Cops Raise Money To Defend Wrongful Death Suit Filed Against Good Samaritan

In February of 2017 an Indiana conservation officer who had responded to a suspicious person call was attacked by 25-year-old Justin Holland. According to a courier-journal.com report, Kystie Jaehnen, a local homeowner, saw the struggle and came to the officer’s aid.

An unidentified woman at a nearby home came to the scene to help the officer, who was “being overtaken by Holland,” the release said.

The woman fired once from her personally owned gun, striking Holland in the torso, the release said. He was given first aid by witnesses and transported to Dearborn County Hospital where he was later pronounced dead.

The officer was injured and transported to the Dearborn County Hospital for treatment of non-life-threatening injuries.

It was subsequently found that Holland had meth, benzodiazepines, marijuana, methadone, and dextromethorphan in his system. Jaehnen was cleared of any criminal liability by the Indiana State Police, but Holland’s family, claiming wrongful death, is suing her, the conservation officer and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources.

The state has plenty of resources to defend itself. The officer is backed by his department and the Fraternal Order of Police. Jaehnen, however, is left to face mounting legal bills on her own.

A GoFundMe page has been established by local police officers to raise money for Kystie Jaehnen’s defense. As Sgt. William Halbig of the Aurora Police Department wrote:

I am asking our community of citizens and law enforcement Officers to help in this legal battle. Attorney fees are an expense well beyond Kystie’s income and this will not be a quick process. The legal fees and emotional stress may drain every resource she has. I have pledged that any funds received above the cost of her legal defense, will be donated to charities; specifically, St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital and the FOP Police Benevolent Fund. …

This case is about more than the right or wrong of one party suing another.  Imagine not being able to come to the aid of another person for fear of being sued, possibly to the point of bankruptcy.  The case is about a person having the basic God-given right and the 2nd Amendment right to defend both yourself and others and without the fear of civil retribution.

Perhaps the worst choice we make, is not to protect our family, ourselves, or others when confronted with life threatening situations when we clearly have the power to do so.

The person in harm’s way needs to have faith that someone may come to their rescue in that moment of extreme need without fear of retribution.

comments

  1. avatar Jon in CO says:

    Indiana has some pretty decent gun laws, there’s nothing there preventing this from happening? If they could get it before a judge with some brains, it’ll probably get tossed.

    Good luck to her. She doesn’t deserve that. And to the family suing her, if they ever see this, please realize your kid was a worthless piece of excrement, and needed to be put down before he killed that cop or someone else.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      They do have a good samaritan law protecting someone who

      “in good faith, gratuitously renders emergency care … is immune from civil liability for any personal injury that results … .”

      according to http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/it-s-the-law-indiana-good-samaritans-are-protected-from/article_0034242f-e795-5d63-8d88-07d6dd22ea1f.html

      Not sure if shooting an attacker would generally qualify as “rendering emergency care”. Godspeed to her if she’s going to be a test case.

    2. avatar Bpb755 says:

      “And to the family suing her, if they ever see this, please realize your kid was a worthless piece of excrement, and needed to be put down before he killed that cop or someone else.”

      In many of these cases, the family is just as bad as the criminal who got himself killed. They file these lawsuits because of greed.

      1. avatar DC says:

        Absolutely, they are prob just like he was. Now they are trying to use their boys death to score some more dope money. People are so sad anymore. What happened to this great country we all love so much?

    3. avatar Mike says:

      The family is more than likely broke and using this to get money from their shitty son on drugs. They don’t care that their son affected his own death .

      1. avatar Pax says:

        This is exactly what I was thinking. They don’t care that their son is dead, they just see it as an opportunity to make money.

        1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          Remember also, it takes a “lawyer/attorney” to initiate this kind of law suit and that lawyer is also doing it for his own personal gain! Any lawyer worth a shit would refuse to take this case based on the circumstances, so this lawyer is OBVIOUSLY a worthless “ambulance chaser”!

  2. avatar Sam I Am says:

    1. Have homeowner insurance with a large, large liability segment.
    2. Have a liability umbrella policy with a large, large policy limit
    3. Have gun owner liability insurance (or self-defense insurance)
    4. Know the laws of deadly force in your community
    5. If you are in a state that does not shield “good Samaritans”, do not intervene in an injury situation; call 911.
    6. If you are iunder-insured, if you don’t know the law, just dial 911; let nature take its course.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      A normal liability insurance policy will do *nothing* to help you for something you did to another person on purpose. IMO, unfortunately having dedicated self-defense insurance is a must for anybody with anything to lose.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “A normal liability insurance policy will do *nothing* to help you for something you did to another person on purpose.”

        It will protect you against accident in your home (NDs). My recommendations are not just for Samaritan instances. My umbrella policy specifically protects me against law suits launched as a result of legal actions on my part (verified with my carrier). And my self-defense insurance protects me against the type situation outlined in the article. Indeed, my self-defense insurance covers me from the moment I call the company. It is not a reimbursement policy after I am found “Not Guilty”. The policy also protects me for use of any weapon at all, in self-defense.

        1. avatar No one of consequence says:

          Would you mind sharing the name of the company? Sounds like what I’ve been (haphazardly) looking for.

        2. avatar DAVE F says:

          I fully agree with you that having the name of the company that issues an umbrella policy that covers what he says would be very helpful. I presently have coverage with USCCA but always keep an open mind if something better comes along. Now let’s just wait and see if we get a response. Stay safe.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          My liability coverage is through USAA. My SD program is US LawShield.

        4. avatar DAVE F says:

          Thank you. Will check them out. Stay safe.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          USAA

        6. avatar Jeff K says:

          Comparing coverages, I went with USCCA.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Comparing coverage’s, I went with USCCA.

          OK. Good move. Glad you made it.

    2. avatar paul says:

      Unfortunately, your Homeowners and Umbrella policies won’t respond as the shooters act was “intentional”. What she needed was some product like “Texas Law Shield”.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        My recommendations are not restricted to the type of case at hand.

    3. avatar LJPII says:

      “6. If you are under-insured, if you don’t know the law, just dial 911; let nature take its course.”

      That’s some true cowardly ass bullshxit right there.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “That’s some true cowardly ass bullshxit right there.”

        Since you have no natural, human or civil moral obligation to put yourself in ruinous jeopardy by intervening in an altercation, defense of yourself should be the priority. And defending your financial circumstance also defends your family. There is no requirement that the person most damaged should be the person who rescued the victim. My entire point is that just because you are “right” (correct) in your actions, you don’t get a pass from the legal system. If one does not know the risk they are taking, the risk should not be taken. In my jurisdiction, discharging a firearm within the town is a chargable offense. We do not have “affirmative” defense; it is entirely up to police and the DA. So….even though I am legally armed, meet the requirements for use of deadly force, I can be prosecuted. If I am going to discharge a firearm in a defensive action, it will only be for me and mine. I did not send out notices to all the town’s people that I accept the office of defender of the realm.

      2. avatar Kyle says:

        Government often forces its citizens to be cowardly. Thats one of the many reasons we want a whole lot less of it on the right side of the isle.

        I live in the great lawless state of CA. Where only those with no right to be here are protected and I’ve long said, I’ll not hold it against a man (or woman) who decides to carry a gun illegally, for obeying the gun laws of CA is, for the most part, impossible. Nor will i hold it against a man (or woman) who is carrying a firearm legally and chooses not to do anything, because the law here is only on the side of the criminal.

        The non-criminal in CA is just a ‘loot pinata” waiting to get slammed with a stick to see how much cash falls out.

        Sorry if that seems cowardly, stop voting democrat.

      3. avatar Arc says:

        And whats the family going to say about all your heroic chest beating when they are out of house and home due to legal bills? The system fucks over good people, both the victims, and anyone willing to stick their neck out for the victims. I can live with being a coward if it keeps the roof.

    4. avatar jwtaylor says:

      I appreciate your advice, but I will continue to disregard most of it.
      If someone needs help, if their life depends on it, I’ll continue to help them. The financial consequences of those actions won’t be a part of my evaluation.
      Anyone who would allow an innocent person to be harmed or killed because of the fear of financial loss has little value in first place.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Anyone who would allow an innocent person to be harmed or killed because of the fear of financial loss has little value in first place.”

        Your analysis and understanding is a bit superficial.

        First, if you engage in an altercation that did not involve you or your family directly, you put not only yourself, but your entire family at risk. Does your family understand that? Are they supportive? Are you sure?

        Second, you are not John Law. You have no moral obligation to risk your life, maybe deprive your family of their loved one in favor of a stranger.

        Third, protecting yourself and your family, while not protecting others is not demonstrative of uselessness, or being of “little value”. It is protecting for yourself and your family a very valuable person.

        Fourth, running along with no concern for financial risk is irresponsible, especially if you carry a gun.

        Fifth, you are restricting your consideration to a single event, while my recommendations cover not only the current discussion, but the range of matters any gun owner should always be considering and addressing. Insurance against damage caused by a negligent discharge is applicable to the current discussion, and is pertinent to any gun owner, anytime. Insurance in an amount that may prevent absolute financial devastation from even non-gun related risk applies always. Knowing the laws of deadly force in your location is an imperative, always.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          I’m not going to try and convince you to be a decent human being. Don’t try to talk me into being a coward.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Free country. Go be a hero.

          I notice you didn’t answer my questions.

          “Discretion is the better part of valor”.

          And before you sling “coward” at discretion, you should know more about whom you denigrate.

        3. avatar jwtaylor says:

          I don’t need your permission to do the right thing.
          I didn’t answer your questions because they were based off your own self justifying false premise.
          And I didn’t call you a coward. I called you a lousy human being. I based that on what you told me about yourself, and the fact that you continue to try and convince other people to stand idly by while innocent people are hurt. I would think better of you if you were JUST a coward.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Deception and deceit. Are you really just a shill for the leftists?

          You proclaimed that you would not let me make you into a coward. That stems from your value judgement on my commentary. You are trying to denigrate another person by associating ideas with cowardice, then trying to deny the association is de facto a label.

          I owe my life to no one outside my household. Period. Protecting them is superior to any notion of protecting someone else. My prime obligation is to my family, not my neighbors, not society. That is not being a coward, that is enlightened self-interest.

          You are making a call on me to forfeit my freedom to choose, while I have done/said nothing to limit your freedom to be heroic.

          You claim you do not need my permission to do what is right. Perhaps you would accept my encouragement to be constantly on alert for an opportunity to rush into harm’s way, and a heroic end.

        5. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Sam I Am, please don’t be confused, you are well beyond the pale of a coward. By your own admission, you said you would watch an innocent person harmed or killed because it might cause you financial hardship. That’s far worse than just being a coward. That is a worthless human being. Valueless.
          But like you said, free country, that’s your choice. I didn’t try to convince you to be any other way. But for some reason, you continue to find it necessary to attempt to convince other people behave in the same shameful manner. Maybe you seek to find comfort in company. I don’t even want to know why. It’s disgusting and I don’t want to have anything to do with it.

          As far as your encouragement, I am, I have, and I hope to again.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Anything that keeps people like you churned-up and agitated (not to mention self-important) is good entertainment for me.

          You fly alone into a hostile target zone, successfully dodge twelve SAMs, then get up and do it the next night, over and over for a year. Then tell me how valueless a person is. Then tell me how they don’t put themselves out for others.

          But on a final note, take a reading comprehension course. One should never stop learning.

        7. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Sam I Am, I didn’t fly over it, I walked through it. And not for a year. Year after year. I still do.

          It doesn’t matter what you were. It matters what you are. Anyone that would, as you advised “just dial 911 and let nature take it’s course” is worthless.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Well, heros gotta hero. Did my service to the country, the neighbors, society. Now I focus on keeping me and my family safe. You keep yours safe. Let people take responsibility for themselves.

          Short term thinking can get you killed.

          BTW, your service to a dying nation truly is appreciated. Surprised how many will still do it.

        9. avatar LJPII says:

          “And before you sling “coward” at discretion, you should know more about whom you denigrate.”

          No need to know any more than what you’ve already said. You will stand by and watch an innocent person be hurt or killed to save your own ass. That’s all I need to know about you to make the assumption that you are a coward. As a matter of fact, that is the very definition of a coward.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Using your term, yes, I value my ass over yours, every time, anywhere.

          But that is not the point. The point is the gun grabbers may be onto something. Many commenters here lack basic skills for reading and comprehension. Makes us look like the fools and troglodytes they believe we are. Running helter skelter off the cliff like lemmings.

          Why is this so tough for you? Read what I wrote. While it is fun to take on the under-skilled, it is really not sporting.

          The first four recommendations are covered in my situation. This now positions me to make better decisions about intervening in an altercation.

          The fifth addresses “Good Samaritan” laws, or the lack. Such laws were not instigated to protect persons using firearms in self-defense. They were implemented to stop states from permitting people who attempted to assist in an emergency medical situation to be sued for damages if the assistance is not successful, or the attempt at assistance worsens the outcome. These laws were not originally intended to shield gun owners from civil suits. So, if your state has no Samaritan shield law for medical emergencies, it remains wise to let professionals do their job. While it may feel good to try to save a life, you risk making things worse for the intended beneficiary. Is that an outcome you want to impose?

          The sixth recommendation sets two conditions: unaware of the laws of deadly force in your location; risking your family’s future because you have not provided first for their protection (yes, financial protection of your family is a first-order responsibility). The idea that someone would ignore the risks to their family and swing into hero mode seems injudicious, irresponsible, filled with fantasy of the self-satisfaction and accolades that would accrue, and based in the mind set that “the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many” (apologies to CMDR Spock).

          Now, to strip away the curtain for all to see…the entire point of my comments was to provide checkpoints to consider, evaluate and adjust conditions if needed. But based on the replies of many, the only thing that matters is rushing to the assistance of someone in distress, all other considerations be damned. (Which is why I conclude that there seems to be a dearth of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills for too many).

          Railing at me does nothing to improve or validate your condition. Maybe some who have not thought this through completely can find a new way to look at their presets.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Mr. Taylor,

        Please take a moment to consider the following: if I intervene as a Good Samaritan and the consequences ruin me financially, that can have profound and extremely negative effects on me, my spouse, my children, and elderly parents if I am caring for them. Being financially ruined means I cannot afford healthy food, a healthy lifestyle, nor even adequate healthcare for myself and my family. All three of those effects could literally cause the early and unnecessary demise of myself and any of those people in my family. And we have not even considered how financial ruin could lead to higher risks in other areas of our lives such as operating old/unsafe vehicles (because that is all that we can afford) or living in dangerous conditions (whether dangerous due to poor construction or unsafe neighborhoods because that is all that we can afford).
        While it might be righteous to subject yourself to such risks, it could very well be wrong to subject your spouse, children, and elderly parents to such risks.

        Or look at it this way: if someone broke through ice on a pond and would drown without intervention, would you say that your spouse, children, and elderly parents should become the human chain to save the drowning person — and put all of them at risk of breaking through the ice and drowning as well?

        Of course the real solution that is necessary here is civil immunity when deadly force is legally justified in defense of self or others.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Yes, of course, all those risks are there. We are adults. They are POSSIBLE risks. Maybe they happen. Maybe they don’t. They are also eventual risks, that can be mitigated in the future with the actions yourself and of others.
          Remember, Sam I Am’s advice was about not getting sued, not personal danger. It was “let nature take it’s course” because someone might cause you financial difficulty in the future. Might, maybe, in the future.
          The violence happening to innocent life is happening, for sure, right now, right in front of you. That cop is getting murdered. That woman is getting raped. That child is getting abducted. Right now.
          I’m going to take the possible risk of all of the things you’ve described in order to do whatever I can about the real and present horror in front of me.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Mr. Taylor,

          I hear you and my disposition is the same as yours for what that is worth. All I am saying is that intervening for someone else carries significant risk for our families that will manifest itself physically if it comes to pass. (If financial ruin happens, it will significantly shorten the lifespan and quality of life for you and/or your family.)

          And I did not even touch upon the very real risk of reprisals on your family from the deceased’s family/friends.

          I can see merit in choosing to intervene and I can see merit in choosing not to intervene.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          JWTaylor is not into moral choices with equally valid assumptions, and equally valid alternative decision. His is the only morally acceptable choice; disagreement makes you pretty much “useless (and maybe even a “coward”).

          JWT is not completely unlike the anti-gun movement; no amount of logic can change his mind about whom he holds to be a “deplorable” (H.Clinton)

          But that is what makes America great: choices and intransigence.

        4. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          One thing that jwtaylor is NOT taking into account is, how do you KNOW that the person you are defending is actually the victim. In the incident shown by this article, Justin Holland could have been an innocent home owner defending himself against a tyrannical Indiana Conservation officer. Everyone automatically ASSUMES that the “law enforcement” individual is in the right, when it could be (and has been in the past) the opposite. If and when you decide to intervene in a third party confrontation, you better be sure you are in the right! Being the “hero” can easily backfire!
          The question of the day to jwtaylor – “If hil-LIAR-y clinton was being raped (very unlikely scenario), would you try to stop it?! How about if the police chief of Parkland, FL was being assaulted, like the Indiana Conservation officer was, (and you knew who he was), would you try to stop it?! Just remember that police chief allowed 17 innocents to be murdered. I think that jwtaylor talks a good game, but in reality, NO ONE knows what they would actually do in any given situation until it happens! Jwtaylor might just turn our to be the biggest coward of them all – We’ll never know!

    5. avatar Eric Lawrence says:

      I could not imagine going to meet God on my passing, and having to justify that my inaction was due to me worrying about wether or not I was properly insured. I expect hardship and difficulty on earth, for my reward is in heaven. If you can imagine making the argument to God that you did the right thing by worrying about yourself rather than others, you go right on ahead.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Eric Lawrence,

        What you say is all well and good if any resulting hardship is guaranteed to only affect you.

        The real trouble arises if resulting hardship means you cannot meet your Biblical obligation of providing for your family financially, physically, spiritually, and emotionally — which is in jeopardy if you intervene for someone else.

        We live in a broken world and sometimes we cannot possibly meet all of our obligations to God, family, and friends/neighbors. This might very well be one of those instances.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Then consider this: “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)

        Note that there is no admonition to take care of people not of the family.

        Perhaps it will be less vexing to explain to God how you destroyed your own family (by your death, or losing their home) in order to deal with “the horror” before you.

        Review again my recommendations. Understand that the first four (of five) are concerned with taking care of your family. Number five recommends not putting your family at risk if you do not know the laws of deadly force, or you are unprepared for financial stress (which is also a reminder to take care of your family).

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Sam I Am,

          My comment that parents have obligations to provide for their families is in specific response to 1 Timothy 5:8 as well as other Bible verses which direct us to teach our children and grandchildren. My response also refers to the Bible’s implicit and explicit orders to protect each other.

          I also added a bit of simple wisdom and mentioned that we may find ourselves facing “lose-lose” situations where it is literally impossible to satisfy all of our obligations.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “we may find ourselves facing “lose-lose” situations where it is literally impossible to satisfy all of our obligations.”

          Then we get to explain how we failed the cosmic Kobayashi Maru test.

          Seriously, your first obligation is to protect and provide for your family, even if a neighbor is in peril. All thoughts of “protecting one another” are secondary to the first responsibility. Not the other way round. Might feel good to look at the life we are given in the manner you announce. Not finding any implicit guidance that puts others before providing for your family. If it were so, Paul would not have put the badge of “infidel” on those who fail the first responsibility (BTW, “infidel” has a specific meaning, one that gets twisted into “unbeliever”. Such twisting neuters the ominous declaration of the apostle.)

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Sam I Am,

          I may not have been clear enough in my response above. When I said that sometimes we cannot possibly meet all of our Godly obligations, I was not implying that we should prioritize a neighbor’s well-being over that of our entire family. In fact I was implying the opposite.

          To be clear, I believe our first and primary obligation is to our immediate family. Then we have a secondary obligation to our fellow human beings — which the Bible makes absolutely crystal clear in the parable of the Good Samaritan as well as other verses.

          And if we add some wisdom, the picture becomes even more clear. The vast majority of “bad situations” that arise are a result of foolish choices and behaviors. I do not feel obligated to jeopardize my entire family’s well being to bail out some fool who walked out on thin ice, or some person who abdicated their personal responsibility to be able to defend themselves from animals and thugs. The trouble is we have no way of knowing, in the heat of the moment, whether the victim acted prudently and got a really bad break or whether the victim was a fool and is reaping what he/she sowed.

          As I stated earlier, sometimes life puts us in a “lose-lose” situation and someone will suffer no matter what we do.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I wonder if we can ever go wrong if we protect ourselves and our families before we render aid to others? Doing so would seem to argue that restraint of action best protects.

          Consider “Good Samaritan” attempts to render emergency medical aid. Without specific training in trauma medicine, without an adequate portable first aid kit, what action can I take that does not put the injured at greater risk? Does that mean I must watch someone die because I don’t know what to do, or how to do it? I think that is so. Do I act incompetently, with the prospect I will end up saying to the “victim” that I am sorry I made a mess of things, but I tried? Do I call 911, and risk watching the “victim” die awaiting professional assistance? Even if my family will not be subject to ruin as a result of law or court decision (meaning I provided for their economic security regardless of circumstance), do I put the injured person at risk of me taking action that will cost the patient dearly? Given my limits as an EMT (as in zero capability), do I act in ignorance anyway? Not considering whether there is moral advantage, or disadvantage, to “doing something”, it seems more likely that I will further damage the “victim”, maybe fatally, by intervening.

          Same for intervening with a firearm. Do I really understand the circumstance? Do I really know which person(s) is the aggressor? Do I know whether one of the participants is an undercover cop? With an almost infinite number of mistakes to be made, it seems best to not intervene unless threatened myself. “First do no harm” seems a viable lens through which to appraise a situation.

        5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Sam I Am,

          There certainly are risks to helping others and there certainly are risks to not helping others.

          I know from your background that you really, really want to have ALL the facts and time for a detailed analysis before acting on something. In many respects that is admirable. It can also lead to “analysis paralysis” as you probably know and sometimes we don’t have the luxury of knowing all the facts and having a large amount of time for decision making.

          While there certainly are times and places for highly detailed factual analysis, there are also times and places where “intuition” and “instinct” have to rule the day. Of course acting on intuition could lead to serious losses. And failing to act at all could lead to even greater losses. The real trick in life is knowing when it is best to act on factual analysis and when it is best to act on intuition.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          If I were to pick an underlying theme it would be along the lines of an anonymous statement from the WW2 army general staff: “The plan is nothing, planning is everything.”

          Think through the potential scenarios while at leisure. Evaluate your assumptions. Question your conclusions. Re-plan/re-think as necessary. Marshal your assets. In short, “be prepared”.

          If one is not prepared, maybe it is best to use heightened caution (“careful caution”?), and let better prepared individuals intervene.

  3. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

    It is interesting how often the criminals family is only interested in money after the criminal has met their demise by making a wrong decision.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      America’s favorite casinos:
      Atlantic City
      Las Vegas
      Stock Markets
      The Law

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Well, when he be dayed, he cain’t brang home nuttin he stole to feed his fambly. Sos they’s just gotta sue….

      I always call lawsuits like this that have so little merit as “Big Lotto Fever.”

      1. avatar White Justin Holland says:

        Bad guy was white, so I’m guessing his family is white as well
        http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/justin-holland-obituary?pid=184219446&view=guestbook

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “dayed” is actually spelled “daid”. It is a regional word.

        2. avatar GS650G says:

          You assumed he was mimicking blacks? You need to get out more.
          Thanks for showing your cape and hat.

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          And sometime spelt “ded”…

        4. avatar Big Bill says:

          GS650G said: “You assumed he was mimicking blacks? You need to get out more.”

          You need to watch some real reality TV more.
          Judge Judy is good for this. It’s instructional for just how many Americans with a high school education (and in many cases, college as well) speak that way, white and black.
          It’s also instructional for just how many people have such a short handle on the law, given the suits brought.
          Few understand the “clean hands doctrine.” Many will confess (on national TV!) to illegal acts connected to the suits brought as plaintiffs.
          It truly is educational.
          As well as fun. 🙂

  4. avatar W says:

    Hopefully the judge will award her attorney’s fees. That really ought to be done more often.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Hopefully the judge will award her attorney’s fees”

      We have people of limited means suing a person of limited means. Where would the plaintiffs get the money to cover someone else’s attorney fees? The people suing are likely using an attorney accepting a contingency contract. If they don’t have money to pay their own attorney, who will step in and pay the defendants legal fees if the plaintiffs lose?

      1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

        Garnish their wages. Stop letting stupid people ruin everyone else’s lives with lawyers. Hell, put the lawyer on the hook too for it being an obviously frivolous suit.

        1. avatar Larry says says:

          Unfortunately garnishing wages is not easy or cheap. A contractor friend garnished the wages of a person who would not pay, he got a very low % of their wages like $15 a week,Then they changed jobs, and guess what it’s up,to,you to track down the new job and start over . It cost more in lawyer fees the what you get .

      2. avatar Model 31 says:

        How about we have the plaintiff’s attorney pay for it out of his own pocket….

        1. avatar Kyle says:

          Totally agree, and there is no way the lawyers will ever let a law like that happen.

          Contingency fee law is the only way a lot of the POS ambulance chasers can make rent.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Making the attorney pay for losing sounds attractive, but making losers pay is law in some states. It is law in order to intimidate us regular folk into not suing corporations for breaches of law. Maybe it would be possible to adequately define “frivolous law suit”, and create a law that would require plaintiffs/attorneys to pay for frivolity.

          Interesting brain exercise.

  5. avatar The Rookie says:

    Jaehnen has retained Guy Relford, a pretty well-known gun rights/2A attorney in Indianapolis, to represent her. From what little I know about the case, it sounds like he has a pretty good chance to get it dismissed. Indiana’s statute is pretty clear on the matter – “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.”

    I’m not sure what the legal strategy of the family’s attorney is going to be. My best guess would be he’ll try to say it wasn’t reasonable force (which is absurd on its face). I’ve also heard theories that he’ll make the argument Indiana’s self-defense statute, as written, could be interpreted as criminal legal jeopardy, which might not apply to civil matters, which use a different standard (i.e. preponderance of evidence vs. reasonable doubt).

    I dunno about any of that, but if there’s any justice in the world, the case will be thrown out and the attorney representing the deceased perp’s family will get a court-ordered wedgie for wasting all our time and tax dollars.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      “Reasonableness” is a question of fact usually determined solely by a jury at trial. And Plaintiff’s lawyers common prayer is, “Just let me get in front of a jury.” They all believe they will be able to pull enough heart strings to get a monetary award in the client’s favor whenever there are horrific injuries or death.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Indeed, she has the best, possible lawyer. Guy Relford is amazing. (Find some footage of his committee hearing testimony during our futile fight for constitutional carry this year.)

      And also, unfortunately, Indiana’s statutes have been interpreted to mean criminal, not civil, jeopardy. I believe Jim Lucas may be considering a legislative fix?

    3. avatar Big Bill says:

      It’s possible the plaintiffs’ legal theory would be that the dead idiot’s mind was so addled by drugs that he didn’t know what he was doing. Being, then, not guilty because of temporary insanity, thus negating any punishment meted out for his actions, including being shot during his temporary insanity.
      I’m not sure that would fly to a jury, although I’ve seen some pretty dumb juries.

  6. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    She needs to counter sue, for the family raising such a worthless sack of sh!t. If they would have done a better job, the fool would still be alive..

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Unless she was injured, she has no case, and the worthless bum is probably just that, a worthless bum who left no assets. So there is no point in it. You can’t sue someone just because they sued you, you know.

      1. avatar TStew says:

        Emotional distress as a result of having to shoot him to stop the attack…?

      2. avatar n64456 says:

        Well…. Her lawyer can certainly point out the fact that they raised a POS, methhead felon; and THEY are responsible for his actions due to their failure as parents… Is it true?? That’s for as jury to decide… Punch back twice as hard with these fukking cockroaches….

        1. avatar George from Alaska says:

          Yes

      3. avatar Edward Rogers says:

        Emotional distress is very real. Garnish the wages of the money-grubbing losers, plus attorney fees.

        Make them feel the consequences of their frivolous lawsuit. This crap has got to stop!

        1. avatar Toni says:

          sadly they are probably all just on benefits…..maybe they should have benefits removed permanently if that is the case with a warning that if they turn to crime instead of getting a job then they will be locked up and the key thrown away on a diet of stale bread and water. as much as it sounds cruel and unusual punishment it is the sort of shakeup some of those sorts of people need to wake them up to the reality that what they are doing is wrong and nothing but.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I’m sure something is wrong with this idea, but it just struck me. Similar to “commit a felony and lose your gun rights”, we should have a threshold for “anybody, cop or not, injures or kills this piece of garbage, cannot be prosecuted”. Doesn’t need to be announced to the world, just when he shows up dead, nobody investigates or cares.

      4. avatar IndyEric says:

        I would think she would be able to assert an affirmative defense and/or counter-claim under § 34-52-1-1

        Sec. 1 . (a) In all civil actions, the party recovering judgment shall recover costs, except in those cases in which a different provision is made by law.

        (b) In any civil action, the court may award attorney’s fees as part of the cost to the prevailing party, if the court finds that either party:

        (1) brought the action or defense on a claim or defense that is frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless;

        (2) continued to litigate the action or defense after the party’s claim or defense clearly became frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless;  or

        (3) litigated the action in bad faith.

        (c) The award of fees under subsection (b) does not prevent a prevailing party from bringing an action against another party for abuse of process arising in any part on the same facts.  However, the prevailing party may not recover the same attorney’s fees twice.

  7. avatar Matt in FL says:

    I don’t see good causes very often. I think this is one. I sent General Grant to do battle on my behalf.

    1. avatar TStew says:

      Agreed and I followed your lead. May well be signing up for one of the self defense plans.

      Anyone have a preference or recommendation?

      1. avatar Dave M says:

        USCCA. Best coverage, price and training materials. Covers ANY legal weapon anywhere you are legally allowed to be, even your own hands/feet. Covers carrying in ‘No Weapons’ zones. Members of household are covered if at home. Spouse can be added at nominal cost to cover him/her not at home. No out of pocket costs, 24/7/365 help instantly available. There is a comparison chart of coverages available of all major plans. Check it out, I know I would not be without it.

    2. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Agreed.

      And turns out the good General has a twin brother. Or is that triplets?

  8. avatar RA-15 says:

    Good luck to her , good riddance to the drugged up toon she shot. She may very well have saved good innocent victims lives. To the parents: you must be out of your minds. With drugs, not grief of a lost family member. I wonder where he learned to abuse drugs ? No brainer. Mom & dad that’s where. Own your mistake of a so called human being. The lady deserves compensation for possibly saving a life or two.

    1. avatar Dave M says:

      I agree. I have often said that someone who does NOT take action against a criminal that has the means to do so shares responsibility for all future crimes that the POS commits. Hell, look at the guy that stopped the Waffle House shooting in TN; seized the moment and disarmed the POS, even though he was unarmed.

  9. avatar Colt Magnum says:

    Washington State has a law preventing this kind of lawsuit.

    1. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

      I was just thinking about that. I think that – correct me if I’m wrong – our laws in Washigton State don’t necessarily prevent a civil suit like this but if the civil suit is decided in our favor, we are not held liable for any of the costs of defending ourselves. I believe there is criminal fees protection as well as civil.

      That’s why I carry an additional personal defense insurance policy to handle the up-front costs, so that I can make it to the “it’s not your fault here’s your money back” moment!

  10. avatar Tim says:

    It is funny how dead men can’t sue but their families can…..for their loving and affectionate loved one..who is high on crack and beating a police officer….

  11. avatar Tim says:

    If the police wanted to help, put her in the news, make her a Martyr and belittle the crack head’s family lawyer for filing a frivolous lawsuit…

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      And shouldn’t the local FOP be kicking in some funds as well? Seems reasonable to me.

      1. avatar Slick says:

        According to the GoFundMe, the president of the local FOP is donating and organizing the funding.

  12. avatar Home in HB says:

    I find it amazing that none of the commenters have suggested that they would even contribute $1 to the go fund me account. This woman is in trouble for doing what any one of us would likely have done. Where is the heart, people of the gun? Just sad that you all would rather snark about legalities and woulda shoulda couldas than kick in a buck or two to help a brave woman who selflessly came to the aid of a Leo in trouble..

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “This woman is in trouble for doing what any one of us would likely have done. Where is the heart, people of the gun?”

      Like, uhhmm, you know….saving my money to pay for all the liability insurance any gun owner should want to have.

    2. avatar Scoutino says:

      You probably missed Matt in FL’s post. He is sending General Grant to fight for her. Seeing that U. S. Grant has been dead since 1877, I strongly suspect Matt meant not buck or two, but $50.
      I always liked the guy. Level headed and funny. Miss his daily digests.

    3. avatar No one of consequence says:

      So how much have you contributed?

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    I wish her well…I wish I had some spare cash to send her. I don’t see this having much traction especially in Indiana. But that doesn’t mean she isn’t financially burdened. Someone should pay a visit to the lowlife relatives(officers?!?).

    1. avatar Home in HB says:

      I understand that there are those who can’t. I kicked in $10. That’s about what it costs me to reload 1 mag of my favorite .45acp recipe. I’ll forgo that on my next trip to the range.

  14. avatar DAVE F says:

    Responsible gun owner things to do: (1) Purchase gun/ammo, (2) Immediately purchase insurance ,suggestion: USCCA, (3) hope you never have to use it but know it is there if ever needed such as the reason we purchase home and auto insurance. Now let me get down to my long standing opinion of the way the law should be. When a person is not charged with or found guilty of a crime in a court of law then no person or persons shall have the right to sue the aforementioned. Without this law we are all open to the loop-hole in double jeopardy. I agree this woman did the right thing to protect the officer however, what I think, believe does not matter in the eyes of the law. The woman had responsibilities as a gun owner and no matter what the reason did not take the appropriate actions and now she is finding and feeling the cold hard facts. Until the law is changed, unjust law suits will continual to be filed.If this situation does not open your eyes to reality and what you need to do if you haven’t already then I really do not know what else to say. Stay safe.

  15. avatar neiowa says:

    I wonder how often this happens when you read “no charges where filed” some bottom feeding shyster filed a civil suit on the lawful user of CCW.

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    I carry a gun to defend me and mine. Would I intervene with deadly force to aid a cop? Maybe. But then again, I’m a retired lawyer and can take care of myself in a courtroom. And since I’m retired, I can devote plenty of time and effort to the case.

    The thing is, plaintiffs always win, even when they lose. The plaintiff is in court because he wants to be. The defendant is in court because he has to be. When I was defense counsel, I always tried to put some strong counterclaims and a lot of discovery into the case so that the plaintiff would have skin in the game. And sometimes, I skinned the plaintiff. That was fun.

  17. avatar TFred says:

    Can’t say I’m surprised. If you’re trashy enough to attack a LEO, I guess the odds are pretty good your family is trashy enough to sue the person who stopped you from attacking a LEO.

  18. avatar Sam I Am says:

    My liability policy covers me for injury to another person, not self-defense. If i am showing my plinker to a friend, in my home, and the gun “goes off”, injuring my friend, the liability policies will cover damages to my friend. I have an umbrella policy because my friend might hire a greedy lawyer. The policy also covers liability if a visitor, without my permission, mishandles my plinker and injures another person.

    I noted the need for self-defense coverage, and that my contract protects me against civil suits for “wrongful” whatever.

    As noted twice before, my recommendations are not restricted to self-defense. A responsible gun owner should be aware of the liabilities of gun ownership whether sitting at home, or involved in a shooting.

  19. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Conservation Officer, that’s like a cop. When ‘are these cops going to learn to leave those meth head crystal dixatortaline, pot shooter uppers alone? Most of them are drunked up and dangerous.

  20. avatar Arizona Free says:

    In AZ the law is justified shooting of someone committing a felony you cannot be held civilly responsible.

  21. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    No good deed goes unpunished. See if this case stays in Southern Indiana or goes to a Liberal location such as Indy.

  22. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    My standing policy is that my gun doesn’t leave its holster unless in defense of someone sharing my last name. There are very few exceptions, and this type of case is one of them. Active shooters too. Bus full of nuns, handicappers or children? Count me in. Gas station hold up? Nope. Neighbor’s house entered in the middle of the night? Sorry. He should’ve been armed. Let’s not forgot that most of these unarmed “victims”, are so, voluntarily. Most folks blissfully abdicate their responsibility for their own safety, to other people. I won’t go into financial ruin or surrender my freedom to help THOSE people. And if there’s any doubt, I bow out. Heros are found in the pages of comic books.

  23. avatar FedUp says:

    UPDATE 4/17/2018: We have increased the goal of this account to reflect the amount of recoverable damages that could be assessed against Kystie in this “wrongful death” lawsuit if the plaintiffs win, but we emphasize that these funds will NOT be used to settle the case – they are only to pay for Kystie’s choice of defense counsel and to protect her from an adverse verdict. We fully expect Kystie to win this frivolous case and distribute the balance above her attorneys’ fees to charity as discussed above

    Charities: St Jude’s Children’s Hospital and the FOP’s Benevolent Fund, distribution ratio not stated.

    $76,460 of $300,000 goal
    Raised by 1,769 people in 12 days

  24. avatar FedUp says:

    In case anybody was wondering which ambulance chasing scumbag was behind all of this, it’s on the GoFundMe page:

    However, On April 6, 2018, Kystie received a summons from Blake R Maislin LLC, (Thomas J Dall, Attorney at Law) regarding a wrongful death lawsuit for the assailant, J. Holland. Ohio County Superior Court Case No.:58C01-1802-CT-00001.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “In case anybody was wondering which ambulance chasing scumbag”

      While I view lawyers as hired help, it is one of those “ambulance chasing scumbags” you will turn to when you suffer injury or loss do to accident, collision, irresponsible business practices, class action suit.

      Opportunists among the “ambulance chasers” are to be expected. Yours doesn’t need to be an “ambulance chaser” who files frivolous lawsuits.

      If you have not experienced the pleasure of trying to get an insurance company to pay an accident claim, you have quite the entertainment to look forward to.

      BTW, when you are looking for legal help after being damaged, the polite term for “ambulance chaser” is “personal injury lawyer”.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        There are personal injury attorneys, and there are scumbags.
        Anybody taking an affirmative role in filing a clearly frivolous action such as this has fully earned the designation of scumbag.

        Even the Bar Association agrees with me:
        http://apps.americanbar.org/abastore/products/books/abstracts/5190471_chap1_abs.pdf

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Filing frivolous law suits is something that could be “fixed”, except for the lawyers. Besides, what specific definition of “frivolous” would guard against denying people an opportunity to put their grievances befre the court?

          Many of the “ambulance chasers” (whom I hold in contempt, sorta) are the only ones who will take a “flier” of a case from severely disadvantaged persons. Many “personal injury lawyers” will not take a case they do not see as profitable (which is not a criticism).

          To provide Joe Schmuckenheimer a chance to recover damages, we have to accept the “deplorables” of the Bar.

  25. avatar AMP says:

    I’m originally from Italy, and while here in the US the Justice System is a sinking ship, down there is, instead, a trainwreck. (It’s equally bad, but in complete different ways.)
    In Italy is law of the land that a criminal trial has precedence over a civil one (I don’t mean just a precedence in time).
    So once you are acquitted from all charges on a criminal trial, if a judge were even to accept a civil lawsuit, he would be forced by law to pronounce the same verdict as the criminal proceeding, making it a useless waste of time and money for everybody involved.
    (There are still plenty of wasted resources in Italy though, just look at the national debt.)

  26. avatar dpk54 says:

    No sympathy for this thug who perpetrated this mess……there are things called CONSEQUENCES, and he obviously didn’t care about that or he wouldn’t have attacked this police officer in the first place!! This woman who stepped in to help did the right thing….the HUMAN thing…..although I lost faith in most humans a very long time ago, I applaud her actions and her humanity, which seems to be lacking in many of the comments. Insurance will do little to ease the conscience (if you have one) when the situation sends you running away from the scene of another who is being harmed like this. Sure hope those who feel she should not have done what she did NEVER find themselves on the receiving end of a brutal attack, and realize that NO ONE is coming to your aid, or those who would help you can’t make it to your location in time! Trust me, it is the most frightening thing you will ever have happen to you…..

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Sure hope those who feel she should not have done what she did NEVER find themselves on the receiving end of a brutal attack, and realize that NO ONE is coming to your aid…”

      It is not a wise life choice to rely on someone coming to your aid, anytime, anywhere. Nor is it wise to expect aid will arrive in time to be effective. Life is all about risk management. To borrow from someone (don’t know who), “Life is a poker game. You can’t win. You can’t break even. You can’t leave the table.”

      All that said, I do not fault Jaehenen for doing what she did. It was her free will choice. Isn’t that what it is all about?

  27. avatar MarkPA says:

    What is required, here, is the following. LEOs in Indiana (first) must collectively (through their unions or fraternal organizations) petition the State legislature for a Cop-Rescuer Immunity law.

    If a non-State employee rescues a cop, firefighter or EMT from an unlawful assault, and by using lethal force injures the assailant, the rescuer is immune from civil liability if the rescuer is not charged with a crime.

    The chorus will be “but what about me me me me !!!!” Be patient.

    First, we need government to do something for its own. If the cops won’t stand up for us when we have stood up for them, then they can’t expect us to continue to do what this woman did for this LEO. If the legislature won’t respond to the cops’ petition, they wouldn’t do anything for us. Step by step. First, we get a legislature to do something for cops. Once they have done that, we appeal for this immunity to apply to our coming to the aid of other civilians. Finally, to our defense of our own selves.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Sounds like a good plan MarkPA!

  28. avatar Jim Macklin says:

    Every state should enact a Good Samaritan Law. These laws do not authorize random killing, just liek stand yor ground laws, they just protect the honest citizen from criminal or civil laws IF the shooting or other use of force was legal.
    The net result is SYG or Samaritan laws encourage peace and safety.

  29. avatar Jack Else says:

    I am an insurance defense lawyer. I am licensed in Texas, Arkansas and Iowa. This is my opinion and not legal advice. Get your own damn lawyer.

    Regarding your home owners policy; read your damn policy. Not just the dec pages, the entire policy. It is true that as a general rule intentional acts are not covered. However reasonable acts of self defense or defense of others is often covered by a home owners policy (mine does). Next understand what is covered in your homeowners policy and understand the legal concept of curtilage.

    I am not an Indiana lawyer but I would be willing to make an educated guess that the laws of Indiana allow a right of self defense AND a defense of others; i.e. if that LE had the right to use deadly force in his own right she had the right to use deadly force in his defense.

    Next.

    Self defense/carry insurance. Before you buy. Life is short. Money is tight. Read. The. Damn. Policy. I will not claim that I have read every policy because I have actually been told on two occasions by carriers mentioned in the comments that I would have to pay the premium to get the policy. Several of the policies I did receive had an alcohol exclusion.

    Hmmm. I’m at home on a Friday evening enjoying an adult beverage(s) and a fine cigar and one of my community’s finer citizens decides to invade my home … with lethal force … which is met with lethal force.

    Now we have a homicide … because that is what self defense is. A homicide And LE investigate homicides. And your home is what? A crime scene. The Turner Diaries on your book shelf? Evidence of mind set. Clever signs “Trespassers Shot. Survivors Shot Again? Evidence of mind set. Fashionable t-shirts This Property Protected By Colt? Evidence of mind set.

    So I asked. This alcohol exclusion? Oh that is decided on a case by case basis. OK, thank you good bye don’t call me back.

    It is my personal belief every person carrying a gun has a personal MORAL obligation, not a LEGAL obligation, to take Massad Ayoob’s MAG 20 Course and Andrew Branca’s Level 1 & 2 Courses.

    It is also my personally held belief that those who carry should seriously look at The Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      all good advice

  30. avatar robert says:

    We had this same kind of cr*p in the Freddy Gray case, the only thing different was that the wimps holding political office refuse to back their own police an paid off the money grubbers.
    I’m glad the police are standing strong behind this hero.
    BLUE LIVES MATTER!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email