun owners under the bus to make a name for himself.

This guys a criminal and should face the music instead of us. Shannon Watts is probably tweeting this right now.

What happened to "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ???

It doesn't apply to criminals engaged in criminal acts.



#12 Mick G

  • Members
  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 28 May 2020 - 03:04 PM

 

courts.in.gov
...


Apparently courts.in.gov doesn't maintain permalinks to cases. The case # is 71D03-1905-MR-000004, which you can enter at the search portal.

 

You mean this?

 

Court
St. Joseph Superior Court 3
Case Type
MR - Murder
Filed
05/02/2019
Status
05/02/2019, Pending
Charges
35-42-1-1(1): Murder
Parties
State of Indiana, Doroszko
Attorneys
Cotter, Kindley, Kasich, Thomas
 
IC 35-42-1-1 Murder

     Sec. 1. A person who:

(1) knowingly or intentionally kills another human being;

(2) kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit arson, burglary, child molesting, consumer product tampering, criminal deviate conduct (under IC 35-42-4-2 before its repeal), kidnapping, rape, robbery, human trafficking, promotion of human trafficking, sexual trafficking of a minor, or carjacking (before its repeal);

(3) kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit:

(A) dealing in or manufacturing cocaine or a narcotic drug (IC 35-48-4-1);

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

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

(D) dealing in a schedule I, II, or III controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-2);

(E) dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-3); or

(F) dealing in a schedule V controlled substance; or

(4) knowingly or intentionally kills a fetus that has attained viability (as defined in IC 16-18-2-365);

commits murder, a felony.

 

I wonder what schedule marijuana is in Indiana?

https://www.in.gov/isdh/27380.htm

Oh wait : Schedule I Drugs: Examples include heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote.

 

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


Edited by Mick G, 28 May 2020 - 03:06 PM.


#13 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,009 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 28 May 2020 - 03:22 PM

Remember that this case isn't about whether drugs are illegal. The illegality of the drugs is stipulated. It's about whether the self-defense was murder or manslaughter or justified.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#14 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,896 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 28 May 2020 - 04:22 PM

 

: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 ) 



#15 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,896 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 28 May 2020 - 04:24 PM

 

 

: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) 

© 

 

 



#16 cope

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Joined: 20-October 14

Posted 28 May 2020 - 04:53 PM

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?



#17 Mick G

  • Members
  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 28 May 2020 - 05:09 PM

Remember that this case isn't about whether drugs are illegal. The illegality of the drugs is stipulated. It's about whether the self-defense was murder or manslaughter or justified.

3 people were charged with Murder. Given the facts you can throw out justified or manslaughter.

Actually they can stack charges, The felony murder rule comes into play.

I say he pleads to Murder 2 after his shyster lawyer loses and The felony murder rule comes into play.

Then it's Murder 1 and he gets life w/o parole.

"Mr. Kindley doesn't rest until he gets the best deals and now my brother is getting out in a few days and he was supposed to do 2 years which was dropped down from 8 years thanks to Mr kindley." This guy wants to be a big city attorney and this case gets him out of South Bend.

Gammons was already convicted of murder and I assume an appellate court threw it up to the Indiana Supreme court.

 

What's your opinion?



#18 Mick G

  • Members
  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 28 May 2020 - 05:13 PM

 

 

: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 ) 

 

Thank you for explaining that, I didn't want anyone to think that I was putting a smiley with dealing in methamphetamine.



#19 Mick G

  • Members
  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 28 May 2020 - 06:04 PM

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?

I'm not throwing out the straw man arguments, It's Murder 2 but it was kicked up to Murder 1 because of the felony murder rule.

I didn't make the traffic comparison to murdering someone during the commission of a crime.

It's like your "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?" Sure he can because he isn't in the process of committing a felony.

If that known arsonist is committing arson and kills someone, he is guilty of murder.

Enter the committing a crime aspect, if someone tries to kill him while he is torching something and pulls a gun a kills said person then he commits murder. Indiana has the felony murder rule on their books which makes it Murder 1.

 

8 hours ago one of the other two people charged with Murder under the felony murder rule accepted a plea. Atlantis Branch was originally charged with murder and robbery resulting in serious bodily injury which fell under the felony murder rule. "As a condition of the plea agreement, prosecutors are dropping the murder charge against Branch and changing the robbery count to attempted robbery — a Level 2 felony. The agreement stipulates that Branch will face between 20 and 30 years in prison."

 

This doesn't bode well for Kyle Doroszko who was the actual shooter. He will plead to murder 2 so he can have the possibility of parole. I find it interesting that he already hasn't accepted a plea for Murder 2 but maybe it wasn't offered. His lawyer is also making a claim he wasn't properly Mirandized. The whole case will come down to whether the Supreme court believes the murderer or the cops who arrested him. The law is clear on the murder charge.

Just hand over the backpack full of dope and don't shoot someone while in the commission of a felony and then shoot him again in the head to make sure he's dead.

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.



#20 cope

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Joined: 20-October 14

Posted 28 May 2020 - 06:21 PM


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.



#21 Mick G

  • Members
  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 28 May 2020 - 06:33 PM

 


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.

 

I have no problem with them changing the law. My argument is based on the law on the books.

The law on the books in Indiana says that Kyle Doroszko is guilty of murder.

If they change that law that's fine with me. His lawyer is using every trick he can.

Supreme Courts frown upon that. The cops lied about a rifle, the cops didn't read his rights.

I'm only stating what the law is in Indiana and that is he's guilty of Murder 1.

The fact that everyone else involved is doing 20+ years is a bad sign that he is going to lose.

You don't take a plea for no reason, their attorneys know something and that isn't good for Doroszko.



#22 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,009 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 28 May 2020 - 06:37 PM

...
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.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#23 Mick G

  • Members
  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 28 May 2020 - 06:42 PM

"The average American commits 50 federal felonies per day."

Who do you hang out with? A Colombian cartel?



#24 cope

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Joined: 20-October 14

Posted 28 May 2020 - 06:44 PM

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.



#25 Flingarrows

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 384 posts
  • Joined: 19-June 16

Posted 28 May 2020 - 06:45 PM

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

Edited by Flingarrows, 28 May 2020 - 06:49 PM.


#26 Mick G

  • Members
  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 28 May 2020 - 06:49 PM

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.

You and I are in agreement but there is a reason that everyone is taking a plea.

Keep his money and if it was a backpack full of weed figure six months county and probation.

Indiana is a little behind the times when it comes to weed.



#27 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,009 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 28 May 2020 - 06:51 PM

"The average American commits 50 federal felonies per day."
Who do you hang out with? A Colombian cartel?


I'm just an average person, and so are you, presumably. We are unaware of the felonies we commit, but we can be charged with them, anyway.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#28 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,223 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 28 May 2020 - 10:25 PM

This has the potential to endanger the lives of cops since people will be afraid to help a cop fearing they would be charged with murder.  I wonder how many cops in INDIANA have dies needlessly because of this law.


The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#29 cope

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Joined: 20-October 14

Posted 28 May 2020 - 10:41 PM

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.



#30 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,223 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 28 May 2020 - 11:25 PM

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.


The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users