Castle Law Question

[edsinger]

What states have this? I know of only FLA and MO, is there any work underway for Indiana to get one into law?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I don't know about other states, but IN has had it for almost three years.


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.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[edsinger]

Wow, I didn't even know,

+1 for Indiana!

I read it and it seems a bit muddled on the protection of property or am I not reading it right?

(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;

can you shoot someone 'stealing property? Maybe it is not the castle law I am looking for...

Protection of personal property..

 

[cubby]

i think it means that if YOU are commiting a crime, you can't use Castle Law as a defense on actions.

 

[edsinger]

Ok so does that mean I can use 'deadly force' to protect property?

 

[danielocean03]

Ok so does that mean I can use 'deadly force' to protect property?

Anyone feel free to correct me, but it's my understanding that you can here in the great state of IN. God bless the Castle Doctrine!

 

[edsinger]

Good for Indiana!

 

[LPMan59]

i am no lawyer, but i believe you can use force to stop a forcible felony....carjacking, robbery, etc

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Ok so does that mean I can use 'deadly force' to protect property?

IANAL , but I think it depends on which "property" your talking about .

"Property" being a lawn mower , I would hope not .
"Property" being your house , I would think so .

Speaking of which , anyone know the outcome of the homeowner shooting the two guys trying to enter his house in Lawrence from a few days ago ?

 

[hoosiertriangle]

You can use deadly force to stop a forcible felony as stated above. You generally cannot use deadly force to protect personal property (your car, lawn mower, etc.). Should your car be in your garage, that is a different story as most people would agree that a garage is part of your "curtilage."

 

[Kirk Freeman]

ed, please understand that the term "Castle Law" is a corruption of the "Castle Doctrine" that was applied at common law. Castle Doctrine was an exception to the duty to retreat before deadly force could be used.

The term "castle law" is political and has no meaning after the NRA and our good friends in the Media ravaged and blurred the definition. It was come to mean a catch-all of abolishing the duty to retreat, civil immunity, inter alia. It should be jettisoned at once.

Before discussing this, it is most helpful to take off our shoes and define our terms.

However, I'm first going to ask you, what do you think "Castle Law" means?

 

[edsinger]

I did make a mistake, it was the castle doctrine in which I referred to. I basically wondered if one could use deadly force to protect ones property (a lawn mower is not really what I mean by that).

Example, I come home and there are thieves that have trashed my house, can I shoot them without fear of repercussion?

Texas just had a case where some thieves were shot and killed and the shooter was charged but they were dropped by the judge.

But it was doctrine not law, so that was my bad....

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Example, I come home and there are thieves that have trashed my house, can I shoot them without fear of repercussion?

Deadly force in defense of mere property is not allowed. One can use reasonable force in defense of property such as someone stealing your lawn mower and you run after them and take it back or tackle them and hold them for the police.

You come home to find "thieves that have trashed my house". Be aware that:

1. Are the thieves inside your home or outside? If inside the law includes a presumption that they are not there to sell you Girl Scout cookies, however it does not mean you should use deadly force. However, if you know that they do not mean you harm, it might get sticky for you.

2. If the thieves are off your property, call the cops and a cell phone photo if you can.

3. If the thieves are trashing your property by means of deadly force (rifles or buckets of gasoline), deadly force could be legal.

If you are looking out the window, and the neighborhood kids are throwing eggs at your house and stealing your plastic, pink flamingos, no, you cannot use deadly force. If they are throwing molotov cocktails, that is another matter.

Deadly force may be used when a reasonable person believes that he or a third party is at risk of death or serious bodily harm provided that the person is not committing or escaping from a crime, prokes unlawful action with the intent to cause bodily injury, or if he has entered into combat.

Texas just had a case where some thieves were shot and killed and the shooter was charged but they were dropped by the judge.

Ahhh, Texas. I do not know what case you are referencing, but, 1. Texas law does not apply in Indiana (see Kirk's First Law), 2. each case is different and fact dependent.

"You can in Tejas" is not a legal defense.

 

[edsinger]

I do not want to shoot anyone, but I was ignorant of Indiana law as to the use of force to protect property.

See in that Texas case it was actually a neighbor that was protecting his neoghbors property while on vacation, he saw them taking TV's out the window and he called 911 and then said "I will take care of this myself". He won the case.

 

[kludge]

Indiana never (well I shouldn't say never but Indiana Supreme Court ruled a long long time ago) had a duty to retreat.

As mentioned it was recently codified as part of a effort in several states.

 

[rambone]

God bless Indiana. I'd be interested in a list of lawsuits that have successfully used the Indiana Castle Doctrine as a defense.

 

[kludge]

I found this:

Runyan v State 1877 - this case established "no duty to retreat" in Indiana.

Runyan was a wounded and crippled Union veteran as well as a Democrat. Pressnall was a Union veteran and a Republican.
The 1876 Presidential election of Hayes/Tilden was the first chance for the Presidency for the first time since 1860. It was the first election for the South sine the end of Reconstruction.
Emotions were very high.
The results of the election were not final until a Commission declared Hayes the winner in 1877.
Pressnall had a history of bullying RUNYAN for his party affiliation. There were several near confrontations in the weeks before the election.
On Election Day as Runyan was moving about town he was verbally accosted. He borrowed a handgun. Eventually a fight broke out involving several men. Runyan shot and killed Pressnall, who was unarmed.
Runyan was convicted of murder at trial. The trial court instructed the jury on the duty to retreat.

Justice Wm. Niblick, writing for the Indiana Supreme Court, said that the ancient English doctrine of a duty to retreat had been greatly modified in America.
“Indeed, the tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when assailed.”

 

[redneckmedic]

Careful here folks.............. no matter what is on paper you are not protected from either civil or criminal arrest or trial. That is where the law become interpreted by the money makers. Do what you need to do to be safe and keep others safe, and the law or doctrine should be there as you need it.