Not justified in using force if... (IC 35-41-3-2)

[NapalmFTW]

I was bored and reading IC 35-41-3-2 again...

This bit leapt out at me:
(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;


"a person" here is what...? The person using force for self defence?

So basically if I have committed a crime and the loss prevention officer is trying to detain me or beat me up for stealing a pack of gum from Walmart I am not justified in kneecapping him?

I think I just answered my own question.

David.

 

[geronimojoe85]

Yeah, your gum stealing days are over

 

[NapalmFTW]

Yeah, your gum stealing days are over

DANGIT!!!

It's what keeps me going man...... I just can't go back to being gum-free... they came out of the trees man....

 

[geronimojoe85]

I don't know how they do it across the pond, but here we PAY for our gum

 

[griffin]

This type of caveat is not uncommon in state firearms laws. Where this can come into play for the average law-abiding citizen is something like this.

You are CCing at church, and in your state it is unlawful to do so (or maybe lawful only if you have permission from the pastor, priest, or ruling body, which for the sake of this discussion, you don't). Maybe his ex-wife goes there, or maybe he just hates religion/religious people, but bad guy comes in with weapon during service to harm/kill. You stop him using your CCed pistol.

Because you were unlawfully carrying--you were committing a crime--according to a straight reading of the law you were not justified in using that force for self-defense.

Some states also have laws that cover these exceptions. Mine doesn't.

Something to think about.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Hey! That might mean ...

... that it's illegal to shoot a sunday-school teacher in the back of the head! Urrr, that is, if in Indiana. May be open season on Bible-clutchers in other states.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Substitute Defendant when you read "person" and see if that makes more sense.

1. Don't steal gum.

2. If you do, just run like the clappers and don't kneecap anyone. Let's not turn a divertable misdemeanor into a felony.

 

[jedi]

I was bored and reading IC 35-41-3-2 again...

This bit leapt out at me:
(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;


"a person" here is what...? The person using force for self defence?

So basically if I have committed a crime and the loss prevention officer is trying to detain me or beat me up for stealing a pack of gum from Walmart I am not justified in kneecapping him?

I think I just answered my own question.

David.

Short answer is if you committ and illegal act (ie. steal, rob, etc..) the "self defense" statue of Indiana Law is null and void for you.

So you can not go into Wal-Mart steal a pack of gum and run out and in the process the Indiana State Police officer sees you and pulls his gun out on you and yells STOP. You can't pull out yoru gun and fire on him claiming self-defense as you started the chain of actions by first stealing the gum.

Same if say John Doe pulls a gun on your and yells STOP after seeing you do your crime. If you shoot John Doe you can not use the self-defense status. It is null & void since you started the chain of events by committing an illgeal act to begin with.

Note for John Doe the crime you have committed, are committing MUST BE a felony become he can take deadfly force action on you (ie. pull out a weapon).

This type of caveat is not uncommon in state firearms laws. Where this can come into play for the average law-abiding citizen is something like this.

You are CCing at church, and in your state it is unlawful to do so (or maybe lawful only if you have permission from the pastor, priest, or ruling body, which for the sake of this discussion, you don't). Maybe his ex-wife goes there, or maybe he just hates religion/religious people, but bad guy comes in with weapon during service to harm/kill. You stop him using your CCed pistol.

Because you were unlawfully carrying--you were committing a crime--according to a straight reading of the law you were not justified in using that force for self-defense.

Some states also have laws that cover these exceptions. Mine doesn't.

Something to think about.

In Indiana we can OC or CC inside a church. A church (by itself) is not a place where IN law does not allow firearms. Just wanted to toss this out there so people from Indiana are not confused since the poster is from elsewhere.

-Jedi

 

[kludge]

This type of caveat is not uncommon in state firearms laws. Where this can come into play for the average law-abiding citizen is something like this.

You are CCing at church, and in your state it is unlawful to do so (or maybe lawful only if you have permission from the pastor, priest, or ruling body, which for the sake of this discussion, you don't). Maybe his ex-wife goes there, or maybe he just hates religion/religious people, but bad guy comes in with weapon during service to harm/kill. You stop him using your CCed pistol.

Because you were unlawfully carrying--you were committing a crime--according to a straight reading of the law you were not justified in using that force for self-defense.

I don't think that's how it's interpreted. IANAL, maybe one of them will comment on this.

In the scenario you mention, the use of deadly force is unrelated to the crime that was committed, ergo, use of deadly force is allowed.

You could still be prosecuted for carrying without a license though.

The statute is to prevent you claiming self defense when someone else is actually the person who is defending him/herself from your felonious action.

 

[singlestacksig]

LEMON v. STATE - July 6, 2007.