This is generally true, so long as the force you are using (pointing the firearm) is specifically justified as "reasonable force" under IC 35-41-3-2 or IC 35-41-3-3, as required by IC 35-47-4-3. And you are entirely correct to focus on the issue of "reasonable force," as required by all three statutes.It it completely legal to point a loaded gun at someone in ANY SITUATION where "REASONABLE FORCE" is legally justified, like in protection of your/your families' personal belongings. Pulling the trigger is deadly force, not pointing the gun.
Point but don't shoot unless the BG makes you. Got it!
That's true!! Thanks, Shay.You sound like you have a lot of questions that might be answered if you took Gun Lawyer's class coming up. I believe there is still room.
There is no "brandishing" in IN. Only "pointing a firearm".
what if you proceed to open a can of whip A$$ on him and he reaches for the tire iron he was using to steal your rims? note: I said you iniate the violence but the theif reaches for a weapon?
(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.
I would say shooting him in the leg is a no-no.
Q: What if instead of shooting him, you attempt a citizens arrest? If he struggles and starts to fight back (resists arrest), could you shoot him then?
You folks really nailed this one!
In other conversations, I have heard some folks refer to an intended non-lethal shot (to an extremity, for example) as something other than "deadly force." However, as many of you stated very clearly in your responses, shooting someone - no matter where - will virtually always be considered "deadly force" under Indiana's statutory definition:
"IC 35-41-1-7
'Deadly force' defined
Sec. 7. "Deadly force" means force that creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury."
It would be very hard to argue that any shooting did not "create a substantial risk of serious bodily injury."
So the question then comes down to whether the shooter was justified in using "deadly force."
Indiana does allow "reasonable force" to be used to protect property (like your rims), but "deadly force" must be independently justified:
"IC 35-41-3-2(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)."
Under these facts, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to justify the use of deadly force:
"(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."
Here, there was no threat of serious bodily injury to the shooter. The BG's hands were full with the rims, he was apparrenty unarmed, and he was walking away. And while a crime was being committed under these facts, it was clearly not a "forcible felony."
Indiana law defines "forcible felony" as follows:
"IC 35-41-1-11
"Forcible felony" defined
Sec. 11. "Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a human being."
As a result, because there is no "use or threat of force against a human being," or an "imminent danger of bodily injury" under these facts, we can't label this crime as a "forcible felony" and the use of deadly force would not be justified to prevent it.
For all these reasons, the many of you who concluded that this shooting was most likely not justified, and would probably subject the shooter to both criminal prosecution and civil liability, were exactly right - in my opinion.
Thanks for participating!
Guy
You should be able to protect what is yours. The laws that say you can't are unjust!One thing that I always say is you cannot shoot someone over property. If you protect yourself of another person that is allowed. But never over property. If a person is breaking down your house door then you can defend your castle. But defend wheels on a car nope.
I agree wholeheartedly! That is why everyone on this board, and every law abiding gun owner everywhere should stay up on what their representitives at the local, state, and fed level are doing, and respond accordingly come election time.You should be able to protect what is yours. The laws that say you can't are unjust!
You should be able to protect what is yours. The laws that say you can't are unjust!