Homeowner shoots BG in .....

[Armed Eastsider]

I also facepalmed the ".12 gauge" in the article.

I do want to say though, that I dont believe just because you shoot somebody in the back means they are fleeing. What if you hear them entering the home, you hide somewhere with your gun, watch them walk by, identify them as an intruder, and come out shooting. I know its not all that likely, but you have to think....Also, what if there was a confrontation between you and the intruder, he turns his back to look for a weapon to use against you, and you shoot him in the back then?

Besides, I think if somebody breaks into your home, you should have the right to do whatever you want to them. If you want to beat them and watch them die a slow death, so be it. But society says we have to coddle them, and send them to prison for 3 hots and a cot only to be released for good behavior and due to overcrowding 3 years later.

 

[lovemachine]

Well what if you open your bedroom door, and you see the BG, going thru your stuff, his back turned to you. I'm going to take the shot. I am not going to say, "hey, you, turn around". He could have a gun, and be faster than I am. Not worth finding out.

But if he WAS fleeing, I'll tackle him. He won't be leaving with my stuff.

 

[latigo]

time yourself

Force Science® Institute, Ltd.

Just read this on news, to early to make any calls but sounds like GG +1 BG - got his a$$ shot up

Cops: Suspect shot during home invasion

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

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.

Thanks for pulling that out for us! This is great information, and one of the reasons I love this forum =)

So if he can claim he thought the trespasser was attempting to commit a forcible felony, he can use that as legal defense. Sadly, any prosecutor can say "When you fired, he was trying to jump out the window, and posed no threat of a felony". I am not saying I like tactics like this, but I have seen things like this happen too many times.

I still think this guy is going to be in the same boat - a short spurt of media coverage, and then a long drawn out legal process. In the end, he will likely have the charges dropped, but he will always have a felony arrest (not conviction) on his records to explain.

As much as self defense, or defending your home would appear to us to be flat out justifiable, you will still be arrested, and you will still go to jail and have to argue your innocence. Technically you may be "innocent until proven guilty" - but you will need someone to bail you out of jail, and representation. Otherwise, you end up sitting in jail for a long time until they declare you "innocent".

 

[modelflyer2003]

Thank you, Castle Doctrine.

 

[ocsdor]

...But if he WAS fleeing, I'll tackle him. He won't be leaving with my stuff.

And, that is when you'll get shot (or stabbed).

 

[Bill B]

Force Science® Institute, Ltd.

Thanks for the link. I knew I had seen the information before but didn't say anything because I couldn't find it.
Do we have the best guys (and gals) on here or what?

 

[lovemachine]

And, that is when you'll get shot (or stabbed).

I work hard for the things I have. I'm not letting anyone take that away from me. And I'm not going to chase and tackle him blindly. I'm not going to let him have the chance to shoot or stab.

 

[forkliftdave]

Some laws stink! I remember a law suit involving a Kentucky man sued by a theif when he got trapped in the garage and sued for 75,000 dollars and won. I guess to be safe from theifs we should leave our doors unlocked. What judge and jury would ever award money to a theif for getting trapped in a victims house or garage

 

[willie69]

always make sure the invader is still in your house before pulling the trigger then also ask is your life in danger because the lawerys will it's getting scary out there

 

[kspa57]

Some laws stink! I remember a law suit involving a Kentucky man sued by a theif when he got trapped in the garage and sued for 75,000 dollars and won. I guess to be safe from theifs we should leave our doors unlocked. What judge and jury would ever award money to a theif for getting trapped in a victims house or garage

wow.

 

[rich8483]

appearently to some of you, in order to use self defense even if someone has already broken into your home, you need the following -

the perp to be squarely without a doubt facing you
the perp already holding a weopon of some sort beyond bare fists.
the perp having that weapon, bat, knife or firearm, whatever, squarely already aimed at you in order to swing, stab or fire.
oh, and maybe if its a firearm, we should let the perp get at least one round off to prove that its actually loaded, or even a real firearm.

you'd hate to shoot an innocent felon.

 

[rich8483]

Mecosta County homeowner fires several shots at intruder, causing multiple injuries | MLive.com
Priceless:

I imagine him, in a whining voice "it's not fair" and pouting.

short of using bird shot instead of buck shot or slugs, i dont see him doing anything wrong.

 

[Driver]

This is whats wrong with our country, we have too many people that think you shouldn't defend yourself until after your dead.

 

[Kase]

Kinda wish it was like the wild west still

Someone does a bad crime, and you introduce them to the worms. No questions asked

 

[Driver]

Kinda wish it was like the wild west still

Someone does a bad crime, and you introduce them to the worms. No questions asked

amen

 

[ThrottleJockey]

appearently to some of you, in order to use self defense even if someone has already broken into your home, you need the following -

the perp to be squarely without a doubt facing you
the perp already holding a weopon of some sort beyond bare fists.
the perp having that weapon, bat, knife or firearm, whatever, squarely already aimed at you in order to swing, stab or fire.
oh, and maybe if its a firearm, we should let the perp get at least one round off to prove that its actually loaded, or even a real firearm.

you'd hate to shoot an innocent felon.

This is why you should always have an odd steak knife that doesn't match anything else in the house, or an old jennings purchased FTF.......AND shoot till the guy is dead.

Not sure if I meant to use purple or not

 

[finity]

I am not a lawyer, but here is my worthless

If we have a castle doctrine, that is news to me.

I do believe we have a stand your ground law, which basically means you do not have to retreat or announce your intent to use deadly force.

Likely, he will spend quite a bit of time and money convincing the prosecutor or jury that he had reason to believe the bad guy caused a threat to him.

In some states with castle doctrine, it is justifiable if the intruder intends to commit some other felony, but as I stated unless I am unaware we do not have a castle doctrine in Indiana.

This guy may end up in serious trouble for this, as unjust as that is.

Just to reiterate, I am not a lawyer

You're confusing the terms, I think.

"Stand your ground" has to do with "no duty to retreat" when you are outside your home. Even with just a "stand your ground" law you can still protect yourself or someone else from any personal felony that is less than causing death to you or the other person (rape, kidnapping, robbery, etc.).

"Castle doctrine" laws allow you to use deadly force on someone for just breaking into your home or OCCUPIED vehicle without a duty to retreat. They don't require that you prove that they were a threat to you. Just by virtue of the fact that they have illegally entered your home or occupied vehicle they are assumed to be a threat.

In both instances, however, you are still required to reasonably believe that deadly force was necessary to either stop the forcible felony or the attack on your home or vehicle.

"Castle doctrine" laws are way more common than "stand your ground" laws. Most states recognize that someone breaking into your home is way more of a threat to you than someone out on the street & that you shouldn't have to run away from your own home even if they think you should outside of it.

So if he can claim he thought the trespasser was attempting to commit a forcible felony, he can use that as legal defense. Sadly, any prosecutor can say "When you fired, he was trying to jump out the window, and posed no threat of a felony". I am not saying I like tactics like this, but I have seen things like this happen too many times.

The prosecutor can "say" whatever he wants but he still has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you weren't reasonable in your actions.

Remember the assumption is already there that someone breaking into your home is there to do serious bodily injury to you. The prosecutor has to prove they weren't to convict you of a crime for defending your home with deadly force.

As much as self defense, or defending your home would appear to us to be flat out justifiable, you will still be arrested, and you will still go to jail and have to argue your innocence. Technically you may be "innocent until proven guilty" - but you will need someone to bail you out of jail, and representation. Otherwise, you end up sitting in jail for a long time until they declare you "innocent".

You know, people always say this kind of thing when generally that's not the case.

Please provide links to show evidence that what you say is true. Can you show even one case where there was clear evidence of a person using deadly force against someone who broke into their home & then was subsequently arrested & tried. Generally, in IN, unless there is some real question about the facts in the case, you'll be OK in the situation in the OP.

I will grant you that SOME states may be more likely to try you but even in those states if someone breaks into your house you'll still generally be OK if you've followed local laws (duty to retreat, etc.).

Some laws stink! I remember a law suit involving a Kentucky man sued by a theif when he got trapped in the garage and sued for 75,000 dollars and won. I guess to be safe from theifs we should leave our doors unlocked. What judge and jury would ever award money to a theif for getting trapped in a victims house or garage

Links or it didn't happen. I'm not really saying it didn't happen but you hear stories like this all the time but never any proof to back it up.

ETA:

On looking up anything to do with the general facts you provided I found one story of someone telling of a story they heard of a guy in PA getting $500K in the exact scenario you describe.

But it wasn't KY. & it wasn't even TRUE:

snopes.com: Stella Awards

If it sounds to good to be true or too stupid to be true, it probably isn't true. Please look up this stuff before posting it as fact to try to scare people out of defending themselves from a legitimate threat.

Know the laws. Follow the laws. Generally you'll be fine.

 

[sshelton]

Crazy, good for him for defending his house, hopfully he doesn't get hit with excecive use.

 

[rich8483]

in kentucky, garages dont have doors.