Can you shoot him through the window?

[Joe Williams]

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.snip

BUT... in the situation as described, has he actually attempted to enter your vehicle? He's banged your hood, he's made a demand, he's issued a threat. But he's not tried to bust out your window to get into the vehicle, hasn't tried to open the door, and without that, is he actually, legally, attempting to enter the vehicle?

Edit:
Further reading of your cite also exposes further legal liability:
(

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.

The use of force is NOT necessary to prevent or terminate the attack. You have open to you the option to safely just drive away, and thereby terminate that attack, which would seem to indicate use of force was an option, not a necesity.

 

[danmdevries]

This scenario happened to me recently in Gary. On a motorcycle, came to a stoplight, intoxicated or mentally ill and decompensated man with something in his hand: a pipe, tire iron, whatever it was he was holding it up yelling at things that weren't there. He came toward me, I felt he was threatening me. When he was maybe 15 feet out I said screw this, looked both ways and took off through the red light. Yes I was armed but I didn't see the need for deadly force. Had he been more coordinated it might be a different story. I was also wearing armored riding gear and a helmet, don't suspect he would have been able to do much with his weapon if he caught me off guard.

In this scenario as it's spelled out, you might have a legal foothold. I doubt it, but you might. However just from an ethical standpoint, why would you want to deal with the shooting? You're first in line, take off. If you fear for your life enough to kill, why would you do that over committing a traffic offense?

 

[IndianasFinest]

In this scenario as it's spelled out, you might have a legal foothold. I doubt it, but you might. However just from an ethical standpoint, why would you want to deal with the shooting? You're first in line, take off. If you fear for your life enough to kill, why would you do that over committing a traffic offense?

My point exactly ! Just because you can do something, doesn't always mean it is the right thing to do.

 

[Cygnus]

Yes trouble. The three posts above (and others) clearly explian why....

There's a video of a simlilar scenario that one of the advertising supporters using in his training.

 

[Fargo]

BUT... in the situation as described, has he actually attempted to enter your vehicle? He's banged your hood, he's made a demand, he's issued a threat. But he's not tried to bust out your window to get into the vehicle, hasn't tried to open the door, and without that, is he actually, legally, attempting to enter the vehicle?

Yes, from a legal standpoint he absolutely has attempted to unlawfully enter your vehicle. See the carjacking statute I cited previously. Attempted entry does not have to be by physical force, it can be by threat, fear or coercion. Are you really questioning that he wants inside your vehicle? Are you really questioning that his means are unlawful? Consider this: I walk into a bank, pull a gun and demand that they let me into the vault. Am I attempting to enter the vault; OF COURSE I AM! Just because I'm not dynamiting it does not mean I'm not trying to gain unlawful access. The hypo given by gunlawyer is legally no different.

Edit:
Further reading of your cite also exposes further legal liability:
(

The use of force is NOT necessary to prevent or terminate the attack. You have open to you the option to safely just drive away, and thereby terminate that attack, which would seem to indicate use of force was an option, not a necesity.

When the statute says: There is no duty to retreat; it mean there is no duty to retreat. Just because you can flee, makes no difference as to the necessity of using legal force in this circumstance. Look at it this way: if you were required to flee if possible rather than use deadly force, you would have a duty to retreat, would you not?

Joe

 

[Fargo]

In this scenario as it's spelled out, you might have a legal foothold. I doubt it, but you might. However just from an ethical standpoint, why would you want to deal with the shooting? You're first in line, take off. If you fear for your life enough to kill, why would you do that over committing a traffic offense?

Legal hassle aside, how do your ethics feel about the soccer mom and her kids who is stopped where you were when the light changes red. How do your ethics feel about her fractured skull and kids who don't have a mom now?

 

[IndianasFinest]

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?

 

[Professor Thump]

You got legal problems because you are most likely going to court. Unless the DA is generous, you will be hiring Gunlawyer to defend you. At least you have that on your side with the big guns defending you.

The threat is veiled by a window and an undependable drunk.

 

[Fargo]

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, the light being green and your ability to flee makes no difference under Indiana law. If you were required to get away because you could, you would have a duty to retreat. The statute explicitly says you have no such duty.

Joe

 

[Joe Williams]

No, the light being green and your ability to flee makes no difference under Indiana law. If you were required to get away because you could, you would have a duty to retreat. The statute explicitly says you have no such duty.

Joe

No, the law says you have no such duty if the use of force is necessary to a reasonable person. You'd have to convince a jury shooting him was the reasonable thing to do when you could have so easily just driven away.

 

[Fargo]

No, the law says you have no such duty if the use of force is necessary to a reasonable person. You'd have to convince a jury shooting him was the reasonable thing to do when you could have so easily just driven away.

So you are saying you have to flee if you can?

Joe

 

[hotfarmboy1]

If you were boxed in, I would say it would OK, but not when you can easily pull away.

This is what I would say. But if I were boxed in, I'd show him the gun first and hope he'd go away. If that didn't work, I'd pull the trigger. But if not boxed in and could escape, I'd floor the gas and get away.

 

[mitchmoore1989]

it would be the easiest thing to do, why deal with the police and courts if you do not have to?

 

[LPMan59]

it would be the easiest thing to do, why deal with the police and courts if you do not have to?

i think we all agree on this, but its NOT the question asked.

 

[Mgderf]

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.

That's my man! Reps for that, and I'd LOVE to be there to see it!

Do you have legal problems? I believe you SHOULD not, but do!

 

[danmdevries]

I will not put my life in jeopardy. I will not escalate force unless it is absolutely necessary to preserve my life. I will not shoot the man as this scenario is spelled out. I've been there, I know how I reacted and I know how I would react in the future.

Some of the posts on here sound like "I've got a gun and can't wait to find a reason to shoot someone." Shooting is my last resort. Justified or not, betcha I lose my job and have difficulty finding employment. Psychologically, I don't think I could deal with it either if I had another option out. There's no way I could be satisfied with the outcome if there were another clear exit.

In this scenario, my life is not in immediate danger. He pulls the door open or smashes out the window, then I may feel that way. But in this scenario, say I fired. For the rest of my life I would be thinking "I could have just floored it out of there". Let the cops deal with it. Get away, keep an eye on the man, call the police and be a good witness. You leave in no potential legal jeopardy, you don't get your pistol confiscated, you don't have a broken window, your eardrums are not ruptured and you have not killed anyone.

But hey, if you're looking for trouble, I'm sure it will find you.

 

[Fargo]

Some of the posts on here sound like "I've got a gun and can't wait to find a reason to shoot someone." Shooting is my last resort....

But hey, if you're looking for trouble, I'm sure it will find you.

I find your above statement rather curious. I have argued here that you COULD legally and ethically shoot him. However, I've not argued and nor have I really seen anyone else argue the you SHOULD shoot him.


Joe

 

[1032JBT]

I think you would have legal issues with this situation. As others have said, if you were blocked in and couldnt drive away or he broke your window out.......maybe, but not as described in the OP.


I have only read pages 1 and 2 so not sure on the majority of responses, but even if you were LEGALLY justified does not mean you were MORALLY justified.......there is a difference. If I had shot all the people I could have legally shot, you could probably stack them up like cordwood. Doing something just becase you legally can is often not the right reason to do it, and before anyone says anything I am not talking about OC here.

 

[LPMan59]

I will not put my life in jeopardy. I will not escalate force unless it is absolutely necessary to preserve my life. I will not shoot the man as this scenario is spelled out. I've been there, I know how I reacted and I know how I would react in the future.

Some of the posts on here sound like "I've got a gun and can't wait to find a reason to shoot someone." Shooting is my last resort. Justified or not, betcha I lose my job and have difficulty finding employment. Psychologically, I don't think I could deal with it either if I had another option out. There's no way I could be satisfied with the outcome if there were another clear exit.

In this scenario, my life is not in immediate danger. He pulls the door open or smashes out the window, then I may feel that way. But in this scenario, say I fired. For the rest of my life I would be thinking "I could have just floored it out of there". Let the cops deal with it. Get away, keep an eye on the man, call the police and be a good witness. You leave in no potential legal jeopardy, you don't get your pistol confiscated, you don't have a broken window, your eardrums are not ruptured and you have not killed anyone.

But hey, if you're looking for trouble, I'm sure it will find you.

hmmm.....

i dont understand why some of you cant answer the question as it was asked. gunlawyer asked if there would be legal trouble because you shot him. he didnt ask if you should shoot him.

 

[RockCreekRelics]

I think that I agree with Fargo on this one.It states pretty clearly that you have no duty to retreat.Would most of us here retreat if possible? Yes I would think so.The OP asked if you would have legal trouble,not wether or not you would do the ethical "right thing".My answer is: No I do not think you are in legal trouble.