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

[finity]

If he's on your property actively stealing your stuff, you could justify it.

No you can’t. The law says deadly force is only allowed for threat of death or SBI, to prevent a forcible felony (look up the definition in the IC if you need to – it’s not stealing your stuff) or to stop/prevent an attack on your home, curtilage or occupied vehicle. That’s it.

Actively stealing your stuff is not listed in there at all.

Yes. The problem was that he shot him when he was running away not that he shot him to prevent the other guy's "trespass on or criminal interference."

To the OP:
You should have checked the IC before you titled this thread? If you had you would have seen that protecting property is specifically listed.

I think you’re confused. You can use REASONABLE FORCE to protect property. REASONABLE FORCE is legally different from DEADLY FORCE. You can only use deadly force in the situations I listed above. Protecting your property is not in the list.

Even if he shot him to “prevent the other guy’s trespass on or criminal interference” with his property he is still going to jail.

Agreed. But if someone broke into my house, I'm shooting him. Then I'll check to see if they had a weapon. Now, if they were running out of my house before I could shoot him, then no, nobody has the right to shoot him then.

Now if I see someone breaking into my car, I think I would pull my weapon out on him. Would I shoot? No, because my life isn't in danger. I would keep him there til the cops show up. If he took off? I wouldn't shoot. I may chase him down, but it depends if I had just ate a large meal or not...

You’re exactly correct & completely legal.

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.

That’s technically true but realistically if you look at all the reasons for justified use of deadly force, they all boil down to preventing death or SBI (i.e. murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, severe pain or loss/impairment of a bodily function)

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?

I would say that someone beating on your house that’s not a point of entry is not grounds for DF. If someone is beating on your vehicle with you in it then that should be grounds for DF because it only takes a split second for them to shift their focus from the fender to your head because you are basically trapped in the car. Use of DF has to be reasonable. You have to be able to explain why you needed to use it to protect you or a third person.

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.

We are hanging this guy on the evidence (such as it is) that is presented.

If the guy shot the kid as he was running away because he was stealing his stuff then he needs to be convicted. There was no mention of a gun, or him planting the proverbial bomb, or in any other way threatening the guy. The guy never said anything about being in fear of his safety.

If the evidence changes later then I reserve the right to change my opinion.

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.

No. “reasonable force” is not “deadly force”. “Deadly force” is deadly force. “Deadly force” may be reasonable but it is NOT “reasonable force”. Look up the definitions in the IC.

If the situation is listed as a justification to use “deadly force” the you can legally move beyond “reasonable force” to “deadly force”.

The only situation in which you can go beyond “tackle, punch, whack” to “taze, stab or shoot” is if they threaten you with death or SBI.

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.

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.



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

Sorry. There’s no reasonable debate about this. The law is very clear. You can’t use DF to protect your stuff. Period. No matter what your mood is when you encounter the thief it doesn’t change the law.

If the guy breaks into your home while your in it, then do what you have to do to protect yourself/family. If you come home (& you haven’t entered it yet) & you catch a guy running down the street with your TV then you better just call the police.

There is a big difference between your CD collection & your family’s life. One you can’t use DF & one you can (I’ll let you figure out which is which). To try to set them on equal legal justification is silly.

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.

Not unless you can say beyond a reasonable doubt that you saw him take threatening stance. You can’t just shoot someone just in case they MIGHT threaten you at some point in the future. The threat has to be imminent.

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.

You forgot one:

- they keep your stuff & flee. You wait on the cops and file a report.

 

[miguel]

How much of this is going to be based on the jurisdiction the shooting happens in?

My guess is that if this happens in Marion County, you're screwed. In Hamilton County or a more rural county, maybe you get a more "liberal" prosecutor who doesn't proceed with the case.

 

[DarcEagle]

can any one link a web-sight with the IC

 

[finity]

can any one link a web-sight with the IC

Which IC are you referring to?

Generally the laws for self-defense are here:

Indiana Code 35-41-3


Here are the official definitions of the criminal code:

Indiana Code 35-41-1

Here is the law against pointing a firearm with the exception listed:

Indiana Code 35-47-4

Here is the code for citizens arrest:

Indiana Code 35-33-1

Am I missing anything?

 

[j706]

This isn't Texas, this isn't some places in Europe. You can only use deadly force to prevent death or serious bodily injury.

Not because someone is stealing your favourite Lady Gaga CD or your pine tree air freshner from your car.

I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Your house, your property is not a free fire zone.

If you don't have to shoot, DON'T. Problem #2 is long, multi-headed, expensive and dangerous.

Wise words written above. If some people would just listen it can save some people a whole lot of agony,money and possibly their freedom. Serious business and it sure ain't no game. IMO and with my observations of real life events, a great deal of Indiana citizens have no idea when forearms use is warranted.

 

[Jon Craig]

a great deal of Indiana citizens have no idea when forearms use is warranted.

True - but forearms use is warranted MUCH more often than firearms use, eh?