Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

May be a stupid question but....

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by PtlCop View Post
    Provocation is closely related, but it's an infraction. Intimidation must be verbalized or something like a drawing back of the fist, where the meaning is clearly definable.
    Provocation is a misdemeanor.
    2067. (1983.) Provocation.—80. Whoever by words, signs or gestures, provokes or attempts to provoke another, who has the present ability to do so, to commit an assault or assault and battery upon him, is guilty of criminal provocation, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding twenty dollars.

    An indictment under this section is sufficient if it follows the language of the statute. Stuekmeyer c. State, 29 Ind. 20; Marshall v. State, 123 Ind. 128.

    On a charge of an attempt to provoke an assault and battery, there may be a conviction of an attempt to provoke an assault. Marshall ». State, 123 Ind. 128.
    (emphasis added)

    Comment


    • #47
      This is getting old.....

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Outshined
        One thing about Monty, is, he will not concede.
        Even though he rarely knows what he is speaking about
        "a band is blowing Dixie double four time You feel alright when you hear the music ring"


        The real deal

        Outshined Pujulesfan Bearcat Chitowndet Sgt Slaughter jthorpe M-11 Lt Borelli L-1Sgt CHP Nikk Smurf Presence1 IcecoldblueyesKimble LADEP ateamer ChiCity R.A.B. Jenners IrishMetal GoldBadge willowdared Monkeybomb PhilipCal pullicords Chit2001 Garbageman Narco CruiserClass Fuzz 10-42Trooper Tex4720 irishlad2nv bajakirch OnThe gurmpyirishmanNYIlliniSgtScott31 CityCopDCcgh6366 FJDave

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Monty Ealerman View Post
          Provocation is a misdemeanor.
          (emphasis added)
          IC 35-42-2-3
          Provocation
          Sec. 3. A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally engages in conduct that is likely to provoke a reasonable man to commit battery commits provocation, a Class C infraction.
          As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.32.

          Wrong again.

          Emphasis added since you still don't get it.
          Originally posted by K40
          To me, open carry is the equivalent of the couple making out and groping each other at the food court in the mall. Yeah, they are probably legal, as long as they don't start getting undressed. But they are still social retards.
          ‎"You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don't have time to think about how many's with him; he thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on him." - Rooster Cogburn

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by PtlCop View Post
            It was a pretty good defense strategy actually. Unfortunately, it gives carte blanche for people to just go ahead and take the phone away from somebody else if they are callin 911 to report an argument.
            In the cases I have been on, we are usually talking about two people who are not married, and I think all have been cell phones. As such, if you take away a person's phone, you have just taken their property.

            At a minimum we have:

            IC 35-43-4-3 Conversion
            Sec. 3. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person commits criminal conversion, a Class A misdemeanor.

            Depending on other factors, might even have:

            IC 35-43-4-2 Theft; receiving stolen property
            Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D felony.

            When I have these situations come up, I always ask whose name the phone is in. If it is a joint account, then to me it wouldn't fly.

            Originally posted by Outshined
            One thing about Monty, is, he will not concede.
            I hope he arrest me for "assault" and/or provocation. I could use the quick $10K for false arrest!!

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Dwntwn317 View Post
              In the cases I have been on, we are usually talking about two people who are not married, and I think all have been cell phones. As such, if you take away a person's phone, you have just taken their property.

              At a minimum we have:

              IC 35-43-4-3 Conversion
              Sec. 3. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person commits criminal conversion, a Class A misdemeanor.

              Depending on other factors, might even have:

              IC 35-43-4-2 Theft; receiving stolen property
              Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D felony.

              When I have these situations come up, I always ask whose name the phone is in. If it is a joint account, then to me it wouldn't fly.



              I hope he arrest me for "assault" and/or provocation. I could use the quick $10K for false arrest!!
              I like the way you think. Unfortunately, the two were married, and as i'm sure you know, there is no personal property in an Indiana marriage, it's all joint.
              Originally posted by K40
              To me, open carry is the equivalent of the couple making out and groping each other at the food court in the mall. Yeah, they are probably legal, as long as they don't start getting undressed. But they are still social retards.
              ‎"You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don't have time to think about how many's with him; he thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on him." - Rooster Cogburn

              Comment


              • #52
                Hi PtlCop,

                First, I acknowledge that Provocation in Indiana was reclassified as a Class C Infraction at least 30 years ago, and that I had said it was a misdemeanor. Thanks for taking the trouble to find that and point it out. Thanks also for the Indiana Code reference.

                From that Code:
                IC 34-47-3-2
                Resisting or delaying process
                Sec. 2. A person who willfully resists, hinders, or delays the execution of any lawful process, or order of any court of record is guilty of an indirect contempt of court.
                As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.43.

                IC 34-47-3-3
                Assaulting, influencing, or intimidating witnesses
                Sec. 3. A person:
                (1) who:
                (A) offers, gives, or promises any reward to;
                (B) threatens to assault or injure;
                (C) assaults or beats; or
                (D) in any other manner influences, intimidates, or attempts to influence;
                any witness to give or abstain from giving testimony in any case, or to abstain from attending as a witness in any case;
                (2) who does any act to put a witness in fear, on account of any testimony that the witness may have given; or
                (3) who, on account of any testimony, injures or threatens to injure a witness;
                is guilty of an indirect contempt of the court in which such witness may be called to testify, if the acts are done elsewhere, out of the presence of the court.
                As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.43.
                It seems to me that taking away access to a phone with the specific intention of preventing the person from calling 911 to summon the Police is hindering process, even if there is not yet a pending case, because the law says "any lawful process", and intentional prevention of a person calling the Police intentionally hinders a lawful process.

                It could also be viewed as a violation of IC 37-47-3-3 (1) (D), because it is an attempt to influence a witness to abstain from giving preliminary testimony to bring about the establishment of a contemplated future case, and the law says "in any case".

                Also, the law cited above mentions assault, not as a crime in itself, but as an action that one person might perpetrate against another with an unlawful purpose.

                Regards,

                Monty

                Comment


                • #53
                  You don't give up, do you? The section you cited quite obviously deals with civil contempt of court, and has nothing to do with making phone calls.

                  By all means, though, when you find yourself in a hole, keep digging.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Monty Ealerman View Post
                    Hi PtlCop,

                    First, I acknowledge that Provocation in Indiana was reclassified as a Class C Infraction at least 30 years ago, and that I had said it was a misdemeanor. Thanks for taking the trouble to find that and point it out. Thanks also for the Indiana Code reference.

                    From that Code:
                    It seems to me that taking away access to a phone with the specific intention of preventing the person from calling 911 to summon the Police is hindering process, even if there is not yet a pending case, because the law says "any lawful process", and intentional prevention of a person calling the Police intentionally hinders a lawful process.

                    It could also be viewed as a violation of IC 37-47-3-3 (1) (D), because it is an attempt to influence a witness to abstain from giving preliminary testimony to bring about the establishment of a contemplated future case, and the law says "in any case".

                    Also, the law cited above mentions assault, not as a crime in itself, but as an action that one person might perpetrate against another with an unlawful purpose.

                    Regards,

                    Monty
                    Title 34 refers to Civil law, and i'm not empowered to enforce civil law, except under very limited circumstances. Secondly, "witness" refers to a witness in a civil proceeding.
                    Originally posted by K40
                    To me, open carry is the equivalent of the couple making out and groping each other at the food court in the mall. Yeah, they are probably legal, as long as they don't start getting undressed. But they are still social retards.
                    ‎"You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don't have time to think about how many's with him; he thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on him." - Rooster Cogburn

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by DeputySheriff68
                      The common law still applies....who is the heck is this Monty guy and what is he smoking.
                      IC 1-1-2
                      Chapter 2. Laws Governing the State

                      IC 1-1-2-1
                      Hierarchy of law
                      Sec. 1. The law governing this state is declared to be:
                      First. The Constitution of the United States and of this state.
                      Second. All statutes of the general assembly of the state in force, and not inconsistent with such constitutions.
                      Third. All statutes of the United States in force, and relating to subjects over which congress has power to legislate for the states, and not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.
                      Fourth. The common law of England, and statutes of the British Parliament made in aid thereof prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First (except the second section of the sixth chapter of forty-third Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of thirteenth Elizabeth, and the ninth chapter of thirty-seventh Henry the Eighth,) and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, and not inconsistent with the first, second and third specifications of this section.
                      (Formerly: Acts 1852,1RS, c.61, s.1.)

                      IC 1-1-2-2
                      Criminal law statutory
                      Sec. 2. Crimes shall be defined and punishment therefor fixed by statutes of this state and not otherwise.
                      (Formerly: Acts 1852,1RS, c.61, s.2.) As amended by Acts 1978, P.L.2, SEC.101.
                      So the common law still applies, but by this statute statutory law supersedes, and statutory law says that crimes are to be defined and punishments for them fixed by statutes and not otherwise.

                      This means that all offenses must be defined by statute in order to be considered crimes; however, an offense at common law is still an offense, even if it is not a crime, and the Police have lawful authority to prevent the furtherance of common law offenses.

                      A person still has the right to have recourse to the authorities for the prevention of the furtherance of a common law offense, such as assault, even if the Indiana legislature has not defined assault specifically as a crime.

                      This falls under the Constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

                      No-one has the right to take away his wife's phone with the specific intention of preventing his wife from calling the Police in response to his having committed a common law assault against her.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by PtlCop View Post
                        Title 34 refers to Civil law, and i'm not empowered to enforce civil law, except under very limited circumstances. Secondly, "witness" refers to a witness in a civil proceeding.
                        The statute says "any witness" and "in any case". It is not restricted to civil case witnesses or civil cases only. And the phrase "is guilty of" implies an offense.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Monty Ealerman View Post
                          The statute says "any witness" and "in any case". It is not restricted to civil case witnesses or civil cases only. And the phrase "is guilty of" implies an offense.
                          You are OUT OF CONTROL! It's from the CIVIL LAW Title of the Indiana Code. You can't use a civil code in the criminal case the way you're trying to. They're two different courts, two different theories of law! Give it up, you've lost. You clearly have NO idea what you're talking about, and are now grasping for any argument you can. It doesn't matter to you if we're asking for apples and you throw back oranges, as long as you can throw something back. I really, really hope that you're not a lawyer. On second thought, I hope you're a defense attorney in my county, the good guys would never lose another case.
                          Originally posted by K40
                          To me, open carry is the equivalent of the couple making out and groping each other at the food court in the mall. Yeah, they are probably legal, as long as they don't start getting undressed. But they are still social retards.
                          ‎"You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don't have time to think about how many's with him; he thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on him." - Rooster Cogburn

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Monty Ealerman View Post
                            So the common law still applies, but by this statute statutory law supersedes, and statutory law says that crimes are to be defined and punishments for them fixed by statutes and not otherwise.

                            This means that all offenses must be defined by statute in order to be considered crimes; however, an offense at common law is still an offense, even if it is not a crime, and the Police have lawful authority to prevent the furtherance of common law offenses.

                            A person still has the right to have recourse to the authorities for the prevention of the furtherance of a common law offense, such as assault, even if the Indiana legislature has not defined assault specifically as a crime.

                            This falls under the Constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

                            No-one has the right to take away his wife's phone with the specific intention of preventing his wife from calling the Police in response to his having committed a common law assault against her.
                            You have ABSOLUTELY gone 'round the bend. I'm outting you, what do you do for a living? You're clearly a 1st year law student who's confused by his studies.
                            Originally posted by K40
                            To me, open carry is the equivalent of the couple making out and groping each other at the food court in the mall. Yeah, they are probably legal, as long as they don't start getting undressed. But they are still social retards.
                            ‎"You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don't have time to think about how many's with him; he thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on him." - Rooster Cogburn

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Not to mention that 1-1-2-2 specifically says that "Crimes shall be defined and punishment therefor fixed by statutes of this state and not otherwise." Indiana DOES NOT define a crime of assault by statute. Ergo, charging somebdoy with it would fall into the "otherwise" category, and is against the very title that YOU brought up.
                              Originally posted by K40
                              To me, open carry is the equivalent of the couple making out and groping each other at the food court in the mall. Yeah, they are probably legal, as long as they don't start getting undressed. But they are still social retards.
                              ‎"You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don't have time to think about how many's with him; he thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on him." - Rooster Cogburn

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Monty Ealerman View Post
                                So the common law still applies, but by this statute statutory law supersedes, and statutory law says that crimes are to be defined and punishments for them fixed by statutes and not otherwise.

                                This means that all offenses must be defined by statute in order to be considered crimes; however, an offense at common law is still an offense, even if it is not a crime, and the Police have lawful authority to prevent the furtherance of common law offenses.

                                A person still has the right to have recourse to the authorities for the prevention of the furtherance of a common law offense, such as assault, even if the Indiana legislature has not defined assault specifically as a crime.

                                This falls under the Constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

                                No-one has the right to take away his wife's phone with the specific intention of preventing his wife from calling the Police in response to his having committed a common law assault against her.
                                And no, I don't. If it's not listed in the Indiana Code as an Infraction, Misdemeanor or Felony, I don't have the lawful authority to do anything.

                                You've been thoroughly smacked down at every single angle here by multiple people. I think its time you tuck tail and leave.
                                Originally posted by K40
                                To me, open carry is the equivalent of the couple making out and groping each other at the food court in the mall. Yeah, they are probably legal, as long as they don't start getting undressed. But they are still social retards.
                                ‎"You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don't have time to think about how many's with him; he thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on him." - Rooster Cogburn

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 4154 users online. 295 members and 3859 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X