Suffice it to say, whoever wrote it is a blithering moron who shouldn't be allowed anyhwere near a word processor.
And oh yea, I'm going to take the time to call 911 while someone is coming at me with an ax handle. Like that's gonna happen.
I tell you Mulder; some days I feel like I'm almost completely surrounded by morons.
L
Here's some recourse for you: Mama don't let your babies grow up to be burglars.
Indeed, why shoot the poor guy just because he was wielding and axe handle and out of control?
But really, people that expect us to rely on the response time of the police to protect us aren't grounded in reality.
This is definitely one of those slippery slope situations. If you start chipping away at self-defense rights, then it won't be long before we are like Britain where a property owner is expected to roll over and play dead for any intruder upon their property, and if they don't, and if they harm the criminal in the process of defiance, then the victim becomes the criminal.
I think the law should be changed to impose a fine on anyone who shoots a criminal and he doesn't die.
What can I say?
Call 911, send for glazed donuts, or have I got that backwards?
Civilians should have to follow rules similar to what police...
We are citizens with the right to self defense, not civilians. If someone comes at a cop wielding an axe, that individual will be shot.
“But I don’t think we need to strap on guns like in the wild West and shoot without calling police.
You don't have time to call the police and wait 30 minutes for them to arrive WHEN SOMEONE IS COMING AT YOU WITH AN AXE!
That’s not what our society is wanting to become.”
Bull crap. States are acknowledging our right to self defense more and more.
“We weren’t happy with (Floyd) being a vigilante and taking the law into his own hands without calling 911,” Doty said.
wrong Moron! Vigilantes intentionally seek out wrong doers to punish them.
“It’s very difficult to know how you can prevent something like this from happening...
It won't happen again, because the axe wielding criminal is pushing up daisies!
They want state law to mandate that people call 911 or alert police before shooting in self-defense, he said.
Unreal!
The Johnson County Sheriff’s Office agrees with that idea and encourages people who witness a crime or fear for their safety to call 911.
Yeah right. Sheriff, do you have a Star Trek transporter in your pocket or something. How are you going to protect someone from AN AXE WIELDING CRMINAL WHO IS EIGHT FEET AWAY?
Police are allowed to use deadly force when someone poses a threat of serious physical harm or threatens the officer with a weapon or to prevent a felon from escaping, Cox said.
What do you else do you call it when someone is coming at you with an axe?
In training, officers are encouraged to shout, “Please stop,” before firing, Cox said. But he said police are not required to give the warning and sometimes do not have time.
LOL!!! Now I get it, you must say the magic word before an axe wielding criminal will stop. Officer Cox do you use the old "Simon Says" trick to end hostage situations or is it Pretty Please?
He said that Frizzell has not made any promises to the family and that legislators likely will not discuss the issue until next year.
Good for them, for if a Dem makes a promise then you are certain he is lying.
It just depends on how interested (lawmakers) are and what kind of public backing there is.”
Yeah, the public is really interested in removing any protection they have from axe wielding criminals!
This is nothing but the unmitigated gall of a single family who seem to be completely unembarrassed about its family member that was about to use an axe handle on the neighbors, but are angry at the neighbors for defending themselves!
I imagine they will next try to sue the manufacturer of the firearm in question.
Seems like a good plan to me: You're allowed to kill an attacker as long as you (say you) said "please stop".
"Doty said the family plans to dub any potential legislation as Mills Bill in honor of his nephew. They want state law to mandate that people call 911 or alert police before shooting in self-defense, he said."
Yes, let's dub it the "Mills Family Burglar and Mugger On-The-Job Protection Act". Must restrain those potential victims from resisting their predators too strongly, or how will these said predators be able to feed their families, or drug habits, or whatever appetites rule over them?
I don't live in Indiana, but have a few friends who do. I hope they will make this suggestion to their state Rep or Senator, and then if it sticks, let's see how many in the legislatures will vote for it. Sometimes, labeling is everything; I think this is one of those times.
Neanderthal alert!
(I take that back. Neanderthals probably understood the concept of defensive use of weapons).
There may not be time to call 911!!!!!!! If there is, I'm damn well going to before I have to shoot. If you're in my home though, I'm forced to call 911 AFTERWARD.
So then I CAN shoot unarmed citizens RUNNING AWAY as well as the guy reaching for his 'wallet' ???
except for the obvious here, the whole article positively reeks...
Ping.
IC 35-41-3-1
Legal authority
Sec. 1. A person is justified in engaging in conduct otherwise prohibited if he has legal authority to do so.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.7.
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in using deadly force only if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling or curtilage.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling or curtilage, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of
the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.9; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.2; P.L.245-1993, SEC.1.
Sec. 11. (a) As used in this section, "defendant" refers to an individual charged with any crime involving the use of force against a person.
(b) This section applies under the following circumstances when the defendant in a prosecution raises the issue that the defendant was at the time of the alleged crime suffering from the effects of battery as a result of the past course of conduct of the individual who is the victim of the alleged crime:
(1) The defendant raises the issue that the defendant was not responsible as a result of mental disease or defect under section 6 of this chapter, rendering the defendant unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the crime.
(2) The defendant claims to have used justifiable reasonable force under section 2 of this chapter. The defendant has the burden of going forward to produce evidence from which a trier of fact could find support for the reasonableness of the defendant's belief in the imminence of the use of unlawful force or, when deadly force is employed, the imminence of serious bodily injury to the defendant or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony.
(c) If a defendant proposes to claim the use of justifiable reasonable force under subsection (b)(2), the defendant must file a written motion of that intent with the trial court not later than:
(1) twenty (20) days if the defendant is charged with a felony; or
(2) ten (10) days if the defendant is charged only with one (1) or more misdemeanors;
before the omnibus date. However, in the interest of justice and upon a showing of good cause, the court may permit the filing to be made at any time before the commencement of the trial.
(d) The introduction of any expert testimony under this section shall be in accordance with the Indiana Rules of Evidence.
As added by P.L.210-1997, SEC.5.