+1 to IMPD, +100 to Grandpa

[JMThomas]

Left the safety his house and threatened deadly force to protect his car...I'm not throwing up a high-five on this one.

Would have been best to remain inside, armed, and on the phone with 911. What would have happened if drunks 2 doors down saw their girl at gunpoint in the neighbors yard....

1 Old Man with a Sig 1911 .45 vs. 3 drunkards (one of which was trying to break into a car).

Considering the three probably can't see straight anyways, I'd take the one man with a gun ANY DAY.

 

[Suprtek]

Okay, I'm confused. Leaving aside the issue of whether it is tactically/safety-wise a good idea to go snooping around if you hear something, is it really a good idea to go outside and hold someone at gunpoint for presumably breaking into your car? Is it even legal to do this- can any one just go hold someone at gunpoint because they think the person is committing a crime? And, if you go snooping outside your house when you don't have to, especially carrying a gun, couldn't that be considered some sort of escalation of force and or intent to shoot, and thus undermine a self defense claim?

Don't get me wrong, in an ideal world I like the idea of people being able to such things, but in reality doing this seems like a recipe for disaster.

No offense, but he was on his own property. He was not "snooping". If more people were willing to be vigilant in defending their property, fewer criminals would be so bold. And yes, it was perfectly legal.

And, I thought I remembered a recent case where a person went to jail for shooting someone who was apparently trying to break into his car. Doesn't this mean that gun owners are not open and free to "defend their property" as is so often said here, that in fact to act in self defense the situation must still meet the legal requirements of self defense, which does not include shooting someone simply for being on one's property, stealing property, and/or breaking into property (e.g. a car or garage)? I am wrong on this?

I would suggest a little research on Indiana law. I'm sure someone could quote the relevant laws, but in this state we do not have the "duty to retreat" in most situations.

Of course there is risk involved in defending yourself against crime. Speaking for myself, I find this an acceptable risk in most cases.

 

[jason765]

feel good story, the star doesnt cover that sort of thing

 

[g+16]

Well handled all the way around. Wonder if Tully will write this one up for the Star?

tully seems to be the type that will say one thing and do the other, like some others who will talk anti-gun but they have armed guards with them, OH but that's different

 

[shooter521]

I'm sure someone could quote the relevant laws, but in this state we do not have the "duty to retreat" in most situations.

Section relevant to the described scenario is in bold. Did grandpa reasonably believe that lethal force was necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to himself or a third person?

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).

 

[norsk]

No offense, but he was on his own property. He was not "snooping". If more people were willing to be vigilant in defending their property, fewer criminals would be so bold. And yes, it was perfectly legal.

I would suggest a little research on Indiana law. I'm sure someone could quote the relevant laws, but in this state we do not have the "duty to retreat" in most situations.

1. I have no doubt that if more people did this sort of thing criminals would not be so bold, and as I mentioned in an ideal world we would all be able to do - without consequence - what he did. However, it is my understanding (and I absolutely could be wrong, that is part of why I posted) that just because we like the idea of it, and just because he was on his own property, does not guarantee that he would face no legal scrutiny over his actions.
2. I think the "no duty to retreat" comes from the so-called "castle doctrine/law" that Indiana has. I further believe that it means we have no duty to retreat if and only if we feel our life is in jeopardy. Leaving the house with a gun to go investigate a sound, and then holding a woman at gunpoint does not seem to me to be in accordance with acting in self-defense because he felt he was in jeopardy. As I said in my original post, I think at least one previous case has made it clear that we cannot shoot somebody because they are trying to steal our property, regardless of it they are on our land (property) or if we have no duty to retreat. Therefore, leaving your house to investigate a noise, with a gun, when there is no reason to believe you are in jeopardy, and then holding the person at gunpoint seems to be a recipe for a legal nightmare.

All I am saying is that it seems to me like *if* the responding officer and subsequent prosecutor wanted to do so, gramps could have been in a world of trouble. Therefore, I was surprised at how almost every post until mine was congratulatory rather than questioning.

 

[norsk]

Section relevant to the described scenario is in bold. Did grandpa reasonably believe that lethal force was necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to himself or a third person?

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).

Shooter521 posted right before I did so I didn't see this post prior to mine. It seems to me that under section (c) gramps would be justified in using deadly force against the person trying to break into the car, and would not have to retreat first, ONLY if also justifiable under section (a). I'm just not sure him holding the person at gunpoint, and especially then shooting the person - which is the logical extension of leaving your house with a gun to investigate a noise and then holding someone at gunpoint - would be justifiable under section (a).

 

[GBuck]

Shooter521 posted right before I did so I didn't see this post prior to mine. It seems to me that under section (c) gramps would be justified in using deadly force against the person trying to break into the car, and would not have to retreat first, ONLY if also justifiable under section (a). I'm just not sure him holding the person at gunpoint, and especially then shooting the person - which is the logical extension of leaving your house with a gun to investigate a noise and then holding someone at gunpoint - would be justifiable under section (a).

It is only the next logical extension of leaving your house with a gun if you feel that your life is in danger. Brandishing a firearm is just as much a part of the escalation of force as shooting someone is.

You leave your house with a gun b/c you do not know what weapons or intent the other person has. People that carry guns every day, especially those that have training, understand that your gun is not merely a gun but an extension of yourself. It is a tool at your disposal. Holding someone at gunpoint is considered reasonable force in this case because of the uncertainties involved. She was not shot because she was not a deadly threat at the time. She could have become one, by producing a weapon or otherwise, and she would have been shot. All of this is completely under the law of the land.

 

[Fenway]

+1 to IMPD and your Gpa

 

[EdC]

It is only the next logical extension of leaving your house with a gun if you feel that your life is in danger. Brandishing a firearm is just as much a part of the escalation of force as shooting someone is.

You leave your house with a gun b/c you do not know what weapons or intent the other person has. People that carry guns every day, especially those that have training, understand that your gun is not merely a gun but an extension of yourself. It is a tool at your disposal. Holding someone at gunpoint is considered reasonable force in this case because of the uncertainties involved. She was not shot because she was not a deadly threat at the time. She could have become one, by producing a weapon or otherwise, and she would have been shot. All of this is completely under the law of the land.

Well said. Grandfather had a right to investigate a suspicious situation on his own property, and a right to do so armed. Then the reasonable use of force standard comes into play, and grandfather acted reasonably. He did not use deadly force to protect property, he was just ready to do so if the circumstances justified it, which they didn't and he didn't.

Good outcome, and if the woman is teachable, she might learn something.

 

[IndianaSigma]

Well said. Grandfather had a right to investigate a suspicious situation on his own property, and a right to do so armed. Then the reasonable use of force standard comes into play, and grandfather acted reasonably. He did not use deadly force to protect property, he was just ready to do so if the circumstances justified it, which they didn't and he didn't.

Good outcome, and if the woman is teachable, she might learn something.

EdC and Greg have hit the nail right on the head. +1 to grandpa and the police.

 

[blamecharles]

I will share the plus one also for gramps and IMPD. Also this is a great example for those what if situations. Very teachable moment.

 

[xM3RC1L3SS1x]

That's a job well done.

 

[gglass]

EdC and Greg have hit the nail right on the head. +1 to grandpa and the police.

Maybe you could search the archives a little deeper, and find a thread on the newly introduced Glock Gen 1 pistol.

 

[Kedric]

*snicker* gogo zombie thread!

 

[38special]

Well, I missed this one the first time around.

I love this story, though.

 

[SSGSAD]

That's a job well done.

I AGREE 100 % .....

 

[cobber]

I would give kudos to Gramps. However, exiting the house probably takes you out of your curtilage. Then the imminent threat factor comes into play if deadly force is used.

If the zombie in question had attacked him after he pointed his weapon, it arguably might not have been self-defense had he shot her.

This is really a defense of property scenario. In some jurisdictions Gramps might have been charged, maybe with "pointing" a loaded firearm, or criminal recklessness. Some prosecutors are just that way.

And as we learn to fire from cover, the most sensible thing is to remain indoors and wait for the police. (Think 'coming to the nuisance' in tort law...)

Under the letter of the law, he probably wasn't justified on the facts. But good that the police just let things be.

 

[JJT*90]

Was she at his car? If so it could be protecting your property. There was a guy in Michigan that broke a man's leg and bet him up pretty bad when he was vandalizing his car. The cops ruled it defense of property. Although to be fair the man tried to fight him, and it was truly defensive.

 

[sepe]

Maybe you could search the archives a little deeper, and find a thread on the newly introduced Glock Gen 1 pistol.

Glock is a funny sounding name for a firearm but I am very interested to hear about this Gen 1 pistol. Any information would be greatly appreciated. thanks bob