Jackbooted Thugs!!

[Benny]

Touching me vs. touching my property are different actions with different responses.



A piece of fried chicken has no immediate ability to kill me. My firearm does.



I understand what you're saying, but I think it was a little more complex than that. It appears to me from reading the subsequent responses that the OP was trying to de-escalate the situation rather than defending himself from an attack. How immediate would you consider the threat? The OP had time to glare at the kid and issue a short speech before unleashing the dog. The kid was also sitting across a picnic table from the OP, hardly within reach of immediately assaulting him.

Again, his actions caused the kids to leave and nobody was injured, that's a positive outcome. Had the teen or the dogs responded differently though would a jury be on his side? Is that a consideration when deciding how to de-escalate a situation?

J, I have next to zero doubt that you are a great guy and a great police officer. I genuinely mean that.

But are you honestly trying to say that there wouldn't be a physical altercation if I walked up to the hands-down majority of police officers, told them to leave and then slapped food off of their plate?

Come on buddy, I wasn't born yesterday.

I think that is where lashicon is coming from.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

But are you honestly trying to say that there wouldn't be a physical altercation if I walked up to the hands-down majority of police officers, told them to leave and then slapped food off of their plate?

The only physical altercation that would occur if you slapped food off my plate would be your hand being stuck to the table with a fork or knife. I take my food intake seriously and nobody better come between me and a meal.

 

[jsharmon7]

J, I have next to zero doubt that you are a great guy and a great police officer. I genuinely mean that.

But are you honestly trying to say that there wouldn't be a physical altercation if I walked up to the hands-down majority of police officers, told them to leave and then slapped food off of their plate?

Come on buddy, I wasn't born yesterday.

I think that is where lashicon is coming from.

My only disagreement is that we're not discussing whether the kid was in the wrong. He clearly was. So in your scenario, yes he would be in trouble if an officer witnessed the behavior or if the officer was the target of the behavior. There was no LE presence in the OP's situation though, and he was left to handle it himself. My question is whether the OP's response was appropriate, and the best solution to the problem. Could things have turned out really badly? As it is, it turned out well. I just think it's important to think about these things when dealing with situations like this. How quickly could this have escalated into a deadly situation if just one thing had played out differently? Is this a self defense situation, or a "I'll teach you a lesson" situation? A lot of times I see people get in trouble for things that started out minor and quickly escalated. You try to intimidate me, I let my dogs loose on you, you defend yourself from my dogs, I shoot you. The OP stated he didn't feel in immediate danger, and even had time to give them a Clint Eastwood-esque speech. The OP did what he did and it turned out well in the end.

 

[88GT]

I understood that my right to defend my property was my home, castle doctrine. I did not know property in this context to be be defined as things I own not in my home even if the theft includes words that tell me to leave. IE if I happen upon a thief stealing my car from a parking garage while telling me to get away the use of deadly force does not apply because I was not in danger of death or great bodily harm.

Keep studying. In Indiana we have the right to use force, even deadly force I believe, to prevent a forcible felony.

(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other 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.
(e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against any other 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 (c).

And the Subsection of reference:

(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other 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.

And what is a "forcible felony?"

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.

Indiana seems to be less concerned with property distinctions and more concerned with the criminal threat. I for one won't be complaining about that. And I would never convict a man for defending himself. I don't care how "civilized" we're trying to become.

 

[Benny]

The only physical altercation that would occur if you slapped food off my plate would be your hand being stuck to the table with a fork or knife. I take my food intake seriously and nobody better come between me and a meal.

I said broken fingers, but a fork through the hand will convey the same message.

My only disagreement is that we're not discussing whether the kid was in the wrong. He clearly was. So in your scenario, yes he would be in trouble if an officer witnessed the behavior or if the officer was the target of the behavior. There was no LE presence in the OP's situation though, and he was left to handle it himself. My question is whether the OP's response was appropriate, and the best solution to the problem. Could things have turned out really badly? As it is, it turned out well. I just think it's important to think about these things when dealing with situations like this. How quickly could this have escalated into a deadly situation if just one thing had played out differently? Is this a self defense situation, or a "I'll teach you a lesson" situation? A lot of times I see people get in trouble for things that started out minor and quickly escalated. You try to intimidate me, I let my dogs loose on you, you defend yourself from my dogs, I shoot you. The OP stated he didn't feel in immediate danger, and even had time to give them a Clint Eastwood-esque speech. The OP did what he did and it turned out well in the end.

So you do admit you would detain the punk if you saw what he did to the OP?

If so, what would you do if you weren't a police officer with certain "extra" powers?

Can I tie that kid up (figuratively, like grab him and hold him down), have my wife call the police and if the other two approach me, I draw?

I'm switching from what-I-would-do mode to asking-questions mode.

The reason I ask is because I really don't think it should matter if it is a piece of chicken or a wedding ring. If someone tries to steal/destroy my property, I should have the right to defend it whether I'm LEO or not.

 

[Burnsy]

Your response is to my post that said:

I understood that my right to defend my property was my home, castle doctrine. I did not know property in this context to be be defined as things I own not in my home even if the theft includes words that tell me to leave. IE if I happen upon a thief stealing my car from a parking garage while telling me to get away the use of deadly force does not apply because I was not in danger of death or great bodily harm.

Keep studying. In Indiana we have the right to use force, even deadly force I believe, to prevent a forcible felony.


And the Subsection of reference:



And what is a "forcible felony?"




Indiana seems to be less concerned with property distinctions and more concerned with the criminal threat. I for one won't be complaining about that. And I would never convict a man for defending himself. I don't care how "civilized" we're trying to become.

Thanks for your post, I am not closed minded enough to not consider that I am fallible and ask this for informational purposes.

(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other 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.
(e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against any other 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

Notice occupied, I was not in it, I came upon them.

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 (c).

Subsection C says:

(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other 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.

You said forcible felony is:

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.

How is stealing my car imminent danger of bodily injury to me in the context in which I gave, which was :

IE if I happen upon a thief stealing my car from a parking garage while telling me to get away the use of deadly force does not apply because I was not in danger of death or great bodily harm.

I am willing to study further, and I am not trying to be right or correct, I am just missing (possibly at my fault) how someone boosting my car that I am not in results in threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent
danger of bodily injury to a human being. Sure it's wrong, sure I will report it, I just am not understanding any IC quoted that would allow me to stop the forcible felony with deadly force.

I am sure you can use force of some sort, such as words and fists, but your quoted IC's do not include deadly based on the the circumstances you quoted me on.

 

[Benny]

IE if I happen upon a thief stealing my car from a parking garage while telling me to get away the use of deadly force does not apply because I was not in danger of death or great bodily harm.

Do you fire at them from a distance? Hell no.

Can you run to your car yelling, "GTF away?" Why not?

If they get aggressive with you because you don't want your car stolen, well, that's when you really have to start making serious decisions.

If I catch someone breaking into my car, I'm not running away and calling 911 only to see my insurance go up when my car is pulled out of a river with my personal possessions (that I probably can't even claim) missing.

To each his own, but I refuse to be a victim if it's in my power to not be.

Edit for your edit:

I am sure you can use force of some sort, such as words and fists, but your quoted IC's do not include deadly based on the the circumstances you quoted me on.

Sticks and stones may break your bones [and] words will never hurt you, but since when can't fists be deadly?

 

[Burnsy]

I would agree with you, I didn't say no force could be used, I was asking the quoted user to show me an IC where an unoccupied vehicle that was being stolen could lawfully be a valid cause for deadly force. As I read his post he expressed that it was.

 

[Benny]

I would agree with you, I didn't say no force could be used, I was asking the quoted user to show me an IC where an unoccupied vehicle that was being stolen could lawfully be a valid cause for deadly force. As I read his post he expressed that it was.

1. 88GT is all woman (common mistake, don't feel bad.).

2. I think my scenario would be a valid cause...That's if they decide to cause you bodily harm when you refuse to let them steal your vehicle and you act accordingly.

Of course every scenario isn't going to be spelled out in IC, so you won't find it and she can't post it.

 

[Burnsy]

Sorry 88GT, no offense meant. Benny, I am not asking this to prolong the discussion, I ask out of sheer curiosity and I mean no anger. Would you defend your unoccupied car with deadly force? EDIT: In the given situation, no bodily harm was involved yet.

Edit for your edit and my edit (this is getting complicated)

Yes fists can easily be deadly, you are correct, I was specifically referring to the IC's quoted and didn't think to include that in my response.

 

[Benny]

Sorry 88GT, no offense meant. Benny, I am not asking this to prolong the discussion, I ask out of sheer curiosity and I mean no anger. Would you defend your unoccupied car with your life?

1. I am 100% sure 88GT will not take offense from you assuming she is a male...It happens constantly and it is fastly becoming a running joke.

2. I know you mean no anger and I hope you feel the same way about about my responses...I just love a good debate and you have made plenty of valid points.

To answer your question, I would do exactly what I said..."HEY, GTF AWAY FROM MY CAR." Their next move would dictate whether there would be a physical altercation or not, but I'm not calling the police until they have ran away or they are lying on the ground.

I don't see it as my life or my car and I refuse to tuck my tail and let some piece of **** steal my car while I wait for a police officer to find the time to show up (sometimes they are busy with more important things).

 

[Burnsy]

1. I am 100% sure 88GT will not take offense from you assuming she is a male...It happens constantly and it is fastly becoming a running joke.

2. I know you mean no anger and I hope you feel the same way about about my responses...I just love a good debate and you have made plenty of valid points.

To answer your question, I would do exactly what I said..."HEY, GTF AWAY FROM MY CAR." Their next move would dictate whether there would be a physical altercation or not, but I'm not calling the police until they have ran away or they are lying on the ground.

I don't see it as my life or my car and I refuse to tuck my tail and let some piece of **** steal my car while I wait for a police officer to find the time to show up (sometimes they are busy with more important things).

Thank you for your well thought out response, I love to debate as well and I like a good subject. I will sleep on my response and word it the best I can before I post.

 

[cobber]

I'm sorry but the debate here seems to show how effete we've become as a society. Three punks having the sheer audacity to intimidate a citizen engaged in lawful activities have an ***-whipping coming. Metaphysically speaking.

They were the authors of their fate.

Don't need to quote the IC, this is common sense. Don't need the police, prosecutor, courts or a jury here.

In the old days their parents would have taken care of matters after the OP got done with them.

Or we could throw the matter to a jury...

 

[Josh Ward]

I'm sorry but the debate here seems to show how effete we've become as a society. Three punks having the sheer audacity to intimidate a citizen engaged in lawful activities have an ***-whipping coming. Metaphysically speaking.

They were the authors of their fate.

Don't need to quote the IC, this is common sense. Don't need the police, prosecutor, courts or a jury here.

In the old days their parents would have taken care of matters after the OP got done with them.

Or we could throw the matter to a jury...

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I don't see it as my life or my car and I refuse to tuck my tail and let some piece of **** steal my car while I wait for a police officer to find the time to show up (sometimes they are busy with more important things).

If it makes you feel any better about whether or not we show up I took a stolen vehicle report at 12:25 am Sunday night/Monday morning and found the vehicle at 1:47 am.

 

[Josh Ward]

Heres a similar situation....

To make a living I train retrievers (Labs, Chesapekes, ect) for hunting, field trials, hunts ect. About a year and half ago I was purchasing fuel at my local gas station. I had been approached as I was pumping my fuel by a "pan handler" wanting me to put some gas in his vehicle. I polietly declined. He got back in his car and left. (so I thought). As I was paying for my fuel, snack, and drink inside the station I look around and see said "pan handler" trying to get into my dog trailer.......

Per Burnsy line of thinking I should avoid confrontation, stay inside, call the police, wait the 10 min (no offense intended) for them to get there, make the report. Then call my client and tell them that their $10,000+ dog was stolen while I watched.....

What would you do ???






*

 

[Josh Ward]

We as a society have been indoctrinated to believe we are not to take care of ourselves. It makes me sick.....

 

[El-Cigarro]

Yes

I don't know about that.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

What would you do ???

Train breeds of dogs that would take care of the problem themselves if the guy was able to get inside the trailer?

 

[Fixer]

I can't believe that some are telling the OP or anyone in that situation that walking away is the best option. If we follow that mentality then why carry any type of weapon? We should be able to walk away or avoid any situation.

I suppose the OP should have walked away and rewarded their behavior by also leaving the food.

I consider their action as aggressive and hostile and would respond in kind. It wasn't just a couple kids being loud and a pain in the arse. If confronting them didn't work and they continued to threaten me and my wife I would be fully prepared to show them the muzzle of my gun and tell them it would be in their best interest to leave while they can.