Senate Bill 0001

[tpntch]

What are your thoughts on this? Someone told me this got repealed. I am not sure. When is lawful decided? Things can get out of hand really quick. If it goes bad, the LEO can say anything after the fact.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SB/SB0001.1.html

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What are your thoughts on this?

A very limited application law, but needed thanks to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Someone told me this got repealed.

Who is someone and where were you when they told you this?

Were they trying to sell you a gun when they told you this?

When is lawful decided?

After closing argument but before the jury returns with the verdict.

Barnes wanted a jury instruction, thus we have SB1.

If it goes bad, the LEO can say anything after the fact.

Yes, even if it does not go bad, this is why we should all be in favor of expanding IRE 617 to be as broad as possible.

 

[CathyInBlue]

What's IRE 617?

This law already went through and made it onto the books March 20, 2012. What's at controversy now?

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.html

http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/...ssion=1&request=getBill&doctype=SB&docno=0001

http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/...2012&request=getActions&doctype=SB&docno=0001

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What's IRE 617?

Indiana Rule of Evidence 617--Kirk's Hobby Horse. Something I've been asking for for a very long time now. I want it expanded, FSTs, dog sniffs, heck, every police/citizen encounter (like in Aliens).

Indiana Rules of Evidence

This law already went through and made it onto the books March 20, 2012. What's at controversy now?

Nothing. But it makes great whisper talk at the gun counter. I first heard this rumor at a gun shop in Lafayette last year, just days after it was enacted.

 

[CathyInBlue]

What rumor? That SB1-2012 had passed into law as PL161-2012?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The rumor that is was repealed.

Every time a bill that relates to the gun culture, even in a limited way to guns as does SB1, the teeth talkers always talk about how "that there law was re-pilled". Always.

Why do you think we have 197,643 threads on the repeal of the lifetime carry? Some people just want to crap on everyone else (their life is miserable, they feel bad that day, they hate that they are not young anymore, inter alia) and do not care if what they say is correct or not.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Amazing how many laws get repealed while the GA is out of session.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The General Assembly does go out of session, but people will always be miserable and want to share with others.

 

[TheReaper]

What are your thoughts on this? Someone told me this got repealed. I am not sure. When is lawful decided? Things can get out of hand really quick. If it goes bad, the LEO can say anything after the fact.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SB/SB0001.1.html

That is the problem with this entire bill, which is terribly written. You have to rely on someone who is possibly a career criminal who is going to use this to his advantage to try and have a legel defense for killing a law enforcement officer who is LEGALLY present. Then, you have people who are intoxicated or under the influence of narcotics making a legal decision as to whether a law enforcement officer is acting in accordance to the law.
Kirk Freeman seems to think that it'll never happen, but it only took less than a year and Zachary Buza attempted to kill a trooper here in Indiana and a recorded conversation betwen Zachary and his mother was submitted at trial where Zachary's mother was trying to use SB1 as a reason for him shooting at the officers when they were legally there and when he is nothing but a common criminal. The problem is, the law was written by an attorney and also spearheaded by a defense attorney, all who care less about what happens to officers who are acting WITHIN the scope of their authority. The Barnes decision had NO bearing on the rights of Hoosiers and it's a solution to a problem that never existed.

So yes, it should be repealed and hopefully it will be.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

a recorded conversation betwen Zachary and his mother was submitted at trial where Zachary's mother was trying to use SB1 as a reason for him shooting at the officers when they were legally there and when he is nothing but a common criminal.

How long has Zachary's mother being practicing law?

So, someone with no standing to the case, even though she is likely an Order of the Coif member, is overheard on a recorded jail call telling her son, facing Attempted Murder, to run the old picket fence, er, the old SB1 defense?

And this is evidence of what exactly? A delusional mother? So, she is telling Buza about it, which means that Buza had no idea it existed if he was being told about it.

So, when was Buza's trial? Was the instruction given that you can shoot at the State Police? Do you really want us to believe that a judge gave such an instruction? Which court? Parke county? I want to read all about it.

If people claim that if they drive home before the police catch them for OWI, OWS or HTV that they are "safe at home", do we repeal those statutes as well?

Are we governed by the rule of law or the rule of man? Do we base laws on the teeth talk of rumor and misunderstanding? If so, perhaps we should just copy Texas law as it is the most cited.

 

[TheReaper]

How long has Zachary's mother being practicing law?

So, someone with no standing to the case, even though she is likely an Order of the Coif member, is overheard on a recorded jail call telling her son, facing Attempted Murder, to run the old picket fence, er, the old SB1 defense?

And this is evidence of what exactly? A delusional mother? So, she is telling Buza about it, which means that Buza had no idea it existed if he was being told about it.

So, when was Buza's trial? Was the instruction given that you can shoot at the State Police? Which judge gave the instruction? Which court? Vigo county? I want to read all about it.

If people claim that if they drive home before the police catch them for OWI, OWS or HTV that they are "safe at home", do we repeal those statutes as well?

It's an example of how, criminals ARE going to try and use SB1 as a legal defense either at the time of the incident OR AFTER, as in this case, which the legislators and pushers of this bill (caugh..caugh, the NRA) said would never happen. Oh, and remember, they passed this bill because it protects the police.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It's an example of how, criminals ARE going to try and use SB1 as a legal defense either at the time of the incident OR AFTER, as in this case, which the legislators and pushers of this bill (caugh..caugh, the NRA) said would never happen.

I am beside myself. You are telling INGO that a judge gave an instruction that it was okey-dokey to shoot at the police? Do I have this correct?

I hope you are not saying this and are simply referencing the delusional talk of the defendant's mother which has absolutely no bearing on the law or its application.

 

[TheReaper]

I am beside myself. You are telling INGO that a judge gave an instruction that it was okey-dokey to shoot at the police? Do I have this correct?

I hope you are not saying this and are simply referencing the delusional talk of the defendant's mother which has absolutely no bearing on the law or its application.

Go back and show me where I said anything about a judge giving any instruction?

 

[TheReaper]

I am beside myself. You are telling INGO that a judge gave an instruction that it was okey-dokey to shoot at the police? Do I have this correct?

I hope you are not saying this and are simply referencing the delusional talk of the defendant's mother which has absolutely no bearing on the law or its application.

That's easy to say sitting behind a desk, but it does have bearing on on the application of this law in the field, which is the public perception of this law. The public perception (for some) is that they can resist in situations where they actually can't, which can be dangerous not only to law enforcement but those in contact with law enforcement at that time. Again, I don't expect a defense attorney to understand that, someone that could care less about what happens to officers.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The public perception (for some) is that they can resist in situations where they actually can't

Misunderstandings of the law do not impact the law.

Look at all the misunderstandings of Indiana's carry law just on INGO. It does impact the application of the law in the least. It is almost like mistake of the law is no defense or something.

I take your silence on my questions to mean that the judge did not instruct the jury that it was okey-dokey to shoot at the police or that you have no evidence that the judge did so. And are simply citing the out of court statements of a defendant's mother to make a political point, but you can cite the delusional statements of many relatives of defendants regarding cases and that does not add any legal bearing to a prosecution--"my baby didn't know what was in his pants" "my baby didn't know that crack was illegal" "my baby didn't know that Murder was illegal"

If you are concerned about out of court teeth talk regarding the right to resist, then I do not know what to tell you other than to channel your concerns into a public education effort.

Go back and show me where I said anything about a judge giving any instruction?

There was no such instruction in Buza's case and you now admit it. I am happy.

The only way this statute is activated as the OP asks is if the judge gives the instruction (the issue in Barnes). The judge gave no such instruction in Buza's trial and SB1 was never at issue in Buza's trial.

 

[TheReaper]

Misunderstandings of the law do not impact the law.

Look at all the misunderstandings of Indiana's carry law just on INGO. It does impact the application of the law in the least. It is almost like mistake of the law is no defense or something.

I take your silence on my questions to mean that the judge did not instruct the jury that it was okey-dokey to shoot at the police or that you have no evidence that the judge did so. And are simply citing the out of court statements of a defendant's mother to make a political point, but you can cite the delusional statements of many relatives of defendants regarding cases and that does not add any legal bearing to a prosecution--"my baby didn't know what was in his pants" "my baby didn't know that crack was illegal" "my baby didn't know that Murder was illegal"

If you are concerned about out of court teeth talk regarding the right to resist, then I do not know what to tell you other than to channel your concerns into a public education effort.

There was no such instruction in Buza's case.

The only thing that you're worried about is what happens AFTER the incident, in the courtroom. What you're ignoring is the impact that this law has in the field at the time the incident occurs. This is the problem, this law allows people who THINK they know the law to handle things in the manner that they wish, if they REASONABLY believe they are correct. So that makes sense, instead of having people file a suit against the police in court AFTER an incident in which the police may have been wrong, lets have them go ahead and have them fight it out with the police and then whoever lives, they'll determine in court if they were right or wrong....that's a great law!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The only thing that you're worried about is what happens AFTER the incident, in the courtroom

Correct, that is the rule of law.

this law allows people who THINK they know the law to handle things in the manner that they wish, if they REASONABLY believe they are correct.

From an objective standard, not subjective, JUST LIKE self-defense against everyone else in the world.

I do not understand the objection. Self-defense or defense of others has the same standard.

One must be correct about the law, just as in self-defense. One cannot say "I done thought that stealing my lunch was good reason to gun him down, your honor."

So that makes sense, instead of having people file a suit against the police in court AFTER an incident in which the police may have been wrong, lets have them go ahead and have them fight it out with the police and then whoever lives, they'll determine in court if they were right or wrong....that's a great law!

yes, that is the essence of self-defense. A civil court, no matter how full of him or herself the judge is, cannot restore life to my body or regrow an eye or limb. Thus, we have the option of self-help, under certain circumstances.

SB1 does not allow anyone to "fight it out with the police". You have been watching too much Russian television, tovarish.

 

[TheReaper]

Correct, that is the rule of law.



From an objective standard, not subjective, JUST LIKE self-defense against everyone else in the world.

I do not understand the objection. Self-defense or defense of others has the same standard.

One must be correct about the law, just as in self-defense. One cannot say "I done thought that stealing my lunch was good reason to gun him down, your honor."



yes, that is the essence of self-defense. A civil court, no matter how full of him or herself the judge is, cannot restore life to my body or regrow an eye or limb. Thus, we have the option of self-help, under certain circumstances.

SB1 does not allow anyone to "fight it out with the police". You have been watching too much Russian television, tovarish.

It allows you to resist, does resisting constitute "fighting" in some situations? Yes, it does.

And worst of all, it allows you to resist when you "reasonably" believe that the police are acting illegally. Yeah, LEO's deal with a lot of people that can determine what's "reasonable."

 

[TaunTaun]

I hear that they are getting rid of LTCH

 

[cordex]

It allows you to resist, does resisting constitute "fighting" in some situations? Yes, it does.

And worst of all, it allows you to resist when you "reasonably" believe that the police are acting illegally. Yeah, LEO's deal with a lot of people that can determine what's "reasonable."

Reaper,
You missed Kirk's point.

Lots of people don't fully understand what Indiana's laws relating to self defense actually mean. That lack of understanding can/will/has probably result in murders committed by people who think that IC 35-41-3 justifies their killing whomever they decide to drop the hammer on.

The lack of understanding of that law - and the criminal acts that result from that lack of understanding - do not mean that we should prohibit all self defense just to make sure things are clear, do they?

I hear that they are getting rid of LTCH

All I know is that there's some lawyer on INGO who is always talking about it. Must be true.