Are You Going to Jail? (The next installment)

[gus1989]

I'm thinking that if you were within 21 feet of the shed and they rushed out coming towards you, most likely by the time you reacted they would be past you and running away and if you shoot and kill or wound you are going to jail.

 

[gus1989]

And if you could determine what material they were carrying (one a honda generator and the other nothing), you should have also been able to see if they had weapon in their hands.

 

[Amattern]

I'd say no might be question but a justified shooting. That motor could very easliy be used as a deadly weapon. It would also depend on what the other items were.

 

[GIJEW]

21 feet

Toward you.

Nope

Yep.

Most people on this site are familiar with the Tueller drill and "21' rule"; there were 2 against 1--disparity of force; they were coming AT you. Arguably they didn't need to be armed to be a threat to you and given that they came AT you while committing a crime, I think the shooting is legit. What an anti-gun owner bigot of a prosecutor would make of it is another question, but with a good lawyer I think this defensible.

 

[85t5mcss]

Trained athletes who could defend a RNC are not the type to rob tool sheds. People dont need to be so afraid of criminals. Far more often than not, people who rob/steal are kids or drug addicts.

You've been fighting since you were 8 and you dont have enough confidence in yourself or your abilities to take down a couple of nobodies. Take it from me, thats really dumb.

A BG strung out on meth isn't just a BG. Feel no pain and even a trained man can still be beat.

Jail? From what I have read on the IC, nope. Owners property, able to see them and what they had, rushed the owner instead of fleeing. So long as he hit them in the front and not as they fled away.

Should he have called the cops from his house? Who knows. We aren't in that scenario.

 

[lovemachine]

I know about the 21 ft rule. But, there's this:

Just as you get to the shed, the door opens and two men rush out. You can see that one man is carrying your new Honda generator and the other is empty-handed.

They rush out, but you are able to see what they have in their hands, and know they have no weapons.

That's what bothers me....I'm starting to think there was no cause for you to fire upon them.

 

[7.62]

Trained athletes who could defend a RNC are not the type to rob tool sheds. People dont need to be so afraid of criminals. Far more often than not, people who rob/steal are kids or drug addicts.

You've been fighting since you were 8 and you dont have enough confidence in yourself or your abilities to take down a couple of nobodies. Take it from me, thats really dumb.

Not to mention that you may not see the gun or knife that tucked away under his shirt.....i suppose your top notch maa will defend that.....lol

 

[7.62]

Trained athletes who could defend a RNC are not the type to rob tool sheds. People dont need to be so afraid of criminals. Far more often than not, people who rob/steal are kids or drug addicts.

You've been fighting since you were 8 and you dont have enough confidence in yourself or your abilities to take down a couple of nobodies. Take it from me, thats really dumb.

Also, your are saying all (or most) criminals are kids or "nobodys". To bad I have seen first hand people steal dumb stuff from a retail store only valued at $5, and have seen it all. Some packing heat, some with knives, one guy was a badass kick boxer for 15 years that beat the hell out of one of my LP guys that was twice his size, and yes people with MMA training of some sort. So why couldn't those same guys commit a robbery? Anyone can be a criminal and to assume they are "nobody" or untrained is a bad move. And like I said before you never know what weapons they may have as well. But taking on two criminals you know nothing about by hand is not smart. Do what you want, its your life...but I am either letting them run and calling cops or dumping some rounds depending on the situation...but not engaging with my bare hands...regardless of my training.

 

[justjoe]

Has anyone noticed a recurring theme in all of the what if threads? The ability of the prosecutor to bring charges even if the incident appears to fall under the letter of the law. What does this say about our legal system and it's hold over the average citizen? Not trying to hijack the thread but this comes up too many times to just ignore. In a situation such as the one posted by the op, the real question is if the prosecutor has an agenda other than upholding the letter of the law and all the answers are contingent on that, not how the law is written, but how it will be interpreted by any one individual with the power to make that call.

 

[JayPea]

Great point justjoe. Also, I'm thinking that the mixed responses to the OP's question indicates there is a great need for a Gun Law Course.

 

[sonofagun]

Are you going to jail?

Guy

Yep, and you'd better get a good lawyer.

I'd bet the responding officer knows the code pertaining to a civilian on civilian shooting inside out and it he'd be duty bound to make the arrest.

He would let the prosecutor handle it from there, after he takes you to jail.

 

[Silverado]

Has anyone noticed a recurring theme in all of the what if threads? The ability of the prosecutor to bring charges even if the incident appears to fall under the letter of the law. What does this say about our legal system and it's hold over the average citizen? Not trying to hijack the thread but this comes up too many times to just ignore. In a situation such as the one posted by the op, the real question is if the prosecutor has an agenda other than upholding the letter of the law and all the answers are contingent on that, not how the law is written, but how it will be interpreted by any one individual with the power to make that call.

Whether the action is legal under the letter of the law all depends on the interpretation of the word reasonable in the statute. Since every single scenario that may occur cannot possible be addressed in statute, somebody must make the decision as to what constitutes "reasonable."

This decision generally falls onto an elected prosecutor. It's up to a judge or jury to determine whether a crime has been committed under the statute, through judicial review of the probable cause affidavit, and ultimately, a trial. And if the prosecutor has a habit of advancing an agenda that is contrary to what the people of a county want, the remedy is the next election.

Somebody has to make the decision whether there is probable cause to believe actions are crimes or not under the law. It takes at least a prosecutor and a judge to agree in order for a case to move forward. I'm not sure what the point would be to having a legal system if it didn't operate on the basis of established case law and precedent.

Who would you rather make the decision, and how are they less likely to be corrupt, or at least incorrect?

 

[nate1865]

Well, it would depend on what the wounded guy said.

Dead guys can't sue or testify against you. No doubt he's not going to agree with your story that he "came at you", especially if you have some money his family can take from you while he's in jail for burglary.

 

[justjoe]

Silverado, no problem with the prosecutor making the call, problem is with the fact that they are in an elected position and therefore bring a political agenda into a situation that calls for an unbiased look at the law and shades the interpretation of same

 

[Bill B]

Remember, the IC says you can use deadly force (paraphrasing) to stop an invasion or attack on your home or curtilage.
If your shed is part of your curtilage, then you're good to go, but that would be determined in court. Most likely the courts are gonna say "no" and your going down.
This isn't 100% relevant to a shooting case, but was the first case that I came across that discusses what a curtilage is

...The curtilage is defined on a case-by-case basis by reference to factors that determine whether a person's expectation of privacy in the area adjacent to the home is reasonable and analysis whether the area embraces the intimacy associated with the sanctity of the home and privacies of life. Thus defining the curtilage requires more than an identification of the physical area immediately adjacent to the home; whether the area is enclosed, how it is being used, and the steps taken to keep it out of view are also analyzed to determine whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area, demonstrating that it embraces the characteristics similar to those associated with the sanctity of the home. This required approach for defining the curtilage is consistent with the principle that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.

Taken from Holder v State
No. 87S05-0505-CR-194 SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA 847 N.E.2d 930; 2006 Ind. LEXIS 413

 

[Silverado]

Silverado, no problem with the prosecutor making the call, problem is with the fact that they are in an elected position and therefore bring a political agenda into a situation that calls for an unbiased look at the law and shades the interpretation of same

I certainly understand that, but even if the prosecutor was appointed, it would be by an elected official. Not sure how to make the situation any better. I'm afraid politics is like herpes...it's always there, even if it only flares up from time to time.

 

[jeremy]

Nope you are not going to go to Jail, or be charged....

Moot point for me as I happen to know several Hog Farmers anyway...

 

[justjoe]

The only thing that will make the situation any better is a shift in the paradigm that results in the good of the nation being placed before any political agenda. Not something that I see happening any time soon. This is a problem that colors our entire culture

btw my opinion is that in the situation outlined you are going to prison, as it would be hard to prove to 12 average citizens that your use of deadly force was justified or within the letter of the law. There was no reasonable threat of bodily harm and a reasonable response to the situation would be to call the police. The use of deadly force always hinges on it being a reasonable response to a perceived threat

 

[Silverado]

Remember, the IC says you can use deadly force (paraphrasing) to stop an invasion or attack on your home or curtilage.
If your shed is part of your curtilage, then you're good to go, but that would be determined in court. Most likely the courts are gonna say "no" and your going down.
This isn't 100% relevant to a shooting case, but was the first case that I came across that discusses what a curtilage is

Taken from Holder v State
No. 87S05-0505-CR-194 SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA 847 N.E.2d 930; 2006 Ind. LEXIS 413

I'd say that if the suspects were in the act of fleeing, that the attack or entry into the curtilage was no longer occurring, and you may not reasonably use deadly force to prevent what is essentially a theft of your property. Of course, it would depend on the apparent intentions of the thieves (attacking you or attempting to avoid you and flee) that would probably determine the reasonableness of your actions regarding the use of deadly force. Best not to have entrance wounds in the backs of the suspects, or anything like that.

 

[Silverado]

The only thing that will make the situation any better is a shift in the paradigm that results in the good of the nation being placed before any political agenda.

A political agenda is nothing more than somebody who thinks they know what is good for the nation trying to yell louder than someone else who thinks the exact opposite is good for the nation.

In other words, good luck in finding a system that doesn't include the frailties of man.