Bad Experience with Carmel PD

[EdC]

OP, it looks like you were in violation of the strict letter of the ordinance, and the title of your post says it all. Officer discretion failed.

If you weren't at risk of having a violation of the Carmel ordinance being used against you some time in the future, it might be worth it to just pay the fine, and move on.

HOWEVER, it think it's important that you go to the hearing and MAKE A RECORD of what happened, and then order a transcript of the proceedings, just in case the violation doesn't get thrown out.

In the future, if you have to use deadly force, you don't want this ordinance violation to be brought up to muddy the waters.

 

[Lobo]

Armchair + quarterback = the above!

So the way that solved the problem without destroying your neighbor's dog was the wrong one? I wouldn't have criticized the OP had he shot the dog, but I certainly am not going to sit back and criticize him handling the situation in a fashion that doesn't involve whacking your neighbor's pet and engendering possible lawsuits.

The "take care of business" part is really cute, especially when the civil demand letter comes or the police arrest you.

I am really at a loss to understand how the cop was legally right on this. Please explain your position that it was ok to shoot the dog (which is going to involve a round moving horizontally through the neighborhood), but not to scare him of with a vertical round into the ground.

Do you really think the cop was going to be happier if the OP had moved UP the force continuum?

Joe

Lawsuits? Civil demand letter? Arrest?

I feel sorry for you, if you live in a place where all of that is the result of shooting a dog that is already biting you. Or are you just making things up? I've seen more than one case where a person has shot a vicious animal where I live, and the end result is always pretty much the same. The person who shoots the dog (that is threatening him on his own property) is not taken to jail or charged with anything.

Good read: Shot dog pits neighbor against neighbor

How is a round shot down at a dog who is charging you going to "go horizontal," unless you are 3' tall? A round fired down at the ground and a round fired down at a dog who is close to you are about the same angle. I am assuming, or course, that one is not firing at a dog 100 yards away.

If a dog charges at me on my property, or I am slow enough to let it actually sink its teeth into me, I will kill it. Period. Is that a little more clear than "taking care of business?"


Oh, and I think you are cute, too.

 

[Expat]

Let us all also remember that anyone can post anything on the internet....... or post what they "thought" someone said or twist the words around a little. That's why I take all of what I see on the internet with a grain of salt.

 

[Fargo]

OP, it looks like you were in violation of the strict letter of the ordinance, and the title of your post says it all. Officer discretion failed.

You guys do understand that Indiana Code 35-41-3-2 supersedes any municipal ordinance??????

Officer discretion does NOT come into play here. The officer is bound to follow the law and IMO his enforcement of an ordinance in violation of state law should generate a complaint to his department as well as a call to the city attorney/county prosecutor that handles these cases.

Best,


Joe


Joe

 

[E5RANGER375]

Let us all also remember that anyone can post anything on the internet....... or post what they "thought" someone said or twist the words around a little. That's why I take all of what I see on the internet with a grain of salt.

grain of salt wont cut it. use whiskey

 

[E5RANGER375]

You guys do understand that Indiana Code 35-41-3-2 supersedes any municipal ordinance??????

Officer discretion does NOT come into play here. The officer is bound to follow the law and IMO his enforcement of an ordinance in violation of state law should generate a complaint to his department as well as a call to the city attorney/county prosecutor that handles these cases.

Best,


Joe


Joe

but, but. but, but..... thats not what Joe Williams says, so it cant be true

Well, technically that's exactly what the cop did. He chose not to exercise the discretion he could have, and enforced the law as written. Gonna be kind of hard to file a complaint against him for that.

The discussion is whether he should have exercised his discretion. I think he should have, but that would put him in conflict with the part of your statement I quoted above.

 

[Joe Williams]

You guys do understand that Indiana Code 35-41-3-2 supersedes any municipal ordinance??????

Officer discretion does NOT come into play here. The officer is bound to follow the law and IMO his enforcement of an ordinance in violation of state law should generate a complaint to his department as well as a call to the city attorney/county prosecutor that handles these cases.

Best,


Joe


Joe

Well, the cop seems to feel the OP wasn't in danger, and says the OP himself didn't feel in any danger that met the standard, since he opted to resolve the situation without using deadly force.

I think the cop is silly in the head, but I don't see a complaint going anywhere, especially if his superiors are anti-gun. Using the cop's reasoning, if you resolve a situation that may justify using deadly force without actually having to use deadly force, you are in the wrong. That's just stupid.

 

[Fargo]

Lawsuits? Civil demand letter? Arrest?

I feel sorry for you, if you live in a place where all of that is the result of shooting a dog that is already biting you. Or are you just making things up?

You do realize that the demand letter is the precursor to the lawsuit? You do realize that anyone can sue for anything at anytime in this country? You do realize that even if you are in the right, that doesn't get decided until much later?

You also seem blissfully ignorant that on occasion innocent people do get arrested. I spend approximately 3 days a week in court. How about you? I find the "making things up" part really "cute".

I've seen more than one case where a person has shot a vicious animal where I live, and the end result is always pretty much the same. The person who shoots the dog (that is threatening him on his own property) is not taken to jail or charged with anything.

Good read: Shot dog pits neighbor against neighbor

Great, glad to hear it. How many of those dogs were within the Carmel city limits? You do realize that the OP is being sued for discharging his gun? The citation serves as a civil demand and summons because he is being sued by the city. Ordinance violations are civil matters.

How is a round shot down at a dog who is charging you going to "go horizontal," unless you are 3' tall? A round fired down at the ground and a round fired down at a dog who is close to you are about the same angle. I am assuming, or course, that one is not firing at a dog 100 yards away.

Shooting straight down and shooting at an angle out at a dog are different, especially as regards ricochets. Once again, you think that stepping up the force continuum is somehow going to better your position. That is simply not how things generally work.

If a dog charges at me on my property, or I am slow enough to let it actually sink its teeth into me, I will kill it. Period. Is that a little more clear than "taking care of business?"

I have no problem with that. I would have had not problem with the OP shooting the dog. I DO have a problem with criticizing his restraint, especially when it worked just fine.

Oh, and I think you are cute, too.

AWWWW I'm blushing!

 

[mrjarrell]

Have to say, I side with Fargo on this one. OP decided what level of force he was comfortable with and went with it. Fortunately, it worked out well, except for the wrongful charges by the representative of the Carmel PD. Op should keep this in mind when/if he makes it to court.

 

[Joe Williams]

Reading Indiana Code 35-41-3-2, it actually specifies we can use deadly force against a "person" if we need to.

Doesn't say anything about defending ourselves against animals. Wonder if that would be a problem for the OP? Hope not, since it's the code I have been counting on if I need to pop a critter here at home, or in the woods. Say, a coyote out of season that I felt was a risk to my family or me.

 

[Lobo]

You guys do understand that Indiana Code 35-41-3-2 supersedes any municipal ordinance??????

Officer discretion does NOT come into play here. The officer is bound to follow the law and IMO his enforcement of an ordinance in violation of state law should generate a complaint to his department as well as a call to the city attorney/county prosecutor that handles these cases.

Best,


Joe


Joe

35-46-3-12 controls the destruction of domestic animals. Indiana Code 35-41-3-2 deals with using deadly force against persons, and does not apply. Read the first line of the statute:

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.

(Emphasis added)

There is no preemption statute regarding towns or cities enacting their own ordinances regarding the discharge of firearms. Your position, that state law supersedes local law, is wrong in this case. The officer, while perhaps being a doosh, acted within the scope of his authority and discretion in issuing the ticket.

If I was a cop, I wouldn't have ticketed the OP, and I would have called animal control to confiscate the dog that bit the neighbor. But that's just common sense to me. Apparently, the uppity-ups in Carmel think differently than I do. Also, I wasn't there, and don't have the other side of the story, so there's always that. Gotta love the internet!

 

[Fargo]

Well, the cop seems to feel the OP wasn't in danger, and says the OP himself didn't feel in any danger that met the standard, since he opted to resolve the situation without using deadly force.

I'm confused here by your use of the term "deadly force"? Under Indiana Law, deadly force by definition is only applicable to force used against persons. Deadly force was not, and by definition, could not occur in a man vs. dog fight.

I think the cop is silly in the head, but I don't see a complaint going anywhere, especially if his superiors are anti-gun. Using the cop's reasoning, if you resolve a situation that may justify using deadly force without actually having to use deadly force, you are in the wrong. That's just stupid.

I agree that it is just stupid, but "deadly force" still doesn't enter into the equation. The question really is whether any force can be used against an animal that is attacking you.

Seeing as that the warning shot:

A. Was in response to an attack in progress.
B. Terminated the attack.
C. Did not cause damage to any person or any real chance of such damage.

There is just no way that it isn't legally justified.

Joe

 

[Tactical Dave]

grain of salt wont cut it. use whiskey

 

[Lobo]

You do realize that the demand letter is the precursor to the lawsuit? You do realize that anyone can sue for anything at anytime in this country? You do realize that even if you are in the right, that doesn't get decided until much later?

You also seem blissfully ignorant that on occasion innocent people do get arrested. I spend approximately 3 days a week in court. How about you? I find the "making things up" part really "cute".

Yes, I realize that anyone can sue anyone. And realizing that, why would anyone let it control their actions? Do what you need to do, and if you get sued....well, as you said; "Anyone can sue for anything."

I also know that innocent people sometimes get arrested. Rarely.
As far as being in court 3 times a week, I find no need to unzip my pants so we can measure our careers. Suffice it to say that, I know the way around the legal system where I live. Are your 3 days a week spent in court in Carmel?

Great, glad to hear it. How many of those dogs were within the Carmel city limits? You do realize that the OP is being sued for discharging his gun? The citation serves as a civil demand and summons because he is being sued by the city. Ordinance violations are civil matters.

The OP is not being sued. He is being charged with an ordinance violation by the city. Although the infraction/ordinance system is not criminal, it is not purely civil in nature, as the government brings the complaint. It's close, but no actual cigar.

And I plainly stated my perspective from where I live. Why the heck would I want to live in Carmel?

Shooting straight down and shooting at an angle out at a dog are different, especially as regards ricochets. Once again, you think that stepping up the force continuum is somehow going to better your position. That is simply not how things generally work.

The OP did not shoot "straight down." He fired a shot "off to the right." If you are not indeed "making things up" again, perhaps a reading comprehension class is in order.

Cutie-pie.

 

[ATF Consumer]

but, but. but, but..... thats not what Joe Williams says, so it cant be true

 

[Joe Williams]

I'm confused here by your use of the term "deadly force"? Under Indiana Law, deadly force by definition is only applicable to force used against persons. Deadly force was not, and by definition, could not occur in a man vs. dog fight.



I agree that it is just stupid, but "deadly force" still doesn't enter into the equation. The question really is whether any force can be used against an animal that is attacking you.

Seeing as that the warning shot:

A. Was in response to an attack in progress.
B. Terminated the attack.
C. Did not cause damage to any person or any real chance of such damage.

There is just no way that it isn't legally justified.

Joe

Now I'm confused, since you posted the reference to Indiana Code 35-41-3-2 superseding local ordinance, and it's the ordinance I was also counting on being able to use if I have to discharge my firearm here in Crawfordsville, which also prohibits discharging a firearm in city limits.

However, that statute appears to provide no protection to us if we have to use our firearm to defend ourselves against an animal. Lacking an exemption in the local ordinance permitting us to discharge our firearms to protect against an animal attack, is it possible that we could save our life or someone else's, as the OP probably did, and be able to face legal punishment for such an act? If the statue provides no such protection, there is a local ordnance in place prohibiting discharge of a firearm, it certainly seems to be the case unless the ordnance has an exemption allowing shots to be fired to protect oneself that does not specify "against a person."

 

[Fargo]

If the statue provides no such protection, there is a local ordnance in place prohibiting discharge of a firearm, it certainly seems to be the case unless the ordnance has an exemption allowing shots to be fired to protect oneself that does not specify "against a person."

In this case, that isn't really the question because the ordinance on its face excepts use of force in animal attacks.

Carmel ordinance 6-65(c) reads:

(c) This section shall not affect the use of weapons which have legally been approved for such use in areas or as otherwise approved by the Metropolitan Police Department of the City nor shall such prohibit the reasonable use of weapons in the protection of human life or property, including the protection of livestock or farm animals in an Agricultural District.

The OP's situation is explicitly excluded from the ordinance he was written for violating.

Additionally, while it does appear likely that 35-41-3-2 does not apply to animals,* that does not mean that the common law defense of necessity is not available. Additionally, since the common law rule on self-defense against animals was not addressed or impaired by 35-41-3-2 it would also likely apply.

Best,


Joe

* I admit that 35-41-3-2 was not the correct cite for what law pre-empts the use of the Carmel ordinance in this case. However, as the common law defenses still exist in such cases, the point still stands. Additionally, the ordinance on its face is inapplicable.

ETA: 35-41-3-2(a)(2) actually on its face does preempt the Carmel ordinance as applied.

 

[E5RANGER375]

does anyone realy care what the king and his men say when it comes to protecting you, your family, or another human from serious injury or death? they can write their BS tickets or sentence me to time in jail, but they cant change the fact that inside I know im right and they are wrong. and that I think they are idiots and bullies.

I havent had to shoot a human in civilian daily life, but seeing all of these stories of tyrany and oppression makes me question if i would even call the cops first if I did. I think i would call my lawyer and not even be there alone when the police show up, and even then i would have a video camera and digital recorder going. all im seeing is more and more instances of oppression by police. because of the regularity of it, I know its not a fluke. the tide is changing people and its not in our favor. its time to stand up against these injustices by self proclaimed justice. that may be as simple as filing a complaint, but we must not lay down and continue to be walked on. time to stand up like men. Victory is never attained without a cost. The spoils of victory far outweigh the cost at this point. do the words: "give me liberty or give me death" ring a bell? yes, we are talking about a fine here, but where does it stop? it doesnt as we can see lately with the number of cases of police abuse and government coruption. it WILL continue to get worse until we rally together and stop it now! WE THE PEOPLE can do it. WE are in charge of our own destinys, and if we dont like the people we have put in authority to police us because some of them including senior officials are abusing their granted authority then its time to throw them out and replace them with honest and good people who would give their right arm to even have a job. All I see anymore is people who take advantage of us because they know its a long process before they can lose their job even if they kill people. Or even if you start talking about the bad cops they start crying too and asking for things like their own forum with password protection. what do they have to hide from us? we already know that some of them like their own kind more than us. time to change the game. It is our right and duty as Americans and Men! *and this post has nothing to do with violence.

 

[Fargo]

The OP did not shoot "straight down." He fired a shot "off to the right." If you are not indeed "making things up" again, perhaps a reading comprehension class is in order.

Cutie-pie.

Yeah, nice job on the selective quote there. Before you go impugning other peoples integrity and intelligence, try posting the the whole sentence next time:

I pulled the Smith and fired a shot into the ground off to my right.

It might make you a little more credible...


Joe

 

[ATF Consumer]