Reasonable Force / Drawing and not firing / Warning Shot

[MikeDVB]

Hello everybody!

I've done some searching and didn't find anything that answered my questions but if I'm just blind feel free to point it out. One of my biggest issues regards reasonable vs deadly force.

Ideally I would want to protect my life, permit, and property in that order. My life is not replaceable, the permit once revoked - could be difficult or impossible to replace, and property can almost always be replaced.

There are a few things I've been researching/trying to research. I've been drilled numerous times that you should not draw unless you plan on firing, and you should not fire unless you plan to kill (i.e. no shooting to wound, etc). Now I fully understand the ideas behind this - but I was thinking about some situations where simply drawing/pointing may put an end to the conflict but I wanted some opinions/thoughts/interpretations of those with more experience than myself.

I am extremely new to firearms/carrying and I'm of the belief that there are no stupid questions. I'd rather ask and be told I'm an idiot than not ask and not know.

I'll propose a scenario - please feel free to ask for elaboration or to modify it to fit your ideas/explanations. You obviously do not have to respond to the scenario and/or any or all questions, but responding would be most helpful.

Situation - An individual comes onto your property and is attempting to break into your detached garage which is unoccupied. The individual does not appear to be armed and you catch them in the act. Slight variations of this situation would be that they're armed with a knife, or they're armed with a gun and you're aware of it.

• Would you just call the police and hope they show up before BG finishes their illegal activity/leaves?
• Would you verbally warn them, being ready to draw and fire if required (i.e. perhaps hand on gun but not drawn)?
• Would you draw and point, and be ready to fire and verbally warn (i.e. perhaps to keep them in-place and halt their actions while you wait on the police)?
• Would you draw and fire (at the BG)?

A slight variation is that somebody is attempting to break into your house (i.e. you arrive home and catch them in the act).


It's my understanding that you can draw and point to stop an illegal activity and/or to detain/hold an individual committing a crime until the police arrive but that you need a reasonable fear for life or limb to use deadly force so I'm trying to use a real-world example to help make the differentiation clear in my mind.


If I'm way off base as far as reasonable vs deadly force - feel free to point out the errors in my thinking and/or understanding. I'm trying to learn here, so I won't be upset if you basically tell me I'm an idiot (but do try to be educational in the process, please).

 

[cobber]

Cliff's Notes version.

No threat to you or another person, or to your curtilage; self-defense does not encompass the defense of property (exceptions are your home, or an occupied vehicle under attack).

No justification to draw, point, or fire.

Call the police, stay in your residence, use firearm only if they try to enter your house.

Don't even dream of 'holding them at gunpoint until police arrive'. See the thread on the neighborhood watch captain.

 

[MikeDVB]

Call the police, stay in your residence, use firearm only if they try to enter your house.

That's what I would likely do even if I didn't know the law - but I am trying to get a better understanding for it. If I have tools available to me that are less than lethal and I feel they're viable then I wouldn't hesitate to use them - but if if they're not legal - then they're not tools available.

Don't even dream of 'holding them at gunpoint until police arrive'. See the thread on the neighborhood watch captain.

I'll look for it. I presume I can just search for "neighborhood watch captain" but if anybody has a link, feel free to toss it up.

I think the biggest issue in my mind that I'm trying to clear up is that there is even the distinction between "reasonable force" and "deadly force". What is the "reasonable force" even defined in the law for if it's all or nothing?

 

[Tydeeh22]

house is different. garage... let them take the stuff. call the police. if i recall, the "stand your ground law" enables one to protect their home / cars etc. Such as a carjacking, or home invasion. terms of a mugging are sketchy, but can a dead person testify? har har har. all kidding aside, always call the police first. you are not a LEO. only when life is in direct danger do you use a firearm for its intended purpose.

 

[MikeDVB]

house is different. garage... let them take the stuff. call the police. if i recall, the "stand your ground law" enables one to protect their home / cars etc. Such as a carjacking, or home invasion. terms of a mugging are sketchy, but can a dead person testify? har har har. all kidding aside, always call the police first. you are not a LEO. only when life is in direct danger do you use a firearm for its intended purpose.

Indeed - if my life was in danger or the lives of my family I would not hesitate to do what needs to be done. This is more of a question as to what is actually "reasonable" force. It's not entirely clear to me if "reasonable" force is simply all-ecompassing and includes everything up to deadly force or if it's an entirely separate definition.

In a situation where I had the chance to decide to try and use less-than-lethal force - the first step would be to contact law enforcement (i.e. 911).

I'm not so much looking for what I should do as much as why I should or shouldn't do it I suppose.

I'll quote the bits of law and my understanding and you're welcome to point out my errors in reasoning/understanding:

Indiana is a castle doctrine state with a “stand your ground” law. The statute does not require a duty to retreat, providing legal immunity for citizens who use reasonable force to protect themselves, their property or another person if they believe that serious bodily injury, a forcible felony or theft of property is imminent.

^^^Here is where reasonable force is mentioned in regards to gun laws and defending themselves, their property, or another person. It does say a forcible felony [or] theft of property. Now I understand that property can be replaced, so I'm more simply wanting to understand the law more specifically as it sees "reasonable force" in this particular situation. This is from about.com and seems to be a slight paraphrase on the actual laws (which I'm reading/trying to understand) so it may not be 100% accurate.

Deadly force is justified under Indiana law if a person believes it is necessary to prevent a criminal’s forcible entry into their house or vehicle.

^^^This is a given, if you're being carjacked or your house is being broken into - defend yourself.

If "reasonable force" and "deadly force" are interchangeable then that would help clear some of this up for me but based upon the way it's used - that does not appear to be the case.. When you look at http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.html#IC35-41-3-2 here are a couple of the parts that are tripping me up:

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; 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.

It states in (a) that you are justified in using "reasonable force". It goes on to say what is required or not required for deadly force which seems to expand upon reasonable force.

The other part:

Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.

Again, it mentions a non-law enforcement officer using reasonable force, and goes further to explain when deadly force is acceptable/called for but does not define what is or is not reasonable force. Now saying they broke into your detached garage and stole something - the theft would be a Felony and under Indiana law and that Theft + B&E would make it Burglary (also a Felony) "A person who breaks and enters the building or structure of another person, with intent to commit a felony in it, commits burglary, a Class C felony." I'm not trying to nitpick whether breaking and entering is a felony - but what sort of force is "reasonable" in the situation and why it is or is not reasonable.

 

[Tydeeh22]

consider any firearm you shoot somone with to be gone for 1-2 years. consider a couple years of probation. less than lethal force gets you an attempted murder charge along with losing the permit for life. in a real way... if you need to draw the gun, shoot to kill. thats all there is to it. no "wounding, maiming, or clipping".

 

[cobber]

What less-than-lethal means?

Remember there are laws against battery, confinement, false arrest, etc.

Don't try to do any policing.

It's my understanding that you can draw and point to stop an illegal activity and/or to detain/hold an individual committing a crime until the police arrive but that you need a reasonable fear for life or limb to use deadly force so I'm trying to use a real-world example to help make the differentiation clear in my mind.

No threat to you or others, no use of your firearm. If you go out an show or point your firearm, you may have just thrown away your right to later claim self-defense, if you're attacked and then shoot.

Consult the law. Theft of property is never a justification for deploying deadly force.

 

[MikeDVB]

consider any firearm you shoot somone with to be gone for 1-2 years. consider a couple years of probation. less than lethal force gets you an attempted murder charge along with losing the permit for life. in a real way... if you need to draw the gun, shoot to kill. thats all there is to it. no "wounding, maiming, or clipping".

I'm just trying to understand the law as well as the spirit of the law. I'm not trying to argue any point.

What less-than-lethal means?

As one of the scenario possibilities - detaining the individual at gunpoint until law enforcement arrives. Again, not saying I should/would do it - but more trying to understand how the law sees this.

Remember there are laws against battery, confinement, false arrest, etc.

Which would all need to be taken into account before battering / confining / arresting just as you need to consider laws regarding speed before you accelerate your vehicle.

I'm speaking strictly in regards to "reasonable force" as it's outlined by Indiana Law IC 35-41-3-2 - Use of force to protect person or property and IC 35-41-3-3 - Use of force relating to arrest or escape

Don't try to do any policing.

Didn't say I would - again - I'm not trying to find out what I should or should not do, but simply to understand the law better.

No threat to you or others, no use of your firearm. If you go out an show or point your firearm, you may have just thrown away your right to later claim self-defense, if you're attacked and then shoot.

For obvious reasons - say they pull to to defend themselves from you as an example. That goes a tad deeper than I'm wanting at this point though.

Consult the law. Theft of property is never a justification for deploying deadly force.

Which is why I'm not talking about deadly force, and trying to get a definition or understanding for "reasonable force". The law says I can use it, so I would like to know what it is.

Just because I have a tool, doesn't mean I will/should use it - but that isn't to say I shouldn't understand the tool fully.

 

[cobber]

You seem to want to reach a certain conclusion.

The law of self-defense in Indiana is clear. It does not extend to citizens trying to exercise police powers, beyond imminent reasonable defense of life or curtilage.

If you feel unclear about the law, you might want to get some legal advice (from an attorney who is prepared to defend you in court and actually knows the law).

 

[MikeDVB]

You seem to want to reach a certain conclusion.

No, I'm not after any sort of conclusion and would like to keep this as objective as possible in regards to what the law specifically allows and disallows. It is very hard to remain objective - especially when it's something that matters to you, but that's what I'm after.

Everybody is saying "don't do it" without a legal explanation as to why not. If you think I'm after a specific conclusion then you're reading into it more than necessary to simply analyze the law. A good example is you say "beyond reasonable defense of life or curtilage" but what is "reasonable defense" - without that defined it would ultimately be up to the judge and/or jury. Obviously if everybody interprets the law exactly as you seem to - then there is nothing less or more than deadly force (and that would be the only option, should it apply) but that is not how I interpret the law.

The law of self-defense in Indiana is clear. It does not extend to citizens trying to exercise police powers, beyond imminent reasonable defense of life or curtilage.

If it's so clear, can you cite the law where it specifically says this? Even if it's legalese - I can most likely sort it out - but I'm not seeing that the law spells it out that way. Again, if it's deadly force or no force at all - what is "reasonable force"?

If you feel unclear about the law, you might want to get some legal advice (from an attorney who is prepared to defend you in court and actually knows the law).

I would obviously consult an attorney if I planned on using "reasonable force" (i.e. more than no force, less than deadly force) and had a chance to consult an attorney before hand.

I'm simply trying to understand. I may pay an attorney a couple hundred dollars just to review the laws/better understand them but I'd like to avoid shelling out a couple hundred bucks just for my own understanding if it can be explained here. I do understand that advice/information provided here is not a substitute for legal advice/consult - so no need for the disclaimer - consider it disclaimed.

In short, why does the law list:

1. No Force at all (not technically listed, but not illegal either)
2. Reasonable Force
3. Deadly Force

If your only options are:

1. No force at all
2. Deadly force

 

[swilk]

You claim to be able to sort out "Legalese" so all you need to do is read the IC 35-41-3-2.

Indiana Code 35-41-3

Should answer all of your questions.

 

[jedi]

MikeDVB there is a course called Comprehensive Indiana Gun Law offered by Tactical Firearm Training (aka Guy R. who is an ATTY and specializes in IN gun laws) that I would recommend you take.

He is a site support/advertiser here on INGO and this is his website:
Tactical Firearms Training LLC - Training

The class is offered in the Indy area and it will give you a heads up on a ton of your questions you have here.

1,000% recommended by INGO member (like me) who have taken the course.
-Jedi

 

[swilk]

I'll quote the bits of law and my understanding and you're welcome to point out my errors in reasoning/understanding:

Indiana is a castle doctrine state with a “stand your ground” law. The statute does not require a duty to retreat, providing legal immunity for citizens who use reasonable force to protect themselves, their property or another person if they believe that serious bodily injury, a forcible felony or theft of property is imminent.

^^^Here is where reasonable force is mentioned in regards to gun laws and defending themselves, their property, or another person. It does say a forcible felony [or] theft of property. Now I understand that property can be replaced, so I'm more simply wanting to understand the law more specifically as it sees "reasonable force" in this particular situation. This is from about.com and seems to be a slight paraphrase on the actual laws (which I'm reading/trying to understand) so it may not be 100% accurate.

You asked for others to point out your errors .... This does not appear to be "quoting bits of law". This appears to be quoting text from a non Indiana-Code source. I did not find that exact phrase anywhere under IC 35-41-3. I would stick to the actual code when trying to determine what the code says.

 

[rw496]

Like most things posted on this site pertaining to the law, there really is no clear cut answer. Everybody on here is doing their best to give you educated opinions and point you in the direction to find some info, but like they say, situations like your scenario are tense, uncertain, and rapidy evolving.
I always encourage people that I care about to take measures to protect themselves and their families. Of course, call the police, but if an officer is less than 10-15 minutes from your house you are real lucky..in rural areas a lot further. The whole thing will likely be over by then. Police usually arrive in time to put crime scene tape around the victim.
Now, it certainly is not worth killing someone over some property out of a garage. Not just for your mental well-being, but for the hassel and stress of an investigation, or lawsuit or whatever. However, if a reasonable person in your same situation would believe that the amount of force you used was needed then you could be justified; reasonable force can include deadly force. I don't consider protecting yourself, your family and your house "playing police." Police take reports, men protect their families.

 

[Jack Burton]

Mike... a good place to start for general answers for both new and experienced gun owners is to find and read a copy of this book...

The Law of Self-Defense: A Guide for the Armed Citizen by Andrew F. Branca (Apr 1, 1998)

 

[singlestacksig]

does anyone know what happened to the White county case a few years ago?
A guy shot & killed someone breaking into his barn , from a distance..
made news for a few days but then I did not see any story on if he was charged..
this would be the kind of case the OP thought of...

 

[cexshun]

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
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; 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, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, 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 justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).

My take as a non-lawyer is that it's pretty clear. You can use reasonable force to stop the break in, but you cannot use deadly force unless you have a reasonable belief that you or someone else is in danger of serious injury or death.

 

[cobber]

My take as a non-lawyer is that it's pretty clear. You can use reasonable force to stop the break in, but you cannot use deadly force unless you have a reasonable belief that you or someone else is in danger of serious injury or death.

"Reasonable" depends on the context, and the scope of the harm threatened.

As well as the fact that a jury might be deciding whether a shooter's action was "reasonable" or not.

Again, if human life is not in danger, you are better off assuming that deadly force is not reasonable.

If the attack is terminated, say the perpetrator runs, deadly force to detain him would not be reasonable. Unless he's moving to cover and is armed, or he is moving away from you but threatening other persons.

It pays to know the black-letter law of the jurisdiction. Don't rely on the practice in other states.

You can always ask Guy or Kirk, who pop up here frequently, for their take.

 

[ctbreitwieser]

Thank you to all who have posted in this.

I have wondered about this exact situation and what I would do.

About a year ago my sister was home alone and saw someone pull into our driveway and enter our detatched garage. She didnt do anything and stayed in the house. They didnt take anything, just looked around and left.

I have ran the situation through my head a thousand times on what I would have done if I had been home. I definitely would have confronted them and definitely would have had my XD9 on me. I never could come to a conclusion if I would have drawn on them, locked them inside until the police came, or just let them run out. Had I been there, I think I probably would have held them at gunpoint and zip-tied his hands until the police arrived.

Thank you all for clearing things up. I guess now Im glad I wasnt there, seeing as how I probably would have gone to jail if I had done what I think I might have.

 

[cexshun]

"Reasonable" depends on the context, and the scope of the harm threatened.

As well as the fact that a jury might be deciding whether a shooter's action was "reasonable" or not.

Again, if human life is not in danger, you are better off assuming that deadly force is not reasonable.

If the attack is terminated, say the perpetrator runs, deadly force to detain him would not be reasonable. Unless he's moving to cover and is armed, or he is moving away from you but threatening other persons.

It pays to know the black-letter law of the jurisdiction. Don't rely on the practice in other states.

You can always ask Guy or Kirk, who pop up here frequently, for their take.

That's pretty much what I was saying. The code makes a pretty distinct line between reasonable force and deadly force and when they can be used. I would never physically confront a BG. They are BGs for a reason. And in the case of the neighborhood watch thug, the BG can often get the upper hand in a physical altercation which puts you in a pretty damned tight spot.

I'd call the cops. And since I'm more concerned with my stuff not being stolen then with some 2 bit crook getting probation, I'd probably open the front or back door, which is facing away from the garage, and yell "Who's there?" Enough to scare of most BGs.