Indiana's Castle Doctrine

[DoggyDaddy]

Looks like a lot of good advice to me.
Kirk Freeman is even a lawyer, so he does know a little bit about the law.

And Ark's advise stems from the saying, Every Bullet Has A Lawyer Attached to It.
Right now there is a woman being sued after shooting to DEFEND a police officer.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...icer-shooting-assailant-now-getting-sued.html

And I hear he lives in a castle... so there's that.

 

[JettaKnight]

Hey guys!

I purchased a firearm about a year ago for personal protection of myself and my home and recently I was told by the person who lives next door to us that his home was broken into and his guns and other items were stolen. My friend and I just moved into this house last month and hearing that has made me curious about what exactly the lCastle Doctrine allows and doesn't allow.

Hi Sora,
Don't take this wrong way, but what sort of training have you done in that year? Trips to the gun range to shoot stationary paper? Training classes with live fire? Training classes with airsoft? What about verbal self defense?

Getting a gun for protection is a great step, but it's tool not a talisman. And like any tool, it requires some practice and exercise to be proficient and not dangerous.

My first question is if I'm here and I hear some one trying to bust down my door and enter my home and he does, am I legally allowed to shoot and defend my home or do I have to wait and see if he truly is a threat and has a weapon on him? God forbid I ever am put in this situation but I just want to make sure I know the Law and not get myself in trouble for trying to protect my house and myself.

I think what some might have latched onto, so to speak, is, "am I legally allowed to..." It's not wrong, per se, it just doesn't convey the right mindset - that we want to avoid shooting someone unless we have to.

So you mention, "a weapon on him"... well, you're a college student, and not knowing your size, but someone breaking down your door knowing you're on the other side... their own physical power over you is a weapon.

If a person is advancing on you despite being warned and seeing your gun... well, I'm likely to shoot in that situation because I know it's quite possible that I could be overcome, disarmed, and killed.


These are all the sort of scenarios that get discussed and played out in training.

And like others have said, "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" are more political buzzwords than actual practice - that's why it triggered some spidey senses in some members.

Second question is if I'm not at home but my friend/roomie who lives here with me is home and the above situation happens, is[sic] he allowed to use my firearm to protect the house and himself at all?

Short answer: It makes no difference who owns the firearm, it's just who pull the trigger.

Thanks!

Your welcome. And people on INGO are really good natured and want to help you as much as possible. So please don't read any animosity, snark, or exclusion into any post. We're here to help.

 

[cosermann]

Hey Sora,

The other question your neighbor's experience (i.s. his firearms stolen) raises is - how am I/should I be securing firearm(s) in my home?

Maybe that's something you're already doing.

Welcome to INGO.

 

[HoughMade]

My first question is if I'm here and I hear some one trying to bust down my door and enter my home and he does, am I legally allowed to shoot and defend my home or do I have to wait and see if he truly is a threat and has a weapon on him? God forbid I ever am put in this situation but I just want to make sure I know the Law and not get myself in trouble for trying to protect my house and myself.

I'll give you a straight answer. It depends. How sure are you that the guy is "trying to bust down" the door and isn't a drunk college student who got the wrong address? Do you want to kill that person and deal with the years of legal hassle even if it turns out that it was reasonable? Maybe it's a police officer serving a warrant...with the wrong address. Want to kill him? It's a good way to end up dead...even if you were perfectly within your rights. I could come up with all kinds of crazy scenarios, but the world is a crazy place. It's great to study what the law is; we all should and I encourage you to follow though on that. However, what the law is but one factor in determining what you should do in a given situation.

MY rule, for myself, not giving advice, is that I am not going to shoot unless I can see the attacker and am reasonably sure he's an attacker. Should the situation arise, might I violate my own rule? Sure, but that's where I start. Unleashing bullets through a door does not comport with safe gun-handling.

Second question is if I'm not at home but my friend/roomie who lives here with me is home and the above situation happens, if he allowed to use my firearm to protect the house and himself at all?

Is your friend/roomie allowed to legally possess a firearm? In Indiana a gun is not registered and, therefore, is not restricted to the owner as the person who can use it. However, there are other laws that affect whether a person may possess the gun. There is no licensing requirement for one's own home. I can't give you or your roomie legal advice about your specific situation as I do not know all the facts (and I have no $$ in hand). However, for myself, I am not comfortable having a gun accessible to someone else for self-defense purposes unless I am comfortable with that person's training and knowledge of the law. That's me, not law.

...and please don't be touchy about this. You would have no way of knowing this, but some of the issues you raise are "hot button" issues in the gun community. We (INGO) has no history with you and many are wary, in the current climate, of those who may just trying to get gun owners to say incorrect or inflammatory things to make some sort of splash on social media or something. It's no accusation against you. A question about shooting through a door may be seen by some people as trying to illicit "shoot first, ask questions later" posturing in answers. We are not fond of the notion that some people think that's what we are about, so even if it's not an accurate assessment of the questions, we can get a little prickly if it even seems to go down that road. Your questions were not outrageous, but there are those who would just love it if gun owners can be portrayed as "blood thirsty" or "just looking to shoot someone." We are not anxious to give these people fodder.

...then there's the fact that some of us are just crotchety, socially inept, loaners with operator beards who just can't take anything at face value and don't know how to pretend to be normal in front of new people...

Welcome. I hope you stick around.

 

[chemteach]

...then there's the fact that some of us are just crotchety, socially inept, loaners with operator beards who just can't take anything at face value and don't know how to pretend to be normal in front of new people...

Have we met?

 

[rhino]

...then there's the fact that some of us are just crotchety, socially inept, loaners with operator beards who just can't take anything at face value and don't know how to pretend to be normal in front of new people...

May I please borrow $20?

 

[HoughMade]

May I please borrow $20?

No. I need to be aloan now.

 

[rhino]

No. I need to be aloan now.

Well played, sir.

 

[Libertarian01]

I guess I have to throw in a little bit of of wrench here. I will respectfully disagree with one of the ideas put forth by Ark. Ark said to ask, "Do I have no other option..."

That is what I disagree with - vehemently! We DO have stand your ground here. We do NOT have to run, we do NOT have to keep backing up, we do not have to call 911 first, we do not have to send flares up, etc.

We are not to have "NO other option." We should always avoid shooting someone, but this is the ideology of the gungrabbers that, "Well, you could have done X instead." Malarkey.

To Sora, your best bet is to read all of the information you can on here, read the laws, take a class, then ask more specific questions. Just understand that the single most common legal response from any attorney will be "it depends." Which it truly does. Every single situation has many broad brush similarities but also many subtle but important differences. As an example, how many drinks did you have before you shot someone? All other things being equal your judgement could be questioned if you were drunk. So, it depends.

One of the four (4) rules of gun safety is, "Know your target and what is beyond it." Is the "attacker" truly an attacker or simply an elderly person with Alzheimers who is confused and trying to get in your home? A shoot like this was discussed a few years ago and while the shoot was "legal" the shooter is living with guilt for the rest of his life.

Keep learning. I know I am. Take some of the responses on here that might seem rude with a HUGE grain of salt. A very friendly answer face to face could be typed exactly the same way and come off wrong. We lose facial expression, voice inflection, body language when talking on the net.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Ark]

I suppose my attitude is "how close to that line do you feel like walking?".

I'm in favor of those laws, and I think imposing a legal duty to retreat from force is a bad idea. But, in the real world, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove and articulate in court and convince a jury to believe! What sounds better to you: "I shouted at him, he kept coming, I shut the door, he broke down the door, and I was forced to shoot him because I had no other option to preserve my life", or "I knew that in Indiana I could shoot him, so I shot him"? What if you're in Marion County or Monroe County and the prosecutor decides to throw a spread of charges at you? If the jury thinks you're a vindictive bloodthirsty a-hole who jumped at the chance to kill someone, don't you think they'll be inclined to compromise and settle for a manslaughter charge because they don't like you and don't like your attitude? Or, even if you are acquitted, do you really want to be the next George Zimmerman, technically free but everyone around you believes you're a murderer who got off on a technicality?

Everyone has their line, and I'm not going to tell you yours. I prefer to stand a few feet back from the edge. To me, there's also a moral element: I don't want to live the rest of my life knowing I killed someone just because I could. That's how you get PTSD. I can live with doing what was absolutely necessary to protect myself or someone else. I don't want to know in my heart that, given the excuse, I leapt at the opportunity to finally get my gun off and not be punished.

Also there's a lot of cool stuff I would like to spend money on that isn't lawyer fees.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I suppose my attitude is "how close to that line do you feel like walking?".

I'm in favor of those laws, and I think imposing a legal duty to retreat from force is a bad idea. But, in the real world, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove and articulate in court and convince a jury to believe! What sounds better to you: "I shouted at him, he kept coming, I shut the door, he broke down the door, and I was forced to shoot him because I had no other option to preserve my life", or "I knew that in Indiana I could shoot him, so I shot him"? What if you're in Marion County or Monroe County and the prosecutor decides to throw a spread of charges at you? If the jury thinks you're a vindictive bloodthirsty a-hole who jumped at the chance to kill someone, don't you think they'll be inclined to compromise and settle for a manslaughter charge because they don't like you and don't like your attitude? Or, even if you are acquitted, do you really want to be the next George Zimmerman, technically free but everyone around you believes you're a murderer who got off on a technicality?

Everyone has their line, and I'm not going to tell you yours. I prefer to stand a few feet back from the edge. To me, there's also a moral element: I don't want to live the rest of my life knowing I killed someone just because I could. That's how you get PTSD. I can live with doing what was absolutely necessary to protect myself or someone else. I don't want to know in my heart that, given the excuse, I leapt at the opportunity to finally get my gun off and not be punished.

Also there's a lot of cool stuff I would like to spend money on that isn't lawyer fees.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ark again." Drat!

I think you and Libertarian are both right. CAN you? YES! ABSOLUTELY! SHOULD you? Maybe. Maybe not. It all depends on the situation.

The best fight is the fight you successfully avoid.

 

[Libertarian01]

I suppose my attitude is "how close to that line do you feel like walking?".

I'm in favor of those laws, and I think imposing a legal duty to retreat from force is a bad idea. But, in the real world, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove and articulate in court and convince a jury to believe! What sounds better to you: "I shouted at him, he kept coming, I shut the door, he broke down the door, and I was forced to shoot him because I had no other option to preserve my life", or "I knew that in Indiana I could shoot him, so I shot him"? What if you're in Marion County or Monroe County and the prosecutor decides to throw a spread of charges at you? If the jury thinks you're a vindictive bloodthirsty a-hole who jumped at the chance to kill someone, don't you think they'll be inclined to compromise and settle for a manslaughter charge because they don't like you and don't like your attitude? Or, even if you are acquitted, do you really want to be the next George Zimmerman, technically free but everyone around you believes you're a murderer who got off on a technicality?

Everyone has their line, and I'm not going to tell you yours. I prefer to stand a few feet back from the edge. To me, there's also a moral element: I don't want to live the rest of my life knowing I killed someone just because I could. That's how you get PTSD. I can live with doing what was absolutely necessary to protect myself or someone else. I don't want to know in my heart that, given the excuse, I leapt at the opportunity to finally get my gun off and not be punished.

Also there's a lot of cool stuff I would like to spend money on that isn't lawyer fees.

I like this response much better than your first one. It is much more nuanced and reasoned out than the other one.

This is what, I believe, should be a good response to a person on here who doesn't understand the weight of the question they are asking.

When you ask, "What sounds better to you?" Here is my answer, "I appreciate that you officers have a job to do, and I really do want to help. However, I won't be saying anything until I have the opportunity to speak with my attorney and have him present at any questioning." This single phrase alone cuts the odds of even going to trial by a large margin.

Also, consider answering this question from a prosecutor, "Well, Mr. Ark, if you shouted at him and you closed the door why didn't you simply retreat through the back of the home? Why did you suddenly want to shoot Mr. Meanie?" It's not the same thing but a friend of mine fired an employee. She had a documented history of issues. When they were before the judge he was asked, "Why didn't you fire her the first time?" When you keep making backing up for not wanting to shoot someone (which I agree with 100%) you may unknowingly step on another legal landmine.

Either way, we both agree that shooting someone is NOT a desired outcome to any conflict or event.

And as bad as exercising that force is, I also believe in the olde adage, "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six."

Regards,

Doug

 

[Ark]

End of the day, everyone has to make their own judgement call in their own lives based on their own unique situation. It can (and will) be second-guessed in court all day long, but when the bad thing is happening you just gotta make the best decision you can and survive to the next day.

Prosecutors have a bottomless toolbox of tactics and techniques to throw at you, which they can peruse at their leisure and select to use against you just as a mechanic selects the right wrench to fit a given nut. It is impossible to account for everything ahead of time. Just gotta do the best you can and have truth on your side.

 

[churchmouse]

End of the day, everyone has to make their own judgement call in their own lives based on their own unique situation. It can (and will) be second-guessed in court all day long, but when the bad thing is happening you just gotta make the best decision you can and survive to the next day.

Prosecutors have a bottomless toolbox of tactics and techniques to throw at you, which they can peruse at their leisure and select to use against you just as a mechanic selects the right wrench to fit a given nut. It is impossible to account for everything ahead of time. Just gotta do the best you can and have truth on your side.

"Winner"

 

[Thor]

And like Elvis the OP has left the building.

 

[churchmouse]

Yup.......you big meanies......

 

[HoughMade]

And like Elvis the OP has left the building.

...which always makes me wonder if the paranoid thoughts I referred to earlier were spot on.

 

[mtgasten]

...which always makes me wonder if the paranoid thoughts I referred to earlier were spot on.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[OutdoorDad]

Why would one go to all the trouble of setting up an account and an avitar, only to post 4 times and flee?

Sometimes the interwebs make no sense at all.

 

[LP1]

...which always makes me wonder if the paranoid thoughts I referred to earlier were spot on.

Had the OP been trying to goad the gun nuts into saying something stupid, I doubt that he/she would have complained about the way he/she was treated. Rather, they probably would have submitted further bait, which they didn't.

I have visited other forums (firearms and otherwise) to ask a question, and then I don't return for a long time, if at all, and there were no nefarious intentions.