Testing Indiana’s Self-Defense Laws

[Rick Mason]

Testing Indiana’s Self-Defense Laws


On May 17, 2020, the South Bend Tribune highlighted a story of interesting perceptive which challenges Indiana self-defense laws.


Oddly enough, it is often bad guys doing bad things whom the courts use to advance freedom for the rest of us.

 

[Tactically Fat]

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

 

[Fargo]

Indiana already has a bunch of caselaw on this, which their legal experts should know.

While it is not based off this exact fact pattern, the Indiana Supreme Court has repeatedly held that commission of a crime preclusion of self-defense is not absolute and only applies if the violence is closely linked to or caused by the crime being committed.

I will see if I can pull up the citations.

 

[Fargo]

Here are a few I pulled up off of Google. “Immediate causal connection” seems to be the standard.

https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/court-of-appeals/2002/10220201-jsk.html

https://secure.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/previous/archive/03130102.rdr.html


https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/court-of-appeals/2019/18a-cr-3005.html

 

[GIJEW]

Im cynical but it does seem like many decisions about whether to prosecute, have more to do with "can I win and collect another scalp to advance my career?" than justice

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Im cynical but it does seem like many decisions about whether to prosecute, have more to do with "can I win and collect another scalp to advance my career?" than justice

If they can win is absolutely a huge consideration. Pursing likely losing cases is a waste of resources. I've had charging decisions based on an impromptu "mock jury" with the secretaries and clerks.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Test? That is nearly every "self defense" case.

Contrary to the expectations of INGO maybe but not every "self defense" case reads like it is out of the NRA's American Rifleman column.

Thug A stabs Thug B.

Gangbanger C shoots Hoodrat D.

Drunken Cledus uses whiskey bottle on Evenmoredrunken Jethro as debating point.

The above are far more common than the self defense porn dished out by gun rags and internet.

 

[Alamo]

Im cynical but it does seem like many decisions about whether to prosecute, have more to do with "can I win and collect another scalp to advance my career?" than justice

Shouldn’t DA’s take only sure things to court? Do we really want them trying weak cases? If the justice system is perfect then the conviction rate would be 100% Because perfect cops with perfect investigations found all the evidence and there really wouldn’t be any mitigating evidence.

Dial in some real life that says not all the evidence can be obtained and that there is a definite bias in the system towards believing the prosecutors and the police, plus a bias in the system towards their power to collect incriminating evidence, which is one reason for requiring unanimous agreement by a jury be 100%. Also dial-in that the fact that prosecution is going to turn some schlub’s life upside down and possibly bankrupt him, Unless he’s already poor and has to rely on the public defender system, In which case he may not be able to bond out while awaiting trial.

and finally the fact that there’s only so many hours in the day and probably for good reason we Want to have only so many prosecutors and police, so if you start clogging up the courts with weak cases that burn up time and expense that should be spent on “real” cases.

When looking at which cases should the DA take to trial, it probably is a good policy that it takes only the most clearly “winnable” ones.

 

[2A_Tom]

Thug weed seller should not be charged, thugs with forcible felon should definitely be.

 

[GIJEW]

Shouldn’t DA’s take only sure things to court? Do we really want them trying weak cases? If the justice system is perfect then the conviction rate would be 100% Because perfect cops with perfect investigations found all the evidence and there really wouldn’t be any mitigating evidence.

Dial in some real life that says not all the evidence can be obtained and that there is a definite bias in the system towards believing the prosecutors and the police, plus a bias in the system towards their power to collect incriminating evidence, which is one reason for requiring unanimous agreement by a jury be 100%. Also dial-in that the fact that prosecution is going to turn some schlub’s life upside down and possibly bankrupt him, Unless he’s already poor and has to rely on the public defender system, In which case he may not be able to bond out while awaiting trial.

and finally the fact that there’s only so many hours in the day and probably for good reason we Want to have only so many prosecutors and police, so if you start clogging up the courts with weak cases that burn up time and expense that should be spent on “real” cases.

When looking at which cases should the DA take to trial, it probably is a good policy that it takes only the most clearly “winnable” ones.

My point was that I believe some prosecutors are willing to manufacture cases--if they think they can win--with no regard to exculpating evidence or pursuing justice. Prosecutorial misconduct aside, I wonder how often charges are brought because "my staff can beat your public defender" rather than the actual merits of a case? Yes, I said that was my cynicism speaking. Generally, I think you're right

 

[Kirk Freeman]

My point was that I believe some prosecutors are willing to manufacture cases--if they think they can win--with no regard to exculpating evidence or pursuing justice. Prosecutorial misconduct aside, I wonder how often charges are brought because "my staff can beat your public defender" rather than the actual merits of a case? Yes, I said that was my cynicism speaking. Generally, I think you're right

Now we are on an entirely different topic. I would say in 98% of the cases it is about the evidence, but have been involved in cases, some involving national attention, where factors other than evidence were at issue--politics, race, etc.

 

[HoughMade]

That is an interesting perceptive.

 

[T.Lex]

Indiana decision today on this very point.

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06262001mm.pdf

Carrying without a permit might be a crime, but shooting someone in self defense while carrying without a permit doesn't negate the self defense.

Or something like that.