The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • 2nthechest

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 14, 2010
    84
    6
    I think LS deserves "SITE SUPPORTER" status for having INGO brought up in court.... Thats free advertisment.

    LS I want to say congrats to you on the outcome of your case. While I am sure you spent more money fighting the case then just paying the fine it is based on principle.

    I will have to say at least you were in were in a republican county otherwise the judge and prosecutor may have demonstrated a walk out....

    In all seriousness a big THANK YOU from me and a rep is on the way.

    Get back to your daily life and leave this headache behind you. Chances of EVER recouping any money you are out of pocket from CPD is slim. Finding a lawyer to even take the case to go after them may be even slimmer. Remmeber you live there and it will just make every traffic stop or call for help a nightmare. The officers involed will keep this case in mind net time they run into a case of self defense.

    I was once told... WIN WITH GRACE, LOSE WITH DIGNITY.
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 23, 2009
    1,855
    113
    Brainardland
    As expected, the arresting officer perjured himself, and the glib way he did it makes it clear that he regards perjury as a perfectly legitimate prosecution tactic. I don't know what's done around here about such things, but in my LEO days cops who did that were called "convicts."

    He testified that I TOLD HIM that I fired the shot to "scare" the dogs back inside the fence and that only after he told me that he was arresting me did I come up with a story about being attacked. He further testified that the dogs weren't aggressive at all but were as nice as pie. In other words, I'm a lying SOB.

    My two neighbors, a minister and his wife, testifed that they are so terrified of the dogs that when walking in the neighborhood, they always walk on the other side of the street to avoid the dogs, even though they're fenced. When asked what he would do if he ever encountered the dogs OUTSIDE the fence, the Reverend answered, "Get to shelter."

    My veterinarian TRIED to testify concerning canine territoriality and the proven effectiveness of using loud noises to dissuade dog attacks. Her testimony was ruled irrelevant and inadmissible.

    My wife testified, reiterating the main points of what happened.

    I was next, I told my story with emphasis on the fact that even if I had decided that I NEEDED to shoot the dogs, I could not have done so. With the frame residence directly across the street and the construction site swarming with carpenters, shooting in that direction was OUT OF THE QUESTION. At a minimum, I would have had to jockey for position to make a safe shot, which I couldn't do with one mutt already hanging from my leg.

    Had either dog gotten under my legs, if they had jumped at my chest, if they'd grabbed my gun arm, I would not be able to guarantee my ability to SAFELY fire shots in that direction.

    On redirect the prosecutor tried to make the case that if I could fire safely into the ground in one direction, I could have safely fired down at the dogs in the other direction. I reiterated, again and again, as the INGO guys who were present can attest, that I could NOT safely fire in the direction of the dogs, and that the ONLY safe direction available to me was exactly the opposite.

    Finally, in an effort to settle the matter, I conceded that with my ability with firearms there was about a 99% probability that I could have killed both dogs without mishap, but that when you're going to fire shots with innocent bystanders nearby, 99% ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH!!!

    It was the judge's turn, and I would say at this point that the man impressed me. He is clearly an astute legal analyst.

    INGO guys, if I miss anything, fill in the blanks.

    His points were, that despite much testimony concerning the subject, the issue of the appropriateness of warning shots was a non-issue. He pointed out that law enforcement training and policies do not have the force of law, and in fact, under Indiana law, an officer is REQUIRED to give warning before employing deadly force if it is feasible to do so.

    He further pointed out that I am now a private citizen, and things that I was taught and policies under which I acted in my LEO days had nothing whatsoever to do with the facts at hand and required nothing of me.

    He pointed out that the Castle Doctrine law gives citizens wide latitude in what tactics they may employ while defending themselves on their own property.

    And, finally, he pointed out that contrary to the OPINIONS of the arresting officer and the prosecutor, that there is NOTHING in applicable Indiana law that REQUIRED me to use nothing but lethal force, and that my decision, not to spill blood was both legal and reasonable.

    Not guilty...guys, did I leave anything out?
     

    Tripp11

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 3, 2010
    1,243
    63
    Fishers, IN
    Would have loved to have seen the facial expression on the prosecuting attorney and arresting LEO when the verdict was made known. Priceless...
     

    henktermaat

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jan 3, 2009
    4,952
    38
    Hey Henk,

    Do you know who that woman was at the back of the courtroom?

    I thought she was a reporter... I only assume that because it looked like her jacket had some kind of logo on it. I tried to read it but never did get a real good look. It looked like the "LWS" (Local Weather Station) logo one of the local stations uses.

    jvu6r.jpg
     
    Last edited:

    SirRealism

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 17, 2008
    1,779
    38
    Liberty, my favorite line came from your wife. The prosecutor asked her whether a range officer would want someone firing at the ground at a shooting range. (Why her opinion on that inane comparison is relevant is beyond me.) Without skipping a beat, she said, "probably, if a dog was attacking him." Something to that effect. Silence.

    Priceless.
     

    Indy317

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 27, 2008
    2,495
    38
    NOT GUILTY!!!!

    I have to make some phone calls, details as soon as I get a few minutes.

    You guys that were there, feel free to give your impresssions.

    I already knew, and I wasn't even there!

    Just a heads up for others: The state has a system that they are offering for various courts to use to keep court records. It is mycase.in.gov. Carmel City Court is on this system. I'm not sure if they typed up "Trial held, defendant found not guilty" before or after Liberty's above post, but I read it before reading the above. I kept going page after page waiting for a post from LS. So before reading it, I just read the news article, got his real name, and searched court records myself.
     

    henktermaat

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jan 3, 2009
    4,952
    38
    I already knew, and I wasn't even there!

    Just a heads up for others: The state has a system that they are offering for various courts to use to keep court records. It is mycase.in.gov. Carmel City Court is on this system. I'm not sure if they typed up "Trial held, defendant found not guilty" before or after Liberty's above post, but I read it before reading the above. I kept going page after page waiting for a post from LS. So before reading it, I just read the news article, got his real name, and searched court records myself.


    good site.
     
    Top Bottom