Fearing For Your Life Does Not Justify Deadly Force

[Selfpreservation]

One being 'in-fear-for-their-life' can be interpreted in many ways, but the point being in a viable self-defense situation, there must also be 'mode' (example, a weapon present) and 'opportunity' or 'intent' which can include things such as proximity, 'visual-intent' (such as weapon raised or held in a an aggressive or threatening manner), etc.

On the flip-side, it may not be 'fear' that is the issue, but rather the visible-intent of the aggressor that justifies the response.

You are exactly right! I know there's a lot of posts to read here, but that's what I have been saying through out this thread.

However, if people don't want to take my word for it, with just a little time working their google-fu people will see what you and I are saying is pretty standard in the United States. The verbiage may change slightly depending on the AO, but the point is the same. For instance, some use jeopardy instead of intent, or capability instead of ability. However the it's the same three prong test.

Here's just a few links that took about 5 minutes to find discussing this topic.

https://ccwsafe.com/blog/core-elements-of-deadly-force-intent "... [FONT=&quot]three core elements of an attack that should be present before a self-defense response is legally warranted, which are ability, opportunity, and intent." (BTW, this site is run by an attorney for those who mentioned me being a cop doesn't give me the experience and/or knowledge to accurately speak on this subject)[/FONT]

https://www.integratedskillsgroup.com/blog/bring-a-knife-to-a-gunfight "[FONT=&quot]If the following three criteria [/FONT]aren't[FONT=&quot] met, you [/FONT]don't[FONT=&quot] have a lethal force encounter. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Motive to kill or maim, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Capability to kill or maim, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Opportunity to kill or maim."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eZjhSg4J8U&t=70s This video does a nice job breaking each element down.
[/FONT]

 

[Amishman44]

You are exactly right! I know there's a lot of posts to read here, but that's what I have been saying through out this thread.

However, if people don't want to take my word for it, with just a little time working their google-fu people will see what you and I are saying is pretty standard in the United States. The verbiage may change slightly depending on the AO, but the point is the same. For instance, some use jeopardy instead of intent, or capability instead of ability. However the it's the same three prong test.

Here's just a few links that took about 5 minutes to find discussing this topic.

https://ccwsafe.com/blog/core-elements-of-deadly-force-intent "... [FONT=&amp]three core elements of an attack that should be present before a self-defense response is legally warranted, which are ability, opportunity, and intent." (BTW, this site is run by an attorney for those who mentioned me being a cop doesn't give me the experience and/or knowledge to accurately speak on this subject)[/FONT]

https://www.integratedskillsgroup.com/blog/bring-a-knife-to-a-gunfight "[FONT=&amp]If the following three criteria [/FONT]aren't[FONT=&amp] met, you [/FONT]don't[FONT=&amp] have a lethal force encounter. [/FONT][FONT=&amp]Motive to kill or maim, [/FONT][FONT=&amp]Capability to kill or maim, [/FONT][FONT=&amp]Opportunity to kill or maim."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eZjhSg4J8U&t=70s This video does a nice job breaking each element down.
[/FONT]

Thank you for the positive feedback...and those links you provided do provide a great deal of information regarding the key elements to an attack that either justify or nullify one's 'right' to the use of deadly force in a self-defense situation.

It's amazing to me, in the number of individuals whom I speak with, just how difficult it is or can be to get some people to actually 'think' in these terms, or to have this perspective. And, to go along with it, it's also amazing just how naive (showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment) some people can be in their actual understanding of what is 'right' and 'wrong' in the implementing of their right to defend themselves, or a loved-one, who may be under attack or threat thereof...and to get them to understand that utilizing a weapon (aka, up to and including a firearm) is a last-resort and not a first-choice issue!

Indiana has laws that allow for the use-of-force, up to an including the use of deadly force (if necessary) in protecting one's self and/or a loved-one from an active and valid threat of imminent grave bodily injury and/or death...and it is, sometimes, necessary! The key is to not only read it, but work to understand it such that, if action is actually needed, in order to save yourself or a loved one's life, one better understands the parameters in which that force can be applied. The scary part is when people don't even understand the parameters to start with...

https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-35-criminal-law-and-procedure/in-code-sect-35-41-3-2.html

Another instance where knowledge can go a long way in the area of self-preservation...

 

[Herr Vogel]

https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-35-criminal-law-and-procedure/in-code-sect-35-41-3-2.html

So, for want of a better place to ask, here's my (paraphrased) understanding of Indiana self defense law.

I would be justified in using force, be justified in using deadly force, and would not have an obligation to retreat if I was defending myself or someone else from bodily attack, the commission of a forcible felony, or an attack on a home, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
I would be justified in using force, but would not be justified in using deadly force, and would have an obligation to retreat, if I was defending the property of myself or someone else that was not a home, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

So to put that in practical terms, if I'm walking down the street and someone comes at me with a sledgehammer, I would be justified in shooting them. If I'm in a car sitting at a stoplight and someone starts pounding the car with a sledgehammer, I would be justified in shooting them. However, if I found someone in the parking lot pounding on my unoccupied car with a sledgehammer, I would not be justified in shooting them, at least not until the point they turn that sledgehammer on myself or someone else. Is this assessment close enough to correct?

Furthermore, how far does 'curtilage' extend? For example, if I find someone vandalizing an outbuilding on the corner of the property opposite the house, is that curtilage, or property?

And yeah, I'm sure the standard disclaimers apply about none of this being legal advice. I also understand that there are a great deal of considerations beyond 'is it legally justifiable' that go into the decision, with avoidance, de-escelation, and so forth being preferable alternatives. I'm just wondering where the letter of the law lays.

 

[Amishman44]

So, for want of a better place to ask, here's my (paraphrased) understanding of Indiana self defense law.

I would be justified in using force, be justified in using deadly force, and would not have an obligation to retreat if I was defending myself or someone else from bodily attack, the commission of a forcible felony, or an attack on a home, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

I would be justified in using force, but would not be justified in using deadly force, and would have an obligation to retreat, if I was defending the property of myself or someone else that was not a home, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

So to put that in practical terms, if I'm walking down the street and someone comes at me with a sledgehammer, I would be justified in shooting them. If I'm in a car sitting at a stoplight and someone starts pounding the car with a sledgehammer, I would be justified in shooting them. However, if I found someone in the parking lot pounding on my unoccupied car with a sledgehammer, I would not be justified in shooting them, at least not until the point they turn that sledgehammer on myself or someone else. Is this assessment close enough to correct?

Furthermore, how far does 'curtilage' extend? For example, if I find someone vandalizing an outbuilding on the corner of the property opposite the house, is that curtilage, or property?

And yeah, I'm sure the standard disclaimers apply about none of this being legal advice. I also understand that there are a great deal of considerations beyond 'is it legally justifiable' that go into the decision, with avoidance, de-escelation, and so forth being preferable alternatives. I'm just wondering where the letter of the law lays.

Great question(s)...and well-worded, too, I might add!

I believe a LOT of your question, along with the response to your question, often ends up in the bowls of 'interpretation' and the viewpoint of the prosecutor under who's jurisdiction you responded to said aggressor / attacker / assailant...and the exact circumstances that transpired.

It's been said to me, that if I'm in said vehicle, I have not only the right to defend myself, and loved one's, but also a responsibility if the said assailant gains entry into said vehicle, putting myself at direct risk of physical injury or worse.

I've also been told that if I'm not in said vehicle, and where it's simply a destruction-of-property incident (one that's NOT a home), that I'm better off letting Mr. A.-H. Assailant just having his way with the material item(s), and then letting the legal system have their way with him along with working with the insurance company to repair or replace said vehicle.

Another way to say it is if you're the recipient in an active car-jacking, and you're being threatened (as well as if there are others in the vehicle with you) that's also a direct and viable threat against your person...but if they're simply stealing the car from your driveway, that's what insurance is for!

It's the short-n-simple answer...but hopefully it provides an adequate baseline as a response.

The most important thing, and this is where many don't get into, is to not only understand their state/local laws (including use-of-force) but also to have thought a few of these principles/guidelines out such that if an incident occurs, some decisions have already been made (at least in your own mind) so you know how you will respond ahead of time.

That's a good defense mechanism that goes both ways...in knowing when to defend yourself...as well as in knowing when to just let-it-go.