NWI INGO General Post Part 18 - Legal now!!

[actaeon277]

Um, not me.

But you've probably done questionable things for a Klondike Bar.

 

[jedi]

[video=youtube_share;AWL184ZcSxA]https://youtu.be/AWL184ZcSxA[/video]

A good ww 2 movie with a big superstar cast.
Wow they were young.

 

[jedi]

But you've probably done questionable things for a Klondike Bar.

Jedi would post those suagage but the level of eye bleach needed afterwards would be way too much.

 

[hoosierdaddy1976]

I've done many a questionable thing for "whoohaa".

But NOT watching Twilight.

NOPE

That's a bridge too far.

That's because you're so damn old. You probably sat through Walt Whitman reciting, "I Sing the Body Electric," in hopes of loosening a maiden's petticoat.

 

[actaeon277]

That's because you're so damn old. You probably sat through Walt Whitman reciting, "I Sing the Body Electric," in hopes of loosening a maiden's petticoat.

 

[2A_Tom]

He is not even old enough to have put on bell bottoms, a quianna shirt and gone to a Disco.

Oh, The shame of it.

 

[Snapdragon]

Well cause you are a gggggggiiiiirrrrrllllll.
Be kind of strange if you did it for why tv did.

You might have done it for him....

nope

 

[Snapdragon]

But you've probably done questionable things for a Klondike Bar.

Dove bar, maybe...

 

[melensdad]

Dove bar, maybe...

I figured you as a DREAMSICLE girl

 

[gundawg]

2020 is just a crazy year to live thru.

If you think 2020 sucks so far, just wait until the beer famine hits.

Just found out my favorite is out of stock at the distributor, not known when it may be available again. I may have to buy every case we have left in the store and stash it.

 

[KLB]

Beer hoarding!

 

[repeter1977]

Morning all, another wonderful day starting. Not sarcasm either. I got the brakes done yesterday, and thankful it wasn't horrendous costing. It's nice having no squeaking noises.

 

[Snapdragon]

Morning, guys. Glad you're having a good day, Pete.

Going in for some cardiac tests this morning. Echo and stress test. Fun fun. Worst thing is I can't have my coffee.

 

[CTC B4Z]

I think no coffee for me = migraine level head ache.

 

[KLB]

I think no coffee for me = migraine level head ache.

That is called withdrawal

 

[tv1217]

Lawyer and Ortho appointments today. Weeeee

 

[darkkevin]

Lawyer and Ortho appointments today. Weeeee

did you find out if she was insured?

 

[HoughMade]

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

Nope.

They can file a lawsuit. The defense has to file motions establishing that they fit under the statute.

[ETA]

(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).

Ind. Code Ann. § 34-30-31-1.

So, here's how this is applied.

1) Plaintiff files lawsuit. They have that right. There are very few circumstances that bar the right to file a lawsuit. The question is what defenses to the lawsuit are available.

2) Defendant wants to use this statute. His lawyer files a "Motion for Summary Judgment" which is a motion to "cut off" a claim short of trial. Basically, this motion allows a party to argue that under the facts that are established by admissible evidence (documents, depositions, affidavits, etc.) the other party cannot win under the law. Unless the other side can establish, through admissible evidence, that the facts are in dispute (or the law is not as claimed), the case will be dismissed. This actually happens very frequently.

3) So, how does one use this statute? It provides the law. The lawyer defending the case will file a motion for summary judgment claiming self-defense as described under this law. The lack of a prosecution is admissible evidence that creates the presumption that there is a legitimate self-defense claim. If the plaintiff cannot provide admissible evidence to create an issue of fact (something that a jury must decide), the case is dismissed.

4) Even if there ends up being disputed facts at the motion stage, the presumption is still presented to the jury. Instructions will explain to the jury how this statute works (among other things). If the jury decides that the facts of the case comply with the statute, it is supposed to find for the defendant.

Granted, these are 4 points that are more complex than my quick summary, but this statute is a great step forward for legitimate self-defense claims.

 

[chef larry]

Lawyer and Ortho appointments today. Weeeee

Now you get to see how many different way's you will get bent and be sure it's painful.

 

[HoughMade]

Now you get to see how many different way's you will get bent and be sure it's painful.