In the Back?

[LCPer]

Indiana Code

Here is the Indiana Code that might give you some insight on the issue.
Indiana Code 35-41-3

 

[longbow]

If you shoot 'em in the back, just be sure to roll them over and shoot 'em in the chest. Bullets aren't sequentially numbered.

If you have pigs, you have a different avenue......

 

[bigdawgtrucks]

If someone enters my house armed, unarmed, facing me or not I don't no his intensions. Its my home not his, whether he's stealing my dog food or using my toilet, I will not shoot him, I will kill him. Dead men tell no lies.

 

[paddling_man]

Situational.

Someone has broken into my car that I left in the drive? Warning. No shoot.

Someone is in the garage? Warning. No shoot.

Someone trying to break in while I'm inside? Warning only... if the attempt stops.

I come downstairs to investigate a noise and the BG is between me and the back door? Warning only if BG immediately flees or complies.

I investigate a noise and, like Lars example #3, the BG is now moving up the stairs and he is between me and the sleeping kids? No quarter given.

[The examples above assume one BG and him *not* obviously brandishing a firearm or blade.]

It's simple.

"Does this person need to be shot?"

If they aren't posing a near immediate threat to life of severe bodily injury. The answer is almost universally no. Regardless of what direction they are facing.

Sit 1. FuBar is in a class room with a gun pointed at the students in the front of the room. You're in the hallway and see him, have a gun, and a clean shot. "Does this person need to be shot?"

Sit 2. FuBar is in your home, carrying your Laptop towards your front door. You're behind him with your gun and a clean shot. "Does this person need to be shot?"

Sit 3. FuBar is in your home, heading towards the steps to the second floor. You come in behind him. Your wife and daughter are on the second floor. You have a gun, and a clean shot. "Does this person need to be shot?"

lars:
1. Warning first. It could be a demonstration... a poorly done demo, but one nevertheless. (You have a gun at school?? )
2. No.
3. Yes.

 

[243rem700]

If the person in your home is obviously a threat than I would immediately shoot. If they had their back towards me and I could not tell who it was I would tell them to turn around at gunpoint. The last thing I would want to do is accidentaly shoot a friend or family member who is in my house for some reason.

 

[henry0reilly]

If someone is in your house and up to no good and you shoot them in the back, will it go bad for you?

ERGO: Why wait for him to turn around and have a chance at shooting you, or warn him that you are even there?

I think the answer depends a great deal on what you mean by "up to no good" ....

 

[shibumiseeker]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry_issues_and_self_defense/70557-another_not_guilty.html

Indiana's Castle Doctrine aside, this is the sort of thing I worry about.

 

[Joe Williams]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry_issues_and_self_defense/70557-another_not_guilty.html

Indiana's Castle Doctrine aside, this is the sort of thing I worry about.

I consider it a foregone conclusion that if I have to fire in self defense, I will face a jury. I have no problem with this, it's a serious matter and should be reviewed by our peers. Now, I know that charges won't necessarily be filed, but our planning includes preparing for the aftermath, and assumes being arrested and charged.

Take note, the shooter was found not guilty, in compliance with IN law.

 

[groovatron]

My solution: .12ga with the first two shells being rubber buckshot, and the other four REAL 00.

Shout a warning and command to get on the floor. If they do not comply, I pepper the back of their torso with rubber. Repeat as necessary.
If they wanna really fight, all I can say is I hope they land on the linoleum.

Really..?....Rubber buckshot?....Bad idea. I see no logical reason to have the first two shells be fake. It's like carrying without one in the pipe. If that guys armed, your toast.

When you rack that 12 gauge, they are going to do everything possible to get out of your house. Let them go.

If they turn and threaten you, then they may catch a nasty case of lead poisoning. This would be my last intention, I couldn't imagine cleaing up after dispatching a couple of rounds of 00 buck in my house (whether someone caught it or not).

This is a common thing I hear. I wouldn't bank on it though. The rack of a pump shotgun may scare the neighboor boy stealing beer out of your garage, but an armed, hardened crimminal is more likely to turn and shoot. I keep a round in the chamber in any gun that I have for self-defense. There is simply no better way to do it. Besides, they would be blinded by my 3w LED before they heard anything. Some people imagine there "ideal" situation in a home invasion. ...........You hear something downstairs. You quietly grab your 870 and sneak up on the guy. You rack the pump and shout "get on the ground!" Bad guy craps himeslf and runs out of the house screamin for his mommy........
See, I don't think this happens as often as many think, and I'm not willing to take any chances. You must be prepared for the worst case scenario at all times. This means cutting down the steps you will have to take in order to be ready to fire in the heat of the moment.

 

[LCPer]

If an intruder enters your home and encounters you in the process, has said intruder committed a felony simply by entering your home uninvited? At that point are you justified in feeling a threat of injury of death from said intruder or does intruder have to physically make the threat? What about defending your property? If I read Indiana Code right the felony thing comes into play. I for one would hope this situation never happens, but if it does we won't have time to look up the code to see what it has to say. Better to know what the Indiana Code is beforehand. This bit of debating the intruder to defuse the situation is "LIBERAL NONSENSE" only giving him time to decide how he is going to disable you. As to shooting in the back, that might be a little over the top if you can't see if intruder has a weapon. In any case you better be ready in an instant (millisecond if he does) to make your move. It is a bad situation any way you look at it. Again I hope and pray to never be in this situation.

 

[fastwally]

As said in a prior post, for me it would depend on the situation. I pray I would make the right decision at the time and if I thought shooting was justified, it wouldn't make any difference if it was in the front or back. If he was heading out the door, no.

 

[VERT]

If someone is in your house and up to no good and you shoot them in the back, will it go bad for you?

ERGO: Why wait for him to turn around and have a chance at shooting you, or warn him that you are even there?

While I agree that if they are in your house, then the intent or at least opportunity for the perp to hurt your family is there....I would have a hard time shooting somebody in the back. Not saying I would not do it though.

It's simple.

"Does this person need to be shot?"

If they aren't posing a near immediate threat to life of severe bodily injury. The answer is almost universally no. Regardless of what direction they are facing.

Sit 1. FuBar is in a class room with a gun pointed at the students in the front of the room. You're in the hallway and see him, have a gun, and a clean shot. "Does this person need to be shot?"

Sit 2. FuBar is in your home, carrying your Laptop towards your front door. You're behind him with your gun and a clean shot. "Does this person need to be shot?"

Sit 3. FuBar is in your home, heading towards the steps to the second floor. You come in behind him. Your wife and daughter are on the second floor. You have a gun, and a clean shot. "Does this person need to be shot?"

Great line of questioning!

1) Don't know. Maybe the guy/gal is pointing the gun at a bad guy in among the students. Does he see me? Can I see the rest of the situation? Also I probably would not have a gun in a school since I am not LEO.
2) No, verbal warning and a lot of cussing. Not worth taking a life over a laptop that I can replace for $300 - $600. Hell it would cost more to replace the carpet.
3) Yes, and since it he is worth shooting, he is worth shooting twice.

I asked my wife the same question and she replied, "I would shoot them out of fear." I think a woman has a better chance of not getting in any trouble.

I would not make this assumption. Somebody posted a link to a case study that suggested just the opposite. It looked at the type of gun used in a home defense situation and whether a man or woman was the shooter. Basically juries did not like people shooting a bad guy with a black rifle. Also, women who were perceived as being versed in firearms were convicted or sentenced more harshly then men. Unfortunately it is all about perception. Which brings us full circle to the OPs original question.

 

[remymartin]

I did not read the whole thread, just the OP. The answer is NO.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

One thing I learned from my law enforcement experience. Yes I know we had more tools, such as pepper spray and a baton. I also know you are talking Leo versus civilian. However lets say you catch someone trying to climb out the window. He has his back to you. You tell him to stop, but he continues to climb out the window. Do you really think it's smart to shoot him/her in the back? Do you really see him/her as an immediate threat? If you see no weapon, and he is making no advance toward you. With the intention to use deadly force toward you or you family. Then I would say no. Also lets say he/she is standing a safe distance away. Enough time for you to fire, and maneuver and they have a knife in their hand threating you. Should you shoot them? Whats the chance they can throw the knife, and cause bodily harm or death? Now if they advance, even after a verbal warning and you or your family is in immediate danger. Then yes you have to use any force necessary, to stop the threat. Another case lets say they have a gun in their waistband that you can see. However they do not draw, and are not making verbal remarks or advancing. Do you shoot, or try to talk them into a controllable position and call the cops. Not every situation needs the use of deadly force to stop a threat. You have to look at it from a civil standpoint. Just some food for thought!

 

[Lars]

lars:
1. Warning first. It could be a demonstration... a poorly done demo, but one nevertheless. (You have a gun at school?? )

1) Don't know. Maybe the guy/gal is pointing the gun at a bad guy in among the students. Does he see me? Can I see the rest of the situation? Also I probably would not have a gun in a school since I am not LEO.

I should have fleshed out Question #1. More clearly.
A couple years ago A friend of mine who went to Virginia Tech, long before the shooting, asked me. "Had you been a student in one of those classrooms, would you have drawn your weapon, and yelled for him to drop the gun?"

I answered that "I wouldn't invite him to my gunfight, and would have more likely from behind at least concealment shot him in the back if necessary. That there's no reason to draw attention to myself in the defense of others."

 

[IndyMonkey]

If someone is in your house and up to no good and you shoot them in the back, will it go bad for you?

ERGO: Why wait for him to turn around and have a chance at shooting you, or warn him that you are even there?

If they are in my house they are going to get shot in the toe, back, head or anything else that I can hit while in the fetal position on the floor.

 

[scheesman]

If they are in my house they are going to get shot in the toe, back, head or anything else that I can hit while in the fetal position on the floor.

Why would you want to be balled up on the floor during a home invasion?

 

[g00n24]

But why not try to diffuse the situation with a verbal or "lead" warning first? If after discovering that the homeowner is armed and ready, anyone willing to stick around has made their intentions (and mentality) clear, and should be a hell of a lot easier to justify legally and morally.

I dont care if they are just going for my tv or are trying to get into my gun cabinet, if they are in my house they are a worthless piece of sh&t that mean me harm, and I will intercept them with bullets. What's to say that once you yell out your warning they dont turn and run down a hallway and now you have to go and clear your house, not knowing where they are at. Perhaps if they are cornered in a room with no way out except through a doorway I am standing in and are far enough away from me I will tell him to get the floor and if they move they will be shot.

 

[dustjunky2000]

Really..?....Rubber buckshot?....Bad idea. I see no logical reason to have the first two shells be fake. It's like carrying without one in the pipe. If that guys armed, your toast.

Have you ever been hit with rubber 00? The force alone is enough to make you want to black out. And the pain...omg the pain. It's incredible and I can't even imagine getting blasted with the real thing. Anybody who could take two shells at close range isn't going to be bothered by real lead.
And before you ask me, yes I do know what it feels like. Me and a friend of mine tried out some a few years ago when I got my Mossy .12. We put on really heavy clothes and coveralls and leather coats and tried it out from about 20 yards away. I turned my back to him and said 'fire'.

Four of the pellets hit me. Making a large number 7 on my back. One in the near center between the shoulder blades, one on my right shoulder, one in my mid lower back, and one in the back of my left thigh.
The force is amazing. Afterwards, I was glad I had put on so much padding. It's like getting hit by a truck. Completely takes your breath away. Then after about 30-45 seconds the pain creeps on. It feels like someone is holding a hot knife to the spots where it hit you. It's excruciating to the point you just want to lay on the ground and not move. I can't even imagine taking it up close through a t-shirt. I think one shell of that stuff at close range would be more than enough to stop even the craziest of crazies. I told my friend I wasn't gonna shoot him after that. lol

One downside to the less-lethal buckshot is how fast and wide the shot pattern spreads. There were about nine of the little bastards in the shell, and less than half actually hit my 6'5" frame from 20 yds. Definitely something more suited to the indoor BG situation.

Yeah, yeah, I know it wasn't the brightest thing to do, but the curiosity was killing me and I had to know.

 

[Joe Williams]

Oh my...