self defense laws

[dburkhead]

A break in would be acceptable use in terms of permission. Taking a gun out and confronting the neighborhood ne're-d'ells who are walking down the street and yelling would not.

The original poster specifically asks about blowing away bullies on the property. The way he seems to phrase it he would run inside, get the gun, run back out and shoot. Seems to me running inside, locking the door, dialing 911 and waiting with the loaded gun would be appropriate as there is no longer an immediate threat but only a potential threat . . . until someone comes through the door.

Well, yeah, but that applies equally well to adults as to minors.

Incidentally, Indiana Law (I'd have to look up the relevant section) includes "curtilage" (fancy word for "yard," more or less) in the area in which one has not duty to retreat and in which deadly force is authorized to prevent unlawful entry. However, per Ciyou's book, the case law on that is a bit thin and actually shooting someone on the basis of that alone, without other factors making the threat real, would be legally rather dangerous.

 

[melensdad]

Well, yeah, but that applies equally well to adults as to minors.

Incidentally, Indiana Law (I'd have to look up the relevant section) includes "curtilage" (fancy word for "yard," more or less) in the area in which one has not duty to retreat and in which deadly force is authorized to prevent unlawful entry. However, per Ciyou's book, the case law on that is a bit thin and actually shooting someone on the basis of that alone, without other factors making the threat real, would be legally rather dangerous.

Yup. But it also requires a real threat to life/limb.

Again referring to the O.P.'s scenarios, it could be easily argued that a credible threat does not exist.

 

[L-W-R-C]

ok what if some one breaks in and they have a wepon and start to come towards me.i have permission to have and defend my self with the firearm and i feel life/limb threatened?

 

[melensdad]

That would seem to be pretty cut and dried self defense.

 

[techres]

Where did you get these situations from? Your ideas seem just fine but I think in all of them you'd be justified in approaching the offender(s) and even with some sort of weapon on you.

Each is a case I have read about in the last 2 years. And providing he has a gun friendly DA or one that is very tied to the law (as he should be), then the defender will be fine. If he gets an unfriendly DA, some of the cases can go borderline and then go bad.

I do agree it's best not to test the law in an open courtroom but in most of the posts so far, it seems some people have been a little too cautious.

There is too cautious, true. I can think of good examples of that too, but they are less frequent. I would start, strongly, with understanding the risks that apply and take them to heart. You may win the case, you may not, but in either case the court costs will likely take your home.

I was trying to make that point clear.

There is no duty to retreat. There is no penalty for getting involved in a situation that turns ugly. You walk into a gas station that's being held up. You aren't going to be charged after you shoot the robber who is pointing a gun at the cashier even though you walked right into him and it wasn't him that came to you to rob you personally. You have the right to fire. He doesn't have the right to fire on you, even if you draw on him. Once you or anyone else is committing a forcible felony, you can't justify self defense in any way shape or form.

Those are true. But you walk up on a gas station, get in your car, and some guy starts yelling smack. You get back out of your car, yell smack back, and watch them pull a knife. You shoot them in self defense and guess what happens:

1. Witnesses saw you two arguing and then you shot him.
2. DA saw you escalate a bad situation into worse.
3. Jury watched you decide NOT to leave a situation and then claim to have been in fear for your life.

You may or may not go to jail for manslaughter, but you will very likely go to court.

Should have just driven off. Same goes for a variation where you should have just stayed in the house and waited with a shotgun for the cops instead of going outside.

Your best bet is to just read the laws and get clarification. That way when you encounter a situation, you can decide for yourself if you are in fear of your life. You won't have time to think about the story of the old man, the lady, the truck driver, etc. and remember their outcomes, much less the details.

Laws are vital, but case law and actual decisions are just as vital since they are the meat of the law and how it will be decided. That is why I offered my IN gun law book for him to read.

I'd take techres up on his offer. Sounds like a good deal.

I am sure he will, and we are talking about it already.

 

[techres]

ok what if some one breaks in and they have a wepon and start to come towards me.i have permission to have and defend my self with the firearm and i feel life/limb threatened?

Yes! And the word you are looking for is not really "permission". Each of us is granted the right of self defense by our Creator. The 2nd Ammendment simply affirms and protects that God given right from the stupidity of law makers and "do gooders".

The law itself simply acts to clarify when you are acting in self defense and when you are not. Some of those laws are poorly written and you simply need to know how they can apply to ruin your life.

But you do not get "permission" to shoot someone. No one can grant you what is already your right by birth.

If you are presented with a situation where you life is truly at risk, then you only act in self defense and fight with everything you have at your disposal. And you will only pay a price if you go beyond the legal and/or sensible boundaries of self defense.

To plagarize a line from another text, "You can kill in self defense, all else is commentary. Now, go and learn the commentary."

 

[L-W-R-C]

yes,but people said earlier that permission is needed to have the gun by a guardian or else i am a minor and am not allowed to posses a handgun by myself with no supervision.

 

[Sinner Man]

Your gas station example- You are missing one KEY point- he yells, you yell, he pulls knife, you defend yourself. You aren't the escalator. He created the situation- one of the important parts but yelling is not a big deal so neither is your yelling back, whether you chose to get out of your car to do so or not. When you get out, you are no serious threat to him- you are simply an equal to him at that point- equally (and perhaps stupidly) engaged in his game. BUT when he pulls his knife (illegal because he is not threatened) then you are OK in meeting his force. At this point, you would not be wise to turn your back to get into your car. A shoot could be justified.

It's an eye for an eye in the true sense- if he yells, you have the right to yell back. If he approaches you, you can approach him. If he needlessly pulls a knife with no threat, you have a choice to make.

An eye for an eye doesn't mean if someone does something, you go get revenge- it means if someone harms you, you only harm them an equal or lesser amount. People use this totally incorrectly. It's not a pass for revenge- it's a reminder to be fair.

You yelling back is totally legal. Him hitting you and you bitchslapping him is legal. As long as you don't completely go above and beyond what is reaonable...

I do agree with almost 99% of what you say- it's just this one thing you overlooked...

 

[techres]

yes,but people said earlier that permission is needed to have the gun by a guardian or else i am a minor and am not allowed to posses a handgun by myself with no supervision.

Ah, I mis-applied the permission comment. Then disregard my comment.

 

[Sinner Man]

Yes! And the word you are looking for is not really "permission". Each of us is granted the right of self defense by our Creator. The 2nd Ammendment simply affirms and protects that God given right from the stupidity of law makers and "do gooders".

The law itself simply acts to clarify when you are acting in self defense and when you are not. Some of those laws are poorly written and you simply need to know how they can apply to ruin your life.

But you do not get "permission" to shoot someone. No one can grant you what is already your right by birth.

If you are presented with a situation where you life is truly at risk, then you only act in self defense and fight with everything you have at your disposal. And you will only pay a price if you go beyond the legal and/or sensible boundaries of self defense.

To plagarize a line from another text, "You can kill in self defense, all else is commentary. Now, go and learn the commentary."

Yes, he's asking for clarification on the "permission" clause that was missed the first time that "child with a gun" law was posted.

IF he has permission to handle the firearms at home then yes, he can use them to defend himself. I would keep it in the home though for sure!

OOPS cross post!

 

[L-W-R-C]

ok,i understand now,thanks to everyone who helped me with this. and yes i am going to take techres up on his offer but i am visiting family right now and the next one to come up i will most likely go to.

 

[dburkhead]

Yup. But it also requires a real threat to life/limb.

Again referring to the O.P.'s scenarios, it could be easily argued that a credible threat does not exist.

I took the time to look it up. Here's the relevant section:

(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
Indiana Code 35-41-3

There are four main "bullet points" in the "use of force to protect person or property" section.

a) is the basic "self defense"--someone reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury.

b) is the "dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle" provision cited above

c) is "property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle" where deadly force is only authorized if it comes under "a" (the self defense point)

d) stopping in-flight hijacks ("in flight" defined as starting when the doors are closed and ending when they open)

Only points a and c specifically require one to "reasonably believe the force is necessary to protect life and limb." For b) it only needs to be "necessary to terminate the unlawful entry" but I suspect you'd have a hard time convincing a jury that deadly force was actually "necessary" to stop someone from unlawfully coming onto your yard.

 

[dburkhead]

Yes! And the word you are looking for is not really "permission". Each of us is granted the right of self defense by our Creator. The 2nd Ammendment simply affirms and protects that God given right from the stupidity of law makers and "do gooders".

The "permission" issue was in response to Melonsdad's comment about the parents going to jail because a minor isn't supposed to have possession of a gun in the first place. I was simply pointing out that the situation under discussion--where the OP was at home--is one where he very well could legally have possession of a gun--so long as he has parents/guardians permission to have that gun.

 

[Sinner Man]

Yep, unlawful entry into my house = the paramedics find your butt and legs outside my window and your torso and arms inside my window. Maybe a little blood on the inside

It's cut and dry but you WILL have to spend way too much money in court. I'd wait until he got in and I knew he had a weapon before using deadly force. That's just me.

 

[Sinner Man]

In response to your signature David- Not quite true when either comes from a truck stop diner, right?

 

[techres]

An eye for an eye doesn't mean if someone does something, you go get revenge- it means if someone harms you, you only harm them an equal or lesser amount. People use this totally incorrectly. It's not a pass for revenge- it's a reminder to be fair.

You yelling back is totally legal. Him hitting you and you bitchslapping him is legal. As long as you don't completely go above and beyond what is reaonable...

I do agree with almost 99% of what you say- it's just this one thing you overlooked...

An eye for an eye makes you mutual combatants and reduces your level of self protection claim. That is not to say you will not win the case, but it means you are much more likely to go to trial, and now have introduced the possibility of loss and jail time.

A good quote would be along these lines:

Mutual combat exists when there is “mutual intent and willingness to fight.” State v. Graham, 260 S.C. 449, 450, 196 S.E.2d 495 (1973). Mutual intent is “manifested by the acts and conduct of the parties and the circumstances attending and leading up to the combat.” Id. Mutual combat bars a claim of self-defense because it negates the element of “not being at fault.” Id.

That is where problem lies: who is the victim. You turn into mutual combatants, you escalate a situation, you continue to be present when you can leave, you go to the bad guy when you could back off, and at each step you reduce your appearance as the victim.

All of these are layers of risk. And in the moment of decision all of it will go out the window. Except for the biggies:

I see someone breaking into my car and instead of grabbing the shotgun and running out the door, I will grab the shotgun and stay inside.

 

[Sinner Man]

What state did that case come from? Did that state have a no retreat law or was 1973 perhaps before the laws were clarified?

I do agree, I'm not going outside either. I may go out if there had been other burglaries and I guess in that case, I'd be the hero of the neighborhood but it's not about being a hero- it would be about putting an end to this guy's "good fortune" and just taking some protection with me.

 

[kludge]

Great post, techres.

When you decide that you want to have a defensive weapon, and keep it in your home, or carry it on your person, and that you have the will to use it to protect yourself and the people you love, there is another responsibility that goes along with it:

You must now determine that you are not going to go places or with people where trouble is often found, that you will be nothing but perfectly polite to every person you meet, that you will swallow your pride, take the chip off your shoulder, get rid of your machismo, and walk away from potential confontations. You may have to endure someone making comments to your girlfriend/wife.

Sometimes you'll have to apologize, or say "Dude, I didn't mean any harm - let me buy you a beer."

 

[Biohazard]

Control + F didn't show it in the thread so....

Indiana Handgun Law
by Bryan Ciyou

Amazon.com: Indiana Handgun Law: Bryan Lee Ciyou: Books

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...nse/31553-indiana_handgun_law.html#post342678

 

[Sinner Man]

Great post, techres.

When you decide that you want to have a defensive weapon, and keep it in your home, or carry it on your person, and that you have the will to use it to protect yourself and the people you love, there is another responsibility that goes along with it:

You must now determine that you are not going to go places or with people where trouble is often found, that you will be nothing but perfectly polite to every person you meet, that you will swallow your pride, take the chip off your shoulder, get rid of your machismo, and walk away from potential confontations. You may have to endure someone making comments to your girlfriend/wife.

Sometimes you'll have to apologize, or say "Dude, I didn't mean any harm - let me buy you a beer."

Wait, this makes zero sense to me. The point of carrying is so you can continue on with your life without having to fear being unarmed in a bad situation, not so you can hid from trouble. Please remember, this is different than searching out trouble.

I'm not going to stop going to certain places or let ANYONE say anything about my wife just because I'm armed. Good advice in a perfect world but bad practice and impractical IMHO.