You just can not understand that the police and the Indiana Supreme Court got the decision wrong. Even the court said he was moving out, not that he had moced out.
American law supports my view point. See
United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 594 (1948)
I'm pointing to the notion you have that if someone hasn't been sued he didn't cause damage or violate rights.
Nothing in the record shows you point of view. How did he violate her rights?
She called the cops, they came and he messed with them.
If you call the cops and they come and I mess with them I will have violated your rights.
All same thing GI. People have a right to call the cops and deal with it on their own without you stucking your mug into the deal.
Capice?
So why didn't the Indiana court deal with that? Well, they were taking an appeal prepared by the guy's lawyer ~ and the lawyer set the scene and the courts handled it that way.
That was the State Supreme Court's first error. The second error was letting one of your Moslem buttkisser buddies write the decision for them. He spent too many years involved in foreign law to be trusted.