NWI INGO General Post Part 18 - Legal now!!

[2A_Tom]

The insurance is to cover your legal fees in a civil and/or criminal case.

It does not pay you a penny if you are convicted. You have to pay up front and they only pay if you are acquitted.

 

[tv1217]

Here's a quick article and it references the bill that pertains.

https://www.theindychannel.com/news...nse-law-starts-july-1-prevents-civil-lawsuits

Sounds like maybe all you'd need is the DA to say you weren't charged because it's self defense but then you'll always have that grubby lawyer or two who will try to get around it.

 

[d.kaufman]

Sounds like maybe all you'd need is the DA to say you weren't charged because it's self defense but then you'll always have that grubby lawyer or two who will try to get around it.

From what I understand, no charges filed, no civil suits will be allowed. Don't know if it's been put to the test yet though

 

[2A_Tom]

If it is ruled SD, you need no insurance. If you are prosectputed your Carry Insurance will not pay you a penny unless you prove yourself innocent.

 

[d.kaufman]

If it is ruled SD, you need no insurance. If you are prosectputed your Carry Insurance will not pay you a penny unless you prove yourself innocent.

Was just coming back to post what you said. The new law protects you civilly if no charges are filed or you're found not guilty, but not from overzealous liberal prosecutors or judges trying to ruin your life before being found not guilty.

The insurance may be worth it, especially in that instance

 

[KLB]

Sounds like maybe all you'd need is the DA to say you weren't charged because it's self defense but then you'll always have that grubby lawyer or two who will try to get around it.

Lack of charges gives them a chance to try to show you were not justified. Then can try to sue, but if you are found to have been justified, they pay lawyer fees. Without charges, it seems like it would be an uphill climb to prove you weren't justified.

SECTION 6. IC 34-30-31 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE
AS A
NEW
CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE
UPON PASSAGE]:
Chapter 31. Immunity for Justified Use of Force
Sec. 1. (a) As used in this section, "forcible felony" means:
(1) any offense described under IC 35-31.5-2-138;
(2) residential entry (as defined under IC 35-43-2-1.5); or
(3) burglary (as defined under IC 35-43-2-1).
(b) The justified use of force described under IC 35-41-3-2
provides a complete immunity against any claim or action initiated
by a person:
(1) who alleges to have been injured or damaged by any such
use of force; and
(2) whose conduct justified the use of force.
(c) In no case shall any use of force justified under IC 35-41-3-2
give rise to any claim or action for damages or compensation
against a person, employer, or estate of a person using such force
by or on behalf of any person who:
(1) was attempting to commit or committing a forcible felony
at the time such force was used; or
(2) was attempting to cause or causing unlawful serious bodily
injury to any other person at the time such force was used.
This prohibition shall apply to any claim or action brought by the
estate, personal representative, spouse, or family member of a
person described in subdivision (1) or (2).
(d) If a defendant files a motion under Trial Rule 56 of the
Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure and supports that motion with
admissible evidence that establishes a prima facie basis for the
application of the immunity described in subsection (b) or (c), the
burden shall shift to the plaintiff to oppose the motion with
admissible evidence directly contradicting the application of the
immunity in order to establish a genuine issue of material fact for
trial.
(e) In a civil case in which an immunity defense under
subsection (b) or (c) is raised, the fact that a defendant was not
prosecuted for a crime related to the defendant's use of force shall
create a rebuttable presumption that the defendant's use of force
was justified under IC 35-41-3-2 and the jury shall be instructed on
this presumption if the case proceeds to trial. In a summary
judgment proceeding described in subsection (d), the fact that a
defendant was not prosecuted for a crime related to the
defendant's use of force shall also create a prima facie basis for the
application of the immunity described in subsection (b) or (c).
(f) In any action commenced after June 30, 2019, in which the
defense described in subsection (c) is raised by a defendant, at the
conclusion of the action the court shall award to the defendant or
defendants, as applicable, any reasonable attorney's fees and costs
incurred in defending the action if a defendant successfully moves
for summary judgment on the basis of the defense set forth in
subsection (c) or the trier of fact determines that the action was
prohibited by subsection (c)

 

[melensdad]

Morning peeps!

 

[jedi]

If it is ruled SD, you need no insurance. If you are prosectputed your Carry Insurance will not pay you a penny unless you prove yourself innocent.

Where are you getting this from?
From what I am reading at least from CCW Safe is they pay upfront for your trials.

 

[melensdad]

Remember, today is the last day to get your votes in for your favorite Northwest Indiana fencing coach for national spirit of sport award for fencing.

Follow the voting link here --> https://www.usafencing.org/news_article/show/1111422

 

[mmpsteve]

Added my vote. Good luck Bob!

.

 

[CTC B4Z]

Wh0a

 

[CTC B4Z]

Hey guys.

Point me in the direction of a place to buy a good tile prod

 

[2A_Tom]

If you asked what I think you asked, Decor tile on 41 south of Schillings on the left as you drive South.

 

[CTC B4Z]

So like clay tile prod. Thing you poke in the ground to find clay tile and other under ground things

 

[CTC B4Z]

Probably only pertains to south of 30 hillrods

 

[CTC B4Z]

Tile probe

 

[darkkevin]

is there a difference between a "tile prod" and a piece of rebar?

 

[KLB]

A handle?

 

[2A_Tom]

Call Leep's and TSC.

 

[actaeon277]

Yup. Just get rebar, or any home Depot type store sells wood or metal rods.