Bad Experience with Carmel PD

[SirRealism]

2) The undisputed facts support prosecution: LS shot his gun inside City limits and that he was not shooting at the threat that he perceived. As the hypothetical conversation I posted last night points out, the failure to issue a citation is more absurd than issuing one.

I'm no lawyer, and I'm sure it shows, but how is "not shooting at the threat that he perceived" relevant? What applicable self defense law stipulates that shoot-to-kill is the only appropriate defense of self or property?

 

[SirRealism]

He can also be rather activist if there's stuff he doesn't want to hear. He doesn't mind telling attorneys to move on, although he rarely has to in the absence of an objection.

Isn't your "activist" comment similar to the kind of statement LS made about the court's being a rubber stamp?

 

[T.Lex]

...how is "not shooting at the threat that he perceived" relevant? What applicable self defense law stipulates that shoot-to-kill is the only appropriate defense of self or property?

Self defense is not a black-line thing. It is about balancing the various facts. There is no requirement for shoot-to-kill. BUT, there is a reasonableness requirement. Also, the ordinance itself uses a reasonable framework.

"Reasonable" issues are almost never cut and dry. People can have good-faith disagreements about whether some actions are reasonable or not.

Isn't your "activist" comment similar to the kind of statement LS made about the court's being a rubber stamp?

Ah - different activism IMHO.

I mean in terms of keeping a trial on-track. For practicing lawyers, it is important to watch the judge to get clues as to what he expects. Judge Poindexter can be fairly clear when he expects an objection.

 

[henktermaat]

I would probably hire T.Lex to defend me in a self-defense shooting. Even though he was on the wrong side, He did the better job.

 

[T.Lex]

If we carry, can we return fire? Make it a quick-draw contest?

Enforcement of the law will always be a financial net loss for any government entity. It will always be cheaper not to prosecute.

I do agree that people should consider the expenditure of tax dollars when voting, which happens to be part of the political debate in Carmel this year. (It always is, but moreso this year.) In the big picture, though, this case is the least of Mayor Brainard's worries.

(In terms of the 3 lawyers on the appearance, one was my boss, and the other was a backup in case neither he nor I could make a trial. The reality was that I prosecuted in court more than 99.9% of the ordinance violations in Carmel during my time there. Not "heavy lifting" by legal standards, but I had plenty of that in my former job doing death penalty litigation.)

 

[Osobuco]

T. Lex - your last post was 2 minutes ago at roughly 10:50am on Friday morning. Are you on vacation or are the taxpayers also paying for your time posting on this site?
I happen to be on vacation at the moment. If I post on sites like this at work I can be fired.

Just curious. I certainly hope you are not wasting more taxpayer $...

 

[T.Lex]

Thank you for your concern but I am no longer employed by the City. I was finishing up some matters while on-contract.

I am in private practice now, chasing the billable hour. The reality is that it costs me money to post here - I can't bill for it.

 

[lovemachine]

Thank you for your concern but I am no longer employed by the City. I was finishing up some matters while on-contract.

I am in private practice now, chasing the billable hour. The reality is that it costs me money to post here - I can't bill for it.

So needless to say, you're getting addicted to INGO?

The only cure is bacon and more INGO.

 

[T.Lex]

Mmmmm... bacon.

 

[Walter Zoomie]

Damn, T.Rex...

This has been a horrifying week for you.

You got a thorough beat-down in court, and Fargo has been kicking your ass so hard here that your great-great grand children will be cross-eyed...and I am enjoying ALL of it!

Stay down, man. Stay down.

Fat chance any self-respecting, liberty-loving gun owner here would put you on retainer.

You just ain't that good.

 

[Osobuco]

Fat chance any self-respecting, liberty-loving gun owner here would put you on retainer.

You just ain't that good.

 

[ATM]

Mmmmm... bacon.

Something we can all agree on.

 

[INGunGuy]

From what I have read, and correct me if I am wrong but by the COP perjuring himself it sounds like we have a Brady Cop to me...

INGunGuy

 

[inav8r]

(Edit - forgot to address the other point, that bias against Carmel is bias against Carmel. The comment I quoted from LS suggested that CPD and the Court work in concert. It was fair evidence of his bias against the City and its agencies.)

Indeed - but I cited the rule that made it admissible, but you are apparently ignoring it.

IMHO I still fail to see how statements made after the incident, biased or not, have any impact on innocence or guilt. It is my untrained opinion (based on what I've read here - I wasn't there nor have I read the official transcript) that it's sole purpose was to unfairly prejudice or mislead the trier of fact. In which case it shouldn't have been admissible.

This type of evidence is most helpful when trying to discredit a witness, but when used to discredit a defendant we run afoul of having the trier of fact punish the defendant based on the bias alone and not the evidence of their innocence or guilt. It's a slippery slope. To quote the FL Court of Appeals, "... juries cannot punish witnesses themselves for collateral wrongs, but may be led to do so when the collateral wrong is committed by the defendant. In sum, introduction of a defendant's collateral act profoundly increases the risk that the collateral act will grossly overshadow whatever bias it was intended to prove." (Miller v. Florida, 2009, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals - I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how to properly cite cases, so I assume the ones who do can find this opinion).

It's definitely a subject I now want to research more!

 

[T.Lex]

It goes to credibility. If someone is biased for or against someone or something, they may not be as likely to testify truthfully about it.

Indeed, it is a slippery slope. Within the rules of evidence there is a somewhat choreographed mechanism to get in evidence of habit, reputation, and/or character, including specific instances of conduct. It is somewhat complicated.

 

[Hammerhead]

It goes to credibility. If someone is biased for or against someone or something, they may not be as likely to testify truthfully about it.

Indeed, it is a slippery slope. Within the rules of evidence there is a somewhat choreographed mechanism to get in evidence of habit, reputation, and/or character, including specific instances of conduct. It is somewhat complicated.

I worry for the state of justice in our country.

So, somehow, LS' words about the CPD and the court are going to be used to impeach his character because he's going to testify...about the CPD or the court? No, he's going to testify about the incident. You tried to get him to testify about his words of bias against the CPD and the court just so you could use his bias against him.

You tried to use something that wasn't relevant to the situation he was being tried on against him by bringing it up just so you could use it. He didn't have to bring up his comments here, it wasn't pertinent to his case (nor to his innocence or guilt for the matter at hand). If you hadn't lurked around trying to find something against him, it never would have been brought up as it had no relevance to the issue at hand. Poor form. Luckily the judge saw through your tactic and didn't allow it.

-1 to you.

 

[E5RANGER375]

It goes to credibility. If someone is biased for or against someone or something, they may not be as likely to testify truthfully about it.

Indeed, it is a slippery slope. Within the rules of evidence there is a somewhat choreographed mechanism to get in evidence of habit, reputation, and/or character, including specific instances of conduct. It is somewhat complicated.

what if that something or someone has EARNED that bias? I think its very fair to say that the American judicial system and the government has earned its fair share of criticism and bias. dont forget about the lies that they have told and has been proven were lies.

so I think its quit a reasonable expectation for any citizens to think the court is just a rubber stamp, because so many times through history it has been proven that it was!

 

[inav8r]

Heh, it just hit me (damn I'm slow today)! The moral of this story:

"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"

 

[Liberty Sanders]

A while ago someone wrote a fictional conversation concerning my case. This is how that conversation would have taken place between cops who have some real world experience.

Lieut: What was that "shots fired" caper you had before?

Sergeant: Nothing...guy was attacked by a mean dog. He fired a shot into the ground to get it off of him.

Lt: Fired a shot? What happened?

Sgt: The shooter saw his neighbor's dogs loose in his back yard. He knows they're mean, and he was afraid they'd hurt someone or maybe get hurt by a car. He went outside and tried to pen them up. He no more than got outside then they started chasing a woman in the neighborhood and scared the hell out of her. He was just about to get them back in the neighbor's yard when one of them went after him and got him by the leg.

Lt: Was he hurt?

Sgt: Nah, but the dog wouldn't let him go, and he was sure as hell going to get hurt if he didn't do something, so he pulled a .45 sixgun and turned around and fired one in the ground.

Lt: He didn't shoot the dog?

Sgt: No...they belong to the guy next door, and they get along. The owner has kids too, so the shooter didn't want to play the bad guy and kill the dogs. He just wanted them to let him go. He didn't have to kill them so he chose not to. It was his leg and his call. Besides, there were bystanders in that direction so he couldn't take the shot.

Lt: Shot hurt anything?

Sgt: Not unless he capped an earthworm or a mole.

Lt: How about the dog owner? Did you cite him for letting the dogs run?

Sgt: He wasn't letting the dogs run. They busted out of the yard. Anyway, he's moving out of town and he's taking the mutts with him. There's nothing to be gained by citing him.

Lt: So all that happened was that the first guy blew a hole in his yard, and it's his yard, right?

Sgt: That's it.

Lt: Cool...how fresh is that coffee?

 

[T.Lex]

Carmel <> real world
Carmel <> Cincy

Edit:
Too much of a hurry, but I should elaborate. Carmel, for good or bad, is different. Shooting is uncommon. OC is uncommon. Most people in Carmel want it that way. One role of City government is to reflect the will of the people, not just the people we agree with.

Sorry - maybe more later.