Protection of Property Question

[iChokePeople]

And some of you expect all of our LEOs to know everything that Mr. Relford just said, as well as 100% of the REST of the law. Good luck with that.

I REALLY like having some attorneys around here.

 

[lrahm]

And some of you expect all of our LEOs to know everything that Mr. Relford just said, as well as 100% of the REST of the law. Good luck with that.

I REALLY like having some attorneys around here.

Not getting into an argument. If you look up Tennessee vs. Garner, it says the same thing.

 

[iChokePeople]

I may have been unclear -- I was just making an editorial comment on an idea elsewhere insisting that LEOs should be expected to know "100% of the law". Sorry if I gave some other impression. This is a great example of some of the complexities of one tiny little fraction of "100% of the law".

 

[GuyRelford]

And some of you expect all of our LEOs to know everything that Mr. Relford just said

My dad was here?

 

[96firephoenix]

the law only protects you if the vehicle in question can reasonably assume to be occupied. in a parking lot, particularly if its your own car, you will not be protected for use of deadly force or pointing a firearm because the cars can not be reasonably assumed to be occupied.

 

[lrahm]

Apology

I may have been unclear -- I was just making an editorial comment on an idea elsewhere insisting that LEOs should be expected to know "100% of the law". Sorry if I gave some other impression. This is a great example of some of the complexities of one tiny little fraction of "100% of the law".

I apologize. I can guess at some of it but have to count on IC code books and law up dates. My mistake completely. If I don't know I have one of the deputy prosecutor tX numbers on speed dial.

 

[GuyRelford]

Not getting into an argument. If you look up Tennessee vs. Garner, it says the same thing.

Tennessee v. Garner involves many of the same principles, to your point, but the issue is different: whether a Tennessee statute that authorizes the shooting of a fleeing suspect is constitional under the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution (as a "seizure"). It's a very important case and I'm glad that you raise it, but it's somewhat different than the discussion here - dealing with the interpretation of Indiana statutory law.

 

[lrahm]

Tennessee v. Garner involves many of the same principles, to your point, but the issue is different: whether a Tennessee statute that authorizes the shooting of a fleeing suspect is constitional under the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution (as a "seizure"). It's a very important case and I'm glad that you raise it, but it's somewhat different than the discussion here - dealing with the interpretation of Indiana statutory law.

You still have to show that he is a threat to you or another to use deadly force. I think the ruling came out in the late 70's.

There are several questions that can also be raised here. Joe Dirtbag walking down the street has a felony (minor theft) warrant on him. Lt. Jim Dangle sees him and give chase. He calls for a perimiter and cars respond. A saber tooth K-9 shows up and tracks him. I know where the dog falls under the force continum, but the wrong type of bite can be termed as "deadly force".

Comic relief, we use to have a K-9 that bit so hard he broke his two front K-9s. He was sent to Texas for stainless steel implants. No joke.

 

[GuyRelford]

You still have to show that he is a threat to you or another to use deadly force. I think the ruling came out in the late 70's.

That is a very good point - and it was 1985, I believe.

 

[lrahm]

That is a very good point - and it was 1985, I believe.

I was at least close. I can remember some officers chasing a guy prior to "85", They ended up shooting the car he was in and him in the leg. They became elated when the found he had a felony warrant. It's stuff like that, that Tenn. vs Garner was made for and the officer(s) involved well didn't make me proud to be an officer. But That how things were done back then. And the brass didn't care back then.

 

[GuyRelford]

I was at least close. I can remember some officers chasing a guy prior to "85", They ended up shooting the car he was in and him in the leg. They became elated when the found he had a felony warrant. It's stuff like that, that Tenn. vs Garner was made for and the officer(s) involved well didn't make me proud to be an officer. But That how things were done back then. And the brass didn't vcare back then.

It is very impressive to me that you make such a dedicated effort to stay apprised of the law - which is damn hard, because it is always changing. You are a credit to your profession - seriously. +1.

Guy

 

[lovemachine]

I understand you can't use deadly force on someone just breaking into your car.

What would happen if you grabbed ahold of him, and threw him to the ground though? No guns and/or weapons involved. You just grabbed his shirt, arm, whatever, and pulled him out of your car, and threw him to the ground.

What could happen then?

 

[GuyRelford]

I understand you can't use deadly force on someone just breaking into your car.

What would happen if you grabbed ahold of him, and threw him to the ground though? No guns and/or weapons involved. You just grabbed his shirt, arm, whatever, and pulled him out of your car, and threw him to the ground.

What could happen then?

Sounds like reasonable force to me.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I understand you can't use deadly force on someone just breaking into your car.

What would happen if you grabbed ahold of him, and threw him to the ground though? No guns and/or weapons involved. You just grabbed his shirt, arm, whatever, and pulled him out of your car, and threw him to the ground.

What could happen then?

Be sure to yell stop resisting the entire time.

 

[lovemachine]

Sounds like reasonable force to me.

I've been curious about that. To be honest, if I caught someone breaking into my vehicle, I'd be so pissed. I know better to involve a weapon, especially when my life isn't in danger. That's just stupid.
But, I'd be pissed enough to want to kick his ass. Or at least physically stop him from robbing me by sneaking up on him.

I just had no idea if I would face any legal problems.

 

[iChokePeople]

Hmm. Is choking someone out (putting him to sleep) considered deadly or otherwise unreasonable force?

 

[GIJEW]

Hmm. Is choking someone out (putting him to sleep) considered deadly or otherwise unreasonable force?

Excellent question! If you have a fist fight with the BG, the continuum of force is already blurred (people do get beaten to death) especially if you're armed. Non lethal tools like tasers & pepper spray would be useful in a situation like that.

 

[jeremy]

Excellent question! If you have a fist fight with the BG, the continuum of force is already blurred (people do get beaten to death) especially if you're armed. Non lethal tools like tasers & pepper spray would be useful in a situation like that.

If you are getting your ass kicked already, don't you think it might just be a little to late to pull out your Non-Lethals from your batman utility belt...