To be honest it looks like this guy only wants to review it.
Ok, let's review.
1. In 1877 the Indiana Supreme Court abolished the duty to retreat in case entitled Runyan v. State of Indiana.
"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."
2. Duty to retreat safely is a minority position. Six states have such a duty now.
3. In 2005 a state with a large number of electoral votes, Florida, abolished its duty to retreat.
4. In an outbreak of MeTooism the Indiana General Assembly in 2005 believed that "dammit, boy, just don't stand there, write down that we don't have no duty to retreat no how." Understand that at the time, 2005 not a single court in Indiana's 92 counties was instructing juries that a person had a duty to retreat. It was crystal clear that there was no duty to retreat.
5. Indiana codified the lack of duty to retreat in 2005.
6. If the General Assembly repeals the 2005 statute, we still have no duty to retreat.
7. If the General Assembly reimposes a duty to retreat, however unlikely, it still does not change the reasonable man/person standard for self-defense and would not apply to a fact pattern such as Florida v. Zimmerman.
However the definition I found doesn't seem to fit the finding of the court.jus·ti·ci·a·ble (j-stsh-bl) adj. 1. Appropriate for or subject to court trial: a justiciable charge.
2. That can be settled by law or a court of law: justiciable disputes.
The idiot politician who signed-on to weakening Indiana's SD laws, in any way, would get about 17 votes in the next election and 12 of those would be family members. Not gonna happen.I seriously doubt indiana is going to implement a CA style law. We seem to be a state that allows self defense, I doubt they're going to change it any time soon.
However the definition I found doesn't seem to fit the finding of the court.
I just reviewed the self defense laws......now I've got to find a client to bill .7 to.....heck, 1.7
To be honest it looks like this guy only wants to review it. The article did point out the Zimmerman case wasn't about stand your ground which brings into question, why are they bringing this up now? Why can't they just leave this guy alone also?
Fine, you tell a 19th century Supreme Court justice that he cannot write. He will beat you with his cane and then say "And good day to you, sir. I say good day!"
justiciable=appropriate, or what have you learned is the law's favorite word . . . right, reasonable.
Nice post as usual sirOk, let's review.
1. In 1877 the Indiana Supreme Court abolished the duty to retreat in case entitled Runyan v. State of Indiana.
"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."
2. Duty to retreat safely is a minority position. Six states have such a duty now.
3. In 2005 a state with a large number of electoral votes, Florida, abolished its duty to retreat.
4. In an outbreak of MeTooism the Indiana General Assembly in 2005 believed that "dammit, boy, just don't stand there, write down that we don't have no duty to retreat no how." Understand that at the time, 2005 not a single court in Indiana's 92 counties was instructing juries that a person had a duty to retreat. It was crystal clear that there was no duty to retreat.
5. Indiana codified the lack of duty to retreat in 2005.
6. If the General Assembly repeals the 2005 statute, we still have no duty to retreat.
7. If the General Assembly reimposes a duty to retreat, however unlikely, it still does not change the reasonable man/person standard for self-defense and would not apply to a fact pattern such as Florida v. Zimmerman.
Is there anything in IC that says you must apply reasonable force? And does it differ from let's say you're walking on the street, or on your property, or in your home/dwelling?
Is there anything in IC that says you must apply reasonable force?