Can You Kill Him?

[Jay]

If folks enjoy this exercise, I can post a different "legal quandry" every week or so.

I think that would be outstanding, and the offer is much appreciated.

Reps for announcing the fact that you're an attorney. Most n your profession would be hard pressed to let it be common knowledge.

 

[phil]

After I erase the security tape, it's my word against his.

Placing his firearm back in his hand would be a good additive to your story!!!!

 

[mrjarrell]

Placing his firearm back in his hand would be a good additive to your story!!!!

That, too.

 

[GuyRelford]

Wow!

Guys, the only thing that could make this scenario worse is a history of internet posts that indicate a potential for whatever the DA would like to say about you.

Valid point! So what do you think? Justified shot?

 

[GuyRelford]

I think that would be outstanding, and the offer is much appreciated.

Reps for announcing the fact that you're an attorney. Most n your profession would be hard pressed to let it be common knowledge.

Well, I'm not as ashamed of it as most.

And thanks!!

 

[CountryBoy19]

Any way you paint it, you're in trouble.

Partner in crime is killed in action, what makes you think the one that got away isn't going to come after you?

Stop him as he retreats, might have legal issues, might not. However, you WILL without a doubt end up with a civil suit that will ruin you for life because as we all know, criminals have the right to our property, we do not.

If it were me, as the situation is laid out, they would both have projectile-induced hemorrhage. In the real world however, I don't think I would pursue the second. First is down, I'm staying where I'm at unless there are others in the home that may be at risk. I'm not running out because I don't know if there's one, two, or ten waiting.

If I'm not mistaken Indiana's castle doctrine protects a person that is not charged with a crime as a result. Basically, if you were legal to shoot, you can't be held liable in civil court.

As far as the situation goes, my gut instinct is that the threat was over. But he obviously came in the home with a gun, showing intent to do harm to occupants. I believe the argument could be made that he may have dropped the gun by accident upon hearing the gunshot and be running for cover to draw his side-arm and fight back. It is very tough to say, and likely depends on the nitty gritty details, body language, etc. The security footage is going to make it very difficult to make a defense, but it is very possible IMHO.

 

[GuyRelford]

Placing his firearm back in his hand would be a good additive to your story!!!!

Aw, but the security system captures all! No manipulation of the crime scene allowed.

 

[Bigum1969]

Placing his firearm back in his hand would be a good additive to your story!!!!

 

[techres]

Valid point! So what do you think? Justified shot?

The proof would have to be in your ability to prove that he was a continuing threat at a level that a normal person would agree. In this case that would be difficult. Perhaps if he had yelled something threatening or was calling for backup from an accomplis outside, you might have a case.

But the key here is that the protections of castle would fail you in the sense that the assumed innocence would move to assumed guilt. You would be on the defense and in order to stay out of jail you had better shoot the moon and play every card right.

On the other hand, assuredly you had a reason that you took the shot. That reason is the beginning and end.

If the reason was your move and shoot training and you just kept engaging targets - welcome to manslaughter.

If the reason was your rage over the attack - welcome to manslaughter.

If the reason was your property - welcome to manslaughter or worse.

If the reason was your fear of him - then a case still exists but you are in for a legal ride. Look at your home now, you'll probably be selling it for legal fees later.

If the reason was a direct, understandable threat, also recorded on your film, like calling for aid from a third attacker outside - then you may be ok and might keep the house.


I will add, however, that in any of these cases, the most important thing is that your family is safe, even if you are not.

 

[GuyRelford]

Okay, INGOers, I need to go have dinner with a really attractive young lady. I honestly can't wait to see all of your responses to this question in a few hours. It's not an easy question, so take your best shot!!

And thanks again for letting me be a part of this community. You folks rock.

 

[techres]

Okay, INGOers, I need to go have dinner with a really attractive young lady. I honestly can't wait to see all of your responses to this question in a few hours. It's not an easy question, so take your best shot!!

And thanks again for letting me be a part of this community. You folks rock.

Dinner for fun, or did she shoot some guy in the back of the head?

The latter would be a business write-off for you...

 

[42769vette]

your killling ME whats the answer. im guessing your in some trouble for the last guy. what if you shot him in the back of the knee?

 

[Archbishop]

Keep in mind that most video cameras installed in home do not record audio. He very well could have been calling for back up. Or at least that could be your story. Maybe his back heard the gunshots and ran. It would explain why they aren't on tape and why you were still afraid for your safety...... Just a thought.
Just don't put him down and then calmly walk over and put two more in the head in front of the cameras.

 

[NateIU10]

There's a lot of variables here. If I felt that mine or my family's lives were still in danger, good shoot. Are there stairs that he could be headed towards? Children up there? Is it still dark? Could he have another weapon? Is he turning back in my direction? I'll worry about being able to articulate my fears after the fact, preservation is goal #1.

 

[phil]

your killling ME whats the answer. im guessing your in some trouble for the last guy. what if you shot him in the back of the knee?

I am having a hard time with this...
I guess a lot of it will depend on your local LEOs. Here where I am (in the sticks) would believe that the County Boys would look at the guys and say "Looks like they picked the wrong house this time". If that was the case, that would be end of story! Right? No civil court after that either if I was not charged with anything.
In the same case, I might get a responding officer right out of the academy who wants to take me in on every code he can find. Then, I am back to what everyone else is discussing.

 

[ATM]

Using IC 35-41-3-2 as primary reference:

1st intruder shot: deadly force was warranted.

2nd intruder shot: only reasonable force would have been warranted.

Call the police, lawyer and 24 other people (12 to judge you and 6 each to carry the dead guys.)

 

[Donnelly]

Definitely legal trouble for the shooter if the guy is actively retreating, even with valuable property. That said, if it went to jury trial and I was on the jury, my vote would stand at acquittal. The best the prosecuting attorney could hope for with me would be a mis-trial.

Folks, this is exactly why DA's try to pressure people into taking a plea agreement. It is a guaranteed victory (conviction) for them. That is why they are also usually willing to reduce the charge or at least recommend reduced punishment; again, it guarantees conviction.

If a similar situation ever comes up for me, I will ask for a jury trial and hope that someone has studied the subject of jury nullification. At the very least, I can hope that 1 of the 12 is merciful and not willing to convict "the good guy".

 

[Bubba]

The question is not whether you can kill BG2, but why would you want to? I think we've started to exhaust the available answers, but I'll throw my in.

BG1 is easily defended using IC 35-41-3 Sec 2(a):

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.

A BG in my house, closing distance (rather than going straight for the jewelry box with weapon slung) with a deadly weapon after forcibly entering my property can reasonably be assumed to have a high likelihood of causing SBI.

BG2, having exercised the better part of valor, cannot be dispatched under the same statute. In fact, Sec 2(b) of the same code states:

(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.

The OP's description of BG2 disarming, "running like hell for the door," while "screaming like a baby" seems to indicate he is terminating his unlawful entry with all reasonable haste. Unless there is an army of toddlers outside it doesn't seem to me that he's calling for the second wave to continue the attack by "screaming like a baby."

I really don't see how BG2 poses a risk of SBI. Based solely on that, I would not take the shot, even if GunLawyer comes back and tells us that it's perfectly legal.

 

[ddenny5]

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.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.

I did my homework on this one. This is the "Castle Doctrine" in Indiana code. Look at letter b numbers 1 and 2. Also look at letter c. This should answer the question. I would like to see if there are any precedents in Indiana were this has applied to anyone. It does say you can protect property during the commision of a felony. However, many cases are based on precedents so the answer will be interesting.

 

[phil]

Definitely legal trouble for the shooter if the guy is actively retreating, even with valuable property. That said, if it went to jury trial and I was on the jury, my vote stands at aquital. The best the prosecuting attorney could hope for with me would be a mistrial.

Folks, this is exactly why DA's try to pressure people into taking a plea agreement. It is a guaranteed victory (conviction) for them. That is why they are also usually willing to reduce the charge or at least recommend reduced punishment; again, it guarantees conviction.

If a similar situation ever comes up for me, I will ask for a jury trial and hope that someone has studied the subject of jury nullification. At the very least, I can hope that 1 of the 12 is merciful and not willing to convict "the good guy".

+1

Also to add: Make sure one of the questions you atty asks while picking the jury is "Are you a member of INGO"