Bad Experience with Carmel PD

[henktermaat]

The Judge made a big point to say how LS was defending on his own property and Indiana is VERY GENEROUS to the act of self-defense.

 

[henktermaat]

His last speech was excellent and I wish I had a hard copy of it. I fell much better about self-defense in Carmel.

 

[theweakerbrother]

I wonder how much it would cost to have the local news do a retraction of their story on LS since he was found not guility...

 

[bigus_D]

WTHR has the story all wrong:
Carmel man in court for shooting at dog - 13 WTHR

It looks to me like they had it right. He was in court for shooting at a dog, the cops said the dog was no threat, he said it was... What am I missing???

CONGRATS liberty sanders!!! Too bad those JBTs probably won't suffer any consequences as a result of this clear abuse of power.

 

[lovemachine]

I felt like the city's lawyer was much better- but he did get hostile with LS at the end when it was his turn to testify (last.)

To his credit, LS's lawyer was obviously sick and should have been in bed.

Hostile in what way?

 

[LEaSH]

My impression: The judge handed the prosecutor and the cop their asses. Basically, he said the majority of the words they uttered today have nothing to do with the applicable laws.

Nothing to do with applicable laws, eh? I just can't imagine such a thing happening.

It's as if some cops and prosecuters aren't fully aware or simply don't care what law is.

 

[Tripp11]

After several drinks drowning in the sorrow of defeat, I wonder if the City's prosecutor will read this thread again?

 

[henktermaat]

It looks to me like they had it right. He was in court for shooting at a dog, the cops said the dog was no threat, he said it was... What am I missing???

CONGRATS liberty sanders!!! Too bad those JBTs probably won't suffer any consequences as a result of this clear abuse of power.

He was in court because he did NOT shoot at the dog.

 

[SirRealism]

Several things I found really annoying:

The prosecution kept calling his shot into the ground a "warning shot". A warning shot.... for. a. dog. To me, it was no such thing. It was intended to get the dogs off his ass. It worked exactly as intended, and he fired in the safest possible location. That this could have gone to trial in the first place speaks volumes about the cops and prosecutor's office.

The other thing I found fairly amusing (LS and Henktermaat, correct me if I don't get this exactly right): The prosecution harped and harped about how cops are not trained to give warning shots. Cincinnati PD doesn't train that, Carmel PD doesn't train that, and the NRA doesn't train that. During his decision, the judge told the prosecution that, not only are the NRA and both police departments completely irrelevant, but that Indiana law does [strike]allow for warning shots from police officers... counter to testimony[/strike] require an officer to give a warning before using deadly force, if feasible. (As I said, I might have lost a little in the translation, but it certainly sounded like a direct rejoinder to the prosecution's testimony.)

 

[henktermaat]

Hostile in what way?

He did that TV lawyer thing - a barrage of questions in a tone meant to intimidate and unravel the defendant, giving little or no time for answer. I would define it as hostile.

 

[henktermaat]

Several things I found really annoying:

The prosecution kept calling his shot into the ground a "warning shot". A warning shot.... for. a. dog. To me, it was no such thing. It was intended to get the dogs off his ass. It worked exactly as intended, and he fired in the safest possible location. That this could have gone to trial in the first place speaks volumes about the cops and prosecutor's office.

The other thing I found fairly amusing (LS and Henktermaat, correct me if I don't get this exactly right): The prosecution harped and harped about how cops are not trained to give warning shots. Cincinnati PD doesn't train that, Carmel PD doesn't train that, and the NRA doesn't train that. During his decision, the judge told the prosecution that, not only are the NRA and both police departments completely irrelevant, but that Indiana law does allow for warning shots from police officers... counter to testimony. (As I said, I might have lost a little in the translation, but it certainly sounded like a direct rejoinder to the prosecution's testimony.)

Technically, I'm pretty sure the Judge said that the cops are required to "give a warning."

 

[Jack Ryan]

Excellent. Maybe this cop should be written up or something for arresting someone and waisting tax dollars.. Cops should be held accountable for the prosecution rate of their arrests.

In your dreams.

In MY dreams they would be jailed and serve the sentence they were trying to stick on THEIR victim.

 

[bigus_D]

He was in court because he did NOT shoot at the dog.

Oh yea... He shot next to the dog. An issue of semantics, but also why LS said the cop decided he shouldn't have shot at all.

What a bunch of BS. glad to hear things went right in the end.

 

[E5RANGER375]

After several drinks drowning in the sorrow of defeat, I wonder if the City's prosecutor will read this thread again?

well just in case .....
dang it, they removed the middle finger smiley

 

[SirRealism]

He certainly wanted to shake LS by quoting the "thug" and "rubber stamp" comments from INGO.






























He failed.

 

[henktermaat]

I do have a good deal of respect for the Judge. He let everyone say their piece, but he really whittled thru the crap at the end.

 

[E5RANGER375]

im still just in shock that this ended like this. I wont say "the system worked" because it actually didnt work completely. if the system was working then the prosecutor wouldnt have filed charges. probly is buddies with some people on the police department.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Several things I found really annoying:

The prosecution kept calling his shot into the ground a "warning shot". A warning shot.... for. a. dog. To me, it was no such thing. It was intended to get the dogs off his ass. It worked exactly as intended, and he fired in the safest possible location. That this could have gone to trial in the first place speaks volumes about the cops and prosecutor's office.

The other thing I found fairly amusing (LS and Henktermaat, correct me if I don't get this exactly right): The prosecution harped and harped about how cops are not trained to give warning shots. Cincinnati PD doesn't train that, Carmel PD doesn't train that, and the NRA doesn't train that. During his decision, the judge told the prosecution that, not only are the NRA and both police departments completely irrelevant, but that Indiana law does allow for warning shots from police officers... counter to testimony. (As I said, I might have lost a little in the translation, but it certainly sounded like a direct rejoinder to the prosecution's testimony.)

His lawyer should have let him ramble on about that and then ask for the supporting evidence. Instructors? Manual? Written Code of Conduct? Any thing other than the prosecutors current dream world? And TV dramas?

 

[henktermaat]

His lawyer should have let him ramble on about that and then ask for the supporting evidence. Instructors? Manual? Written Code of Conduct? Any thing other than the prosecutors current dream world? And TV dramas?

No offense to LS, but we all need to put his lawyer on our personal DO NOT CALL list

 

[SirRealism]

Several consequences from having witnessed this:

By spending the time and money involved in following through, Liberty Sanders has helped set a precedent in Carmel. This is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very cool.

I'm MUCH more certain that I'll not speak to cops, regardless how innocuous it seems at the time. They are NOT my friends. "Am I being detained? Am I free to go? I request to speak to my lawyer."