Can You Shoot Him?

[LPMan59]

i would say youre in trouble.

1) the law says you can use deadly force to repel an attack on your occupied vehicle. the car was empty and you were not in fear of death or GBH.
2) shooting in the leg is legally no different than shooting in the chest in that both are considered deadly force. see #1
3) you talked to the cops. bad idea.

better to have eaten some sour grapes and given the cops the license plate number and descriptions of the perps.

 

[Shay]

How about shooting a tire out of the SUV? Kind of hard to flee real fast, in a getaway car, with a flat tire.

What are the benefits and what are the risks?

Even if everything goes perfectly, all you have done is diminished their ability to flee. You have done nothing to diminish their ability to fight.

 

[finity]

Yes, you will have legal problems...according to the letter of the law. OTOH, it is always up to the prosecuting attorney whether to file charges. You may get lucky.

In IN you can't use deadly force to protect property.

You can use REASONABLE force but not deadly force. Shooting at someone, whether you "aimed for the calf" or COM, is using deadly force.

OTOH, if you confront them with reasonable force & they then escalate the encounter to imminent threats of SBI or death, then you can use deadly force at that time since you are now using deadly force to protect YOURSELF not your PROPERTY.

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).

 

[40calPUNISHER]

I would say shooting him in the leg is a no-no.

Q: What if instead of shooting him, you attempt a citizens arrest? If he struggles and starts to fight back (resists arrest), could you shoot him then?

 

[XDs4me]

Prosecutors and Defense attorneys are the key here. It depends on who is better. While you would be breaking the law if his attorney is a bad attorney you could just get a slap on the wrist but highly unlikely. Then on the other had let say the perp had a knife and threatens you and you shoot him and he as a Johnny Cochrin they can argue the point that you used excessive force and you can loose the case. It has happened.

 

[melensdad]

Shoot the guy in the leg and you are in trouble.

HOWEVER, if the driver of the SUV that your stuff is being loaded into gives you a threatening glance or shouts in a threatening way at you, and if you reasonably believe the driver will use his 4000# SUV to run you down and kill you, and if you are in a position where that may actually happen, then forget about the guy with the big heavy wheel in his arms and shoot the SUV driver in the head. The guy carrying away your wheel is no threat to you. They guy driving the two-ton projectile could reasonably rub your cranium into the asphalt, he is the only potential threat in the scenario in which you could employ deadly force against and only if you reasonably believed your safety was at risk.

JMO

 

[cce1302]

I know you said convertible, but this is the car that I think of when I think of the finest car ever built.

Yes, I would be tempted to shoot the guys stealing my wheels, but I have insurance on my hypothetical carousel red 1969 Pontiac GTO Judge and can call 911 on my cell phone while taking pictures of the guys that are stealing my wheels (and their SUV and license plate).

Another gratuitous Judge picture.

 

[tharlow514]

I know you said convertible, but this is the car that I think of when I think of the finest car ever built.

Yes, I would be tempted to shoot the guys stealing my wheels, but I have insurance on my hypothetical carousel red 1969 Pontiac GTO Judge and can call 911 on my cell phone while taking pictures of the guys that are stealing my wheels (and their SUV and license plate).

Another gratuitous Judge picture.

I agree. That is what insurance is for. Why risk losing your LTCH, going to jail and spending a ton of money when you can replace the wheels. His life is not in danger. Bad shooting. SWEET RIDE!!!

 

[Delmar]

What are the benefits and what are the risks?

Even if everything goes perfectly, all you have done is diminished their ability to flee. You have done nothing to diminish their ability to fight.

If I disable his vehicle, I have diminished his ability to get away with my property! That really is the point, isn't it? And if he wants to fight, I still have seven rounds in my pistol.

 

[VUPDblue]

If I disable his vehicle, I have diminished his ability to get away with my property! That really is the point, isn't it? And if he wants to fight, I still have seven rounds in my pistol.

If you point the pistol in his general direction and fire a shot, you've used deadly force. Wether or not you hit him is irrelevant. At the very least you could/should be charged with reckless endangerment or one of the ordinances that prohibit discharging a firearm.

 

[infidel]

I would say shooting him in the leg is a no-no.

Q: What if instead of shooting him, you attempt a citizens arrest? If he struggles and starts to fight back (resists arrest), could you shoot him then?

I would like to know the answer to this question as well...

 

[Delmar]

If you point the pistol in his general direction and fire a shot, you've used deadly force. Wether or not you hit him is irrelevant. At the very least you could/should be charged with reckless endangerment or one of the ordinances that prohibit discharging a firearm.

So you are saying that discharging my weapon in such a situation is a crime, unless I am physically threatened? Is grabbing a person to prevent him from taking my stuff OK, or could I be charged with assault?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

So you are saying that discharging my weapon in such a situation is a crime, unless I am physically threatened? Is grabbing a person to prevent him from taking my stuff OK, or could I be charged with assault?

Yes if you fire your weapon it is a crime, I believe people have been charged and convicted of assault with a deadly weapon for firing a warning shot. Its your word against the criminals and prosecutors that you weren't actually aiming at him and missed. Just pointing it at them is a crime. Unless you have a reasonable belief of an imminent use of unlawful force. Guys hands are full of your tires and he's walking away, it would be hard to prove reasonable belief.

From my limited understanding grabbing the person would be legal, you are allowed to use reasonable force to protect property, if he resisted and upped or attempted to up the violence I believe you may be able to respond in kind. Except perhaps for that part of the law that says you cannot use deadly force if you are a willing combatant. Not sure how that would work in a citizens arrest issue.

 

[Mgderf]

If you "thought he was comiming at you" with that rim in his hand,

You could "TRY" shooting the rim, and miss, hitting his head.

OR, if you're Jethro Bodine, or Elly Mae Clampett, you might just shoot the rim, and ricochet it to the BG's face from behind!

I think you are in trouble as described

 

[ocsdor]

Prior to shooting, he exercised Reasonable Force (though he may have to defend his position in court). Once he shot the thief, the shooter goes to jail AND can be sued by the thief for medical expenses and pain/suffering. Granted, the shooter can counter-sue for the price of the wheel rims.

The shooter could have tackled the thief to retrieve the rim.

The best thing to do (legally) is let your car insurer pay for replacements.

 

[GuyRelford]

You folks really nailed this one!

In other conversations, I have heard some folks refer to an intended non-lethal shot (to an extremity, for example) as something other than "deadly force." However, as many of you stated very clearly in your responses, shooting someone - no matter where - will virtually always be considered "deadly force" under Indiana's statutory definition:

"IC 35-41-1-7
'Deadly force' defined
Sec. 7. "Deadly force" means force that creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury."

It would be very hard to argue that any shooting did not "create a substantial risk of serious bodily injury."

So the question then comes down to whether the shooter was justified in using "deadly force."

Indiana does allow "reasonable force" to be used to protect property (like your rims), but "deadly force" must be independently justified:

"IC 35-41-3-2(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)."

Under these facts, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to justify the use of deadly force:

"(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."

Here, there was no threat of serious bodily injury to the shooter. The BG's hands were full with the rims, he was apparrenty unarmed, and he was walking away. And while a crime was being committed under these facts, it was clearly not a "forcible felony."

Indiana law defines "forcible felony" as follows:

"IC 35-41-1-11
"Forcible felony" defined
Sec. 11. "Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a human being."

As a result, because there is no "use or threat of force against a human being," or an "imminent danger of bodily injury" under these facts, we can't label this crime as a "forcible felony" and the use of deadly force would not be justified to prevent it.

For all these reasons, the many of you who concluded that this shooting was most likely not justified, and would probably subject the shooter to both criminal prosecution and civil liability, were exactly right - in my opinion.

Thanks for participating!

Guy

 

[snojet]

As an "arm chair" calmly analyzing computer viewer, I offer the following, with questions.

Anyway, I did suspect that the OP is in trouble here.

I hope that I'm not taking this thread too far, if so then please disregard. I'm just looking for a solution. Here goes...

What I could offer up as a solution is to "pistol whip" the snot out of the BG and act accordingly after such action(s). GL, if a person did this would he be inviting more trouble? I gather from your explanation that we were to simply watch the crime in progress and then most likely get a plate number and description of the vehicle and call the police, right?

Or

Like someone else said, shoot out a tire. I would offer up to shoot out at least two tires and ready for the BG's response(s). Am I inviting more legal trouble?

Great scenario and looking forward to the "most" correct way of handling this type of event.

 

[Delmar]

Would it be legal to simply walk up on the guy with your hand on your holstered weapon and demand that he put your property down, or could this be called brandishing a weapon?

 

[rambone]

BLOW OUT HIS TIRES!!

 

[ratfortman]

i would probably shoot the tires of the van. They would probably escape,but i would still have my wheels!
Hey,new to the group,looking forward to all of the great info and exchanges!