"Get out of my house"

[IndySSD]

And you disagree with what I posted how, exactly?

Nothing I posted above is open to interpretation. It is the way it is written. That's one nice thing I've seen about IN laws. They are fairly well written...at least compared to most other states I've looked at.

Reading is FUNdamental!

And that's where I disagree with you. Laws are interpreted every day by people, however the final interpretation in a shooting is done by the judge. The initial interpretation is done by the police, then another interpretation is done by the prosecutor, and even another interpretation can be done by an independent lawyer to pursue a civil suit.

The world is never black and white, people only wish it were that way so that making decisions would be easier.

The wording of the statute in question is very clear.

Trying to argue over what you or I believe to be reasonable or unreasonable has absolutely no bearing on what the statute actually states.

Best point in this thread so far IMO... rep inc.

Obviously, but not, it seems, to you.



You're right there. It only matters what the jury looking through the eyes of that "reasonable man" would find reasonable. Because THAT is what the statute requires.

Good luck if it ever happens to you.

See, here's the problem as I see it. What I consider to be reasonable and what others consider to be reasonable will rarely be the same.

Is it reasonable for a man to forcibly enter someones home and refuse to leave?

Reason is subjective to the opinion of the "Majority". That is the flaw with trying to prove that your response to an unreasonable situation was appropriate.

Finity the reason I feel you and I think so differently about topics here is not because I don't respect your opinions (Which btw its obvious you're intelligent and well informed so please don't take offense to this) it's because you so often try to invalidate what I would consider to be reasonable responses to OTHERS perpetrating what I consider to be unreasonable actions.

IE: Why must I restrain myself from defending my family or home from someone who is perpetrating an illegal act? That is not a logical position to take.

Regardless of what the person is holding, where they are facing or how big and agitated they are, this person broke the law by breaking into my home and since I'm not able to read minds, I have no way of knowing that this person holds the self restraint not to murder me or my entire family, they've already committed one felony tonight, how many more must I allow him before I am considered to be a "Reasonable Man" by fearing for the safety of my loved ones or myself.


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.

Like I said previously stated, anyone can come up with dozens of silly "unreasonable" scenarios involving neighboring children or what not that would not warrant the use of deadly force.

However that does not change what the statute specifically states that .... reasonable force, including deadly force may be used to prevent or terminate a criminal trespass or attack on or inside a persons dwelling, curtilage or occupied vehicle.

I really don't understand why you are so adamant about arguing about this when the wording of the statute is so clear, I think that you are getting hung up on the word "reasonable" but according to the statute the legal presumption is that it is not unreasonable to shoot a criminal who is attempting to break into your house or carjack your vehicle.

Exactly.



Finity, I suggest you think about what a reasonable reponse is to an unreasonable act.

I personally find the words of William Lloyd Garrison to be quite accurate on these subjects.

“I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hand of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; -- but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.”

While he's speaking in terms of abolition, he clearly references some of the most basic of times when reasonable men are forced to react to unreasonable activities, such as threats to their loved ones and slavery.

 

[bigus_D]

It is my belief that a fair and unbiased reading of this thread would show that some people are a little trigger happy, even to the extent of advocating a "shoot first, lie about it later" mentality. "Dead men tell no tales" after all.

There are also some people saying this may not be the best approach. They provide a multitude of reasons.

I agree with the later.

 

[E5RANGER375]

It is my belief that a fair and unbiased reading of this thread would show that some people are a little trigger happy, even to the extent of advocating a "shoot first, lie about it later" mentality. "Dead men tell no tales" after all.

There are also some people saying this may not be the best approach. They provide a multitude of reasons.

I agree with the later.

and people that agree with the later will be the ones that get killed in my opinion. i hope you dont.

 

[Tactical Dave]

Personally if my wife and son are safe you are going to have to find me for me to shoot..... If I ahve to get to them then who ever else is there will have things end bad for them unless in the split second for whatever reason I deem otherwise.

If it is just my wife and son that are home you have pretty much no chance.

 

[IndySSD]

It is my belief that a fair and unbiased reading of this thread would show that some people are a little trigger happy, even to the extent of advocating a "shoot first, lie about it later" mentality. "Dead men tell no tales" after all.

There are also some people saying this may not be the best approach. They provide a multitude of reasons.

I agree with the later.

Again with the black and white.

My position is neither of those.


Just because people CHOOSE to look at the world in black and white, doesn't mean that colors don't exist.

 

[Armed Eastsider]

Pretty sure I would of used deadly force in this situation. And if not, definitely would of held him at gun point until the police showed up. Why let him leave to wander your neighborhood where who knows what else he will get into.

 

[bigus_D]

Again with the black and white.

My position is neither of those.


Just because people CHOOSE to look at the world in black and white, doesn't mean that colors don't exist.

On the contrary, I believe the "kill first lie about it later" posts exhibit the black and white mentality. To paraphrase, "come in my house and I'll shoot you no mater what." How much more black and white can it get?

Shoot the SOB if your LIFE is in danger. p.s. This doesn't mean to view everything in black and white and say "you are in my house, therefore a threat to my life and I'll shoot you." Otherwise, if you find yourself in some technicolor situation not involving threat to life, do your best not to shoot.

It doesn't seem so complicated to me. Shoot only as a last resort.

 

[$mooth]

On the contrary, I believe the "kill first lie about it later" posts exhibit the black and white mentality. To paraphrase, "come in my house and I'll shoot you no mater what." How much more black and white can it get?

Shoot the SOB if your LIFE is in danger. p.s. This doesn't mean to view everything in black and white and say "you are in my house, therefore a threat to my life and I'll shoot you." Otherwise, if you find yourself in some technicolor situation not involving threat to life, do your best not to shoot.

It doesn't seem so complicated to me. Shoot only as a last resort.

How close does he have to be to you before you're willing to shoot? If you're on your sofa and someone breaks through your front door, do you shoot or do you wait to see what he's up to?

 

[finity]

Like I said previously stated, anyone can come up with dozens of silly "unreasonable" scenarios involving neighboring children or what not that would not warrant the use of deadly force.

If I can up come with ONE scenario where it would be unreasonable to use deadly force then your argument that it is always reasonable (per the IC) to use deadly force falls apart. I have come up with several. I'm sure I or any others could up with many more & that just bolsters my argument even more.

There are a myriad of situations where the use of deadly force would be found unreasonable, therefore using deadly force in those scenarios would be outside the limits placed on you by the law, therefore ILLEGAL.

However that does not change what the statute specifically states that .... reasonable force, including deadly force may be used to prevent or terminate a criminal trespass or attack on or inside a persons dwelling, curtilage or occupied vehicle.

I really don't understand why you are so adamant about arguing about this when the wording of the statute is so clear,

And I don't understand why you so blatantly IGNORE the rest of the IC that you partially paraphrase above.

Here let me post it AGAIN for you in case you missed it:

(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.

Look at the bolded part. That is the part you continuously ignore.

I think that you are getting hung up on the word "reasonable" but according to the statute the legal presumption is that it is not unreasonable to shoot a criminal who is attempting to break into your house or carjack your vehicle.

And I think you are getting hung up on the idea that you WANT it to read that it is always reasonable to use deadly force when from a simple fifth grade reading level it clearly doesn't.

Nowhere in any usage of grammar or logic does the word IF mean ALWAYS EQUAL TO.

Here let me try another way...

IF 'a' THEN 'b'.

'b' is ONLY true if 'a' is also true.

If 'a' is not true then 'b' is not true.

In regard to our point of contention

IF 'a reasonable person reasonably believes DF is necessary' THEN 'DF is justified'.

Oppositely,

IF 'a reasonable person reasonably believes DF is necessary' IS NOT TRUE THEN 'DF is justified' IS NOT TRUE.

IOW, 'IF a reasonable person doesn't believe that DF is necessary then DF is not justified'.

Not that I hold out any hope that you will understand.

And that's where I disagree with you. Laws are interpreted every day by people, however the final interpretation in a shooting is done by the judge. The initial interpretation is done by the police, then another interpretation is done by the prosecutor, and even another interpretation can be done by an independent lawyer to pursue a civil suit.

The world is never black and white, people only wish it were that way so that making decisions would be easier.

I agree the world is not always black & white. In fact MOST things aren't...but there are SOME things that are.

If it is your contention that EVERYTHING is open to interpretation then why don't you tell me how you interpret this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Then explain to me how it is that those who would infringe that right could be wrong in their interpretation if all interpretations are equally valid.

SOMETIMES things really are as they are written.

See, here's the problem as I see it. What I consider to be reasonable and what others consider to be reasonable will rarely be the same.

Which is EXACTLY why the 'reasonable man' theory was adopted. That's why there are 12 other people instead of just one to decide, by concensus, if your actions were reasonable.

Is it reasonable for a man to forcibly enter someones home and refuse to leave?

no.

Reason is subjective to the opinion of the "Majority". That is the flaw with trying to prove that your response to an unreasonable situation was appropriate.

It may be flawed (in you opinion) but it is the best system to judge others actions in a civilized society. There are A LOT of objectively unreasonable people in the world. If we as a society are ALWAYS forced to accept the perpetrators view of the "reasonableness" of their own actions we would quickly spiral into anarchy.

IE: Why must I restrain myself from defending my family or home from someone who is perpetrating an illegal act? That is not a logical position to take.

Because that is the price you pay when living in a lawful society. If you argue against using some semblence of reason you are arguing against the very fabric of that society.

Why did the Founders have an admonition against "cruel & unusual punishment"? Because SOMETIMES it is not reasonable to use extreme measures to prevent a minor transgression.

Before you try to accuse me of it, I'm not saying that someone entering your home is a minor transgression. It is serious. That's why the use of deadly force is specifically justified AS LONG AS IT'S USE IS FOUND REASONABLE under the rules of society.

Regardless of what the person is holding, where they are facing or how big and agitated they are, this person broke the law by breaking into my home and since I'm not able to read minds, I have no way of knowing that this person holds the self restraint not to murder me or my entire family, they've already committed one felony tonight, how many more must I allow him before I am considered to be a "Reasonable Man" by fearing for the safety of my loved ones or myself.

You need to read my posts again. You are intentionally attributing to me an argument I have NEVER made.

I have never said that it is wholly unreasonable for you to be in fear of your families safety if someone breaks into your home.

I never said that the person has to be armed to be a threat.

I never said you had to be a mind reader.

I never said that you are required to show "detached reflection at the point of an upturned knife".

However IF you become aware of a change in the circumstances that would make a "reasonable person" believe that DF was no longer NECESSARY then you MUST NOT USE that DF on the other person.

Finity, I suggest you think about what a reasonable reponse is to an unreasonable act.

Thanks for your concern, but I think I've got "reason" pretty well sorted out.

How close does he have to be to you before you're willing to shoot? If you're on your sofa and someone breaks through your front door, do you shoot or do you wait to see what he's up to?

Nope. Shoot away.

If you are in the heat of the moment & have no other reason to believe that you are no longer in danger then DF is reasonable.

But what if...

You don't have your gun in easy reach & have to retrieve it from another location? (believe it or not, not everybody sleeps or showers with their gun on their side )?

When you get back the person is passed out or otherwise prone on your floor?

Do you think that DF is still justified?

Just because your p!$$ed that he came in doesn't mean you can shoot him.

 

[SavageEagle]

As others have said, I think you did a good job. Chances are it was just some drunk or high idiot that didn't know his "friends" bailed on him and he was just looking for a place to crash since it was your second night.

Regardless what anyone says, I think it was a good learning experience and I also think you know what to do to make sure it doesn't happen again. Glad everything turned out good though!

 

[bigus_D]

How close does he have to be to you before you're willing to shoot? If you're on your sofa and someone breaks through your front door, do you shoot or do you wait to see what he's up to?

If I'm on my sofa and somebody breaks through the front door, the following actions would be taken.

1. I'd stand as quickly as possible and present my weapon immediately.
2. I'd order the intruder down as forcibly as I can muster.
3. Since my german shepherd dog would most likely be upset at the commotion, I doubt an accidental (drunk and lost for example) intruder would continue his intrusion.
4. If pressed further, I'll shoot.

Note: my front door is very close to the couch I'm thinking about. Time from initial breach of always locked front door to termination of intrusion would probably be only a few seconds. If I'm in bed or in my basement, the GSD will be on the main level and he will determine the proper course of action before I have an opportunity to provide an intruder direction out of the house.

I don't want to shoot anybody, but I will if pressed. The OP MAY have been OK after pulling the trigger in the described situation. In fact, I believe, so long as the room-mates didn't paint an improper picture for the police and/or prosecutor, he wouldn't have faced a trial. But he definitely would have had to deal with the emotional aftermath of killing somebody, and MAY have had legal problems.

 

[jbombelli]

How many here have actually been SHOT AT? I'm not talking about being shot at in a military or law enforcement context; I'm talking about being shot at by some scumbag.

Do you know how fast some scumbag can pull a gun and shoot you while you're trying to figure out whether deadly force is warranted?

I do. I've been shot at twice in my life.

I actually KNOW how fast this can happen.

Therefore, if you're in my house without my permission, I'm not going to sit around and try to figure out why you're there. I'm not going to give you time to make your intentions known, and prove to me that deadly force was warranted. I'm just going to shoot you. And whatever happens later, happens later. I'm at peace with that decision, in every way possible.

And please note... the terms "you" and "you're" above are intended in the general sense; they're not intended to point to any specific person.

 

[RichardR]

And I think you are getting hung up on the idea that you WANT it to read that it is always reasonable to use deadly force when from a simple fifth grade reading level it clearly doesn't.

Ok I think we're done, it's obvious that you don't believe it "reasonable" to shoot someone attempting to break into your house.

Therefore I believe you to be an "unreasonable" person and as such we cannot have a "reasonable" conversation so there really is no point in continuing to debate the issue.

 

[MTC]

Do you know how fast some scumbag can pull a gun and shoot you while you're trying to figure out whether deadly force is warranted?

Therefore, if you're in my house without my permission, I'm not going to sit around and try to figure out why you're there. I'm not going to give you time to make your intentions known, and prove to me that deadly force was warranted. I'm just going to shoot you. And whatever happens later, happens later. I'm at peace with that decision, in every way possible.

That's one of the reasons why I always call first, especially when stopping to visit for the first time. As far as the quoted question, ... yes, got some idea.
This point was driven home years ago during a defensive handgun course. Myself and about twenty or so students stood at about the 15 yard line. Two of the lead instructors - both former Marines (one an active SWAT cop) stood facing each other at about the 7. The SWAT member asked (paraphrased), "If someone broke into your house and you saw him right there, how many of you would try to talk to him, reason with him, or yell at him?" I was a little surprised and disappointed when over half the hands went up!
He then said, "Fine. I'll play the homeowner. My partner here will be the intruder." Both had .45s in OWB holsters and faced each other, hands at their sides, less than 10 ft. apart.
"Who ar?!" BLAM-BLAM The rest of his loud demand of who are you was drowned out by the sound of the pistol from the other instructor, who had drawn and fired two rounds into the chest area of a paper human silhouette @ 7 yds further at a right angle, without even looking at it.
They continued, with the instructor playing the BG reholstering each time.
"What're you d?!" BLAM-BLAM Same thing.
"Get outta" BLAM-BLAM Again.

Can't recreate it here. You really had to see it in real time.
They stopped and the first Marine asked again, "Now, how many of you are gonna try to talk to him?"
Even after that, there were still one or two hands that went up.

 

[Hammerhead]

I think where the thoughts on this issue diverge are between the initial finding of a person in the house and the first "What the **** are you doing in my house?!" question asked, or "GTFO, I'm armed and you're dead if you don't comply!" command given.

It's not unreasonable to not use deadly force if someone is presented with the option to GTFO without being perforated. If someone submits to commands or hauls a** out the door after realizing they're about to be given a fatal case of lead poisoning, then absolutely, deadly force isn't reasonable.

What I believe most of the people here are stating (and so awesomely described as improbable by MTC up there ^^) is that they won't even give the option to an intruder, especially if it's a middle of the night scenario. In the middle of the day, if I'm home, I'm generally prepared to present my weapon, and it's not unlikely that someone trying to get into my home then would be able to see it happen. In the middle of the night, if you're shining a flashlight in the eyes of a scumbag as you should, they're not likely to see your gun, and more likely to be scared or agitated into doing something stupid.

In a situation where you're surprised at an intruder and they're surprised by a homeowner, deadly force is not only reasonable, but probably a better option than trying to talk to the scumbag.

This is why, in my previous post, I specifically stated that an intruder in my home in the middle of the night is a threat. Bang comes first in this instance. In clearer circumstances, i.e. a daylight invasion, resorting to something other than deadly force might be advisable, unless you're absolutely sure you're in danger. You see a weapon on them, stop the threat. That threat is more immediate in the middle of the night, since you aren't going to be aware as quickly of the threat.

That's why people will shoot immediately in this situation. In a perfect world, the "GTFO or die!" would work every time, no matter what. We don't live in a perfect world.

 

[j706]

Wow I sure hope some of the posters on this thread have a huge savings account for defense attorney fees. If not that public defender they are going to appoint you probably ain't gonna cut it.

And the prosecution would have a field day with all your INDGO thread posts. The average jury would eat that up.

Do what you gotta do I guess. You are the one that will have to deal with it.

 

[jbombelli]

Wow I sure hope some of the posters on this thread have a huge savings account for defense attorney fees. If not that public defender they are going to appoint you probably ain't gonna cut it.

And the prosecution would have a field day with all your INDGO thread posts. The average jury would eat that up.

Do what you gotta do I guess. You are the one that will have to deal with it.

Blah blah blah. Like I said in a prior post... I'm at peace with my decision.

You must be the type that would arrest and see someone prosecuted for shooting an intruder in their home. It certainly looks to be the case, doesn't it?

 

[finity]

Ok I think we're done, it's obvious that you don't believe it "reasonable" to shoot someone attempting to break into your house.

Therefore I believe you to be an "unreasonable" person and as such we cannot have a "reasonable" conversation so there really is no point in continuing to debate the issue.

You really do have a reading comprehension issue, don't you.

I said it wasn't ALWAYS reasonable, no matter what, in every situation, to use DF on someone in a home invasion scenario.

You haven't quite figured out that just because YOU say that I said something doesn't mean I actually did. Similarly, just because you illogically claim the law says something doesn't mean it actually does.

You can "believe" whatever you want about me. I just don't want some other person to read your statement of your opinion as if it's fact (i.e. "It's ALWAYS reasonable to kill someone who broke into your house") & then act on that bad advice.

Do what you want if it ever happens & hopefully it turns out OK for you.

 

[MTC]

So much of life has gone by unrecorded. Didn't read through all replies.

The purpose of that particular demonstration was to answer the question for the students of how fast "it" can happen. In addition to normal daylight classes, low light and night training emphasizes among other things identifying the threat (one of Cooper's rules). There are other blocks of instruction, and even separate courses, dealing with moral and ethical considerations in the use of deadly force. Unless the course is specifically offered by an attorney, it has been stressed by instructors that they're not in the business of dispensing legal advice, but rather training the students in the safe and effective use of firearms for self-defense. (Whether it is referred to as a gun, tool, or weapon depends on the school of thought and teaching methodology.)

These questions, problems, and so much more can be resolved through professional instruction, both on the range and in the classroom.
If one or more posts motivates the reader to seek training (or additional training), it will have been worthwhile.

 

[finity]

I think where the thoughts on this issue diverge are between the initial finding of a person in the house and the first "What the **** are you doing in my house?!" question asked, or "GTFO, I'm armed and you're dead if you don't comply!" command given.

It's not unreasonable to not use deadly force if someone is presented with the option to GTFO without being perforated. If someone submits to commands or hauls a** out the door after realizing they're about to be given a fatal case of lead poisoning, then absolutely, deadly force isn't reasonable.

What I believe most of the people here are stating (and so awesomely described as improbable by MTC up there ^^) is that they won't even give the option to an intruder, especially if it's a middle of the night scenario. In the middle of the day, if I'm home, I'm generally prepared to present my weapon, and it's not unlikely that someone trying to get into my home then would be able to see it happen. In the middle of the night, if you're shining a flashlight in the eyes of a scumbag as you should, they're not likely to see your gun, and more likely to be scared or agitated into doing something stupid.

In a situation where you're surprised at an intruder and they're surprised by a homeowner, deadly force is not only reasonable, but probably a better option than trying to talk to the scumbag.

This is why, in my previous post, I specifically stated that an intruder in my home in the middle of the night is a threat. Bang comes first in this instance. In clearer circumstances, i.e. a daylight invasion, resorting to something other than deadly force might be advisable, unless you're absolutely sure you're in danger. You see a weapon on them, stop the threat. That threat is more immediate in the middle of the night, since you aren't going to be aware as quickly of the threat.

That's why people will shoot immediately in this situation. In a perfect world, the "GTFO or die!" would work every time, no matter what. We don't live in a perfect world.

^^This is what I'm saying.

As I've said in other threads of this nature - It is completely reasonable to assume that someone who breaks into your house with you in it is there to do bodily harm & act on that assumption...

BUT...

that is only true barring ANY evidence that DF would NOT BE warranted therefore unreasonable.

All of the above is included in the IC.

There is no requiremernt for you to be in fear of bodily harm to use deadly force on a person actively breaking into (attacking) your home. The possibilty of SBI is presumed to be a reasonable fear in this case. The moment that is no longer true is the moment when the person stops actively "attacking" your dwelling. At that point the AUTOMATIC presumption of it being reasonable to use deadly force stops.

The IC only allows DF to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry. If the other person voluntarily terminates the attack, the justification to use DF is no longer there because it is no longer NECESSARY to use DF to stop the attack.