This story shows loss of property is not enough to justify the use of deadly force

[LPMan59]

jury nullification?

 

[Prometheus]

If you look at the IC, you ARE legally justified in using deadly force to stop an "attack upon or unlawful entry into" your house or OCCUPIED vehicle. They don't have to have a weapon or threaten you, per se.

Thank you.

At least a half dozen times in this thread some ignorant poster has said other wise. Be it with clever sayings like "your house is not a free fire zone" or "this ain't texas". Aside from being misleading, they are bordering on out right lies.

While the man in question was obviously not justified in shooting the thief in his back (according to all reports), it doesn't mean you must be in "fear for your life" in order to legally shoot someone in Indiana.

Again that doesn't mean you should or it is morally right, it just means that legally, you can shoot someone for more than just "fear for your/someone elses life".

We should have a sticky for this subject.

 

[ryknoll3]

I was always curious as to what constitutes an "attack upon." I could see where you could shoot someone through the door if they were trying to kick you door down, as this would also result in breach that would allow "unlawful entry into", but if someone is beating on the side of your house with a baseball bat or something is that an "attack upon" in the eyes of the law?

Again, I'm not talking about should you/shouldn't you, but strictly in a legal sense, what is an "attack upon"?

We were showed a video in our Utah non-res. permit class of a guy beating on an occupied vehicle with a tire iron or crow bar. The instructor said that a shoot would be justified in this case because the glass was breached. Personally, I don't think that legally that would have to be the case, as the law says "attack upon". It may be easier to convince a jury if the guy bashed in your window, instead of just beating the hood, but it seems like you would be justified either way. On a residence though, it seems less cut-and-dry to me. Does the "attack upon" necessarily have to lead to or result in a breach of the home, allowing entry?

 

[LPMan59]

i dont think entry is a requirement as the law lists curtilage

IANAL, etc

 

[Eddie]

I understand the first sentence, "Police said that legally, loss of property is not enough to justify the use of deadly force."

I understand the first part of the second sentence, "If you feel like your life is threatened, or serious bodily injury is a possibility, you are justified in using deadly force to protect yourself, your family..."

I DO NOT understand this part, "...or your property," said Sgt. Matt Mount."

First he says you can't use deadly force to protect your property, then in the next sentence he says you can. Do you think he 'mis-spoke', or could there be a legitimate reason to use deadly force to protect your property.

Mere loss of property, like a thief grabbing something and running away with it does not justify the use of deadly force. On the other hand, if a robber points a gun at you and demands your property, then serious bodily injury is a possibility, so use of deadly force is allowed. It is not the property, but the actions of the criminal that trigger the justification for using deadly force.

 

[critter592]

I'm surprised here. People hanging this guy from a news report. How many times have we complained here about how reporters twist stuff? Why the hurry to distance "our" community from him. He was a legal gunowner on HIS property having HIS property broken into. Posters have said the kid was running away. Really? Or was he heading for cover to pull his gun and shoot back at the man with the gun drawn? The kid wasn't found on this man's property. He was found a distance away. Did he ditch his gun in his attempt to flee while shot? Do we know ALL the facts here?

Wow.

 

[kingnereli]

I understand the first sentence, "Police said that legally, loss of property is not enough to justify the use of deadly force."

I understand the first part of the second sentence, "If you feel like your life is threatened, or serious bodily injury is a possibility, you are justified in using deadly force to protect yourself, your family..."

I DO NOT understand this part, "...or your property," said Sgt. Matt Mount."

First he says you can't use deadly force to protect your property, then in the next sentence he says you can. Do you think he 'mis-spoke', or could there be a legitimate reason to use deadly force to protect your property.

Mere loss of property, like a thief grabbing something and running away with it does not justify the use of deadly force. On the other hand, if a robber points a gun at you and demands your property, then serious bodily injury is a possibility, so use of deadly force is allowed. It is not the property, but the actions of the criminal that trigger the justification for using deadly force.

You can use reasonable for too prevent someone from stealing property. That may or may not be deadly force depending on the situation.

As far as the quotes from the video, consider the context. The reporter says something to the effect of "loss of property isn't enough to shoot someone, right." Your first quote is the response. Basically you can't shoot someone because they stole your stuff. You can tackle, punch, whack, taze, stab or shoot someone to prevent them from stealing you stuff according to what is reasonable for the situation.

 

[kingnereli]

Thank you.

At least a half dozen times in this thread some ignorant poster has said other wise. Be it with clever sayings like "your house is not a free fire zone" or "this ain't texas". Aside from being misleading, they are bordering on out right lies.

While the man in question was obviously not justified in shooting the thief in his back (according to all reports), it doesn't mean you must be in "fear for your life" in order to legally shoot someone in Indiana.

Again that doesn't mean you should or it is morally right, it just means that legally, you can shoot someone for more than just "fear for your/someone elses life".

We should have a sticky for this subject.

Maybe it should be in the FAQ. "Under the terms of the IC your house is a free fire zone."

 

[DCR]

I'm surprised here. People hanging this guy from a news report. How many times have we complained here about how reporters twist stuff? Why the hurry to distance "our" community from him. He was a legal gunowner on HIS property having HIS property broken into. Posters have said the kid was running away. Really? Or was he heading for cover to pull his gun and shoot back at the man with the gun drawn? The kid wasn't found on this man's property. He was found a distance away. Did he ditch his gun in his attempt to flee while shot? Do we know ALL the facts here?

Wow.

I'm also confused here. Does anyone see a discrepancy between running away and having a wound in his chest?

 

[CVictor]

Men like this give us a bad name. He should have used common sense, why would you shoot an unarmed individual running away from you?

 

[SelfDefenseInstructor]

You can NEVER use deadly force to defend your property, only people - at least in Indiana. Thats the distintion. It's a simple one. Unfortunately, simple things are not always easy to understand or define. If you feel like you are in danger of suffering death or serious bodily injury than you are likely justified in using lethal force.

The guy in this story -assuming it's accurate- was never in any danger.

 

[SelfDefenseInstructor]

Oh and Stab/cut = lethal

Attacks with edged weapons are considered lethal attacks in the eyes of the law.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

This is why, when you don't know the law, you have a right to remain SILENT until you speak to an attorney.

"Officer I'm asserting my 5th amendment rights until I have a chance to speak to my attorney. I could have died tonight. I'm too shaken up and in too much emotional distress right now to be coherent."

On the other hand, good grief if you're going to carry a gun spend 5 minutes getting to know the law.

 

[lashicoN]

Places in Europe I have visited One has the right to shoot someone for car theft or vandalism. A life is not worth it, I will just replace it.

The man was not was not protecting himself, he had no reason to shot the kid even though he was stealing.

If the kid had a weapon and was attempting to break into the car while occupied, it may have been justified.

It's a sad situation and a shame it turned out this way.

Nothing in my vehicle/house is worth anyone's life - except of course for the people in my life.

I will not shoot someone if someone isn't in danger. "stuff" is just that - stuff.

But when do you draw the line? When do you go "okay! stop taking MY things!"? This "kid" was stealing something from someone. It didn't belong to him. Should he have been shot over some "thing"? That's completely debatable, and with the mood I'm in now, I ultimately say yes. Sometimes "things" cannot be replaced, and they shouldn't have to be replaced just because some other jerk decided he wants what you have without working for it. Why should people have to "just buy new stuff"? I like the things I have now and it isn't right that people can take what I have. The police would never get here in time and what you people are saying is that as long as he breaks into my window nicely and smiles at me while he's stealing my $600.00 TV and $2,000.00 worth of gun I SHOULDN'T be able to shoot the guy? Sure, I could buy a new TV and get some new guns, but I don't want to. I don't want people stealing from me and I especially don't want this country or this state to send the message to criminals that it's okay to steal as long as they are quick enough to escape the cops and don't "threaten" me while they're doing it. Things are just things, but things cost money. Money takes time to earn. Time is life. I don't want to waste my life replenishing my stolen goods, not even one second of it.

Men like this give us a bad name. He should have used common sense, why would you shoot an unarmed individual running away from you?

Because he just took something of yours. It may have been your CD collection or it may have been your family's life. Men who defend their property do not give us a bad name. They let criminals know we aren't putting up with their anymore.

You can NEVER use deadly force to defend your property, only people - at least in Indiana. Thats the distintion. It's a simple one. Unfortunately, simple things are not always easy to understand or define. If you feel like you are in danger of suffering death or serious bodily injury than you are likely justified in using lethal force.

The guy in this story -assuming it's accurate- was never in any danger.

What if the kid had just finished up planting a car bomb?

 

[SelfDefenseInstructor]

No, you can not shoot him for stealing your stuff... No matter how much it's worth. Sorry, I empathize with you, but that's the law. Now if in the process of stealling your stuff the thief creates a risk of loss of life or serious bodily harm, well that's another story.

 

[ISHOOTHST'S]

Lets say you keep a gun in your vehicles arm rest...and you catch someone in your vehicle going through it not knowing if he has your spare gun in his hand or pocket yet. Justified shoot? Fearing that he may turn around when you tell him freeze or stop with your own gun in his hand is a possibility.

 

[eldirector]

This can be pretty simple: If someone is stealing your stuff (in this case, in your driveway), simply confront them and order them to show their hands and wait for the police. One of three things will happen:
- they will comply. You wait for the cops, and they are arrested.
- they drop your stuff and flee. You wait on the cops and file a report.
- they advance on you. You fear for your safety, draw, and fire. You wait on the cops, and file a report. Your life is pretty ****ty for a while, but you get through it.

 

[GIJEW]

The catch phrase there is "REASONABLE force". It won't be hard to find a prosecutor & jury that will find LETHAL force excessive, unless the thug attacks you for interfering with his theft. It would be interesting to see at what they would find beating down the thug excessive--probably better to just shoot him with a bean bag round or pepper spray him.

There is a separate part of that statute for an unoccupied vehicle:

"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."

Once they stop stealing and run away the option to use force is gone.

 

[ISHOOTHST'S]

This can be pretty simple: If someone is stealing your stuff (in this case, in your driveway), simply confront them and order them to show their hands and wait for the police. One of three things will happen:
- they will comply. You wait for the cops, and they are arrested.
- they drop your stuff and flee. You wait on the cops and file a report.
- they advance on you. You fear for your safety, draw, and fire. You wait on the cops, and file a report. Your life is pretty ****ty for a while, but you get through it.

Can you legally draw on someone in this situation... . You guys are the experts.

 

[lovemachine]

Can you legally draw on someone in this situation... . You guys are the experts.

I think you can legally draw on someone only if they mean to do you harm. But I think you actually have to for a fact that they are going to do you harm. You can't assume. You couldn't draw on them if they were just breaking into your car. Now if it was your house, that's a whole different situation.