watch out my car was just car shopped

[finity]

...translation from juggalox internet speak to follow...

"My dad's car battery was dead because I left the interior light on and I had to walk home after dark. It was cool though because I had my Crossman 10 pumper pellet gun loaded with darts with me from shooting at the dart board in my friends basement."

I think you're confused. The adage your mom tought you was "If you can't say something nice then don't say anything at all", not "don't say anything at all, unless it's not nice".

 

[redneckmedic]

I think you're confused. The adage your mom tought you was "If you can't say something nice then don't say anything at all", not "don't say anything at all, unless it's not nice".

 

[Andre46996]

I agree that if he didn't see him break the window or see him with his property he doesn't have much justification for pulling his gun.

I don't care if he was standing beside him when broke the window and took his Hi Point Hoodie he still has no LEGAL reason to "pull" his gun!!

 

[public servant]

 

[finity]

I don't care if he was standing beside him when broke the window and took his Hi Point Hoodie he still has no LEGAL reason to "pull" his gun!!

Read the law as I posted above.

The LAW says that it is OK if necessary to prevent criminal interference with your property. Stealing & destruction counts as criminal interference. Your opinion about the MORALITY of pulling a gun on someone over property is your opinion. the LAW is the LAW.

You can use reasonable force. Pointing a gun is defined as reasonable force. You can point a gun at them. you just can't shoot unless they threaten SBI.

If you disagree then show me in the LAW where the above contradicted.

 

[Andre46996]

Read the law as I posted above.

The LAW says that it is OK if necessary to prevent criminal interference with your property. Stealing & destruction counts as criminal interference. Your opinion about the MORALITY of pulling a gun on someone over property is your opinion. the LAW is the LAW.

You can use reasonable force. Pointing a gun is defined as reasonable force. You can point a gun at them. you just can't shoot unless they threaten SBI.

If you disagree then show me in the LAW where the above contradicted.

Fair enough I agree with what is LEGAL....

If I remove my sidearm from it's holster it is for one purpose only, nothing that I own is worth the life of another or me taking up residence in a federally funded housing unit with others.

I just see as the use of your weapon even as a deterrent could escalate a already bad situation, but I do agree you do have the right to legally.

 

[Hustlehard]

they're comming down on you pretty hard, but its only cause they care

 

[USMC_0311]

I think you're confused. The adage your mom tought you was "If you can't say something nice then don't say anything at all", not "don't say anything at all, unless it's not nice".

I am pretty sure the adage Jack follows (and me) is "stupid should hurt" and since we are not in the immediate vincinty to intiate a he gets it via internet. If he is smart he will take it as good natured ribbing but with a point. Maybe learn something the easy way. Just my guess...lol

If the OP's account is as stated then he really needs to evaulate his reaction.

 

[samot]

Read the law as I posted above.

The LAW says that it is OK if necessary to prevent criminal interference with your property. Stealing & destruction counts as criminal interference. Your opinion about the MORALITY of pulling a gun on someone over property is your opinion. the LAW is the LAW.

You can use reasonable force. Pointing a gun is defined as reasonable force. You can point a gun at them. you just can't shoot unless they threaten SBI.

If you disagree then show me in the LAW where the above contradicted.

I see alot of posters here posting the "IC" im curious as to how that works ? The IC is the law as it is written? Lets say the OP did catch the window breaker, in fact lets say he shot him(hypotheticaly). Due to what the IC says, that means the responding officer would go back to his car look up the particular IC for this particular incident & react accordingly in wether he is supposed to arrest the OP for his actions ?? Im asking here...

Also lets say the responding officer decided the OP was not justified in shooting the bad guy & charges him with a Handfull of felonious charges, then what does the IC mean to the judge & Jury ? Do the judge & jury go by what the IC says & base thier decision on it ?

I hope my questions make sence
any responces would be great

 

[1032JBT]

Any LEOs or "gun lawyers" care to give their insight?

I just made it to this point so I will respond to what has been posted thus far (since you asked so nicely)


The OP propbably should have gone to jail and does not need to be carrying any kind of weapon until he recives some training AND shows proficincy at that recived training on when and how to use force.

 

[1032JBT]

Read the law as I posted above.

The LAW says that it is OK if necessary to prevent criminal interference with your property. Stealing & destruction counts as criminal interference. Your opinion about the MORALITY of pulling a gun on someone over property is your opinion. the LAW is the LAW.

You can use reasonable force. Pointing a gun is defined as reasonable force. You can point a gun at them. you just can't shoot unless they threaten SBI.

If you disagree then show me in the LAW where the above contradicted.

While you are correct in this, what was stated in the OP was that he saw the guy across the parking lot not in his car. He admitted to having to put "2 and 2" together. If some guy came running up to me with a handgun pointed at me yelling the things he was yelling I would have egressed the area ASAP as well. At the bare minimum he could and probably should have been charged with Pointing a Firearm which would then result in his LTCH being yanked.

 

[RelicHound]

Fair enough I agree with what is LEGAL....

If I remove my sidearm from it's holster it is for one purpose only, nothing that I own is worth the life of another or me taking up residence in a federally funded housing unit with others.

I just see as the use of your weapon even as a deterrent could escalate a already bad situation, but I do agree you do have the right to legally.

this^
I just dont think you should pull your firearm unless you plan on squeezing the trigger. you pull you pistol and you have a good chance of the other person pulling one as well...then you just initiated a shoot out over someone stealing your bubble gum...I mean it is against the LAW to swipe someones bubble gum.

 

[public servant]

If some guy came running up to me with a handgun pointed at me yelling the things he was yelling I would have egressed the area ASAP as well.

Had the man being chased been armed and it turned out he had not been the one who broke out the window...it wouldn't have taken much to justify fear of SBI (man chasing him with a gun). This could have ended ugly.

And even if he was the guy...is anyone here prepared to die over a broken car window?

 

[Jack Ryan]

I think you're confused. The adage your mom taught you was "If you can't say something nice then don't say anything at all.", not "Don't say anything at all, unless it's not nice".

At least yer think'n. Keep practic'n. Someday you'll get it right.

 

[Denny347]

I see alot of posters here posting the "IC" im curious as to how that works ? The IC is the law as it is written? Lets say the OP did catch the window breaker, in fact lets say he shot him(hypotheticaly). Due to what the IC says, that means the responding officer would go back to his car look up the particular IC for this particular incident & react accordingly in wether he is supposed to arrest the OP for his actions ?? Im asking here...

Also lets say the responding officer decided the OP was not justified in shooting the bad guy & charges him with a Handfull of felonious charges, then what does the IC mean to the judge & Jury ? Do the judge & jury go by what the IC says & base thier decision on it ?

I hope my questions make sence
any responces would be great

The responding officer would have an idea of what the IC code says but a detective will be called to the scene. In this case either a district detective if it's a minor wound, an aggravated assault detective if it is a serious wound, or a homicide detective if the guy is dead. The detective/s will handle the rest of the investigation and will determine what ,if any, charges will be filed. Then once arrested, the detective can hold you for 72hrs before you can have an initial hearing, to inform you of your charges and bail amount, while he/she walks the case over to felony screening and sit down with a screening prosecutor. The screener is ultimately the decider on charges. Once it goes to trial, the judge/jury will use the IC code as well as relevant case law, along with admissible evidence to determine the outcome.

 

[samot]

Thank you kind Sir, very well put! that was exactly what i was wanting to know.

 

[Denny347]

Thank you kind Sir, very well put! that was exactly what i was wanting to know.

Your welcome...I try.

 

[kevinj110]

You sir have no business carrying, owning, or ever holding a firearm. You give us all bad names. ICP trash.

 

[Chuck26287]

The following is a reply debating handgun law interpretation. I believe interpretation to be the single most significant factor in law enforcement. It's long, and to many, probably a waste of your time to read. It might even be considered a thread hi-jacking, but it's all based on the OP, and this has been a very active thread so I'm posting it here. Moderators please move it if I've posted inappropriately. Sorry if the size offends.

To quote Finity and inject my comments in red where appropriate:

OK, now that everybody has had their fun jumping all over the OP & insulting his intelligence, let's talk about this like the rational adults we're all supposed to be.

I have not tried to insult the intelligence of the OP, but I do confess to feeling he is ignorant to some law and responsibility relative to carrying a handgun. My comments have tried to offer constructive ways to minimize this ignorance.

The IC gives someone legal authority to point their handgun at someone while trying to protect their property:

No disagreement here. The law does allow certain situation where pointing a handgun at someone is allowable. However, I don't feel this scenario is one of those instances.

IC 35-47-4-3
Pointing firearm at another person
Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.
As added by P.L.296-1995, SEC.2.

So...let's see what IC 35-41-3-2 says with respect to property:

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
.
.
(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).

This is were we diverge. From the OP, the poster states "We walked outside and it looked like my inside car light was on so i was mad because i thought my battery was going to be dead. But then i look and see some guy walking across an appartment building behind a dumpster. I then see that my window was broken and put 2 and 2 together so i hop into action. I pull out my amt 45 and start chasing after him. He didnt see me till i was right up on him and took off and hopped in his buddys car. I was right on the butt end of his car with my pistol pointed at him saying "stop you ****** ****** before i ******* shoot your ***** ***" "

IC 35-41-3-2(c) allows resonable force (pointing handgun?) to immediately prevent or terminate the act of criminal interference of your property. I don't believe this would apply as there was no trespass or criminal interference going on for the OP to immediately prevent or terminate. It was over. He walked out and observed the scene after the crime.

So...the pointing of a firearm at someone is illegal UNLESS someone feels it is reasonably necessary to stop someone from stealing their property.

Agreed, but I believe non-applicable in this scenario. I would conceed that if the OP saw a person in the vicinity with his property under his arm, trying to get away with it, that this might still be considered an act of criminal interference (stealing?) of his property in progress, and the code might allow the use of reasonable force to stop it. However, that's not what the OP saw. He saw his vandalized vehicle, then saw a person in the vicinity, and "put 2 and 2 together". I personally don't believe the OP had enough to be reasonably certain the person he pointed his loaded handgun at had truly stolen from him... even if he was indeed correct.

I feel the OP was not using reasonable force to protect his property during a clear crime, but instead identified a suspect after the fact based primarily on his proximity to his car, and was attempting to aprehend him at gunpoint. That is law enforcement.

However, They can't SHOOT the other person UNLESS that person threatens them with SBI.

Agree... must be threat of SBI to shoot.

Shooting someone's tire or window is the same as using deadly force just the same as it woiuld be if you "just shot them in the leg to scare them". If you can't legally use deadly force, you can't shoot in their direction either.

I would agree here too, but I'm agreeing out of common sense, not true knowledge or law interpretation on my part.

Here is a (somewhat) recent thread about pretty much this exact scenario.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry_issues_and_self_defense/53323-can_you_shoot_him.html

For people to rant on about how stupid or irresponsible the OP is or how he should not carry is fairly unproductive.

Disagree. By respectfully expressing a belief that this was irresponsible behavior, and offering a justification for that belief, as well as suggesting an action that might correct that irresponsible behavior, I may contribute to the person improving that behavior. That would be productive in my opinion.

Look up the laws & have a reasonable debate.

I have, and I believe we are.

I personally don't think it was the best decision to run after the person on foot when they were in a car (from a tactical standpoint). Trolling around the neighborhood to see if you could find the guys is not a bad thing. I mean, you are an eyewitness to the guy & the car. Who better to notify the police where they are if you can find them. Confronting them after you found them...not so much.

Quoting from a later comment:

I agree that if he didn't see him break the window or see him with his property he doesn't have much justification for pulling his gun.

So now I am somewhat confused. Your first post quoted above seems to be for the purpose of showing the law does allow the OP to have pointed his handgun at someone, then you say he wasn't justified in drawing it at all? Did something in your logic change, or did I just miss something pertinent? The two threads don't seem cohesive at all. Just curious.

 

[darrent]

I blame video games and modern music!!

He probably listens to both kinds of music: country and western!!!

I would vote for lack of training and some common sense, versus games and music. I mean I listen to some really bad music at times and it doesn't make me want to pull a weapon on anyone.