Can You Kill Him?

[LPMan59]

thanks for the situation and the explanation of the solution. reps to you, sir.

 

[csaws]

Maybe this is the question you were answering above, but I want to be very clear on this...

if someone is breaking into my house my wife or I or anyone in that house could shoot and kill them and it "likely" will not get you in trouble?

Scenario 2: BG #2 had never been arrested in his life. He was an honor student and football player at Brownsburg High School, and the only reason he was in your home at all was because BG #1 was his misfit uncle who just gotten out of prison and threatened to beat BG #2 and his little sister to death if BG #2 didn’t participate in the break-in at your home.

If this was the case would said BG#2 really have grabbed silverware and fled? Why not just give up and state your case? Why flee with anything if the above is true?

 

[haldir]

Interesting analysis. I know the point you were making on the political situation with the prosecutor. Mike Cosentino used to be our prosecutor up here in ELkhart County. I know he was on the record that he would never prosecute a homeowner that shoots someone that breaks into their house in the middle of the night.

 

[Rookie]

Reps to you for a good post. Is there any type of case law that has dealt with this type of scenario?

Can you put another scenario out there for us?

 

[GuyRelford]

Maybe this is the question you were answering above, but I want to be very clear on this...

if someone is breaking into my house my wife or I or anyone in that house could shoot and kill them and it "likely" will not get you in trouble?

As I stated above, I can't give you legal advice, but if you're clearly preventing the entry or attack on your home by using reasonable force, the protection of the "castle doctrine" should apply.

 

[gruemeyer]

My only statement would be that the home owner involved needs more time at the range practicing double tapping multiple targets. The second guy should never have made it ouit of our line of site in the 1st place.
Mike

 

[Slab]

thanks for the "case" repped

 

[cigarman454]

Thanks

Thanks GunLawyer, this was a great thread. I'm looking forward to the next.

 

[WabashMX5]

Great hypothetical. Reps inbound.

 

[WoodWizard]

The first perp was ok to do, the second I'm afraid is no longer a threat,
go after him and the silver with a stout stick, whale on him awhile, then call 911.

 

[jamstutz]

Maybe it's just me...

...but why would you want to shoot BG#2?

He just traded his brand new shotgun to you for some old forks and spoons?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Chefcook]

Awesome, I can not rep you again yet...+1 I am ready for another one...

 

[jd3772000]

...but why would you want to shoot BG#2?

He just traded his brand new shotgun to you for some old forks and spoons?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

LOL!!!!!

 

[GuyRelford]

...but why would you want to shoot BG#2?

He just traded his brand new shotgun to you for some old forks and spoons?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I literally laughed out loud at this one myself.

 

[oldfb]

still think it would be better in perfect world where I live...

Thanks for the interpretation.

Can't wait for the next one. Just don't wait so long for the answer since after @ 20 posts it gets repetitive.

 

[UltraRick]

My only statement would be that the home owner involved needs more time at the range practicing double tapping multiple targets. The second guy should never have made it ouit of our line of site in the 1st place.
Mike

Rept'd for that truism!

 

[Donnelly]

I don't see why everyone keeps saying that you would be in legal trouble if you shot BG #2 in the back. I think precedence was set back at Ruby Ridge when the US Marshalls Service shot Sammy Weaver in the back. No US Marshall was convicted for that incident. Logic dictates that a person with their back to you, running away from you, can still be considered a threat.

 

[GuyRelford]

I don't see why everyone keeps saying that you would be in legal trouble if you shot BG #2 in the back. I think precedence was set back at Ruby Ridge when the US Marshalls Service shot Sammy Weaver in the back. No US Marshall was convicted for that incident. Logic dictates that a person with their back to you, running away from you, can still be considered a threat.

Understood - and a valid point. But I think the question here is whether BG #2 can still be considered an imminent threat (under Indiana law) when he has thrown down his weapon, screamed out in fear and is running toward the open front door - only three feet away.

 

[Yamaha]

ok.

#1. Shoot to stop threat, never to kill. Almost guaranteed to end up facing legal charges if you say you shot to kill in a report, and its almost guaranteed you'd be convicted if you testified that.

#2. Guys 1 & 2 were threats at the beginning, threat 1 was neutralized, and threat 2 stopped being a threat as soon as he started retreating. So no, don't shoot them if they're running away.

#3. Use common sense

 

[GuyRelford]

ok.


#2. Guys 1 & 2 were threats at the beginning, threat 1 was neutralized, and threat 2 stopped being a threat as soon as he started retreating. So no, don't shoot them if they're running away.

#3. Use common sense

I think that's an excellent summary!!