What rights do I have?

[asevans]

shoot him in the back as he runs. what would he have done if he got the drop on you?

 

[eachitandi]

Why would I not stop a person from fleeing if I was sure that is what he was doing? Because him being there with me is infinitely more dangerous than him NOT being there. My goal is survival in those moments, not community improvement. Taking any actions to forcibly prevent him fleeing endangers the life and health of me and any other person there. It also endangers my freedom.

Well said sir....

 

[lovemachine]

shoot him in the back as he runs. what would he have done if he got the drop on you?

Um....ok?

 

[HoughMade]

shoot him in the back as he runs. what would he have done if he got the drop on you?

I thought I read that somewhere in the Indiana Code, but I can't remember where. Insert purple if you really need to.

 

[88GT]

If the only option is to shoot him in the back, someone isn't doing it right.

 

[actaeon277]

When I get home, I'll try to look up the IC.
But, basically it says you can stop an intruder from coming in or causing damage. If hes' s leaving, then you aren't stopping him from entering.
And remember. Your actions will be judged by a jury. They may, or may not agree with you, whatever your reasons.
Avoiding a trial, sounds good to me.

Someone once told me, "Attached to every bullet fired, is a lawyer."

 

[Jack Burton]

In order to avoid the rampant speculation that you are just desiring to shoot someone you might want to consider revising your question as to the most effective way to hold someone while waiting for the police. There are several ways to do so.

One thing to keep in mind is that the average thug or homebreaker knows that the average joe with a gun is much more dangerous than a cop with a gun. A cop is restrained by training and rules as to when or where he can shoot. Criminals know this and can fairly well predict what a cop will do or how he will react.

With you and me? Not so much. We are liable to do almost anything with that gun. There was that case of the drug store owner last year who went up to the thug laying on the ground after trying to rob the drug store and just shot him point blank in the head.

So...you need to make that person think you are the crazy one... the one who won't hesitate to put a dozen holes in him if he even twitches. First, don't keep him on his feet. Make him go to the ground. Horizontal. This puts him in a very vulnerable position that keeps him from panicking and taking immediate actions such as just walking away. Second, Don't hesitate to tell him exactly and graphically what you are going to do if he doesn't cooperate. Don't be shy or retiring.If you can get an edge to you voice that hints that you are only a eyeblink away from pulling the trigger that helps. If need be, knock a lamp off a table. Do what ever you need to do to make him more fearful of you than the incoming police and the possibility of jail. However, don't cross the line that will get you in trouble such as kicking him in the head while he is down, no matter how much you want to.

The above is not to be considered legal advice or generally accepted adversarial principles.

 

[LANShark42]

In order to avoid the rampant speculation that you are just desiring to shoot someone you might want to consider revising your question as to the most effective way to hold someone while waiting for the police. There are several ways to do so.

One thing to keep in mind is that the average thug or homebreaker knows that the average joe with a gun is much more dangerous than a cop with a gun. A cop is restrained by training and rules as to when or where he can shoot. Criminals know this and can fairly well predict what a cop will do or how he will react.

With you and me? Not so much. We are liable to do almost anything with that gun. There was that case of the drug store owner last year who went up to the thug laying on the ground after trying to rob the drug store and just shot him point blank in the head.

So...you need to make that person think you are the crazy one... the one who won't hesitate to put a dozen holes in him if he even twitches. First, don't keep him on his feet. Make him go to the ground. Horizontal. This puts him in a very vulnerable position that keeps him from panicking and taking immediate actions such as just walking away. Second, Don't hesitate to tell him exactly and graphically what you are going to do if he doesn't cooperate. Don't be shy or retiring.If you can get an edge to you voice that hints that you are only a eyeblink away from pulling the trigger that helps. If need be, knock a lamp off a table. Do what ever you need to do to make him more fearful of you than the incoming police and the possibility of jail. However, don't cross the line that will get you in trouble such as kicking him in the head while he is down, no matter how much you want to.

The above is not to be considered legal advice or generally accepted adversarial principles.

I have no desire to shoot anyone. Thank you for deciphering (correctly) my intent. And for the advice. I'm a big guy (6'3", 300#) and I think I could work up a "fake crazy" pretty easily in that situation. I appreciate your perspective (NOT advice) as well as others here who have attempted to answer my question in a civil manner.

 

[actaeon277]

Ok. Back home now, lets look at what we can find.

Here is what I think is the appropriate IC. I've highlighted what I think is the appropriate section.
I am not a lawyer. Feel free to disagree with me.

But at least this is better than, "someone on the internet told me."


http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2004/title35/ar41/ch3.html

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (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 is justified in using deadly force only 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.
(b) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person 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 or curtilage.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling or curtilage, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(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;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(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;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1.

 

[Jack Burton]

The problem with quoting statutory law is that it is only one half of the knowledge needed. Case law, which the courts determine in their application of statutory law, is equally valid and may indeed put extra hoops that have to be jumped through for a citizen to come out okay in the end.

 

[actaeon277]

The problem with quoting statutory law is that it is only one half of the knowledge needed. Case law, which the courts determine in their application of statutory law, is equally valid and may indeed put extra hoops that have to be jumped through for a citizen to come out okay in the end.

Well, I'm at work. So why not post some cases?

 

[HoughMade]

Rule of thumb- in something like this, if you can't meet the statutory requirements, chances are there are no cases that will expand your "rights".

 

[PistolBob]

Bad guys breaks in, for whatever reason, you get the drop on him, tell him to sit down or something while someone calls the law. He says bite me and bolts for the door...you step between him and the door and he punches your face in, should your wife kill him with a head shot or just tie him up and nag him to death?

 

[Tay]

I think these cover it pretty well.

[h=2]Indiana Code IC 35-41-3-2 & IC 35-41-3-3[/h]

IC 35-41-3-2 Use of force to protect person or property Sec. 2. (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. (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. (c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person’s trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person: (1) is justified in using deadly force; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; only if that force is justified under subsection (a). (d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is: (1) on the ground in Indiana: (A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and (B) until the aircraft takes off; (2) in the airspace above Indiana; or (3) on the ground in Indiana: (A) after the aircraft lands; and (B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing. (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; (2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or (3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action. (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; (2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or (3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person’s intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1. IC 35-41-3-3 Use of force relating to arrest or escape Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person’s escape if: (1) a felony has been committed; and (2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony. However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter. (b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer: (1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary: (A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or (B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and (2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used. (c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless the officer knows that the warrant is invalid. (d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer: (1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and (2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used. (e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained in the penal facility. (f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.9; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.2; P.L.245-1993, SEC.1.

 

[Jack Burton]

Well, I'm at work. So why not post some cases?

I am not a lawyer.

 

[actaeon277]

Neither am I.

 

[HoughMade]

I am not a lawyer.

Neither am I.

Brag, brag, brag.

 

[INPatriot]

This exact situation was covered this morning at the SIG Academy on Guns & Ammo TV. In the scenario, the shooter pulled the trigger. When the instructor asked him to analyze the shot, both shooter and instructor agreed it was not in the best intention of the shooter to fire.

For what its worth...

 

[LionWeight]

The desire that the BG doesn't get away scott free. I would think that most BG's that get put in the situation you described of having a gun pointed at them and having the police called would not be too quick to return to said dwelling with nefarious intent. He is liable to exit the area as fast as it is possible and head for parts unkknown. Probably somewhere he can change his drawers without anyone seeing him. I can only tell you what I would hope I would do. If he has started the process of leaving, LET HIM GO. I have done what I want and kept him out and my home safe. I have a description of him to give to the police and maybe he gets caught and maybe he doesn't. My home has been defended and he knows that it will be defended again if needed. Robbers generally look for easy targets. Having a gun pointed at you by a homeowner is not something I would think would give anyone the impression of an easy target. Oh. And I get to live with the knowledge that I didn't kill someone. I think I could live with it if I HAD to kill someone. Someone leaving I don't HAVE to.

 

[Jack Burton]

Brag, brag, brag.

My parents were married, too.