"Get out of my house"

[finity]

IC 35-41-3-2 is very clear.

(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.

There is no "you can only use deadly force in self-defense requirement" in that statute, in fact the statute specifically states that deadly force is reasonable force under the specified conditions spelled out in IC 35-41-3-2.

No.

"Deadly force" IS NOT automatically equated with "reasonable force" in the above IC. It just says that DF COULD be considered RF under certain circumstances.

Look at that small word "IF".

You are authorized to use deadly force *IF* it is reasonable to believe it is NECESSARY. NECESSARY being the operative word in the above IC.

You can try all you want to justify the killing of a person under ALL circumstances if they break into your house but the LAW doesn't agree with you.

Thus ends the english lesson for today children.

 

[E5RANGER375]

No.

"Deadly force" IS NOT automatically equated with "reasonable force" in the above IC. It just says that DF COULD be considered RF under certain circumstances.

Look at that small word "IF".

You are authorized to use deadly force *IF* it is reasonable to believe it is NECESSARY. NECESSARY being the operative word in the above IC.

You can try all you want to justify the killing of a person under ALL circumstances if they break into your house but the LAW doesn't agree with you.

Thus ends the english lesson for today children.

then all you have to say to meet burden of proof is: "I was in fear of my life". theres no one that can read your mind so beyond a reasonable doubt does not exist.

it doesnt matter if a man in a tutu breaks in.

 

[IndySSD]

No.

"Deadly force" IS NOT automatically equated with "reasonable force" in the above IC. It just says that DF COULD be considered RF under certain circumstances.

Look at that small word "IF".

You are authorized to use deadly force *IF* it is reasonable to believe it is NECESSARY. NECESSARY being the operative word in the above IC.

You can try all you want to justify the killing of a person under ALL circumstances if they break into your house but the LAW doesn't agree with you.

Thus ends the english lesson for today children.

aaaaaaaaand he's back!

Oh, and HiPoint.... I suggest you bury your head back in the sand and continue to think that no one with criminal intent puts time or effort into getting better at hurting people...

 

[BigMatt]

In hind sight, the only thing I would have done differently is to announce that he has a gun on him.

From your description, I don't think he knew he had a gun trained on him. He just thought you were pointing a flashlight at him.

 

[finity]

aaaaaaaaand he's back!

And you disagree with what I posted how, exactly?

Nothing I posted above is open to interpretation. It is the way it is written. That's one nice thing I've seen about IN laws. They are fairly well written...at least compared to most other states I've looked at.

Reading is FUNdamental!

 

[finity]

then all you have to say to meet burden of proof is: "I was in fear of my life". theres no one that can read your mind so beyond a reasonable doubt does not exist.

it doesnt matter if a man in a tutu breaks in.

I'll say it again more loudly & hopefully you'll get it this time:

IT DOESN"T MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, A JURY STILL HAS TO FIND IT REASONABLE!! YOU CAN CLAIM YOU WERE AFRAID ALL DAY LONG BUT IF THE JURY FINDS IT UNREASONABLE, YOU WILL GO TO JAIL!!

Shooting a person who breaks into your house is GENERALLY reasonable BUT NOT ALWAYS.

If you say you felt it was necessary to shoot a ten year old mentally challenged unarmed kid (who is older than your "baby" requirement, let me remind you) who climbed through your open window in the middle of the day & tried to say "I was in fear of my life" then the jury would still be laughing even after you were already spending your well deserved prison time. That is NOT REASONABLE!

If the man in the tutu is laying face down on your carpet after he voluntarily ceased his "attack" on your dwelling (IOW gave up) before you shot him but you shoot him anyway & then try to say "I was in fear of my life" then you would most likely be found guilty of murder or one it's derivatives. That is NOT REASONABLE!

 

[RichardR]

That is NOT REASONABLE!

The presumption of the statute is that it is reasonable, hence the reasoning behind it being written as it was written & then enacted into existence.

And any legal burden of proof is not on the homeowner, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the homeowners actions were "unreasonable".

Anyone can come up with dozens of silly "what if scenarios" that are unreasonable to use deadly force in, but that doesn't change the wording of the statute nor it's intent ... which is to protect homeowners from overzealous prosecution when/if they ever have to defend themselves, their families or their homes from a criminal intrusion.

 

[Cratchelow]

Good execution I'd say. I would worry about the safety of the woman if the house is that unprotected. Especially if he is on drugs. A cheap fix is a guard dog.

Good point concerning the dog,but sometimes that doesn't even help.I would also have let him know that I had a gun.

Last summer my dogs were going nuts at the front door(2 am).These dogs are 90 pounds apiece.Like an idiot,I looked through the door window and there was a guy working the doorknob.I yelled and he lowered his shoulder,trying to bash the door in.My wife ,who has a 38 special revolver on her,called 911.The only thing that worked was when I yelled for him to come on in so I could put a few rounds of 9mm in his head,just to see what it would feel like.Then he took off.

Never was caught,but when the police arrived they stated that he was certainly the guy who made it into a house down the street 30 minutes earlier,and left when the alarm went off.Took him all of 30 minutes to try it again.My yelling,the dogs growling,had zero affect on him.My gun comment and the sincerity in my voice, did,however.

 

[PhilB]

I think you handled yourself well enough, especially considering the circumstances. Anybody can think of ways to improve an action that has already taken place. I doubt that many on this site have ever had to shoot anybody. Saying you would shoot somebody is a lot easier than carrying thru with it.

 

[Joe Williams]

then all you have to say to meet burden of proof is: "I was in fear of my life". theres no one that can read your mind so beyond a reasonable doubt does not exist.

it doesnt matter if a man in a tutu breaks in.

The law doesn't say if YOU were in fear of your life. It says if a reasonable person would have been. You can be as fearful if you want. If you pop an unarmed man in your house, you (more properly your attorney) will certainly have to convince the prosecutor that reasonable person would have shared that fear, and you may well have to convince a jury of the same thing. It's an important distinction.

 

[RichardR]

The law doesn't say if YOU were in fear of your life. It says if a reasonable person would have been. You can be as fearful if you want. If you pop an unarmed man in your house, you (more properly your attorney) will certainly have to convince the prosecutor that reasonable person would have shared that fear, and you may well have to convince a jury of the same thing. It's an important distinction.

The problem with that is that the statute doesn't require that the intruder be armed or that the homeowner must first be "in fear" of anything.

 

[Joe Williams]

The problem with that is that the statute doesn't require that the intruder be armed.

I didn't say it did. If an unarmed man keeps coming down my hallway after being ordered out, especially after being advised I'm armed, he's getting shot.

But I harbor no illusions about whether or not it will be necessary to do what I said: convince a prosecutor and maybe a jury that a reasonable person would have feared death or serious bodily harm, or that deadly force was the reasonable amount of force to terminate the trespass of my property.

 

[RichardR]

convince a prosecutor and maybe a jury that a reasonable person would have feared death or serious bodily harm.

That's also not required in the statute in question, it is however a requirement in a separate statute regarding the "use of deadly force in self defense".

 

[E5RANGER375]

I didn't say it did. If an unarmed man keeps coming down my hallway after being ordered out, especially after being advised I'm armed, he's getting shot.

But I harbor no illusions about whether or not it will be necessary to do what I said: convince a prosecutor and maybe a jury that a reasonable person would have feared death or serious bodily harm, or that deadly force was the reasonable amount of force to terminate the trespass of my property.

i see and agree "legaly" with what your saying Joe. and your right. but my point is that no one will know what conversation you had with the guy if you properly terminate the threat. as in History, the winning side will be the one who tells the final story. (or the lawyer of the winning side).
obviously, it wouldnt be wise to shoot a guy in the back or a retarded kid. im sure i could restrain myself finity.

 

[finity]

RichardR

You need to do a little reading on what is called the "reasonable man" theory of law.

You will find out that it doesn't matter one hill of beans what YOU say or what YOU think is reasonable. It only matters what a JURY would consider a "reasonable man" to have thought or done under circumstances similar to yours.

If you want to find justification to be able to shoot EVERY intruder in your home NO MATTER THE CIRCUMSTANCES then go ahead but you shouldn't promote a potentially dangerous interpretation of what the law says you can do.

DEALY FORCE IS NOT ALWAYS REASONABLE IN A HOME INVASION SCENARIO! HELL, "REASONABLE FORCE "ISN'T ALWAYS JUSTIFIED EITHER. READ THE LAW AGAIN.

Not only does it have to be reasonable (to that imaginary "reasonable man") that force is used at all but the amount & type of force that is used must be reasonable, as well.

 

[finity]

no one will know what conversation you had with the guy if you properly terminate the threat. as in History, the winning side will be the one who tells the final story. (or the lawyer of the winning side).

OMG here we go again...

 

[RichardR]

You will find out that it doesn't matter one hill of beans what YOU say or what YOU think is reasonable.

The wording of the statute in question is very clear.

Trying to argue over what you or I believe to be reasonable or unreasonable has absolutely no bearing on what the statute actually states.

 

[finity]

The wording of the statute in question is very clear.

Obviously, but not, it seems, to you.

Trying to argue over what you or I believe to be reasonable or unreasonable has absolutely no bearing on what the statute actually states.

You're right there. It only matters what the jury looking through the eyes of that "reasonable man" would find reasonable. Because THAT is what the statute requires.

Good luck if it ever happens to you.

 

[PatriotPride]

Hey, leave Hi-point out of this man, lol. No need for low blows, lol. E5ranger I think what you want to hear is "you're right" you've obviously played out these scenarios countless time in your mind and in your living room breaking furniture as you dive over couches and using family members as pretend hostages, lmao. Let me ask you this, do you sleep with face paint and your tactical gear on too, or have you just not gotten any sleep in a long time? Your response was kind of out landish I sisnt take the time to read it all but it was something about living on other planets and kungfu urban warfare by skilled assailants in the middle of the night lmao. Yeah I'm sure you'd take the gun out of my hands faster than I could pull the trigger .... several times. But hopefully a guy as skilled covert and well educated in the field of martial arts won't climb through my window someday. But now that you've made me aware of such a threat ... ill be ready. On second thought, maybe my "High-Point" 9mm doesn't shoot as hard as other 9mm's do so i should probably go out and buy something more expensive for home protection.

Seldom have I seen a post FAIL so hard. WELL DONE! Yet another post gets added to the wall of shame.

 

[RichardR]

Obviously, but not, it seems, to you.

You must have me confused with someone else, I merely posted the text of the statute in question & then addressed a couple of non-existent legal requirements that others have mistakenly posted.


You're right there. It only matters what the jury looking through the eyes of that "reasonable man" would find reasonable. Because THAT is what the statute requires.

Good luck if it ever happens to you.

Like I said previously stated, anyone can come up with dozens of silly "unreasonable" scenarios involving neighboring children or what not that would not warrant the use of deadly force.

However that does not change what the statute specifically states that .... reasonable force, including deadly force may be used to prevent or terminate a criminal trespass or attack on or inside a persons dwelling, curtilage or occupied vehicle.

I really don't understand why you are so adamant about arguing about this when the wording of the statute is so clear, I think that you are getting hung up on the word "reasonable" but according to the statute the legal presumption is that it is not unreasonable to shoot a criminal who is attempting to break into your house or carjack your vehicle.