I asked myself an interesting question today, help wanted.

[Joe Williams]

snip

(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;



snip
I do actually try learn from them.

So do I, and since I've never paid much attention to subsection F (not planning on being a criminal ) I just did. That would seem to cover a person in the situation I laid out. Indiana law certainly has it's reasonable side!

 

[dmorrow23]

ok

 

[Armed Eastsider]

Pointing firearm at another person
Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.
As added by P.L.296-1995, SEC.2.
I truly believe the charge should be the same if the firearm is loaded or unloaded.

 

[finity]

The answer to the OP's question is NO but the real reason hasn't been given as of yet.

IN law allows the use of "reasonable force" to prevent the theft of property:

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a)
(b)
(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.

and

IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.

(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily
injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.

IN defines "deadly force" as follows:

IC 35-41-1-7
"Deadly force" defined
Sec. 7. "Deadly force" means force that creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.

IN law also allows as an exception to the "pointing a firearm" law the authorized use of reasonable force by the above laws:

IC 35-47-4-3
Pointing firearm at another person
Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.

So from reading the above four laws in conjunction one would THINK that the legislature defined the act of "pointing a firearm" as "reasonable foce" but the act of discharging the firearm as "deadly force". You also think that it would be legal to point a firearm at some to prevent them from stealing your stuff (you can't actually shoot them unless you are otherwise justified in using deadly force but that's not pertinent to the scenario).

As was already mentioned above a LEO can point his gun at someone to prevent their stealing someones stuff. As you can see the above is the law that grants them the authority to do that. You would think that the above law would apply equally to LEO's & non-LEO's alike, right? Well, you'd be wrong.

According to the IN court of appeals they found that the pointing of a firearm is not "reasonable force" but instead "deadly force" in direct opposition to the wording of the above laws:

Converted file par

It looks as though there is NO POSSIBLE SCENARIO in which pointing a firearm could be just "reasonable force". Have any LEO's been convicted of using deadly force (i.e. pointing a firearm) when subduing someone for mere theft? I haven't heard of any.

Now, if anyone knows if this is any different than the above case from 2001 states then I would be glad to know about it.