Indiana deadly force laws

[mwingeier]

I'll start this out by saying I know that the advice I get on a forum is worth what I paid for it, but perhaps somebody can provide some clarification. In Indiana Code - Section 35-41-3-2: Use of force to protect person or property, it states the following:

"(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."

Which seems to be pretty straight forward. But then, later down in the document, it states:

"(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"

Subsection D deals with hijacking an aircraft. But you put these two together, and one says deadly force is authorized to prevent the commission of a felony, and the second section says that you cannot use deadly force when one is committing a crime. So I should shoot the guy walking into the store before he robs it because I can't shoot him while he's threatening life and robbing it?

Anyone have any clarification on this before I go to a lawyer? Thanks.

 

[VERT]

OP you are misinterpreting. A person is not justified in using force if the the person is committing or escaping the commission of a crime. In other words criminals engaging in criminal behavior are not justified in using deadly force. Per your example, a criminal goes into a store and robs it. The store owner points a gun at him. The criminal can not shoot the store owner and claim self defense.

 

[Roadie]

OP you are misinterpreting. A person is not justified in using force if the the person is committing or escaping the commission of a crime. In other words criminals engaging in criminal behavior are not justified in using deadly force. Per your example, a criminal goes into a store and robs it. The store owner points a gun at him. The criminal can not shoot the store owner and claim self defense.

Just came here to say this, but VERT beat me too it.

 

[VERT]

A more realistic example. Roadie decides to take wielding the ban hammer too seriously and decides to exert his authoritay. Since he is stalker obviously obsessed with me, he follows me to the local Waffle House. He demands my WALLET and proceeds to assault me. But since I have mad ninja skills I put the beat down on him. Now all he can do is cry like a five year old girl and since he is getting kicked around by a bald fat man decides to pull a gun. Even though Roadie is getting spanked he can't use a weapon to defend himself and claim self defense.

 

[indyjohn]

I'm here because someone said WALLET.

That being said, if any person breaks through a door (or window) into your home and you are face to face with that person, you are clear to use deadly force to stop them from proceding.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Exactly.

"(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"

The word "person" is important here. "A person is not justified in using force if the person is committing, or is escaping after the commission of a crime." This is referring to only one person, i.e. "you." You are not justified to use deadly force if you are committing a crime.

 

[CPT Nervous]

I'm here because someone said WALLET.

That being said, if any person breaks through a door (or window) into your home and you are face to face with that person, you are clear to use deadly force to stop them from proceding.

To apply the OP's question to this example, if the home intruder used deadly force against you, the homeowner, in response to your deadly force, he would not be justified.

 

[indyjohn]

To apply the OP's question to this example, if the home intruder used deadly force against you, the homeowner, in response to your deadly force, he would not be justified.

Agreed. He would not be justified, he would be dead.

 

[Roadie]

Agreed. He would not be justified, he would be dead.

"... but he was such a GOOD boy, he wouldn't have hurt nobody!"

 

[VERT]

"... but he was such a GOOD boy, he wouldn't have hurt nobody!"

Why the purple? That is what the media would have us believe. Oh and that it was the guns fault.

 

[indyjohn]

"... but he was such a GOOD boy, he wouldn't have hurt nobody!"

Why the purple? That is what the media would have us believe. Oh and that it was the guns fault.

QFT.

I'm old school, I have no patience for these liberal media pukes. Or the petty thieves that have been working through my neighborhood.

 

[HoughMade]

If you are the one committing a crime, you can't use deadly force to defend yourself while committing the crime or to escape.

...and people think lawyers only make things more complicated.

 

[HawgdawgLS]

Here is a possible example of what that part of our self defense law would prevent.

Montana "Baiting" murder | Markus Kaarma | Stand Your Ground

 

[Mgderf]

...and people think lawyers only make things more complicated.

Would it not have been a lawyer that penned it?

 

[HoughMade]

Would it not have been a lawyer that penned it?

Politicians are failed lawyers.

 

[injb]

What if you're committing a crime that has nothing at all to do with the deadly force? Let's say you're attacked while driving with a suspended license or some other misdemeanor? It doesn't seem to say that the crime has to be connected with the use of force.

 

[Fargo]

What if you're committing a crime that has nothing at all to do with the deadly force? Let's say you're attacked while driving with a suspended license or some other misdemeanor? It doesn't seem to say that the crime has to be connected with the use of force.

I believe there is a recent case on this requiring the crime in question to be related to the use of force. I will if I can find it.

 

[Fargo]

Not recent, but on point:

If subsection (d)(1) is to be taken literally, then no person may claim self defense if that person at the time he acts is coincidentally committing some criminal offense. For example, possession of a marijuana cigarette or the failure to have filed one's income tax returns could deny one the defense no matter how egregious, or unrelated, the circumstances that prompted the action. Read as a whole, the statute refutes such a construction. Its intent is to preclude the defense where it is sought by one who was actively engaged in the perpetration of a crime, and that criminal activity produced the confrontation wherein the force was employed. Our supreme court has, at least inferentially, supported this construction in Jones v. State (1986) Ind., 491 N.E.2d 999. There the court held that whether the defendant was justified in firing a sawed-off shotgun in self defense was properly a question for the jury, [even though possession of such a weapon is a felony pursuant to IC 35-47-5-4.1].

Harvey v. State, 652 N.E.2d 876

 

[Fargo]

And from the IN Supreme Ct:

We conclude that because a defendant is committing a crime at the time he is allegedly defending himself is not sufficient standing alone to deprive the defendant of the defense of self-defense. Rather, there must be an immediate causal connection between the crime and the confrontation. Stated differently, the evidence must show that but for the defendant committing a crime, the confrontation resulting in injury to the victim would not have occurred. Cf. Roche v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1115, 1124 (Ind. 1997) ("A person who kills while committing or attempting to commit a robbery is a person who kills while committing a crime and so the defense of self-defense is not available.").

Mayes v. State, 744 N.E.2d 390, 394 (Ind. 2001)

 

[ruger1800]

If you are the one committing a crime, you can't use deadly force to defend yourself while committing the crime or to escape.

...and people think lawyers only make things more complicated.

thats what lawyers do, twist the truth to make the criminal look like the victim.