Force Continuum

[finity]

Be careful, some prosecutors don't buy into "extreem pain" for a reason to use deadly force (our old one did not).

So your old prosecutor decided to make up his own "laws", completely ignoring the clearly worded Indiana statute that was enacted by our legislature & then prosecuted people based on his own "laws"?

Sounds like a great guy...or should I say "king".

It's hard enough for the average person to navigate the legal landscape without having to worry about rogue prosecutors and/or judges changing the rules as they go. People like that should be forced to find a different line of work. One in which they can't violate people's Rights.

 

[GuyRelford]

Finity wisely quotes the Indiana "immunity" statute, which states that a person "shall not be held in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsover" if they act in justifiable self defense as defined in the self-defense statute - and "legal jeopardy" includes civil liability. However, there is a chink in that armor - which is two-fold.

If a prosecutor simply doesn't bring charges after a self-defense shooting, for example, there is no conclusive legal "finding" that the person acted "by reasonable means necessary" as stated in the statute. There is simply a failure to prosecute. Secondly, there is a difference in the burden of proof between criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits. As we all saw in the O.J. Simpson fiasco, a person can be found "not guilty" in a criminal case - because the prosecution couldn't prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt," yet the same defendant can be held liable in a civil case over the exact same conduct, because a plaintiff's lawyer proved he was legally responsible "by a preponderance of the evidence" - a much lower standard.

So, here's the bottom line. The intent of the Indiana self-defense statute is to shield anyone who acts in justifiable self defense from "any legal jeopardy whatsoever," including civil liablity. Unfortunately, however, civil plaintiff's lawyers may be able to second-guess either a prosecutorial decision not to bring charges, or even a not-guilty verdict, because of the diffference in the burden of proof.

Having said all that - and to Finity's point - I don't know of a single case in Indiana in which a person has been successfully sued over the use of force in self defense after having not been prosecuted, or having been found not guilty at trial. For that reason, I don't believe that I would allow the fear of a civil suit to deter me in defending myself, my family or innocent others.

My only point is that there is a rather big hole in the "immunity" statute that could allow civil liablity to be a problem, even if I'm not prosecuted or I'm found not guilty -based on the difference in the burden of proof.

Guy