Some ****** ****** just tried to steal my truck.

[Trigger Time]

I would be smart enough to put my pants on first! I dont want no car thief laughing at me while watching me trip over my swinging 3rd leg!

You coppers are obviously allowed your "own interpretation" when it comes time for questioning....but also remember I am also allowed mine when it comes time with my lawyer and a judge in the same room. Did anyone else other than me see that car thief jump out of my truck and lunge at me with a knife?

Your last sentence is a prosecutors wet dream and now it's forever. I sincerely hope you never have this happen to you personaly and actually shoot someone even if they actually do pull a knife on you.
I'm not a lawyer. I'm not even a Book smart guy. So I listen to those that do this sort of thing for a living (the ones doing the defending, and the ones locking folks up), and based on that I won't be shooting anyone for stealing my stuff based on current state law. Matter of fact wasn't there a incident in Indy within a year or so ago where a guy shot a kid for stealing the radio out of his truck? How did that end? Not well I don't think.

 

[remauto1187]

Your last sentence is a prosecutors wet dream and now it's forever. I sincerely hope you never have this happen to you personaly and actually shoot someone even if they actually do pull a knife on you.
I'm not a lawyer. I'm not even a Book smart guy. So I listen to those that do this sort of thing for a living (the ones doing the defending, and the ones locking folks up), and based on that I won't be shooting anyone for stealing my stuff based on current state law. Matter of fact wasn't there a incident in Indy within a year or so ago where a guy shot a kid for stealing the radio out of his truck? How did that end? Not well I don't think.

Would it make you feel better if I purpled it for ya?

 

[Trigger Time]

Would it make you feel better if I purpled it for ya?

I understood your meaning. My point is would a jury? Roll eyes at me all you want but your the one saying stupid stuff

 

[remauto1187]

I understood your meaning. My point is would a jury? Roll eyes at me all you want but your the one saying stupid stuff

Sure the jury would, all id have to do is bat my purdy blue eyes. We all know the court system is a show. Its to show which side is the smartest or atleast trickiest. You can tell the truth without telling the full truth. You can twist facts, truths, laws, Codes and even thoughts. Both sides do it, it all starts on day one in front of the first responding copper and it should start with... "officer, I dont have anything to say to you until I have a lawyer speak with me first"....then followed by, "could you get this dead SOB outta my driveway?"

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I would be smart enough to put my pants on first! I dont want no car thief laughing at me while watching me trip over my swinging 3rd leg!

You coppers are obviously allowed your "own interpretation" when it comes time for questioning....but also remember I am also allowed mine when it comes time with my lawyer and a judge in the same room. Did anyone else other than me see that car thief jump out of my truck and lunge at me with a knife?

I'm glad that you find this situation so entertaining, and a way for you to spout off how you would have shot the guy. Based on your statements and your interpretation of the law I doubt you have ever been put in a situation where you had to use or even attempt deadly force. I have been in front of the Grand Jury for a justified on-duty shooting, I'm smart enough to pick my battles so that I don't have to go before them for an off-duty one.

 

[BGDave]

Google Dell's gun shop in Indianapolis. Just saying. I went to a really good pre-prison auction as a result. Now, I'm pretty sure there is no lower form of life than a thief.

 

[Brandon]

Sure the jury would, all id have to do is bat my purdy blue eyes. We all know the court system is a show. Its to show which side is the smartest or atleast trickiest. You can tell the truth without telling the full truth. You can twist facts, truths, laws, Codes and even thoughts. Both sides do it, it all starts on day one in front of the first responding copper and it should start with... "officer, I dont have anything to say to you until I have a lawyer speak with me first"....then followed by, "could you get this dead SOB outta my driveway?"

Hope you never find yourself in this situation. I'm sure if the courts were to see some of your posts, things may not go as good as you think they would.

 

[KG1]

Damn glad you asked....
IC 35-41-3-2
Indiana Code 35-41-3

"(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"

With that being said, its reasonable force to shoot a person stealing your truck (your property) that is on YOUR PROPERTY. The truck is "property". I doubt I would admit to law enforcement as to intentionally killing an idiot over a vehicle but some peoples' mileage may vary. Now if they died from their wounds...well....such is life...or lack thereof.

Now I am no way shape or form condoning killing someone over a lawnmower, truck, garden hose or a plate of bacon....and I also not speaking out against it either. Honestly I think I would have to wait until I am put in that position to be able to advertise "what I would do".

Hopefully it was a Dodge or Ford, take the insurance check and get yourself a Chevrolet/GMC !

Not so fast. I see you have employed the oldest trick of not quoting the whole section of the code in question. Reference the part in bold that you conveniently left out.

(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).

Now let's take a look at what subsection (c) has to say shall we?

(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.

I would submit that the part you quoted with respect to shooting at someone trying to steal your property would only apply if it meets the requirements of subsection (c) (if it prevents serious bodily injury.)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Frank, just saw this. Glad you and your family are ok.

Go to Rene's for cookies. They have a great calming effect.

 

[halfmileharry]

Google Dell's gun shop in Indianapolis. Just saying. I went to a really good pre-prison auction as a result. Now, I'm pretty sure there is no lower form of life than a thief.

From the news lately I'd say the families of some of these thieves are of the "Low life" class as well. They sure get upset when their good little boys rob, maim, rape, or kill someone. It's never their fault as their kids are great kids and misunderstood.
I Used to go to that gun shop and remember him shooting that one kid. You better be justified when using deadly force. I hope and pray none of us will be put into that position EVER.
Again, Sorry about the truck Frank. I gots a hammer and duct tape if you need any help.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Frank, just saw this. Glad you and your family are ok.

Go to Rene's for cookies. They have a great calming effect.

Thanks. A trip to Rene's is definitely in order.

 

[remauto1187]

I'm glad that you find this situation so entertaining, and a way for you to spout off how you would have shot the guy. Based on your statements and your interpretation of the law I doubt you have ever been put in a situation where you had to use or even attempt deadly force. I have been in front of the Grand Jury for a justified on-duty shooting, I'm smart enough to pick my battles so that I don't have to go before them for an off-duty one.

For a seasoned copper you are too sure of yourself. You doubt a person you dont even know....
Firstly, Show me where I said I would shoot someone.....I actually said I doubt I would shoot someone over a lawnmower or truck.
Secondly, Ive been in a combat zone 3 times while in the service. Held a bozo at gun point while stationed in Florida. (He was in my truck stripping the stereo out)
Im glad you havent written up any complaints/reports on behalf of myself, you sure do twist facts to your belief. Like I said...the system is a game. Its all a matter of who is the smartest, trickiest at twisting. You can live in denial....but I just told everyone the truth.

Listen Frank, I understand this happening in your driveway and everyone is suppose to know that you are the police so this isnt suppose to happen in YOUR driveway. You are wound up and rightfully so. But now you know because you got a taste of what civillians deal with every day. Crime.... theft, rape, murder I am sure you have been around more than your fair share while taking reports or involved in a investigation. The point is, we SHOULD NOT have to wait for the police to show up to protect ourselves or our property because its a day late and a dollar short if they get away with it and then turn around and DO IT AGAIN the very next week to someone else.

 

[remauto1187]

Not so fast. I see you have employed the oldest trick of not quoting the whole section of the code in question. Reference the part in bold that you conveniently left out.

(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).

Now let's take a look at what subsection (c) has to say shall we?

(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.

I would submit that the part you quoted with respect to shooting at someone trying to steal your property would only apply if it meets the requirements of subsection (c) (if it prevents serious bodily injury.)

That car thief had "my" truck started and then pointed the truck towards me and started moving toward me at a high rate of acceleration. Subsection C, CHECK! The police use this justification to shoot someone commonly.

 

[KG1]

That car thief had "my" truck started and then pointed the truck towards me and started moving toward me at a high rate of acceleration. Subsection C, CHECK! The police use this justification to shoot someone commonly.

You seriously don't get it do ya? You seem to be quite adept at adapting your scenario to fit your definition of the law that you are trying to push without stating the whole code. Your initial position was that you can just go out and start blasting away to protect your property from being stolen.

You were called out on it and you just can't admit that you were trying to pull a fast one. GAME OVER.

 

[WebSnyper]

Frank, just saw this. Glad you and your family are ok.

Go to Rene's for cookies. They have a great calming effect.

Thanks. A trip to Rene's is definitely in order.

Frank, sorry to hear this happened to you. I don't know you personally, but have appreciated your contributions to the forum, and hate to see people take from those who work for what they have.

Now, as quoted above, I seem to have found the hidden gem of goodness, the silver lining in this dark cloud, and I have to inquire, are these cookies worth the drive from say the Avon/Plainfield area to Broad Ripple (per the web site appears to be the location) to get them?

 

[hoosierdaddy1976]

Next time keep your slippers by the bedroom door.




You might have caught him - Bunnies are fast.

these are even better

marsupials are so fast, they scare christopher walken.

and frank, sorry about your truck. wish you would've had a chance to kick the **** out of the thief.

 

[remauto1187]

You seriously don't get it do ya? You seem to be quite adept at adapting your scenario to fit your definition of the law that you are trying to push without stating the whole code. Your initial position was that you can just go out and start blasting away to protect your property from being stolen.

You were called out on it and you just can't admit that you were trying to pull a fast one. GAME OVER.

You are pretty good at twisting facts too. You arent a cop are you? Show me where I stating anything about "blasting away to protect x"? For the 3rd time now. I stated, and Ill put it in BOLD just for you since you have selective reading skills. I DOUBT I WOULD SHOOT SOMEONE OVER A LAWNMOWER OR TRUCK.

 

[Tanfodude]

You are pretty good at twisting facts too. You arent a cop are you? Show me where I stating anything about "blasting away to protect x"? For the 3rd time now. I stated, and Ill put it in BOLD just for you since you have selective reading skills. I DOUBT I WOULD SHOOT SOMEONE OVER A LAWNMOWER OR TRUCK.

Here

Huh? You might want to reread the very laws that you are suppose to be enforcing. You can use a firearm for defense of your property.

and here

Damn glad you asked....
IC 35-41-3-2
Indiana Code 35-41-3

"(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"

With that being said, its reasonable force to shoot a person stealing your truck (your property) that is on YOUR PROPERTY. The truck is "property". I doubt I would admit to law enforcement as to intentionally killing an idiot over a vehicle but some peoples' mileage may vary. Now if they died from their wounds...well....such is life...or lack thereof.

Shooting a person is NOT reasonable force, it's a deadly force.

That car thief had "my" truck started and then pointed the truck towards me and started moving toward me at a high rate of acceleration. Subsection C, CHECK! The police use this justification to shoot someone commonly.

Tried searching your post in regards to that but I couldn't find it. Plus, if you're just coming out from your house to confront the perp, you'd automatically block the driveway with your body so you can justify shooting as he backs up to you?

And Frank wasn't in that situation where the truck was running towards him.

 

[KG1]

You are pretty good at twisting facts too. You arent a cop are you? Show me where I stating anything about "blasting away to protect x"? For the 3rd time now. I stated, and Ill put it in BOLD just for you since you have selective reading skills. I DOUBT I WOULD SHOOT SOMEONE OVER A LAWNMOWER OR TRUCK.

happygunner covered the posts I was referring to as your initial position and then you started back tracking but then you also started to suggest you would make up things to tell the police to justify your use of deadly force.

You are dealing with half truths when it concerns the legal application of deadly force that could have serious consequences.

Anyone cannot use a firearm to defend their property and shoot someone solely based on the fact of them stealing said property without meeting the requirements of section (c) in the code. If you wanna fabricate things to justify meeting those requirements then that's on you.


You are doing a disservice to anyone who reads the stuff that you've been posting.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Frank, sorry to hear this happened to you. I don't know you personally, but have appreciated your contributions to the forum, and hate to see people take from those who work for what they have.

Now, as quoted above, I seem to have found the hidden gem of goodness, the silver lining in this dark cloud, and I have to inquire, are these cookies worth the drive from say the Avon/Plainfield area to Broad Ripple (per the web site appears to be the location) to get them?

Thanks. I hate people that take from anyone, cop or not.

And yes, Rene's is worth the drive. Hit me up if you decide to make the trip and I'll do my best to get up there.