When is it OK to...?

[SumtnFancy]

Unfortunately, my job takes me to some of the less-desirable parts of town. During midday in the summer, some of these streets are crawling with hoodrats, and I find myself constantly peeking out the windows of the houses I am "visiting" to check what is going on outside, and if my truck is being robbed. I found myself wondering today when it would be acceptable (or "legal") to pull my weapon. I am not on my property, and I do not necessarily have the expressed consent of the property owner to carry there, even though 95% of the time they are not there, or the property is completely vacant. What if I look out and someone is attempting to break into my truck? What if they have already made it into my truck (there may be a B.U.G stashed in there and they could possibly be armed now)? What if I am confronted on my way from the house to my truck? I know the old adage about not pulling a gun unless you are going to use it, but sometimes you have to pull it to see if you have to fire it (my opinion, don't crucify me). I lock the doors of the houses because I have had unwanted visitors walk right in without permission... so what if one of them becomes aggressive? It is not my "castle", but can I defend it? I always try to do what is right, I just also want to do what is legal for the situation. I haven't found anything regarding these topics specifically, so sorry if there is already a thread about this.

 

[Pinchaser]

If you have to ask the question, you shouldn't be carrying a gun. Get rid of it until you are better prepared.

 

[SumtnFancy]

Sorry, you are right. I should sell everything I have until someone of your elite status will take the time to mingle with the commonfolk and enlighten me. You can take the time to chastise me, but not to even give advice? Thanks, buddy! I am trying to be better prepared, thought maybe this would be a good place to start...

 

[Scutter01]

Pinchaser was a little blunt, but he's not wrong. If you're wondering if it's OK to use a deadly weapon to protect a truck, then you need to get to some training. Check out Tactical Firearms Training's Gun Law Seminar, or perhaps Mindset Labs' Force on Force. Both are INGO advertisers and their forums can be found on the front page.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Pinchaser was a little blunt, but he's not wrong. If you're wondering if it's OK to use a deadly weapon to protect a truck, then you need to get to some training. Check out Tactical Firearms Training's Gun Law Seminar, or perhaps Mindset Labs' Force on Force. Both are INGO advertisers and their forums can be found on the front page.

As much as I hate to agree with Scutter, he makes a great point. There are guys who make a living on this stuff and Guy Relford happens to be an expert on Indiana Law regarding firearms and deadly force. His classes are a bargain and you can get a discount if you mention you are an INGO member!

 

[SumtnFancy]

Asking is the first step towards knowing. I'm not worried about my cd player in my truck, I probably put my questions in the wrong order. What if someone enters the house I am in and gets aggressive with me, tries to rob me, etc? It is not my property. Or what if I am stopped on my way to my vehicle from the house? I consider those to be grey areas, you consider them to be disqualifiers? I shouldn't carry a firearm because my circumstances are not clearly spelled out in the laws (that I have been able to find)?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Asking is the first step towards knowing. I'm not worried about my cd player in my truck, I probably put my questions in the wrong order. What if someone enters the house I am in and gets aggressive with me, tries to rob me, etc? It is not my property. Or what if I am stopped on my way to my vehicle from the house? I consider those to be grey areas, you consider them to be disqualifiers? I shouldn't carry a firearm because my circumstances are not clearly spelled out in the laws (that I have been able to find)?

You have been given valuable resources to find the answers, answers by knowledgable people who make this their life's work. Do you really want to just trust random strangers on the internet for advice on deadly force?

 

[SumtnFancy]

My response was more of a clarification of my original inquiry. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

 

[chachi73]

op, sometimes people on here can be richards. legit question from a newbie. the answer to your question is no. I did like your response to pinchaser's terse, albeit correct, answer. Welcome to Ingo. Stick around and you'll learn more. I've learned tons of stuff here from some very smart cats.

there are hypothetical situations posted on here every so often. you can learn a bunch from those exercises too. Don't let pinchaser get you all butthurt. he prolly just had a bad day because his LGS was reselling walmart ammo at twice the cost.

KCCO

 

[Steeler]

It doesn't matter if I'm somewhere that I dont have permission to carry. If I feel my life is in danger, I will appropriately defend it. As far as someone entering an unoccupied vehicle, not gonna unholster on that one. I dont like jail.

 

[danmrt868]

I was told that the castle law followed you to work because thats one of the places you spend most of your time. Is that wrong? But shooting over tools in van is not the best choice IMO. Now shooting at a person intent on harming you is another story. If you think your life is in danger well double tap and see if their still moving.

 

[SumtnFancy]

Thanks for your opinion danmrt, but this was where you were supposed to tell me that I am unworthy to even own a firearm and will probably shoot my genitals off if I even look at one. I was just fishing for opinions, since everyone seems to have unshakeable ones around here... but I guess I will have to drive three hours and spend $175 to find out. It would be well worth my time to do so, it just wont be able to happen til their next class in August. I don't plan on being robbed/raped before then, so I should be fine.

 

[ATM]

Some light reading to wet your appetite: Indiana Code 35-41-3

 

[Roland of Gilead]

OP i suggest you look at Massad Ayoob on YouTube on using lethal force. The video's are old and crusty but so is most of our laws. Ayoob video's could hold you over till you get proper training which you need.

Not a lawyer and try not to play one on the inter webs but your castle is your vehicle and dwelling or property.

Good luck, get some training so your safe and not incarcerated.

 

[Captain Morgan]

OP i suggest you look at Massad Ayoob on YouTube on using lethal force. The video's are old and crusty but so is most of our laws. Ayoob video's could hold you over till you get proper training which you need.

Not a lawyer and try not to play one on the inter webs but your castle is your vehicle and dwelling or property.

Good luck, get some training so your safe and not incarcerated.

Don't want you thinking wrong and going to jail. Your castle is NOT your vehicle. You are permitted to use deadly force to protect your OCCUPIED vehicle. If someone is breaking into or trying to steal your UNOCCUPIED vehicle, leave it alone.

As for your other questions about someone trying to gain entry to a home you're in while working, you have a right to protect yourself from threat to life or limb. If you can't make it to Guy's course until August, send him a message on here and ask. Someone else posted that the castle doctrine extends to your workplace and that's correct, but you have a unique situation where you bounce from location to location, so I'm really not sure how that affects you.

I agree you should watch several youtube videos and attend Guy's class as soon as possible.

 

[Burnsy]

Thanks for your opinion danmrt, but this was where you were supposed to tell me that I am unworthy to even own a firearm and will probably shoot my genitals off if I even look at one. I was just fishing for opinions, since everyone seems to have unshakeable ones around here... but I guess I will have to drive three hours and spend $175 to find out. It would be well worth my time to do so, it just wont be able to happen til their next class in August. I don't plan on being robbed/raped before then, so I should be fine.

This is the problem with your post. If you ever have to use a firearm in self defense, do you really want to hang your freedom on random people's from the internet opinion? Is that a source of information that you trust to keep you out of a life long sentence in prison? I should hope not.

A better question would have be a request to link the ICs that apply to your question so you can form your own answer. This isn't call of duty strategy. It's your life, your death and/or your freedom. There isn't a blanket black and white answer, it's in the hands of the 12. Use the links provided and use critical thinking. Your life and your freedom might depend on it.

 

[Tanfodude]

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
(b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in IC 35-41-1-17, IC 35-31.5-2-129, or IC 35-31.5-2-185.
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other 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.
(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other 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.
(e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against any other 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 (c).
(f) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other 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.
(g) Notwithstanding subsections (c) through (e), 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.
(h) Notwithstanding subsection (f), 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.
(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful 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.
(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;
(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action; or
(4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:
(A) acting lawfully; or
(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.
(k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
(A) acting unlawfully; or
(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and
(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
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; P.L.161-2012, SEC.1.

 

[Burnsy]

Don't want you thinking wrong and going to jail. Your castle is NOT your vehicle. You are permitted to use deadly force to protect your OCCUPIED vehicle. If someone is breaking into or trying to steal your UNOCCUPIED vehicle, leave it alone.

As for your other questions about someone trying to gain entry to a home you're in while working, you have a right to protect yourself from threat to life or limb. If you can't make it to Guy's course until August, send him a message on here and ask. Someone else posted that the castle doctrine extends to your workplace and that's correct, but you have a unique situation where you bounce from location to location, so I'm really not sure how that affects you.

I agree you should watch several youtube videos and attend Guy's class as soon as possible.

This is incorrect, a vehicle owned by me and parked in my driveway is my property, occupied or not.

 

[Roland of Gilead]

I did totally misinform about the vehicle, my bad. Yes one has to occupy the vehicle to defend it.

Thank ya Captain.

 

[Roland of Gilead]

The law is written to let us protect ourselves from car jacking not theft.