Someone Looking in my window and 1am last night

[localone]

Last night the wife and I were watching t.v when she said ...Someones at out window in a blink of a eye she was up and running towards the back door...She open and yell HEY..I moved her out of the way Racked the gun and ask what he was doing. (17-19 yr old make) He pointed down the way and said im heading home I live over there..I asked him his address and he said over there and pointed..My wife asked where he was coming from and he said from a friends house a few doors down and she asked what his name was and he said..I dont know its a friend of a friend..I told the wife to call the police and she ordered the kid to go to the front of the house. He turned the corner and hauled A$$ by the time I got out front(5seconds) he was already in the car(as the passanger) the busted a uturn Lights off and took off over the stateline...20 minutes later the lake county sherriff shows up looks around and didnt find anything...My quiestion is this. If this was to happen again could i legally just tell ther individual to HAVE A SEAT until the police show up? 1 .I never pointed the weapon at the man 2.I think the rack of the gun scared the SH## out of him and im sure he waont be back

 

[88GT]

could i legally just tell ther individual to HAVE A SEAT until the police show up?

You can legally TELL them anything. But I'm think spread eagle with his face in the dirt would be preferable.

1 .I never pointed the weapon at the man

I'm not one to tell a man he's done the wrong thing, particularly when I haven't walked that particular section of the street in his shoes, but I think you would have been within your rights to do so. And it might have kept him around to be given the nice shiny jewelry the po-po are so happy to provide. If I'm wrong, the lawyers will be around shortly to correct me.


On a side note, your wife sounds like me....except I would have had my own firearm already on him.

 

[Captain Bligh]

I think you had the best possible outcome. You eliminated a threat and kept everyone safe. I think there are risks in holding someone at gunpoint. In my opinion, what occurred in your situation is preferable and safer.

You don't know if someone you encounter is high on meth or explosive. Held at gunpoint, he may have grown weary of it, and you may have had to shoot him if attacked. You may be within your rights to have done so, but you will likely spend a lot of money in legal charges to ensure that you have no criminal or civil liability.

 

[CombatVet]

I'm not one to tell a man he's done the wrong thing, particularly when I haven't walked that particular section of the street in his shoes, but I think you would have been within your rights to do so. And it might have kept him around to be given the nice shiny jewelry the po-po are so happy to provide. If I'm wrong, the lawyers will be around shortly to correct me.

IANAL!

Unless you are being threatened with great bodily harm/death/in fear of your life you can NOT point a firearm at some one, unless they're/have broken into your home. There have been MANY cases where some one has pointed a fire arm at some one for trespassing and the person with the gun went to jail and lost their rights to posses firearms.

I've had a lot of trouble with dirt bags in my neighborhood, it sucks I know, but don't point a firearm at them unless you have to.

 

[groovatron]

IANAL!

snip.

There have been MANY cases where some one has pointed a fire arm at some one for trespassing and the person with the gun went to jail and lost their rights to posses firearms.

snip.

Please direct me to these cases for reference. I would like to learn more about them. Thanks.

 

[Prometheus]

IANAL!

Unless you are being threatened with great bodily harm/death/in fear of your life you can NOT point a firearm at some one, unless they're/have broken into your home.

There are a number of situations where you CAN. If this gentlemans yard was fenced in, he most certainly could have (as it is defined as curtlige), aside from other considerations.

The links to the statues concerning deadly force have been posted time and again.

I'd just like to point out that if you are bothering to talk to someone, even if you are justified in using force, don't actually point in AT them until you are going to press the trigger. For lack of a better term everyone will understand, the 'low ready' is far more preferable. Also you can truthfully tell any responding officers that you didn't point it AT him.

If I find someone in my backyard (it's fenced and always locked), they'll be waiting till the cops show up... unless they are brave enough to call my bluff and hop the fence hoping I don't shoot them in the back. or they are a neighbors kid retrieving a frisbee

 

[Merchomini]

Well i think its a good thing u pulled ur handgun out, and racked it, i think that you have probably just prevented any further instances of this from said individual. Just the sound of a round getting racked is enough to that probably. I am curious about what the ramifications of holding the person to LEO came, or pointing the gun at him and so on......

for future referance...

 

[chezuki]

Why did you need to rack the gun, was it not ready for action?

 

[CombatVet]

Please direct me to these cases for reference. I would like to learn more about them. Thanks.

Lots of info here: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...se/108106-defending_my_personal_property.html

 

[groovatron]

Lots of info here: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...se/108106-defending_my_personal_property.html

I just read that entire thread and only saw one testimonial of a posters friend who spent a ton of money keeping his house and staying out of jail after SHOOTING a guy breaking into his car. I read no reference to simply "pointing" a firearm at someone. The reason I ask, I have read nothing in the IC or case law that supports your original statement. If what you say is true, I would love to see a source............anything..

If I'm at my house and someone is breaking into my garage, my car, whatever.....you better believe that my gun will be swiftly sighted in the perp. The finger stays off the trigger untill I feel as though my life is in danger, but in the mean time, I am going to use every advantage I can get prior to a possible engagement.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

OP why did your wife tell him to go around front? She made two mistakes that I see. That being one, the other was opening the door and confronting him without a weapon.

Please direct me to these cases for reference. I would like to learn more about them. Thanks.

Here is one. And IMO it is a BS decision, the judge changed the law through his decision, he didn't find that the law was unjust he just changed it.

Converted file par

 

[bigus_D]

In my opinion, pointing a gun at this guy would be against the law. I'm not clear on exactly what curtilage is, so that's my story.

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.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
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; 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, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(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).
(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.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.


IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.9; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.2; P.L.245-1993, SEC.1.

 

[localone]

OP why did your wife tell him to go around front? She made two mistakes that I see. That being one, the other was opening the door and confronting him without a weapon.


Here is one. And IMO it is a BS decision, the judge changed the law through his decision, he didn't find that the law was unjust he just changed it.

Converted file par[/quo
Why she went to the door unarmed? Who knows..Her first reaction was not a good one and looking back I think she knows she made a mistake but she also knew I carry in the house. She wanted him to move to the front of the house to keep any away from the childrens windows in the back of the house....I did have a round chambered but reracked the slide and it did stop the perp dead in his track(XDM 40 had 16 rds so dropping one wasnt a big deal)...being unincorperated it is pretty dark in the neighborhhod..a few back porch lights were on but its wasnt very bright.So the sounds of the pistol racking back was a warning that we were armed and not playing around...Im glad it went the way it did and yes we learned alot from the situation..As a family we hit the gun range once a week so i was ready for anything that came about the wife just needs to understand next time the perp may be armed and its not a great idea to run out the house unarmed at 130 am

 

[Vasili]

if there is a gun on the wall in act i, scene 1, it must be fired by act iii scene 3. anton checkhov.

if you've got to whip it out, you better use it.
without witnesses there is no such thing as a bad shoot, son.

curtilage includes any areas you would normally expect to be private. including yards and porches. yards are 50/50 depending on if its fenced in or not.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Confronting a perp in your home is totally different than doing so outside. Aggressors have the tactical advantage when they know the terrain, which they can figure out pretty easily outdoors. Inside is a whole different story unless they know the layout of your home, where the furniture is, the rooms that will most likely be occupied, etc.

Determining a response is predicated on the dynamics of the situation. Curiosity: When you saw the guy peeking though the window, what was you initial instinct as to his purpose? Mine was that he was a friend of one of the kids, or more likely a lookout for a crime being committed outside or was casing the house for burglary or invasion. It doesn't make sense for a lone burglar to spend more than 10 seconds peeking through windows of an occupied house, unless he was casing it for later. He wasn't very good at it if he was detected.

If the perp is outside and your family is safely inside you goal needs to be keeping the perp outside and your family safely inside. In this case there was a known perp at the window. There was an unknown perp in the car. There could have been another just yards away waiting with a gun to shoot anyone who exited the house. When you or your wife exited did you stall in the doorway for a few seconds before exiting? Most people do. Very bad thing if you did. You would have been back lit and an easy target.

CALL 911 IMMEDIATELY. Kill all inside lights. Gather kids and move to safe area where they can exit quickly if necessary. Take a tactical position that allows you to see as many enterable windows and doors without being seen. Be prepared to shoot as soon as a window is scratched or a doorknob is jiggled.

I had a similar situation a few weeks ago. My malinois woke me at about 4A totally amped up. In my search I discovered my garage door was open. I killed all the lights, got a rifle with NV, swept the back and side yards, and exited with my maligator. Had someone been outside, he would have found them. Instead he found and killed a coyote pup. GF's daughter forgot to close the garage door.

Why someone is in your yard is barely interesting trivia and not hardly worth getting killed over. There's no reason to go out and start a conversation unless it starts with "suck" and ends with "dirt". You now know there was at least one other unknown perp. If he'd have flanked you it would have been lights out for good. And for what? To have a conversation? Not me.

I'm not the talking type, and you can't shoot someone just for trespassing. The only way I would go outside is if my dog went first. He does the talking for me. Until they put themselves in a position that I need to protect myself, I have nothing to say to them. They are exactly where I want them. Outside.

 

[RichardR]

In my opinion, pointing a gun at this guy would be against the law. I'm not clear on exactly what curtilage is, so that's my story.

Legally a "curtilage" is the name for the area immediately surrounding a dwelling.

curtilage includes any areas you would normally expect to be private. including yards and porches. yards are 50/50 depending on if its fenced in or not.

It does not have to be "private" or "fenced".

For instance a LEO may not search a persons "curtilage" without a search warrant, regardless of if the "curtilage" is fenced or not.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

OP why did your wife tell him to go around front? She made two mistakes that I see. That being one, the other was opening the door and confronting him without a weapon.


Here is one. And IMO it is a BS decision, the judge changed the law through his decision, he didn't find that the law was unjust he just changed it.

Converted file par

How do you get that the judge changed the law?

 

[localone]

A dog is a must...were looking into getting a dog and sensor lights on all 4 corners of the house...I dont think parents stress to there idiot kids that in indiana most citizens are Armed and will do what it takes to prevent harm to there familys. they are moving south from chicago and think they can do what they want and no one is gonna do anything about it. we had a neighbor 2 years back his son was suspected of breaking into garages.I told the father if someone broke into my garage I dont care how old they are they will pay and pay BIG. He knew what i was talking about

 

[RichardR]

Here is one. And IMO it is a BS decision, the judge changed the law through his decision, he didn't find that the law was unjust he just changed it.

Cases are wrongly decided all of the time, but it doesn't mean that the judge "changed the law" for that a supreme court would have to "strike down" a piece of legislation.

However a wrongly decided case can set what is known as a "precedent" for other judges to also wrongly decide cases in subsequent cases, without actually having a supreme court "strike down" that law.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

How do you get that the judge changed the law?

In IN according to IN code, one can use reasonable force to terminate trespass if necessary. IN code also states that pointing a firearm at someone is legal if you are allowed to use reasonable force. The judge decided that pointing a firearm at someone is deadly force and set judicial precedent for that. He did not rule that reasonable force was unnecessary in this case but that the pointing of a handgun was unreasonable because it was deadly force not reasonable force. Which is not what the law states.

Which has the effect of changing the law.

However a wrongly decided case can set what is known as a "precedent" for other judges to also wrongly decide cases in subsequent cases, without actually having a supreme court "strike down" that law.

Excuse my mistatement, I should of said had the effect of changing the law. Because until someone appeals it to the IN supreme court and they accept the case and rule on it, it stands as precedent.