Posted on 04/08/2005 11:15:53 PM PDT by Mulder
The family of a White River Township man shot and killed a year ago by a neighbor is trying to change Indiana’s self-defense law, which shielded the shooter from criminal prosecution.
Civilians should have to follow rules similar to what police must obey in a shooting and should have to attend classes before getting a permit to own a weapon, the family says.
Family members are working with State Rep. David Frizzell, who represents part of White River Township, to make the changes.
“As citizens, we do have the right to defend ourselves,” said Terry Doty, uncle of the man shot last year. “But I don’t think we need to strap on guns like in the wild West and shoot without calling police. That’s not what our society is wanting to become.”
Doty said discussions about changing the law stem from the death of his nephew, 44-year-old Bruce Mills, last spring. Mills was shot by a neighbor in the Oak Meadows Mobile Home Community on March 29, 2004.
Mills had been smashing windows of an empty trailer with an ax handle, and witnesses said he made an aggressive move toward Daniel Floyd, who had come outside his mobile home to investigate the noise.
Floyd fired at Mills with a 9-mm handgun from 8 to 9 feet away, hitting him in the neck and lower body. Mills stumbled, collapsed against the vacant trailer and died.
Floyd told authorities he was protecting himself and his family, and witnesses corroborated his account. He was not arrested.
In June, Johnson County Prosecutor Lance Hamner asked a grand jury to decide whether Floyd should face charges. They decided no.
“We weren’t happy with (Floyd) being a vigilante and taking the law into his own hands without calling 911,” Doty said. “There’s nothing we can do about our nephew’s situation, but we’d like to do this in memory of him and make sure the next family has some recourse.”
Indiana law gives Hoosiers the right to use deadly force against an attacker if it’s necessary to prevent serious injury or death.
In summary, the law says a person is justified in using reasonable force to protect himself or someone else from what he believes to be illegal force.
Frizzell said he is interested in working with Mills’ family to explore possible changes.
“It’s very difficult to know how you can prevent something like this from happening, but we want to make sure it benefits everyone in the state,” he said.
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.
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.
“The best advice is to call and have us investigate,” Chief Deputy Doug Cox said. “If there’s time, let us make the call about what to do.”
If a person does shoot, the family wants individuals to follow the procedures police are required to obey when firing on someone.
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.
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.
“If given the chance, we want them to,” Cox said. “But it’s often a split-second decision; and if we’re taking fire, we can’t be stopping to think about saying something.”
Doty said civilians should have to follow the same guidelines if put into a situation where they fear for their safety.
The family would also like to require Hoosiers to attend classes on gun use before obtaining a permit, Doty said.
He said that Frizzell has not made any promises to the family and that legislators likely will not discuss the issue until next year.
“That’s fine. We just don’t want the ball dropped,” Doty said. “Things can happen. It just depends on how interested (lawmakers) are and what kind of public backing there is.”
Neanderthal alert!
(I take that back. Neanderthals probably understood the concept of defensive use of weapons).
Doty appears incapable of connecting two dots. ......dots that most three year olds could connect. Scary stupid.
Depends on the state. If they are fleeing with your property, you can shoot them in Texas. Just be sure of what lies beyond the perp and tell the police, if you tell them anything, that it was the only way you could recover your property. That will take care of criminal liability, but you're on your own when the perps family, or the paralyzed perp himself, sues.
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.
"Hello? 911? Yeah I got this body lying half inside my home and half outside, sorta across the doorway, well, anyway, I think the body poses a threat to safe pedestrian traffic and I was wondering if could you send someone to pick it up. What? Oh, he was trying to break into my home in the middle of the night last night. Yeah, well the police said it was best to call 911 so that's what I'm doing now, Thanks"
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...
>>I think the law should be changed to impose a fine on anyone who shoots a criminal and he doesn't die.
I'll take a somewhat more socialistic stand on this. I propose in that case, that we give the citizen 2000 rounds of their favorite caliber, and 25 hours of range time, including 5 hours with an IDPA shooting instructor.
Once this was underway for a few years, we'd likely pay for the program in reduced court and incarceration costs.
Ping.
No, you have it right. The donut delivery guy will almost definitely arrive more quickly than the police.
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.
I never thought I would have to admit an upside to socialism.
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.