Trespassing law?

[Kase]

Ok. So i'm very confused on when it is "ok" to use your firearm when someone is trespassing? Only when they enter your home? Or only if they have a firearm also? Or is it ok if they just step foot on the property? I've heard so much from so many different people, and would really like to set the record straight. Anyone with any sort of info on this would be a help. Thanks!

 

[shibumiseeker]

In your home you pretty much have free reign against an intruder. <I am leaving my original words in so's not to give the appearance of denying I said it> Edit: What I mean by this is that the standard to which you will be held for fearing harm is much, much less than that if you engage someone outside of the home. Later in this thread Public Servant will take me to task for my original wording. I was being flip here, but he's absolutely right and I don't want someone to come away with the impression that they will not have to account for their actions.

On open property you have much less free reign, there you pretty much need to be threatened in some way (though they don't have to have a firearm). Trespassers get greeted on my property by me with some type of weapon readily available. Do that in the city and you may be charged with brandishing. Do that out in the sticks and no one will bat an eye except the trepasser.

Someone will be along soon with cites, I'm sure.

 

[jboritzki]

I don't know what the law says, but regardless, I'd only use a weapon against someone if I was in fear of immediate serious bodily injury or death. I am curious what the actual law is though. I had an officer tell me that if the attacker is much bigger and stronger than you, you can shoot because he can kill you with his hands. He said any other weapon used or attempted to be used against you gives you the right to shoot in defense.

 

[Kase]

In your home you pretty much have free reign against an intruder.

So if they broke in with lets say a knife, and you shot, but didn't kill them, then there is no possible way they can sue you or get you in any sort of trouble for it? Thats the part I was mainly confused about. I know how messed up the justice system is sometimes, and it worries me a little.

 

[RichardR]

In Indiana it depends on if the trespass is within the legal definition of a dwellings "curtilage" or not.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Whaddya know, I was the guy coming along with the cite...

So if they broke in with lets say a knife, and you shot, but didn't kill them, then there is no possible way they can sue you or get you in any sort of trouble for it? Thats the part I was mainly confused about. I know how messed up the justice system is sometimes, and it worries me a little.

Indiana has what is called the castle doctrine. You may use deadly force against someone forcibly entering your home or occupied vehicle. They don't need to have a weapon. You are also protected from civil liability, but I don't really consider that real protection because all it means is that they won't win, it doesn't protect you from the hassle of being sued.




SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]: 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; only 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, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, or 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 not justified in using deadly force; unless and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.

 

[RichardR]

Do that in the city and you may be charged with brandishing.

As far as I am aware Indiana has no "brandishing" laws on the books, however it is a crime to "point" a firearm at another person without legal justification (with an unloaded weapon it's a misdemeanor for a loaded firearm it's a felony).

 

[G_Stines]

In your home you pretty much have free reign against an intruder.

Yes and no. Indiana Law states that you should feel your life is threatened in order to justify using deadly force. That said, an intruder with enough gall to enter a home certainly has the capacity to do harm. That is different that say.... stealing the battery out of your car. Now, if you see the guy disconnecting your battery and his associate has a 12 gauge, I would feel threatened and justified in deadly force by that.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Yes and no. Indiana Law states that you should feel your life is threatened in order to justify using deadly force.

From the Indiana Code I cited above:

(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, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

Says nothing about you feeling your life is threatened by an intruder in your home.

 

[G_Stines]

Right, but if they are trespassing or walking through the land without an intent to enter the dwelling and the vehicle is unoccupied.... than you have to feel threatened. Thus car battery and the twelve guage.

 

[shibumiseeker]

In your home you pretty much have free reign against an intruder.

On open property you have much less free reign, there you pretty much need to be threatened in some way (though they don't have to have a firearm).

Right, but if they are trespassing or walking through the land without an intent to enter the dwelling and the vehicle is unoccupied.... than you have to feel threatened. Thus car battery and the twelve guage.

I believe that is what I wrote in the post of which you quoted a part.

 

[Joe Williams]

You may fire in circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their life, fear serious bodily harm, to prevent death or serious bodily harm to a third party, or to prevent a forcible felony.

 

[RichardR]

Right, but if they are trespassing or walking through the land without an intent to enter the dwelling and the vehicle is unoccupied.... than you have to feel threatened. Thus car battery and the twelve guage.

Again that really depends on if the trespass is within that dwellings "curtilage" or not, here in Indiana some outdoor area's surrounding a dwelling are legally considered the same as if the trespass was inside of the dwelling.

 

[public servant]

In your home you pretty much have free reign against an intruder.

No. You don't. You have the right to use reasonable force.

From the Indiana Code I cited above:

(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, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

Says nothing about you feeling your life is threatened by an intruder in your home.

It also says "reasonable" force. It does not give you free reign to blast anyone without justification.

If you shoot them...you better damn well be able to articulate your "reason" for using deadly force.

 

[downzero]

If you shoot them...you better damn well be able to articulate your "reason" for using deadly force.

I'll just keep my mouth shut and let the jury sort it out. I'm not articulating anything.

 

[public servant]

I'll just keep my mouth shut and let the jury sort it out. I'm not articulating anything.

Sooner or later you'll have to articulate it...at least to the jury.

But yeah...waiting on the attorney would be smart.

 

[RichardR]

No. You don't. You have the right to use reasonable force.

It also says "reasonable" force. It does not give you free reign to blast anyone without justification.

If you shoot them...you better damn well be able to articulate your "reason" for using deadly force.

All a homeowner has to say was "I discharged my weapon to prevent &/or immediately terminate the intruder's trespass".

 

[shibumiseeker]

No. You don't. You have the right to use reasonable force.

It also says "reasonable" force. It does not give you free reign to blast anyone without justification.

If you shoot them...you better damn well be able to articulate your "reason" for using deadly force.

I don't disagree with you in principle, and it goes against my personal moral code to just blast away at someone. But I also don't have nearly the duty to someone who has broken into my home while I am inside as the law assumes that they intend me harm (as do I) as I do to someone who has merely trespassed on my open property.

The difference is the law is on my side if I shoot an intruder inside my house. Outside my house (and curtilage) but still on my property if I use any type of force against someone who is not directly and clearly threatening me then I not only have commited a crime, I am also open to civil liability. The only thing I can do to a trespasser who is merely walking across my property is tell them to leave. If they refuse then I may not use force against them, the most I can do is ask law enforcement to remove them. Now if they start damaging my property or interfering with my legal use of my property then my right to use force increases.

 

[downzero]

But yeah...waiting on the attorney would be smart.

Insurance is cheaper!

 

[1032JBT]

In your home you pretty much have free reign against an intruder.

So if they broke in with lets say a knife, and you shot, but didn't kill them, then there is no possible way they can sue you or get you in any sort of trouble for it? Thats the part I was mainly confused about. I know how messed up the justice system is sometimes, and it worries me a little.

Oh no........realize and accept right now that you will be sued, no matter if they die or not. Being sued in Civil Court is a whole lot different than getting in trouble criminally. Think OJ.........he won the criminal but lost the Civil.

Just plan on being sued because chances are slim that you won't be.