Indiana legislators stand their ground

Kokomo Perspective ^ | August 8, 2013 | Tim Turner

[digger48]

Across the country, laws that pertain to the use of deadly force have come under scrutiny in the wake of the George Zimmerman trial, but not all the laws are the same. That is why Indiana’s law likely won’t be changing any time soon.

Indiana does have legislation in the Indiana Code that would be considered “Stand Your Ground.” It means that a person in Indiana does not have a “duty to retreat” and is allowed to use deadly force in certain scenarios.

Indiana’s legislation is different than Florida’s in a few key areas, but it also shares a lot of similarities with the controversial Florida legislation.

Similarities between Indiana’s law and Florida’s law are as follows:

A person is justified in using deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in the follow scenarios:

Prevent serious bodily injury to them or another,

Commission of a forcible felony against them or another

Prevent unlawful entry or attack on persons dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle

A person who uses force as permitted is immune from prosecution.

A person cannot use deadly force if the person is committing or is escaping the commission of a crime, unless it is one of the scenarios described above.

A person cannot use deadly force if you are the aggressor, unless you withdraw and communicate that.

The differences between the two states highlight some of the more controversial aspects of Florida’s law:

In Florida police officers cannot arrest a person for using deadly force unless they believe the force was unlawful

In Florida if you are the aggressor, but still feel that your life is in danger and you can’t escape, you are allowed to use deadly force.

In Florida the court shall award you money if anyone pursues you in civil court for use of lawful deadly force.

So should Indiana’s law be changed? Local legislators don’t think so, and they don’t expect it to change any time soon.

“My initial gut feeling is the general assembly won’t take any action on that next session,” said State Representative Mike Karickhoff (R-30). “I am not in leadership, but I can tell you I am not going to author any legislation in respect to stand your ground law. “

Karickhoff did not feel like Indiana’s law was as far-reaching as Florida.

“It seems like pretty standard self-defense stuff,” said Karickhoff. “Stand Your Ground would give the person a lot more latitude to use deadly force than the Indiana law.”

Karickhoff’s Howard County colleague, Heath VanNatter (R-38), said he would have to review the legislation before he could comment in great detail.

“I am a supporter of the second amendment and people legally owning guns,” said VanNatter. “I would tend to say that I support it, but without seeing it exactly…”

He said he wouldn’t make a blanket statement one way or the other without seeing any proposed changes to the legislation.

VanNatter did add that he was uncertain why the law in Florida is being tied to the Zimmerman trial.

“I watched the prosecutor after the verdict,” said VanNatter. “The prosecutor said the Trayvon Martin case had nothing to do with ‘Stand Your Ground.’ So they are dragging a law in because of one particular case that didn’t have anything to do with that law. I don’t even know why the issue has gotten so heated given that it wasn’t a part of the case.”

[digger48]

I kinda like the part in Florida Law about the civil liability.

[hoosiermama]

Bttt

[digger48]

FWIW...this newspaper is free in the area, and so is its E-Edition, if anyone cares to snoop around Kokomo news

[hoosiermama]

Is that going to keep the Martins from filing suit against Z?

[Sacajaweau]

The very weird part of the whole thing is that if Tray had killed George, he would have used the stand your ground law....and would not have been convicted.

If I remember correctly, his bro is an attorney and/or working for an attorney.

I bet if you looked around a bit...you'd find something on Tray that says....ah ha...he did know exactly how the stand your ground worked.....and that's why he wasn't worried about bashing George to death.

[digger48]

O’Mara said they would seek immunity if Z was sued.

I assume SYG is what he meant by that.

[tacticalogic]

The very weird part of the whole thing is that if Tray had killed George, he would have used the stand your ground law....and would not have been convicted.

Maybe. If they found GZ beaten to death, with his gun still in the holster I'd be dubious about claims he was the aggressor.

[Sacajaweau]

That’s where Jentell (sp) comes in...a corroborating witness...imagine that...

[Sacajaweau]

http://goodblacknews.org/2013/07/20/trayvon-martins-brother-jahvaris-fulton-interning-for-florida-congresswoman/

[Sacajaweau]

I thought the older brother was "clean and articulate"....'cept he was in a special program for punks and/or whatever.

See my other post.

[hoosiermama]

Would make sense.
Wish they would get on with the charges against the prostitution/ er prosecution !

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks digger48.

"I watched the prosecutor after the verdict," said [Heath VanNatter (R-38)]. "The prosecutor said the Trayvon Martin case had nothing to do with ‘Stand Your Ground.’ So they are dragging a law in because of one particular case that didn’t have anything to do with that law. I don't even know why the issue has gotten so heated given that it wasn’t a part of the case."

[digger48]

I seem to remember that Sabrina wasn’t the only onw with connections.

Thanks for the link

[Standing Wolf]

The prosecutor said the Trayvon Martin case had nothing to do with ‘Stand Your Ground.’ So they are dragging a law in because of one particular case that didn’t have anything to do with that law. I don’t even know why the issue has gotten so heated given that it wasn’t a part of the case.

It's a community organizing thing, so small wonder it doesn't make sense to normal people.

[sarasmom]

We Floridians also like it.

Killing someone via legal lethal self defense, is not an accident where “blame” can be apportioned to get to the deepest pockets.

It is either legal lethal self defense, or it isn't.
If it is, end of story, as far as prosecutions and civil lawsuits are concerned.
If it is not clearly self defense, there may be a prosecution, but if there is, and the killer is found not guilty of murder or manslaughter, also-end of story.

In the Zimmerman case, there was nothing to indicate this was not a clear case of lethal self defense.
He should never have been prosecuted.
I can't say I am certain lawsuits against the State of Florida by Zimmerman's lawyers are about to begin, but they should. (Zimmerman is a registered Democrat, and has also been put through a very public hell for over a year.The media and political activists have essentially destroyed his life, and his future potential for a normal life is zero. Let him decide what he wants to do, I'll not judge him either way.)

In this case the law is just, but the legal system ignored our laws, and worked against it, in favor of political and media causes. And the manufactured threat of a mob was allowed to rule for a time.

No justice, no peace, should indeed be a call to arms.
But not for the teenager who made a very bad choice to inflict violence on another, and lost his life.

For but by the grace of God, there go you and I, walking mile after mile in Zimmerman's shoes.

[Wuli]

I was speaking with black friend (and yes he’s very Liberal) who is retiring this year. In talking about it he mentioned that he had been thinking about moving to Florida for retirement but now he is not because he “has no rights there”.

There is nothing but the Zimmerman case from which he could have derived that position. I just let it go past me, and did not ask what he meant by it.

Sometimes the media indoctrination is so deep you can’t rescue someone from it no matter what you say.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

George was offered up as a sacrifice to the mob, first by the Sanford business community then by the state. They didn't want customers and tourists frightened or windows broken.

The case is a great example of what we can do with small donations. Without support George would be rotting in prison.

FREE REPUBLIC IS IMPORTANT TOO, SUPPORT IT!

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Mark O’Mara has Angela Corey in his sights, when he is ready to move you’ll want plenty of popcorn.

[hoosiermama]

I know I’m being impatient. But the Martin gang is spreading lies like hot butter. Pretty difficult to unspread unless you catch it before it melts and soaks in.

OTOH he’s giving them plenty of rope to hang themselves Just want them to be accountable !

[hoosiermama]

Isn’t Tracy s brother connected to the NAACP

[SWAMPSNIPER]

They will move on to something else, just waiting for Al and Jesse to aim them.

[hoosiermama]

Did you see my research from last week re JJ and the black Muslim gang that 0 organized and represented in the state legislature?

If not start on 749 to 760. Area beginning at 730 is also relevant !
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2151323/posts?page=749

[Ray76]

Florida law is remarkably similar to Illinois law, sponsored by Obama. Some parts are practically verbatim, I colored those green. Stand Your Ground is colored blue.

Remember, SYG was not a factor in the Zimmerman case, self defense was. Obama inserted himself into the case despite the fact that the self defense law he sponsored in Illinois is practically identical to Florida! The hypocrisy is incredible.

FLORIDA

Fla. Stat. § 782.04(2) Murder.— The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Fla. Stat. § 782.03 Excusable homicide.—Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

Fla. Stat. § 782.07(1) Manslaughter.- The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Fla. Stat. § 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
  (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
  (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013

Fla. Stat. § 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
  (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
  (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
  (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
  (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
  (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
  (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
  (a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
  (b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
  (c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Index&Title_Request=XLVI#TitleXLVI

ILLINOIS

Illinois 2004 - Senate Bill 2386 / Public Act 93-0832 [1]

Sponsored by Barack Obama [2]

Public Act 093-0832
 

SB2386 Enrolled

LRB093 20660 RLC 46519 b

    AN ACT concerning criminal law.
 

    Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:
 

    Section 5. The Criminal Code of 1961 is amended by changing Sections 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3 as follows:
 

    (720 ILCS 5/7-1)  (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)

    Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.

    (a)A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

    (b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
 

    (720 ILCS 5/7-2)  (from Ch. 38, par. 7-2)

    Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.

    (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

        (1)(a) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

        (2)(b) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

    (b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: Laws 1967, p. 696.)
 

    (720 ILCS 5/7-3)  (from Ch. 38, par. 7-3)

    Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.

    (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    (b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
 

    Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.

Effective Date: 7/28/2004

[1] http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=093-0832&GA=93

[2] http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=2386&GAID=3&SessionID=3&LegID=8536