Update on Castle Doctrine in Indiana?

[edsinger]

In discussions with a friend, I was told that the Ft.Wayne paper had an article about a new law in Indiana that makes the Castle Doctrine illegal.

I was in shock, but he was not sure if it was passed or its a new law in the works.

My present understanding is that it is legal in Indiana.

My understanding of a Castle Doctrine is that you can use deadly force to protect both Life and Property.

Can someone clarify this is a correct understanding of the doctrine and the status of existing law in Indiana.

 

[kevman65]

Indiana Supreme Court ruled you could not resist police attempting to enter your house whether the attempted entry was legal or not.

No law, a legal ruling by the State's highest court which is in the infancy of being taken to the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

[rambone]

Your castle doesn't mean **** when it sits on the king's land.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Letter from Jim Tomes answering the OP's question:

Friday Margie and I drove back up to Indy as I had three meetings scheduled. The first was with Josh Richardson, Governor Daniels' Public Policy Director, who I invited to sit down with me and discuss getting some immediate help for the flooding victims in the Posey county area.
The second meeting I had scheduled right after that was with David Pippen, Governor Daniels' General Council to the Governor and I talked with him about the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling involving the Fourth Amendment.

We had a great discussion. Mr. Pippen was also very alarmed with the ruling and was reviewing stacks of rulings in past years of Justice Steven David and also related rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court relevant to this issue. I was told that Justice David is a strong pro gun and pro life individual as well as a strong supporter of the Constitution. It seems that's what has folks scratching their head as to why he rendered such a decision.

Nevertheless, I stated my position in this matter and that not only was I outraged by the decision, but so was a whole lot of other folks throughout the state. Mr. Pippen, who seemed to be just as upset, told me they have been getting tons of phone calls and e-mails also.

He told me that he will be speaking with Governor Daniels, who has been traveling, about this and what steps might be taken. As I was speaking with Mr. Pippen in the Governor's office, Margie was elsewhere in the Statehouse and was handed a release by someone from the Attorney General's office. You can read what Attorney General Greg Zoeller plans to do for yourself. http://www.in.gov/portal/news_events/70403.htm

On the way up to Indy that morning I got a call from a very good friend in South Bend telling me that there is a group from Arizona looking to stage a rally on the lawn of the Statehouse in Indy in June or July. That was interesting because Mr. Pippen, without me saying anything about that, told me he is aware that there are some groups who have notified them they are planning the same thing.

I told David Pippen I was going to send out an e-mail to all of you on the outcome of my meeting with him and he encouraged me to draw attention to all of you about Indiana's "No Retreat Clause" that was signed into law in 2006. Many of you were with Margie and me when Governor Daniels signed that bill. It was the same time he signed the Lifetime Handgun license.

If you read that statute Indiana Code 35-41-3 you will see as David points out that our law is extremely broad based and explicitly lays out that the citizen has every right to protect themselves, their property and that of someone else.

He told me the Court was not presented with this statue during the proceedings. This statute in Indiana's Criminal Code in my opinion trumps the Court ruling. It's my hope that within the 30 day time frame the Court will reverse itself or render a more narrowly defined ruling.

I also had my media assistant send out a release on my position on this entire affair. I was told other senators have done the same. My dear friends this is not going away until it's corrected. I want to thank all of you who have taken the initiative to place calls and send e-mails. You can take pride in what you do, though our numbers should be greater, it's each of you who hold the line in protecting our liberty and Margie and I are honored to be associated with all of you.

Later that day we had a meeting with Congressman Mike Pence and along with other issues we discussed this Court ruling as well.

I will keep you all posted on any developments as they happen. God Bless you all.


Jim and Margie
2nd Amendment Patriots
STAY UNITED
www.2ndamendmentpatriots.org

Hope that helps!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Liberty Sanders]

When I was acquitted by Judge Poindexter in the Carmel city court of a trumped-up, bull**** gun charge brought by a corrupt, lying, perjuring Carmel PD cop, one law he cited in support of my actions was the Castle Doctine law, which he noted gives a citizen broad latitude in what actions he can take in self-defense on his own property.

There is, in fact, at least one judge in Indiana who not only concedes the existence of this law, but who actually respects it.

 

[edsinger]

If you read that statute Indiana Code 35-41-3 you will see as David points out that our law is extremely broad based and explicitly lays out that the citizen has every right to protect themselves, their property and that of someone else.

This is what I wanted to hear........there was a burglary near me and I had some odd things happen . Some security firm was asking about signing up. I had never heard of them at all and something seemed shady.

I told them that if someone can get past the dog, then either my wife or I would take care of the situation........Buckshot style.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

My understanding of a Castle Doctrine is that you can use deadly force to protect both Life and Property.

This is incorrect (in the broadest sense) and I really need to start a thread to stop this nonsense.

In discussions with a friend, I was told that the Ft.Wayne paper had an article about a new law in Indiana that makes the Castle Doctrine illegal.

No this is nonsense. Barnes has no impact on the rules regarding self-defense. Barnes abolished the right to resist unlawful police action.

While I believe Barnes is incorrect, let's not turn to hysteria and misinformation.

 

[eatsnopaste]

This is incorrect (in the broadest sense) and I really need to start a thread to stop this nonsense.



No this is nonsense. Barnes has no impact on the rules regarding self-defense. Barnes abolished the right to resist unlawful police action.

While I believe Barnes is incorrect, let's not turn to hysteria and misinformation.

Well hell! What else is the interwebz for? Without hysteria and misinformation all we will have is porn...never mind....

 

[edsinger]

This is incorrect (in the broadest sense) and I really need to start a thread to stop this nonsense.

Ok so I can not protect my property in Indiana? What is false about it?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

ed, when you say "property" do you mean things, clothing, your briefcase, your laptop, etc., or do you mean domicile and curtilage?

 

[edsinger]

I mean belongings and such. I would never kill over a tv, but some heirlooms and such would be harder to restrain from.

They way I see it, they should not be in my house, my Castle. They should not be there.

So I guess I do not quite grasp what it means then right?

 

[edsinger]

???

Here is what I have found,

Ind. Code Section 35-41-3-2 (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..

From wiki

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine arising from English Common Law that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack.

So it is not for the protection of one's property or possessions?