Please Read My "Deadly Force" State Law And Tell Me What You Think

[DJDan]

Here is a link to our deadly force law.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod...5/ar41/ch3.pdf


How do you read this pertaining to property?

Let's say I catch a person breaking into my truck out front of my house and confront them.
What would I legally be allowed to do?

Let me know how you read the law.

Thanks for your time.

[The Tengu]

It says that you can use deadly force to protect your dwelling, curtilage, and occupied motor vehicle.

However in the example you gave, you would not be authorized to use deadly force against an individual breaking into your unoccupied vehicle unless you are in fear of your life/serious bodily harm.

*I'm not a lawyer, etc. blah blah...

[jeff221]

Originally Posted by DJDan

Here is a link to our deadly force law.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod...5/ar41/ch3.pdf


How do you read this pertaining to property?

Let's say I catch a person breaking into my truck out front of my house and confront them.
What would I legally be allowed to do?

Let me know how you read the law.

Thanks for your time.

In the situation you describe you do not have a resonable fear of bodily harm yet, by just confronting someone breaking into your car...

If they turn on you, and begin to attack you (or show signs they are an emmient threat) then you have the right to use deadly force.

I don't believe just finding someone even breaking into your HOUSE is reasonable to use deadly force until the situation shows that you, or someone else, is in danger of harm, but that's just my reading of the law... I don't have to defend you.

[Mark M]

Never forget that all cases of defensive shootings are not decided by "law", nor by an attorney nor by a judge.
They are all decided by juries.

I'm not arguing for justification here, but here's another take on the subject: If you go out to investigate a noise in your driveway and find that someone is breaking into your car, that means they YOU are making noise and moving too (door slams behind you for the noise, and the robber WILL be alert to anyone coming out of the house that is connected to the driveway he is standing in).

Now allow me to think like a juror here, and here's how I would personally understand the situtation by assuming the reasoning of your defense in court:
You went out to your driveway and found someone breaking into your car. The (alleged) criminal saw you but did NOT IMMEDIATELY start running away. My first thought about the person NOT running away the moment he saw you is that he decided right then that he is NOT afraid of you.
The simple logical extension of that is that because he is not afraid of you, then he feels that he can overpower (and therefore) harm you easily in order to continue his crime in progress.
Therefore, assuming that you did not shoot the criminal in the back while running away, there is no way that I as a juror would convict you because I feel that you would have been acting (shooting) for fear of your own life.

Never think that a "law" is a simple determiner of outcome of a trial.
The other side of that is to never assume that a "law" will automatically protect you either if you make a bad decision but "think" that you have acted within the law.
It's all about the jury and how THEY would have acted if they had been in your situation, and it's up to you to make them understand your situation exactly as YOU understood it while it was happening.

[Mark M]

Originally Posted by jeff221

I don't believe just finding someone even breaking into your HOUSE is reasonable to use deadly force until the situation shows that you, or someone else, is in danger of harm, but that's just my reading of the law... I don't have to defend you.

You have been proven wrong over and over and over again in real court situations.
I challenge you to find even ONE example in the United States where a home break-in occured, the occupant shot the intruder, and then the occupant was charged with a crime.
This is not YET the UK where home owners DO get charged with criminal behaviour if they hurt a home invasion predator.

[Ed 2001 SS]

Originally Posted by Mark M

Never forget that all cases of defensive shootings are not decided by "law", nor by an attorney nor by a judge.
They are all decided by juries.

I'm not arguing for justification here, but here's another take on the subject: If you go out to investigate a noise in your driveway and find that someone is breaking into your car, that means they YOU are making noise and moving too (door slams behind you for the noise, and the robber WILL be alert to anyone coming out of the house that is connected to the driveway he is standing in).

Now allow me to think like a juror here, and here's how I would personally understand the situtation by assuming the reasoning of your defense in court:
You went out to your driveway and found someone breaking into your car. The (alleged) criminal saw you but did NOT IMMEDIATELY start running away. My first thought about the person NOT running away the moment he saw you is that he decided right then that he is NOT afraid of you.
The simple logical extension of that is that because he is not afraid of you, then he feels that he can overpower (and therefore) harm you easily in order to continue his crime in progress.
Therefore, assuming that you did not shoot the criminal in the back while running away, there is no way that I as a juror would convict you because I feel that you would have been acting (shooting) for fear of your own life.

Never think that a "law" is a simple determiner of outcome of a trial.
The other side of that is to never assume that a "law" will automatically protect you either if you make a bad decision but "think" that you have acted within the law.
It's all about the jury and how THEY would have acted if they had been in your situation, and it's up to you to make them understand your situation exactly as YOU understood it while it was happening.

[Insert Standard I am not a lawyer, if you need legal advice, go see a lawyer disclaimer here]

While I agree that juries decide trials and are sometimes unpredictable, prosecutors use the law to decide whether to file charges or not. This law will determine whether the defensive shooter will ever see the inside of a court room.

An intrusion to your curtilage (basically the fenced in area around your house. Don't have a fence? Then you might not have "curtilage") seems to be equated with an intrusion into your actual home. If your car is parked inside of a closed fence, this law protects you better than if it is parked outside.

This whole law turns on what is reasonable. The most likely interpretation will be that the reasonableness will be judged by what the average person would view as reasonable. In other words, if you are a paranoid person, your view of what would be reasonable force under the circumstances might be different from what a non-paranoid person would think. If your view of reasonable doesn't jibe with the majority's view, you could have a problem.

[jeff221]

Originally Posted by Mark M

You have been proven wrong over and over and over again in real court situations.
I challenge you to find even ONE example in the United States where a home break-in occured, the occupant shot the intruder, and then the occupant was charged with a crime.
This is not YET the UK where home owners DO get charged with criminal behaviour if they hurt a home invasion predator.

Would an example of where someone shot there Kid or a family member because they fired before they were in harms way do? Because that happens quite a bit. Which is partially my reasoning for not fireing until you are in harms way.

Law or no Law, you best know what you are fireing at and WHY you are fireing before you do so.

[Mark M]

Originally Posted by jeff221

Would an example of where someone shot there Kid or a family member because they fired before they were in harms way do? Because that happens quite a bit. Which is partially my reasoning for not fireing until you are in harms way.

Law or no Law, you best know what you are fireing at and WHY you are fireing before you do so.

No, it would NOT do, because that is NOT an example of shooting someone is actually doing a home invasion on your home.

Do you somehow think that I am advocating firing through doors or something? JEEZ! I am specifically referring to any situation where a person has shot someone who is ACTUALLY in the process of a home invasion and has entered the home.
Isn't that what the original question was?

[demon]

My take on this is that if someone is breaking into your car outside your house, you don't have the right to shoot first and ask questions later. If you go outside to investigate and they run off, you can't shoot at them because they are not a threat to your life any more. If you catch them in the act and they give up and put their hands in the air, you can't shoot them. If they come around the front of your vehicle towards you with a screwdriver then you have the right to defend yourself just like in any other situation. If they are driving off in your vehicle, you don't have the right to shoot at them. It is the belief in personal harm that would make a shooting justified, not the loss of personal property.

[Mark M]

Originally Posted by Ed 2001 SS

[This whole law turns on what is reasonable. The most likely interpretation will be that the reasonableness will be judged by what the average person would view as reasonable. In other words, if you are a paranoid person, your view of what would be reasonable force under the circumstances might be different from what a non-paranoid person would think. If your view of reasonable doesn't jibe with the majority's view, you could have a problem.

You are exactly right in that the key word is "reasonable", and the determination of what is reasonable is NOT written in the law itself, but in how "reasonable" is seen as being so by the jury.

Remember that Bernard Goetz was acquitted of shooting 4 thugs on a New York Subway. So evidently, the jury felt that even though the prosecution felt that Goetz was an attempted murderer, the jury did NOT and felt that his actions were "reasonable".

Unfortunately for Goetz, he did some things that a civil jury later thought was NOT reasonable when he tried to shoot Cabey one more time so he had a judgement against him, but only for the "un" reasonable part of the shooting, not the primary actions of his shootings.

Additionally, Goetz WAS judged guilty of illegally carrying a weapon, but I don't think he cared much about that since it was a choice to him of either being found guilty of that charge or possibly being killed himself in a mugging.

The whole case and it's aftermath turned out to be just a big mess, but the most important part of the event, Goetz' indictment for attempted murder, is the part that a jury saw was a "reasonable" response so they acquitted him.