Question about IC 35-41-3-2 Use of force

[Sylvain]

I dont know if I understand this right.
I need a translation from legal-english into simple english.

IC 35-41-3-2

"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."


Does that mean that I cant be charged even with a civil lawsuit if what I did is related to my action of legally defending my life?

For example if I lawfully defend myself in the street using a firearm, I have witnesses and everything was by the book, but one of my rounds went through the windshield or a parked car behind my attacker.

Can I be sued by the owner of the car for shooting his car, even if it was by accident, or im I protected from that?

 

[Scratcher]

 

[Hammerhead]

There's no case law to substantiate it, but my interpretation is yes, that includes civil. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

We've had this discussion several times with no clear answer.

 

[Sylvain]

Are we all waiting for Kirk to begin?

 

[Sylvain]

There's no case law to substantiate it, but my interpretation is yes, that includes civil. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

We've had this discussion several times with no clear answer.

I was not sure I understood it like you do.That sounds to good to be true to me.

So if im attacked by a horde of zombies and I destroy public and private property all over the city while trying to defend my life nobody can sue me for that?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm betting the answer is 'yes can be held liable for collateral damage'. IANAL, but I'm betting that holds for not being civilly liable in regards to your assailant. But I'll be interested in what our resident legal experts say.

 

[KG1]

I'm betting the answer is 'yes can be held liable for collateral damage'. IANAL, but I'm betting that holds for not being civilly liable in regards to your assailant. But I'll be interested in what our resident legal experts say.

This is the way I always took it to mean. Not being held liable criminally and civilly as it pertains to using deadly force against an assailant, as in being held liable for the death.

 

[dlbrown75]

What if there is a person in that car, that catches the round? My guess is you can be sued.

 

[Donnelly]

No matter what our local legal residents interpret it as, it will come down to what a judge or group of judges (Indiana Appeals court, Indiana Supreme Court) define it as if it is ever used as a defense during a trial.

We will never have a definitive answer until an Indiana court rules on it.

 

[LP1]

IANAL, but I don't think it stops someone from filing a suit against you, to which you must re$pond, even if it is frivilous.

 

[BlueEagle]

So honestly, if you want an answer, the next time somebody attacks you and you have to defend yourself, make sure to shoot out a window behind them and let us know how it goes.

 

[jbombelli]

According to my understanding it does not prevent civil suit. I actually looked up the term "jeopardy" in a legal dictionary, and it only applies to criminal prosecution , not civil suits.

That said, if a shooting is justified, the shootee (or his next of kin, etc.) will probably have a very hard time finding an attorney that will take the case unless they pay him a massive retainer up front. Any attorney worth his salt would probably tell them to forget it - the case is a loser and don't waste their money because they aren't going to win in Indiana.

 

[looney2ns]

According to my understanding it does not prevent civil suit. I actually looked up the term "jeopardy" in a legal dictionary, and it only applies to criminal prosecution , not civil suits.

That said, if a shooting is justified, the shootee (or his next of kin, etc.) will probably have a very hard time finding an attorney that will take the case unless they pay him a massive retainer up front. Any attorney worth his salt would probably tell them to forget it - the case is a loser and don't waste their money because they aren't going to win in Indiana.

Well there are a LOT of attorneys that are NOT worth their salt is what is scary. I've seen evidence of that way too many times.

 

[Bill of Rights]

According to my understanding it does not prevent civil suit. I actually looked up the term "jeopardy" in a legal dictionary, and it only applies to criminal prosecution , not civil suits.
...

While I understand that that's what your legal dictionary said, you might want to read this post:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...fense-post2497584.html?highlight=#post2497584
which seems to shed some doubt on your statement.

Not trying to argue, just to get the best possible information out there for our members and readers.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Fargo]

According to my understanding it does not prevent civil suit. I actually looked up the term "jeopardy" in a legal dictionary, and it only applies to criminal prosecution , not civil suits.

"Jeopardy" in the context of the term of art contained in the double jeopardy clause of the constitution refers to solely criminal matters.

However, as used in Indiana's statute, I believe it is used as a term of English and clearly encompasses civil matters by its own terms; specifically "any sort whatsoever."

That said, since it does not provide a mechanism for determining when this immunity attaches, there is a substantial grey area insofar as what point you get to avail yourself of its protections.

Best,

Joe

 

[ChicagoZman]

I don't know all the facts but my impression is that shooting a windshield may not be perceived as reasonable or necessary.

 

[jbombelli]

While I understand that that's what your legal dictionary said, you might want to read this post:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...fense-post2497584.html?highlight=#post2497584
which seems to shed some doubt on your statement.

Not trying to argue, just to get the best possible information out there for our members and readers.

Blessings,
Bill

Here are some other interesting posts for perusal. It appears an ongoing debate around here.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._defense_and_lawsuit_question.html#post341276

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._defense_and_lawsuit_question.html#post341315

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...nst_lawful_self_defense_in_in.html#post360057

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...e/177386-are_you_liable_if-2.html#post2351261

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...e/177386-are_you_liable_if-2.html#post2357385



And a story (albeit an old one):

Robber: Clerk Was 'Shooting To Kill' - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis



Don't get me wrong. I'm all up for believing the language in the IC protects me from civil suit. I just know that I've been told by more than one attorney that anyone can be sued for anything at any time. When in doubt, refer back to that.

 

[Sylvain]

I don't know all the facts but my impression is that shooting a windshield may not be perceived as reasonable or necessary.

Im talking about a bullet hitting the BG, and then a windshield, not just shooting randomly at windshields once I shot the BG.

That's just an example, it could be also that my attacker is shooting at me from behind a car and that I need to shoot at this car to stop the threat.

 

[blamecharles]

I don't know all the facts but my impression is that shooting a windshield may not be perceived as reasonable or necessary.

Im talking about a bullet hitting the BG, and then a windshield, not just shooting randomly at windshields once I shot the BG.

That's just an example, it could be also that my attacker is shooting at me from behind a car and that I need to shoot at this car to stop the threat.

Sylvain i think Zmans was supposed to be purple.

 

[Sylvain]

Sylvain i think Zmans was supposed to be purple.

Maybe, I was not sure.