Posted on 03/28/2012 2:49:42 PM PDT by marktwain
So, I guess your surviving relatives could sue under this law
after you resisted unlawful police action
and got ventilated for your trouble?
Making traffic which uses the toll road pay for it is one of the things we like about Daniels.
Yes, there was.
See the Indiana Supreme Court Barnes decision from September 20, 2011, which refers to section 35-41-3-2(b) of Indiana Code. This is the castle doctrine statute of Indiana, in force at the time of the rehearing, and at the time the Barnes decision was originally handed down by the Indiana Supreme Court.
See too, FR thread from May 2011, "Indiana Sheriff wants random house searches."
There is additional discussion at 40 Out of 50 Indiana State Senators Sign Amicus Brief Supporting Right to Use Force to Resist Unlawful Police Entry - Volokh Conspiracy - June 8, 2011.
The reason I recall this is that it was very strange for a state Supreme Court to -NOT- mention an applicable statute, in a decision that effectively struck the statute. The defendant in the case wanted a castle doctrine affirmative defense, and the decision said he could not have one, no matter what. But the decision did not mention, at all, the rights defendant had under an existing castle doctrine statute.
Actually there was already one in place. Its called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Which gives us the 2nd Amendment and the 4th Amendment.
“Making traffic which uses the toll road pay for it is one of the things we like about Daniels. “
If it were that he wouldn’t have sold out the road for a HUGE pile of cash. The road more than paid for itself ALREADY.
Instead, he wants (and now has) that cash to pay for his WELFARE programs in Indy and the other big cities, so he doesn’t have to raise taxes or tell black leaders to shove it.
Yea, that’s real leadership. LOL.
The defendant did not raise a statutory defense because the statute was clearly inapposite to the facts of this case. Take a look at IC 35-41-3-2 (e). The Defendant instead asserted his common law right which the Court acknowledged but then overruled.
Uninformed rants are the birthright of every Freeper, but you might want to know that Democrats opposed the sale (actually lease) of the toll road because the proceeds were going to be used to pay for state infrstructure improvement and not for welfare projects.
I did, back then. The only reason the Indiana Supreme Court reheard the case, was to address the fact that it hadn't mentioned the effect of its ruling on the statutory provision.
-- The defendant did not raise a statutory defense because the statute was clearly inapposite to the facts of this case. --
That's a different discussion from your assertion that there was NO statutory provision when the Barnes decision was first handed down.
By striking the common law right, but not discussion the statutory right, the original Barnes decision left a question about the statutory right.
“Uninformed rants are the birthright of every Freeper, but you might want to know that Democrats opposed the sale (actually lease) of the toll road because the proceeds were going to be used to pay for state infrstructure improvement and not for welfare projects.”
How about you, Einstein, answer why should an independent trucker driving along the toll road (in the very north of the state), should not only pay for his travel (through the existing toll), but should also have to keep his kids out of college so that Daniels can extent I-69 in the south of the state?
Thanks, I didn’t think you had an answer.
The out of state trucker didn’t build and doesn’t own the highway, the State of Indiana built the road without federal money before the formation of the Interstate system. If the Trucker wants to use one of the free roads crossing the state, great; he doesn’t have a right to demand that the resources of the State of Indiana be applied for his benefit.
Einstein, I’m talking about the need for the trucker to pay for HIS TRAVEL through the state. I’m talking about whether he should pay to build highways elsewhere...beyond what he is ALREADY PAYING for in the state gas tax.
As yourself this question: How would Governor Beauty-Queen react if Ohio started taxes electrical power delivered to Indiana 5 cents per kWh...just because they could.
That may be your version of utopia, but I’d rather live in a country without HIGHWAY ROBBERY (or power line robbery).
Unlike the self defense statute, the common law right to repel an illegal arrest doesn't prohibit the individual from initiating the violence. That is the right asserted by Barnes, that is the right the Supreme Court decided in the May 12, 2011, case that it would no longer recognize and that is the right the State Legislature has restored.
Gave away? Gave away for $3.85 billion in cash. But who's counting? Oh, right, the people of Indiana are. After all, they leased a money losing asset to some chumps from overseas who are, incidentally, losing their shirts on the deal.
Have you forgotten your meds? The money from the toll road lease funded Major Moves.
The Indiana Toll Road never gets more than 10 miles from the Michigan state line. On your next trip east, travel between Illinois and Ohio on one of Michigan's nice free highways. Providing all sorts of stuff for free is what has made Michigan the economic powerhouse it is today.
“Have you forgotten your meds? The money from the toll road lease funded Major Moves. “
It went to the GENERAL FUND (and you know it). Any governor can move money around in that fund ANY WAY he chooses.
We had the same problem here in Texas, with our governor. He didn’t want to raise the gas tax, so he started selling off our highways and now people pay 20+ cents per mile to drive on them (equivalent to $8.00 gasoline). This is nothing new to us Texans, believe me.
You’re welcome to take that crappy attitude right to the Republican Convention or wherever, but some of us have a problem with HIGHWAY ROBBERY - sorry if that bugs you.
That's not responsive to or supportive of your contention that there was no statute in existence when the ruling was handed down.
The ruling went beyond the facts of the Barnes encounter, and did more than remove the common law right. By its plain language, the ruling undid any and all right, e.g., in a future case where the statute would apply. The ruling didn't say there is no common law right, it said there is NO right, and the affirmative defense would no longer be available.
But in making that ruling, removing ALL (not removing the common law right, removing ALL right to resist unlawful entry), the court never mentioned that there was a statutory right to resist unlawful entry.
I don't disagree that Barnes didn't assert a statutory right - that's a diversion from my point. My point is simply that there was a statutory right in existence at the time the Indiana Supreme Court haded down its Barnes decision. You said there was not.
It actually funded Major Moves, just like I said. You might be surprised to find out that the lease of the ITR was a pretty big deal in Indiana. The state laid out exactly where the money was going to go.
Maybe if you’re in Texas, you might want to stick to commenting on Texas politics. Why don’t you leave Indiana politics to the Hoosiers?
By the way, care to guess how much the ITR lost in 2010, the last year data is available?
Give you a hint: Thanks a negative 209 million, suckers!
It is mind boggling that these idiots paid us nearly $4 billion, in cash, to lose $209 million annually. The people of the state of Indiana are laughing all the way to the bank.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.