Can you shoot him through the window?

[LPMan59]

I think yes , you have legal problems .

IMO , the guy technically didn't threaten you and you had the option of leaving him in your dust .

1) asking me if i "want some of this" with a tire iron in your hand is a threat where i come from.

2) trying to flee isnt required.

just playin devil's advocate. as another poster noted, i think it would be different (ie more threatening) if i was boxed in/stuck in traffic/etc.

 

[Fargo]

For those of you who have requested additional "legal scenarios," here's the next one:

You're minding your own business, sitting in your SUV at a stop light at Capitol and South Streets in Indy. You notice a very intoxicated man on foot, weaving in and out of the cars at the intersection, cursing and yelling incomprehensibly. You also notice that he has what appears to be a tire iron in his hand.

He approaches your vehicle, pounding on the hood with his free hand and yelling at you to get out of your SUV. He screams that he likes your truck and wants to drive it home.

He stands outside your driver's side window, pounding on it with his free hand, demanding that you get out of the truck and give him the keys. He never produces a gun or a knife, but at one point he shows you the tire iron through the window, and says, "How'd you like some of this? Now get out of the damn truck."

You're the first car at the intersection and the light turns green, but you pull your handgun from your center console and shoot him through the closed window, killing him instantly.

Do you have any legal problems?

No, you have no legal problems. Indiana Law establishes a presumption that anyone attempting to enter an occupied vehicle intends them serious bodily harm and allows deadly force to stop a forcible felony. Regardless of the prudence of this course of action, you have no obligation to drive away or retreat in any fashion. At the time you shoot him, the guy is committing attempted battery w/ a deadly weapon C felony per IC 35-42-2-1, carjacking B felony per IC 35-42-5-2, and armed robbery B felony per IC 35-42-5-1. Per IC code 35-41-3-2a you are justified in using deadly force to terminate these forcible felonies as necessary.

Furthermore, even if you want to argue that since you could drive away, it isn't necessary under 3-2a, 35-41-3-2b(2) explicitly allows deadly force to terminate unlawful entry into an occupied vehicle and explicitly removes any duty to retreat.

At the moment he is trying to get in your car, the law basically presumes him to mean you serious bodily harm and allows you to use deadly force. This presumption probably can be rebutted, say if it is a 12 year girl-scout, but in the case of a man with a tire iron uttering verbal threats, it is hard to fall much more within the statute.

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.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.pdf

Joe

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

1) asking me if i "want some of this" with a tire iron in your hand is a threat where i come from.

Same here , but it's a whole other game in a courtroom where some lower than whale ***t "officer of the court" is painting you as some kind of Rambo since the guy couldn't actually touch you yet .

2) trying to flee isnt required.

Just because you don't have to doesn't mean you shouldn't if it's an option .



just playin devil's advocate. as another poster noted, i think it would be different (ie more threatening) if i was boxed in/stuck in traffic/etc.

.

 

[IndianasFinest]

What the statute reads, and how a jury deicides are not always the same. Look at what just happend here in Jeffersonville, Indiana. The accused attacker approached her vehcile, and grabbed her door handle (her version). She shot him, and is now in prison. The media can put a nasty swing on things true or not.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

At the moment he is trying to get in your car, the law basically presumes him to mean you serious bodily harm and allows you to use deadly force. This presumption probably can be rebutted, say if it is a 12 year girl-scout, but in the case of a man with a tire iron uttering verbal threats, it is hard to fall much more within the statute.Joe

Help me out with this . As I read it , I failed to see where the BG was trying to get into your SUV .

He was ordering you to relinquish your vehicle , not actually using any weapon other than his hand up to this point .

 

[Denny347]

No, you have no legal problems. Indiana Law establishes a presumption that anyone attempting to enter an occupied vehicle intends them serious bodily harm and allows deadly force to stop a forcible felony. Regardless of the prudence of this course of action, you have no obligation to drive away or retreat in any fashion. At the time you shoot him, the guy is committing attempted battery w/ a deadly weapon C felony per IC 35-42-2-1, carjacking B felony per IC 35-42-5-2, and armed robbery B felony per IC 35-42-5-1. Per IC code 35-41-3-2a you are justified in using deadly force to terminate these forcible felonies as necessary.

I did not read anything that would have me believe he attempted to enter the vehicle...grab the handle and pull, etc. Pounding on a window and demanding you to get out is not the same. Good lord that happens all the time in road rages. I cannot fire on a person for merely holding a tire iron, baseball bat, etc until he does something to further the threat, by raises it or charging me. Also, depending on his state of intoxication, he might no be capable of harm. Is he falling down drunk? I have dealt with many drunks that threaten all sorts of bad things but are no way capable of carrying them out.

 

[Sailor]

No duty to retreat does no mean you shouldn't.

 

[IndianasFinest]

Again, just because I may have the right to shoot someone certainly does not mean I want to. If there is a way out of a gun fight I'm going to use it. This is not the "Wild West", and none of us are John Wayne.

 

[Fargo]

I did not read anything that would have be believe he attempted to enter the vehicle...grab the handle and pull, ets. Pounding on a window and demanding you to get out is not the same.

As far as the carjacking statute goes, pulling on the handle doesn't matter. Any threat or use of fear to get you to relinquish your vehicle is sufficient:

IC 35-42-5-2
Carjacking
Sec. 2. A person who knowingly or intentionally takes a motor vehicle from another person or from the presence of another person:
(1) by using or threatening the use of force on any person; or
(2) by putting any person in fear;
commits carjacking, a Class B felony.

There is nothing in 35-41-3-2b(2) that requires the attempted unlawful entry to be physical rather than by threat or coercion. The attempt to gain entry to your vehicle does not have to be physical, it can be verbal. By your reading, pointing a gun through my window and ordering me out of my car would not fall within the statute. As far as the law in concerned, entry gained by threat, fear or coercion is the same as physically breaking in. Remember, all 35-41-3-2b(2) requires is that the entry be "unlawful".



Joe

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

What the statute reads, and how a jury deicides are not always the same. Look at what just happend here in Jeffersonville, Indiana. The accused attacker approached her vehcile, and grabbed her door handle (her version). She shot him, and is now in prison. The media can put a nasty swing on things true or not.

I think you're talking about the biker and the woman with her teenage son .

I don't think she's in prison because of spin , IIRC , she shot the man when he was backing up (retreating) , and then her son got out and attacked him while he was on the ground .

 

[Delmar]

I'm not going to shoot anyone who doesn't have a gun, when driving away is an option. Get out of the truck and kick his butt, perhaps.

 

[jd3772000]

Good responses from fargo and indianasfinest...

but i would show restraint...and give him a good nudge when infront of my vehicle then just go through the light red green black or yellow...dont care...gettin away from his ***.

 

[IndianasFinest]

I wasn't trying to imply that or defend her actions. I was just simply stateing an actual senerio that happend recently.

 

[wbjenks]

Drive away! End of story. Now you do not have legal problems!

 

[Delmar]

Drive away! End of story. Now you do not have legal problems!

Can I at least smack him with the car door as I drive off?

 

[eldirector]

No, you have no legal problems.

Joe

I'm with Fargo, here. The scenario, as described, seems to fall within the law. I doubt the prosecution could make charges stick.

"Attempted carjacking thwarted by armed citizen"

Me, I would either have run the light before he got to my car (assuming I didn't avoid the whole thing before pulling up to the stop), or not noticed it had turned green while defending myself from the madman.

I can't imagine discharging my XD40 in an enclosed car I'd be deaf for a week.

edit: the more I think about this..... Having the window up illustrates a defensive shoot. You were attempting to keep him out, until he escalated to threats of violence. If you had rolled it down first, now it is premeditated. Just my thoughts....

Another great thinker, GunLawyer!

 

[Fargo]

Good responses from fargo and indianasfinest...

but i would show restraint...and give him a good nudge when infront of my vehicle then just go through the light red green black or yellow...dont care...gettin away from his ***.

Remember, my response only deals with the legality of shooting him. How prudent it would be is a whole 'nuther question.

Joe

 

[GuyRelford]

Remember, my response only deals with the legality of shooting him. How prudent it would be is a whole 'nuther question.

Joe

That's exactly right. The question, as posed, is: "Do you have legal problems?"

 

[sporter]

In short: Yes

 

[mrjarrell]

Shooting through your window isn't going to sit well with your insurance company either. I doubt they're going to cover that window. Or your hearing loss.