Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Even though there's more to it than the Beeb reported, the fact still remains that a man was attacked in his home and went to jail for killing one of his attackers in the hallway of his own home. Not on the street or in a bar, but in his fucking home.Durandal wrote:Nathan F and Glocksman may wish to get their knees examined. They jerked pretty hard at absolutely nothing, after all.
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:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1.
Chop-Chop.1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant. (3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force. (4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
Read more closely:Glocksman wrote:Of course, that goes right along with the intent of the Indiana self defense laws.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1.
Please explain.Read more closely:
Quote:
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
Bah, misread it.Glocksman wrote:Please explain.Read more closely:
Quote:
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
At the time of the robbery, what crime that he committed was the robbery victim escaping from?
Darth Wong wrote:How does any of that change the fact that logically, shooting or stabbing someone in the back as he runs away is obviously not self-defense?
We have a scuffle in which the armed robber may be trying to flee, but he may also be trying to get a little distance so as to get a clear shot at me. Should he have taken the chance?There was a scuffle in the hallway during which Lindsay stabbed Swindells four times in the back.
On a more practical and realistic level, I think cases should be thrown out like this if we are talking about feet and not several yards. The reason being is one of passion. If you get attacked, you have to turn something on in order to defend yourself and once that is turned on, the heat of battle, it is very hard to turn back off. In the span of a hallway, I would give the person that, if I were Judge or Juror.
as you said it´s indiana law. if people in the uk wanted the indiana law they´d also execute people. aparantly they don´t want indiana law.Glocksman wrote: Even though there's more to it than the Beeb reported, the fact still remains that a man was attacked in his home and went to jail for killing one of his attackers in the hallway of his own home. Not on the street or in a bar, but in his fucking home.
Do you know what I've been told by more than one cop here in town?
If someone breaks in your home, don't be a hero and try to hold them for the cops. Shoot them. In the back if you have to, but shoot them and then call the law.
Our county prosecutor even announced that he wouldn't try to prosecute a homeowner who kills an intruder. Of course, that goes right along with the intent of the Indiana self defense laws.
Indiana self defense law.
<snip>
According to your article:The three that went in deny they had firearms, the only one who says they had guns is the guy who's up for stabbing one of them to death.
That makes the defendant's story more credible than that of the surviving robbers.Mr Wolstenholme said the robbers fled with some cash and police found a handgun and a knife in the abandoned car.
Some of the comments on the board were over the top, but the guy I quoted makes perfect sense.There's a lot of stupid fucks over at that SDF place, then again, we've got our own ones too.
I realize that this might come as a shock, but the UK is not Indiana.Glocksman wrote:Even though there's more to it than the Beeb reported, the fact still remains that a man was attacked in his home and went to jail for killing one of his attackers in the hallway of his own home. Not on the street or in a bar, but in his fucking home.
Do you know what I've been told by more than one cop here in town?
If someone breaks in your home, don't be a hero and try to hold them for the cops. Shoot them. In the back if you have to, but shoot them and then call the law.
Our county prosecutor even announced that he wouldn't try to prosecute a homeowner who kills an intruder. Of course, that goes right along with the intent of the Indiana self defense laws.
This kind of error is not unusual. I've lost track of the number of times Americans cite their own Constitutional principles in discussions involving other countries.Durandal wrote:I realize that this might come as a shock, but the UK is not Indiana.
But of course, the goal of every nation is to strive to implement a constitution as fair and just as the US one.Darth Wong wrote:This kind of error is not unusual. I've lost track of the number of times Americans cite their own Constitutional principles in discussions involving other countries.Durandal wrote:I realize that this might come as a shock, but the UK is not Indiana.
Indiana and Colorado were given as examples of how the laws differ here in the States.Durandal wrote:I realize that this might come as a shock, but the UK is not Indiana.Glocksman wrote:Even though there's more to it than the Beeb reported, the fact still remains that a man was attacked in his home and went to jail for killing one of his attackers in the hallway of his own home. Not on the street or in a bar, but in his fucking home.
Do you know what I've been told by more than one cop here in town?
If someone breaks in your home, don't be a hero and try to hold them for the cops. Shoot them. In the back if you have to, but shoot them and then call the law.
Our county prosecutor even announced that he wouldn't try to prosecute a homeowner who kills an intruder. Of course, that goes right along with the intent of the Indiana self defense laws.
Of course you're being sarcastic, but it is an injustice to send someone to prison for killing a home invader.Admiral Valdemar wrote:But of course, the goal of every nation is to strive to implement a constitution as fair and just as the US one.Darth Wong wrote:This kind of error is not unusual. I've lost track of the number of times Americans cite their own Constitutional principles in discussions involving other countries.Durandal wrote:I realize that this might come as a shock, but the UK is not Indiana.
For every scenario? What if the invader is a sick woman trying to pinch some food?Glocksman wrote:Of course you're being sarcastic, but it is an injustice to send someone to prison for killing a home invader.
I hope you're being very top level, and not suggesting all home invaders deserve to die.Whatever happened to that old English right to be secure in one's home?
No, no. He needs to be behind bars, to be sure, but sending him to jail for the defensive killing of a home invader should not have happened; the charge should have been drug dealing and he should have gone to jail for drug dealing. See, this way sets legal precedent for the courts to do this to someone else who does the same thing sans drug dealing. When it comes to setting the law, the means for a court conviction are as important as the ends.His Divine Shadow wrote:Not in this case, one drugdealing bastard behind bars = justice for all.Glocksman wrote:Of course you're being sarcastic, but it is an injustice to send someone to prison for killing a home invader.
There are already hundreds and thousands of legal cases which saw people getting convicted for dealing drugs. Where have you been all your life, in a cave?Rogue 9 wrote:No, no. He needs to be behind bars, to be sure, but sending him to jail for the defensive killing of a home invader should not have happened; the charge should have been drug dealing and he should have gone to jail for drug dealing. See, this way sets legal precedent for the courts to do this to someone else who does the same thing sans drug dealing. When it comes to setting the law, the means for a court conviction are as important as the ends.His Divine Shadow wrote:Not in this case, one drugdealing bastard behind bars = justice for all.Glocksman wrote:Of course you're being sarcastic, but it is an injustice to send someone to prison for killing a home invader.
why should it have been drug dealing? obviously he couldn´t be convicted for drug dealing or he allready had recieved punishment and spent time in jail or what ever it was for drug dealing.Rogue 9 wrote: No, no. He needs to be behind bars, to be sure, but sending him to jail for the defensive killing of a home invader should not have happened;
the charge should have been drug dealing and he should have gone to jail for drug dealing. See, this way sets legal precedent for the courts to do this to someone else who does the same thing sans drug dealing. When it comes to setting the law, the means for a court conviction are as important as the ends.
Untrue.Keevan_Colton wrote:Here we take the circumstances of the crime into account, they wouldnt have been in his home if he hadnt been dealing drugs, he let them in as part of a criminal transaction which would be enough to negate the self defense even under your beloved indiana laws...
He didn't let them in, they came in uninvited and that makes all the difference in the world.On February 27 last year, two men went there to buy drugs.
Three others - the Crown claim Swindells, Ashton and Ryan - were outside the communal front door.
One asked the pair if they were going to Carl's. They indicated they were and, as the door lock was released by Lindsay, all went inside
It's not about killing people with impunity, it's about the right of the people to be secure in their homes and giving the homeowner the benefit of any doubt.Jebus frelling crimbo what the fuck is up with the american desire to be able to kill people with impunity?
He opened the communal front door to let people in under the belief he'd be getting a sale out of it.On February 27 last year, two men went there to buy drugs.
Three others - the Crown claim Swindells, Ashton and Ryan - were outside the communal front door.
One asked the pair if they were going to Carl's. They indicated they were and, as the door lock was released by Lindsay, all went inside.
Let's try it again.Keevan_Colton wrote:Lets try reading it all.
He opened the communal front door to let people in under the belief he'd be getting a sale out of it.On February 27 last year, two men went there to buy drugs.
Three others - the Crown claim Swindells, Ashton and Ryan - were outside the communal front door.
One asked the pair if they were going to Carl's. They indicated they were and, as the door lock was released by Lindsay, all went inside.
He was involved in an illegal activity.
So, fuck you and the socipathic little horse you rode in on.
And, just FYI, the "hallway" would be outside his flat...
