Can you shoot him through the window?

[Denny347]

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.



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

I just looking through the eyes of our felony screeners at the prosecutors office. I doubt they would file charges of attempted car jacking. They will require more action on the part of the suspect before they file charges. If our prosecutors office is not likely to file, you don't think a grand jury isn't going to hang you out to dry? You would be amazed at the stuff they never gets filed. I've made more than one great felony arrest that the screener would not file...it's frustrating. Sure you MAY be within the law but if the prosecutor decides that no charges would be filed, you are left unprotected by the law. Not a great place to be. I've gotten a feel for how cases get screened so I avoid making arrests that I know won't get filed even if it fits within the law. If this drunk wanabe carjacker does nothing more than talk, the charges will not stick. I can arrest him for PI and that will probably be about it.

 

[Indecision]

I think you would have legal trouble. Not if you go by the black and white of the law mind you. But we live in a gray world. For all of the reasons people are saying you SHOULDN'T shoot are the reasons a jury would convict you, law or no law, people have opinions. And in this particular case, the opinion would be it was not necessary.

 

[Fargo]

I just looking through the eyes of our felony screeners at the prosecutors office. I doubt they would file charges of attempted car jacking. They will require more action on the part of the suspect before they file charges. If our prosecutors office is not likely to file, you don't think a grand jury isn't going to hang you out to dry? You would be amazed at the stuff they never gets filed. I've made more than one great felony arrest that the screener would not file...it's frustrating. Sure you MAY be within the law but if the prosecutor decides that no charges would be filed, you are left unprotected by the law. Not a great place to be. I've gotten a feel for how cases get screened so I avoid making arrests that I know won't get filed even if it fits within the law. If this drunk wanabe carjacker does nothing more than talk, the charges will not stick. I can arrest him for PI and that will probably be about it.

Denny, the problem with using that standard is that the burden of proof is exactly the opposite in the two cases. A prosecutor does not want to file a case he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden lies on the state to prove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

For a defendant asserting self-defense, it is exactly the opposite. The defendants burden of proof is fairly low, all he has to introduce is enough evidence to get the judge to give the jury instruction. At that point, it is upon the state to DISPROVE at least one of the elements of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

For the forcible felony element to be met, all the defendant has to show is that he reasonably believe a forcible felony to be being committed. Unless the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not have that belief or that it was unreasonable, then that element is satisfied. It really matters not whether the forcible felony could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Best,

Joe

 

[cce1302]

I wouldn't have waited until the light turned green. I would have started driving slowly into the intersection, and if it was clear, I would have gone.

 

[youngda9]

I believe that "legally" you can shoot. Your vehicle and yourself has been verbally threatened by a guy waving a deadly weapon.

All because the law says:
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.

However, the best option in this scenario is to drive away since you are in front, not boxed in, and the light has turned green.

You are Legally in the right to shoot...but that doesn't mean that you won't have a "legal problem" :

 

[bigray46725]

If you were boxed in I think that you wold be able to defend yourself, however if you could just drive away I think that you should not shoot...

 

[DarkLight]

Yeah, definitely legal problems to ensue. There was no threat to life and there were plenty of other options: driving away, calling cops...certainly no need to shoot...unless it progressed further and he busted through your window and moved to start beating you to death.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Did the deceased ever verbally or by his actions threaten your's or anyone else's life ?

Did the deceased ever make a move for your door handle or in some other way try to enter your vehicle ?

I don't see where a reasonable person could say yes to either so I believe in a courtroom , your gonna have trouble .

 

[AndersonIN]

Has anyone mentioned the fact that this individual is in the commission of a forcible felony which allows for you to use deadly force?

 

[Dashman010]

So, here is my

First, I would just drive away. Avoids all of the hassle and avoids me having to shoot somebody. However, from a legal standpoint, I do not think you are in jeopardy. Here's why.

IC 35-41-3-2(b) states: 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.

Looking at this portion of the statute, the question turns on the reasonableness of your actions. If the person in the vehicle HIMSELF (subjectively) reasonably believed that the person was going to smash the tire iron through the window, deadly force is authorized to prevent that unlawful entry. This is notwithstanding the fact that he can drive away, because 2(b)(2) essentially eliminates the use of the fact that he could have retreated in the reasonableness inquiry. The question is simply did the person in the car think the guy was going to smash his window to take the car. If yes, you're legal shooting him.

However, this portion of the statute doesn't even need to be used. Instead, I would use 35-47-3-2(a), which states: 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.

Here, there is no doubt, in my mind at least, that a forcible felony is attempting to be committed. IC 35-41-1-11 defines forcible felony as: "Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a human being. In Indiana, carjacking is a felony, and the guy standing outside the window with a tire iron asking if you want "some of this" and yelling for you to get out of the truck is threatening force.

Game. Set. Match.

Legal.

 

[40calPUNISHER]

Shooting him would not go well for you (him either). You could present him with your firearm as you do feel threatened and want to be ready for any kind of advance, at the same time you need to mash the gas and get moving. Next, pick up your phone and call 911, let the police (who prolly deal with him daily) handle it.

 

[Denny347]

How about drawing with the intent that he escalates it further, then out come the deadly force. You draw and give him verbal commands. I do that all the time. I draw and give verbal commands with every intent that if that person continues or escalates then I will be FORCED to fire. The closest I ever came to putting bullets into a person was a drunk guy in the city who was in the back yard of a house that was converted to apartments. It was a common back yard shared by 3-4 houses with lots of people milling around. I was in the front yard about 3 ft from the back yard when I heard shooting in the rear. I drew and ran to the gunfire. There I find this drunk felon with a pistol in his hand pointing to the ground. I yell so frigg'n loud that I lost my voice for the next few days. He had that 1000yrd stare at me but refused to drop the pistol. I was waiting for the pistol to start to come up and he was getting dropped. I took the slack out of the Glock trigger but he finally dropped it. I get the feeling that some here would have dropped him where he stood without warning. MAYBE that would pass the Grand Jury but I know I was in a great position because everyone in the area could hear me give him commands so if it ended in a shooting, it would be on him not me. Come to find out that the pistol was empty, he shot it dry. For some reason, dirtbags only keep 4-5 rds in a pistol mag, I have yet to figure that out. He is serving 20 yrs for being a serious violent felon with a firearm.

 

[Delmar]

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!

better still, if I have my dog in the truck, as I often do, I would simply crack the window and let Ziggy explain why messing with me is not a good idea.

 

[aikidoka]

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?

Yes, you could have easily drove away.

 

[LCSOSgt11]

I think that the shooter would have some problems. Given the factual scenario that the SUV is the first vehicle at the light and the light turns green, drive away. Then call the police on the drunken guy.

Of course, any situation can be construed any number of different ways.

My opinion is if there is an avenue to escape and evade, do that first. Then call the cavalry. Make sure you do call the cavalry. Sure, there may be an implied threat with the tire iron, however, in my book my .45 ACP trumps that. When you have the means to leave, do so. Then do what you can to get him arrested, not you.

We all know (or should) that if the drunk is shot and killed, the liberal whiners will come out in force, stating that the decedent was a nice guy, down on his luck, and all the rest of the BS we have heard about criminals.
Turn the tables on Mr. "Nice Guy" and get him locked up by calling the police. Also, stick around and speak with the police should they need some other information. They may see Mr. "Nice Guy" as just a drunk. You may have seen him as a drunken assailant. There is a difference.

 

[SMiller]

The guy would have to break the glass for me to shoot and that is only if I am boxed in, simple as that.


Those of you that think you have a right to shoot would have a big wake up call when the DA got ahold of you, he might send you to prison for the rest of your life, I don't care how the law reads, when a DA that is up for relection and the media get ahold of you its game over, hope that one kill was worth it. Maybe you will get lucky and all will go well, that isn't a risk I would take, as I said if I were boxed in and he had swung once and broke the glass I would drop him before he got the second swing off, that would probably be a good 4-5 shots, sitting in my car I have no worries of hitting anyone as I would be shooting up. It seems some guys on here are asking for it...

 

[Hammer]

Did the deceased ever verbally or by his actions threaten your's or anyone else's life ? Yes he did your Honor.....Ask him he will tell you himself.

Did the deceased ever make a move for your door handle or in some other way try to enter your vehicle ? Yes he did your Honor.... he was going for my door as I shot him. He will not deny it.

I don't see where a reasonable person could say yes to either so I believe in a courtroom , your gonna have trouble .

He cannot testify against you.

 

[Ryan]

you may want to secure a good lawyer. If there was any option other than shooting the person, like pulling away safely, this should be done/tried first. Last option will always be pulling the trigger, at least in the eyes of the law.

 

[Fargo]

Those of you that think you have a right to shoot would have a big wake up call when the DA got ahold of you, he might send you to prison for the rest of your life, I don't care how the law reads, when a DA that is up for relection and the media get ahold of you its game over, hope that one kill was worth it.

Hmmmm, that is a rather interesting take on a legal scenario. I would just toss out there that actually reading, much less understanding, the law might be a good thing to do but obviously I would be wrong.

As to DA's, they can't send you to prison, they have to get a jury and a judge to go along with that one. While there are certainly bad prosecutors, I have never really understood this popular belief that the DA is this omni-present force of evil who only wants to lock up innocent gun-owners but who is way too soft on real criminals. I would toss out that it might be a good idea to try to get to know your local prosecutor and try to impress upon him that gun owners are law abiding citizens.


Joe

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Is Eight pages of speculation enough yet ?


What is the answer already ??