it seems in NANTZ a barn is not part of curtalige..
Curtilage in United States law
In the USA, curtilage is distinct from a dwelling by virtue of lacking a roof, but distinct from the area outside the enclosure in that it is enclosed within a wall or barrier of some sort.[1]
This distinction is important in United States law for cases dealing with burglary and with self-defense under the "Castle Doctrine."
In some state law, such as Florida, burglary encompasses the English common law definition and adds (among other things) curtilage to the protected area of the dwelling into which intrusion is prohibited. Similarly, under Florida's Castle Doctrine a home-owner does not have to retreat within the curtilage.
The curtilage (like the home) provides a reasonable expectation of privacy and hence in the United States is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Open fields doctrine describes how courts distinguish curtilage and "open fields," with the latter not providing privacy.
It may also be relevant when considering the extent of house arrest.
In United States v. Dunn, the Supreme Court identified four factors as critical when assessing the limits of curtilage: "the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by."
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine claimed by advocates to arise from English Common Law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.
Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.[2] The law's nickname is a reference to the famous line uttered by Clint Eastwood's character Harry Callahan in the 1983 film Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day."
Duty-to-retreat
"Castle laws" remove the duty to retreat from an illegal intruder when one is lawfully in one's home.[3] Therefore, any state that imposes a duty to retreat while in the home does not have a "Castle law": the duty-to-retreat clause expressly imposes an obligation upon the home's occupants to retreat as far as possible and verbally announce their intent to use deadly force, before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves.
For states that do not require the announcement to be "verbal", other indicators may be used. These are typically not defined by statute, and would be left to the court's interpretation, but may include things such as laser sights or the cocking of a firearm. Care should be exercised in studying applicable individual state laws. In the majority of jurisdictions warning shots are illegal, and even brandishing the weapon in a threatening manner can result in criminal charges.
Adoption by States
As of the 28th of May, 2010, 31 States
have some form of Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground law. Alabama,[9] Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island[10], South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,[11] West Virginia and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Montana
, Nebraska[12], New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.[13][14][15] Some of the states that have passed or are considering "stand your ground" legislation already are considered "stand your ground" in their case law. Indiana and Georgia, among other states, already had "stand your ground" case law and passed "stand your ground" statutes due to possible concerns of the case law being replaced by "duty to retreat" in future court rulings. Other states, including Washington, have "stand your ground" in their case law but have not adopted statutes; West Virginia had a long tradition of "stand your ground" in its case law[16] before codifying it as a statute in 2008. These states did not have civil immunity for self defense in their previous self defense statutes.
States with a Stand-your-ground Law
No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place.
- Montana
- Alabama
- Arizona
- Florida
- Georgia
- Indiana
- Kentucky
[3]- Louisiana
- Oklahoma
Title 21§1289.25- South Carolina
(Persons not "required to needlessly retreat.")- Tennessee
2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)- Texas
- Utah
- Washington
(Homicide justifiable in the lawful defense of self or other persons present; and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished ...or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony... or upon or in a dwelling, or other place...)
What aspects of the "use of force" are you looking to address, single?
Use of force is a very broad category and depends on dozens of variables. Some of the cases you cite above are unpublished and thus do not define anything.
Is there a particular question that you have?
Indiana abolished the duty to retreat during the Civil War. Indiana recently recodified an existing rule of law (no duty to retreat) after Florida made national news by eliminating their duty to retreat. See Kirk's Second Rule of the Internet.
djj, when people saw "castle doctrine", thanks to media misinformation, it can mean many things.
safe, what do you mean and how do you think it is relevant?
HOUSE ENROLLED ACT No. 1028
AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning firearms and self-defense.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]: 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; only 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, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, or 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 not justified in using deadly force; unless 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
I mean to say that if the defendant felt as though the three people on his property were attempting to take the bulldozer without his consent ( It is noted in the case that there was a verbal agreement that the dozer was to remain with Nanz for a debt owed *unless I misread it * ) and he used a firearm to prevent the criminal trespass and theft of the property (dozer) that is rightfully within his possession that the bill that was signed into law (Quoted below) in Indiana in 2006 would have protected him from prosecution or at least proved him innocent of unlawfully pointing a firearm.
For someone to show up a YEAR after abandoning a piece of equipment trying to get it back with two others after agreeing to leave it with the homeowner as payment for a debt would lead me to believe he was trying to strong arm Nanz into giving up a dozer that he rightfully owned.
Now, this is complicated by the fact that apparently Nanz spit on someone and I'm sure there's a lot of "Flavor" that we're missing out on in this description but I belive that if someone is supposed to do something for me that I've paid them for, they don't do the job and instead of getting my money back, they leave a piece of equipment with me and they return A YEAR later with friends to try and force me to let them take it, I'm fully justified in defending my rightfully possessed property with a firearm, whether I'm forced to discharge it or not.
it seems in NANTZ a barn is not part of curtalige..
The law did not change that much in 2001 .. You still can not use deadly force to protect property outside of your dwelling..
"Nonetheless, Nantz argues that his actions were justified because he was defending his property. Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2 (c), provides the following with regard to whether a person may use force to defend his or her property:
With respect to property other than a dwelling or curtilage, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if he 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 his possession, lawfully in possession of a member of his immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property he has authority to protect. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a) of this section. See footnote
"
What I don't get about this is he justified in using reasonable force if he reasonably believes that it is necessary. Pointing a firearm at someone is not against the law if you are justified in using reasonable force.
IC 35-47-4-3
Pointing firearm at another person
Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.
Whether it is deadly force or not doesn't matter, the state should of had to prove that he didn't have a right to use reasonable force to charge/convict him of it.