• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana lawmaker wants to expand 'stand your ground' law

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Indiana lawmaker wants to expand 'stand your ground' law



INDIANAPOLIS (WISH)
-- Indiana lawmakers on Monday tackled a bill that would expand the parameters of justifiable use of force in the defense of yourself and others. State Rep. Jim Lucas, a Republican from Seymour, said his bill expands on Indiana's current 'stand your ground' law and would grant immunity, meaning you would not be liable in a civil case.

Two years ago, in February 2017, News 8 reported a woman shot and killed a man while he was fighting with a conservation officer in Ohio County, near Rising Sun, Indiana. "I couldn't just stand there and watch a police officer murdered in front of my eyes, when I had the ability to help that day, and so I helped," Kystie Phillps said Monday at the Statehouse.

State Rep. Jim Lucas said that's why that same woman shared her story Monday with lawmakers.

"The aftermath of those events have torn my family limb from limb," Phillps said. "Those scars are never going to completely go away."

Now she says she's being sued by the family of the man who died






https://www.wishtv.com/news/indiana...ts-to-expand-stand-your-ground-law/1733613118

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Roadvirus

Heading North
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
33,452
Reaction score
21,142
Location
Tennessee, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I love this logic: "I'm suing you because you shot my baby while he was committing a crime!"

Okay, fine. I want your ass jailed for neglecting to teach your dead punk kid right from wrong.
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I love this logic: "I'm suing you because you shot my baby while he was committing a crime!"

Okay, fine. I want your ass jailed for neglecting to teach your dead punk kid right from wrong.

Hence the law. It is , apparently, a needed expansion of law-abiding citizen empowerment.

We like the idea , here.
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
76,603
Reaction score
26,113
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Without more detail, I dont like it on the surface. Im all for well written stand your ground laws but this description seems to vague. The not liable part seems horrible unless its clearly defined.

For example just last year we had a couple of cases across the country where trained policies officers showed up on a scene and shot innocent people holding weapons that were actually "good guys with guns"
If the police can make that mistake certainly untrained civilians can make that mistake and i would never support removing liability IF thats what this does.

But id also support legislation for example if the girl in the story was found innocent of criminal charges and deemed to in fact be protecting a life, blocking civil suit against her by the criminals' parents.

Again though this is based on quick reading and maybe not understanding what this law actually does. Sometimes a good law is too vague and has bad consequences
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Without more detail, I dont like it on the surface. Im all for well written stand your ground laws but this description seems to vague. The not liable part seems horrible unless its clearly defined.

For example just last year we had a couple of cases across the country where trained policies officers showed up on a scene and shot innocent people holding weapons that were actually "good guys with guns"
If the police can make that mistake certainly untrained civilians can make that mistake and i would never support removing liability IF thats what this does.

But id also support legislation for example if the girl in the story was found innocent of criminal charges and deemed to in fact be protecting a life, blocking civil suit against her by the criminals' parents.

Again though this is based on quick reading and maybe not understanding what this law actually does. Sometimes a good law is too vague and has bad consequences

It is not for LEOs.

It is for the protection of law abiding citizens legally using deadly force.

If your criminal relative gets his/her ass shot DRT in the commission of a crime, you have no grounds for a lawsuit, for his/her getting shot DRT in the commission of the crime.


Seems clear enough....
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
76,603
Reaction score
26,113
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1.) It is not for LEOs.
2.) It is for the protection of law abiding citizens legally using deadly force.
3.) If your criminal relative gets his/her ass shot DRT in the commission of a crime, you have no grounds for a lawsuit, for his/her getting shot DRT in the commission of the crime.
4.) Seems clear enough....

1) didnt say it was in fact i specifically pointed to why it could be bad for non leos
2.) and what if they use it wrong?
3.) i agree to a point is that what this new law says? show the verbiage of it
4.) quite the opposite currently
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
1) didnt say it was in fact i specifically pointed to why it could be bad for non leos
2.) and what if they use it wrong?
3.) i agree to a point is that what this new law says? show the verbiage of it
4.) quite the opposite currently

1.) Yes it does.

2.) Freedom is messy. There may well be mistakes. And?

3.) Are you averse to using Google?


Scratch that...HERE: (Link in link.)



House Bill 1284 - Self-defense and the defense of others - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
76,603
Reaction score
26,113
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1.) Yes it does.

2.) Freedom is messy. There may well be mistakes. And?

3.) Are you averse to using Google?

1.) yes it does what?
2.) and with mistakes comes liablity
3.) not my job its your claims support them
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
1.) yes it does what?
2.) and with mistakes comes liablity
3.) not my job its your claims support them

1.) Post #7

2.) Link was in OP article.

3.) Why I chose THAT SOURCE.

4.) Did you not bother to read it?
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
76,603
Reaction score
26,113
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1.) Post #7

2.) Link was in OP article.

3.) Why I chose THAT SOURCE.

4.) Did you not bother to read it?

1.) what abotu post 7
2.) read the article and your OP the info i asked isnt in there
3.) again waiting for your support of your claims
4.) see #2
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
1.) what abotu post 7
2.) read the article and your OP the info i asked isnt in there
3.) again waiting for your support of your claims
4.) see #2

1.)Link to BILL there.

2.) The hell it wasn't.

3.) There are TWO LINKS to the bill itself in the OP article.

4.) Reading comp ??
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
76,603
Reaction score
26,113
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1.)Link to BILL there.

2.) The hell it wasn't.

3.) There are TWO LINKS to the bill itself in the OP article.

4.) Reading comp ??

LOL this is hilarious
1.) saw it
2.) then quote it, please
3.) who said there wasnt
4.) i dont know, it doesnt seem like you do, your numbers dont even correspond correctly LMAO
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
LOL this is hilarious
1.) saw it
2.) then quote it, please
3.) who said there wasnt
4.) i dont know, it doesnt seem like you do, your numbers dont even correspond correctly LMAO


Good evening. Not my day to babysit.
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
76,603
Reaction score
26,113
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Top Bottom