Are my rights handicapped in civilian court?

[sdusmcr]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IN

In a case, my ex gf is accusing me of "blood-choking" her. I have described this to her many times as its a neat thing I was trained to do, so that's how she knows what it is. Being an infantry veteran of the USMC and still currently serving, am I going have disadvantages in civilian court for having this training? If she gets a lawyer, can they convince the judge I did and dont remember b/c they are of the opinion I have PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress)?

I would like to know what sorts of things lawyers will try to do to discredit me and how likely those discrediting accusations will work. I've never dealt with court or judges or any of that and am worried some loophole is going to get me in trouble despite being innocent.

Thank you for all your help!

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by sdusmcr

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IN

In a case, my ex gf is accusing me of "blood-choking" her. I have described this to her many times as its a neat thing I was trained to do, so that's how she knows what it is. Being an infantry veteran of the USMC and still currently serving, am I going have disadvantages in civilian court for having this training? If she gets a lawyer, can they convince the judge I did and dont remember b/c they are of the opinion I have PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress)?

I would like to know what sorts of things lawyers will try to do to discredit me and how likely those discrediting accusations will work. I've never dealt with court or judges or any of that and am worried some loophole is going to get me in trouble despite being innocent.

Thank you for all your help!

You still retain the same rights as anyone else. You need a lawyer.

[sdusmcr]

Yes, I am aware that I have the same rights. But what I was asking:

"I would like to know what sorts of things lawyers will try to do to discredit me and how likely those discrediting accusations will work."

I most definitely will be getting a lawyer if she gets one. But Knowledge is a weapon and I dont want to be unarmed: i.e. going into the situation without having any clue about what loopholes there are and/or things I should keep my ears open for.

Any suggestions or things I should know about that people try to take advantage of with military personnel in civilian court?

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by sdusmcr

Yes, I am aware that I have the same rights. But what I was asking:

"I would like to know what sorts of things lawyers will try to do to discredit me and how likely those discrediting accusations will work."

I most definitely will be getting a lawyer if she gets one. But Knowledge is a weapon and I dont want to be unarmed: i.e. going into the situation without having any clue about what loopholes there are and/or things I should keep my ears open for.

Any suggestions or things I should know about that people try to take advantage of with military personnel in civilian court?

If she has filed a criminal complaint against you then she does have a lawyer already. Her case will be represented by the state and they will try to prove that without a doubt you choked your ex-girlfriend. You will try to prove that you didn't. If charges are filed against you then get a lawyer, but from what you have posted there doesn't seem to be much of a case against you. Then again, I only have your half of the story.

[sdusmcr]

Originally Posted by ERAUPIKE

If she has filed a criminal complaint against you then she does have a lawyer already. Her case will be represented by the state and they will try to prove that without a doubt you choked your ex-girlfriend. You will try to prove that you didn't. If charges are filed against you then get a lawyer, but from what you have posted there doesn't seem to be much of a case against you. Then again, I only have your half of the story.

The only thing I'm asking about is if there are any known loopholes that will try to be pressed.

Also, does the state provide a lawyer for me to defend myself? or do I have to go and hire one? I mean, I'm an unemployed Marine reservist...I cant afford that sort of thing.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by sdusmcr

The only thing I'm asking about is if there are any known loopholes that will try to be pressed.

Also, does the state provide a lawyer for me to defend myself? or do I have to go and hire one? I mean, I'm an unemployed Marine reservist...I cant afford that sort of thing.

No, there are not any known loopholes that will be exploited to convict you of whatever crime you may be charged with.

The state may provide you a public defender if you qualify.

[sdusmcr]

I was just informed she is also pressing Battery "A" charges against me. This is for when i took my property out of her hands and put her arm behind her back when she was trying to hit me in my vehicle.


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.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.



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.



According to my interpretation, I was in my rights to do this? And if i want, i can get her charged on Provocation? is that correct?

[sdusmcr]

she threw my GPS out my window and was about to do the same with my radar detector and IPOD...my expensive electronics that were within reach of her

[racer72]

Originally Posted by sdusmcr

she threw my GPS out my window and was about to do the same with my radar detector and IPOD...my expensive electronics that were within reach of her

Not relevant.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by sdusmcr

she threw my GPS out my window and was about to do the same with my radar detector and IPOD...my expensive electronics that were within reach of her

After you get out of jail for battery you can file a civil suit to retrieve the cost of the GPS she threw out of the window. You were not justified in attacking a woman and I can't believe you as a Marine would think that was acceptable.

[sdusmcr]

Originally Posted by racer72

Not relevant.

how is that not relevant?


IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property

is that not protection of property?

[sdusmcr]

Originally Posted by ERAUPIKE

After you get out of jail for battery you can file a civil suit to retrieve the cost of the GPS she threw out of the window. You were not justified in attacking a woman and I can't believe you as a Marine would think that was acceptable.

I will restrain anyone that damages me or my property. It doesnt matter who, what gender, age, or what race...those are irrelevant. If the person is causing damage, they need to be stopped. Plain and simple.

You're being discriminatory in support of women, and i think that's pretty shady. Equality for all except when law is applied? IT Doesnt matter that it was a female.

[sdusmcr]

(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.


Does this not mean anything?

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by sdusmcr

(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.


Does this not mean anything?

You will have your day in court. I still find it ridiculous that you feel that it is okay to lay your hands on a woman. Here is your last piece of advice, when you come seeking free advice don't act like you know more then those you seek answers from. The next bit of legal advice you get will be from your retained attorney.