INGO Member on Channel 13 news tonight

[Pocketman]

Frankly, there's precious little left to discuss. Now it's just hurry up and wait.

I feel like I used to when I was on a stakeout. I just want the to hit the fan and get it over with.

As a respected colleague once said during a similar conversation: "I think it was easier to be shot at. That was over quickly."

 

[finity]

Ok, I felt I needed to address this post. In my opinion, Liberty seems like a really good guy, but looking at the details of the case Liberty should loses. If he recants his story in the exact same way he did in his thread, the story is cut and dry.

Liberty admittedly confronted the "dogs at large" in an attempt to coerce them back into their fenced yard. If the dogs were that aggressive, in such a way that one would fear for their life and the lives of others, why press the issue by attempting pursuade the dogs to go home. That fact that he was interacting with the dogs prior, seriously weakens his argument that the dogs were so aggressive that he was in fear for his life.

Note that in his original thread he said he had no idea if the dogs were aggressive or not but he was at least concerned enough for the possibility that he wanted to TRY to get them back in their yard.

It wasn’t until LATER that the situation had changed. The dogs THEN showed that they were indeed aggressive. NOW he was in fear of “Serious Bodily Injury”.

Your argument isn’t reasonable. You can’t shoot a BG before he ACTS like a BG & you KNOW he’s a BG. You can’t be in fear of SBI from a dog until the dog ACTS like it is really a threat.

Concerning the discharge of the weapon... if someone is in legitimate fear for their life, you don't EVER fire warning shots... regardless of the situation. If one is balancing the scales of their life vs upseting their neighbor over a dead pet, I think we alll know which way the scales "tip."

So, on the surface, the citation is, from a very "black and white" perspective, valid.

You would believe this IF you are using an incorrect assumption/interpretation of the law.

Your first incorrect assumption is that LS HAD to be “in fear for his life” to be legally allowed to use deadly force. That’s not the case. He only has to be in imminent threat of “serious bodily injury” which is not nearly as limiting as many (wrongly) think.

Here is the definition in the IC

IC 35-41-1-25
"Serious bodily injury" defined
Sec. 25. "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes:
(1) serious permanent disfigurement;
(2) unconsciousness;
(3) extreme pain;
(4) permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ; or
(5) loss of a fetus.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.26. Amended by P.L.261-1997, SEC.1.

Notice the fairly significant “or…” section after the word “death”.

“But” you say, “the Carmel, IN code says that the individual must be in fear of death in order to be justified in shooting a firearm in city limits.”

True.

Here it is:

(Ord. D-292, § 2, 3-16-81)
(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.

First off, that ordinance is directly contradictory of state law in that it only allows discharging a firearm in response to the sole limitation of “protection of human life”. That’s not what the IN IC says on the subject.

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. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

Again notice that the IC doesn’t require that you be protecting only “life” but that you are just under imminent threat of SBI.

I don’t think that a city ordinance can override the state law on use of force.

If LS was fighting back against a human adversary that had the ability to possibly knock him unconscious or inflict extreme pain but that he couldn’t articulate that he was in fear of losing his life do you think that he should be charged with discharging a firearm in city limits EVEN though he would face no charges from the state? How ridiculously illogical is that?

How would a dog attack that has the ability to cause permanent disfigurement or at least extreme pain, let alone death be any different?

Also, the IC above says that if there will be no legal jeopardy for anyone using reasonable means in defense of themselves from JUST SERIOUS BODILY INJURY (not NECESSARILY death) which with two large dogs involved shooting into the ground to try to scare them before further deadly force is taken is CLEARLY REASONABLE.

Now, I think officer descretion could have been used better in this situation...

Ya’ think?

Now to address Patton's "claims" about Carmel PD. He knows a lot of people that live in Carmel.... and I agree when dealing with a CPD there is a difference. However, it's not the way your friends claim.

Carmel is one of the most affluent and educated populaces in Indiana. Many are what you would call "entitled." You can't exactly have rude, disrespectful, idiot officers 'round there, because people here love to complain. I have been complained on because I called a woman by her "first" name.... I've been complained on, after drawing down of a guy who I told to not reach into his pockets, because he was "dressed in a suit and tie, and clearly did not meet the criminal profile."

...and you think this is an environment where rouge officers run roughshod of the people they serve? Please.

They may not be running roughshod over the so-called “entitled” ones but I’d bet that they would have no problem running roughshod over the ones who aren’t quite as “entitled”, “rouge” officer or not. Can’t have the “seedy underbelly of society” ruining the tranquility of those with an “entitlement”, now can they?

Just so I'm getting this straight. You were "attacked" and yet not in fear for your life? And yet you thought it was perfectly acceptable to discharge a firearm in a residential neighborhood, during a time in which children were coming home from school.

You fired in a "safe" direction, directly towards the ground, and I'm sure you had checked (all the while the dog attached to your leg) the area for rocks, or any other type of material that may lead to a ricochet, right?

You acknowledge that LS had a large dog attached to his leg but you don’t think that rises to the level of imminent serious bodily injury? Let’s forget for the moment that there was ANOTHER ONE right there with the first one. I thought you said you were using logic in these discussions.

Wait, are you saying that you aren't in fear for your life when a person pulls a gun on you? Only after they fire in your direction, does that "fear" occur? That's hardcore, you point a gun in my direction, I'm in fear for my life.

Possibly. Just like he said he wasn’t necessarily in fear for his life when he had 2 large dogs bearing down on him. I know I would have been but some people face down danger a little better than others.

BUT…

Just because he didn’t ARTICULATE that he was afraid for his life doesn’t mean that another REASONABLE person wouldn’t have been otherwise.

Seriously, is there anyone on this site, even you, who wouldn’t be in fear of death from an attack by 2 large dogs (except possibly LS )? What would you have done differently if you had a dog “attached to” your leg? Most likely have killed the dog?

You say that just because LS didn’t just “say” that he was in fear for his life that he should be fined when most others would be released & THE ONLY difference is that he put his bullet into the ground & others would have put it into the dog. Do you not think that even if he shot the dog that there was no way the bullet might not have passed through the dog & still injured someone just as you say you were concerned about by him firing down into the ground?

All that is again assuming that the ONLY justification for discharging a firearm in city limits is fear of death, which I don’t think is the case no matter what the city ordinance says.

Sorry Liberty, if you can't see how un-alike discharging a firearm is from deploying a taser, then THAT is a problem.

No, he said there is little difference in the effect ON THE DOGS between a gunshot & a taser. If you can’t see that then there is the problem. As he said, he didn’t have a taser, he had a gun. He was being attacked by 2 large dogs that as a breed (legitimately or not) have a reputation for being vicious.

So your intent was to cause them pain and have them run away. Well, they have tools for exactly that sort of thing. It's called a dog whistle. They are for behavior modification, and can be quite painful to dogs.

A firearm is not a dog whistle, nor are their intended uses, similar.

He didn’t have a dog whistle. He had a gun & he was being attacked.

The cop was an idiot.

No most certainly not. If you believed someone was in danger, hey call 911.

He was the one in danger.

“Excuse me doggie could you please remove your teeth from my skin so I can go call 911? I promise I’ll be back so you can finish your attack as soon as I’m off the phone”.

Yeah, right.

I've read the officer's report. Liberty has an uphill battle.

Again you’re making assumptions. Just because it’s in the police report doesn’t make it true.

^This. Where does it say that if you are justified in using deadly force that you actually have to kill something?

Right. It doesn’t.

 

[Yamaha]

kutnupe14, you have not made a very good showing in this thread.....I see you are new, and some quality posts, but all I will ask is Really.....just really?

finity, +rep for putting all of that into one post exposing the wrong ideals....

 

[phatgemi]

Yep, I would say kutnupe14 definitely drank the kool-aid. And just by watching the video, I got the feeling that Lt H sure wishes he was somewhere else.........

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Guys, Kut has played devil's advocate at a few points here at which I take no offense. We've had a few private conversations and I get the feeling that he's a pretty good egg.

Don't be too rough on him, ok?

 

[Keyser Soze]

Sometimes its just unreasonable to follow the law to the letter. IMO "technically" Liberty violated this ordinace as it reads. The officer should have used some descretion. Hopefully the judge will use some descretion.

 

[jsharmon7]

So the case is being heard tomorrow? I know some INGO members are planning on going, so, if it's okay with Liberty Sanders of course, could someone update us on the outcome? I'd like to come, but I'm not sure what the schedule looks like just yet.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

So the case is being heard tomorrow? I know some INGO members are planning on going, so, if it's okay with Liberty Sanders of course, could someone update us on the outcome? I'd like to come, but I'm not sure what the schedule looks like just yet.

The case is not tomorrow!

It's been reset to March 29th.

 

[jsharmon7]

The case is not tomorrow!

It's been reset to March 29th.

Oops, I thought I'd seen in the other thread it was tomorrow, my mistake. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Guys, Kut has played devil's advocate at a few points here at which I take no offense. We've had a few private conversations and I get the feeling that he's a pretty good egg.

Don't be too rough on him, ok?

lol... thanks for "calling off of dogs" (pun intended).
Though I could surely take Finity to task on his post, I think that pretty much everything that can be said has been said.

However, if there are those that wish to press the issue, I am definitely game.
Keep in mind that other than myself, Lberty is the only one that has read the police report. And that tempers my opinion. As they say, the "Devil is in the Details." I wish I could advise more about the specifics contained within the report, but I cannot.

 

[patton487]

lol... thanks for "calling off of dogs" (pun intended).
Though I could surely take Finity to task on his post, I think that pretty much everything that can be said has been said.

However, if there are those that wish to press the issue, I am definitely game.
Keep in mind that other than myself, Lberty is the only one that has read the police report. And that tempers my opinion. As they say, the "Devil is in the Details." I wish I could advise more about the specifics contained within the report, but I cannot.

Once again, isn't the police report a matter of public record???

 

[Kutnupe14]

Once again, isn't the police report a matter of public record???

yeah, why?

 

[Bigum1969]

yeah, why?

Can we access it electronically?

How do you get a copy?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Can we access it electronically?

How do you get a copy?

I'm not so sure, given this Carmel City Court, that it would available electronically. You would have to go directly to the court, and request in person. You'll need the short cause or case number too.

 

[finity]

lol... thanks for "calling off of dogs" (pun intended).
Though I could surely take Finity to task on his post, I think that pretty much everything that can be said has been said.

However, if there are those that wish to press the issue, I am definitely game.
Keep in mind that other than myself, Lberty is the only one that has read the police report. And that tempers my opinion. As they say, the "Devil is in the Details." I wish I could advise more about the specifics contained within the report, but I cannot.

Bring it. That should be fun.

Though, for some reason, since you won't publicly discuss anything that is already public record - - it would do no good arguing the specifics of the police report which i haven't read. If you'd like to post it up for all to see (personal info redacted as necessary) I'd gladly discuss that part of the story as well.

 

[patton487]

yeah, why?

Because I would like to read it.... duh

 

[Kutnupe14]

Bring it. That should be fun.

Though, for some reason, since you won't publicly discuss anything that is already public record - - it would do no good arguing the specifics of the police report which i haven't read. If you'd like to post it up for all to see (personal info redacted as necessary) I'd gladly discuss that part of the story as well.

Yeah, have an officer post a report of case that's currently going through the legal system. Uhhhh no. Of all the people in the world, I'm last person that should do what you suggest.

 

[finity]

Yeah, have an officer post a report of case that's currently going through the legal system. Uhhhh no. Of all the people in the world, I'm last person that should do what you suggest.

Truth has nothing to fear from the light of day. If there is something to be feared from posting something that is already supposed to be public record then it does make one wonder...

 

[jeremy]

Yeah, have an officer post a report of case that's currently going through the legal system. Uhhhh no. Of all the people in the world, I'm last person that should do what you suggest.

H*** send it to me I'll post it...

Truth has nothing to fear from the light of day. If there is something to be feared from posting something that is already supposed to be public record then it does make one wonder...

The more interface I have with the Civilian Law the more I miss UCMJ...
Sigh...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Truth has nothing to fear from the light of day. If there is something to be feared from posting something that is already supposed to be public record then it does make one wonder...

Right.... if I was going to post that report, I would need permission to do so, or be in violation of my PDs general orders. Obviously they would want to know "why" I wished to do so.... and the you have prosecutors combing this site of anything they can use.
If you guys are so curious, get a copy yourself, or wait until March.