SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
No, that is not what the law requires.
Wow. That provided value. Thank you for your input.
No, that is not what the law requires.
Wow. That provided value. Thank you for your input.
No, that is not what the law requires.
The law has been posted repeatedly on this site, and even in this thread. what is utterly lacking in value is posting incorrect information, which is what you did.
where we specifically learned the difference between what is written and what it means
I know I shouldn't, but what the hell.
The law requires only that I be able to articulate a fear for my life. I'll spell out that fear in about 20 seconds. The law does not require I give any warning or give an intruder any time to turn and face me. Morality dictates that I protect my family, not give an intruder a chance to see the error of their ways and give them an opportunity to kill me. Survival requires that I safely eliminate all threats, known and unknown, to my life. As far as I am concerned anyone who breaks into my home committed suicide as soon as they crossed the threshold. No deposit, no returns.
<snip>
a law professor once told me that a dead man tells no tales, and if someone comes in your house, shoot him. if that man does not have a weapon, kindly lend him one.
Ok I really didn't want to get into this again but maybe I didn't explain it as well as I could have earlier in the thread so I'll give it one more go..
The whole reason the "to prevent or terminate unlawful entry" was put into the statute was to remove the whole "in fear of" requirement of the self-defense portion of the statute for a homeowner defending their own home.
Self-defense is what is known as an "affirmative defense" ie; the defendant admits to shooting & killing another person (which is a criminal act) but claims it was justified & as such the burden of proof is on the defendant.
I hope everyone followed that closely because it is important.
The inclusion of "to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry" was intended to remove the burden of proof from the homeowner from having to prove that they were "in fear of" in order to avoid criminal prosecution for defending themselves in their own homes, instead that "in fear of" is presumed.
That presumption is a very important distinction, legally speaking & it takes the burden of proof off of the homeowner & places it on the State.
So now in order for the State to prosecute a homeowner they (the State) has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the homeowner was not "in fear of" & was "unreasonable" in their use of that deadly force.
No worries, I actually read all that.
Being a Marine I would have considered you a God fearing man. What you describe here is not that. Hesitation kills... on the battlefield. But if you got some guy in your home that's not suppose to be there, but he sees you and tries to surrender and you shoot him, that's murder, not self-defense. It would be wrong on the battlefield and it's wrong in your home.
I realize you are looking through the eyes of a Marine. I respect that. I'm not saying I think less of you for your choice here either. However, I think it's wrong that you would shoot without question, without circumstance, and without fear of the consequences.
However, we all live our lives to the best of our ability. I'm a man of chances. God has given me chance after chance in this life when I should be a corpse. I will give that home invader a chance. One chance. I should carry bear spray because I don't WANT to take another man's life? Well, that's your opinion. Just because I don't WANT to doesn't mean I won't.
A home intruder doesn't immediately pose a threat to me with a handful of my possessions. He does if he's holding a weapon though. Then he will not get a second chance. But an unarmed man will.
Not entirely true. A person may use "reasonable force, including deadly force" to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry. Deadly force is not necessarily reasonable force.
Don't ever confuse action and outcome in a stressful situation. As long as you can justify your actions (not the outcome) first and foremost to yourself, then potentially to a jury, you've done the right thing.
No, that is not what the law requires.
Not entirely true. A person may use "reasonable force, including deadly force" to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry. Deadly force is not necessarily reasonable force. You may still be charged for terminating someone inside your home. You do not have a duty to retreat. You still may need to be able to articulate WHY deadly force was reasonable given the circumstances of the situation as you believed them to be at the time.
Remember, right doesn't mean innocent. Just sayin.
The State always has the burden of proving a crime was committed.
If you use self-defense as your defense against the crime then the state no longer has to prove who did it. You've already admitted that you did it. They now just have to prove that it wasn't, in fact, "self-defense".
They still have a burden of proof, but what they have to prove has changed.
That is incorrect, with an affirmative defense such as self-defense the burden of proof is on the defendant.
I. Self-Defense Claim
Rodriguez first claims that he "is not guilty of any crime" because the evidence established that he acted in self-defense. Specifically, Rodriguez contends that the evidence supported the reasonable inference that "the use of deadly force was necessary to protect himself and his companions." Appellant’s Br. p. 10.
In resolving this issue, we note that a valid claim of defense of oneself or another person is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(a); see also Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800 (Ind. 2002). In order to prevail on a claim of self-defense when deadly force is used, a defendant must show that he: (1) was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the violence; and (3) had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. I.C. § 35-41-3-2; Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800. An individual is justified in using deadly force only if he or she "reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to [the individual] or a third person." I.C. § 35-41-3-2(a); see also Harmon v. State, 849 N.E.2d 726, 730 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). The amount of force that an individual may use to protect himself or herself must be proportionate to the urgency of the situation. Harmon, 849 N.E.2d at 730-31. When a person uses more force than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances, the right of self-defense is extinguished. Id. at 731. Finally, we note that when a claim of self-defense is raised and finds support in the evidence, the State has the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements.
- An individual is justified in using deadly force only if he or she "reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to [the individual] or a third person."
- The amount of force that an individual may use to protect himself or herself must be proportionate to the urgency of the situation.
- When a person uses more force than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances, the right of self-defense is extinguished.
The law on self-defense is not significantly different between what is required in or out of your home. The biggest difference is that the need to believe that bodily harm is imminent outside of your home is not present inside your home. That part is what is presumed. Not that it is ALWAYS reasonable to use deadly force. Look at the wording of the two parts of the IC. They are very similarly constructed.
One requires you to reasonably believe that ONLY deadly force will stop the SBI that is about to occur. The other requires you to reasonably believe that ONLY deadly force will stop the attack on your home.
Finity, he part in blue is correct, however the part in red is not correct, there is no such requirement in the statute.
Do you think that it is always reasonable to believe that it is necessary to use deadly force outside your home to prevent serious bodily injury (as in the first part of the IC not pertaining to you home)?
What I think doesn't matter, but the statute specifically says that the use of reasonable force, including deadly force is justified when it is used to prevent serious bodily injury &/or prevent or terminate an unlawful entry.
An individual is justified in using deadly force only if he or she "reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to [the individual] or a third person." I.C. § 35-41-3-2(a); see also Harmon v. State, 849 N.E.2d 726, 730 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). The amount of force that an individual may use to protect himself or herself must be proportionate to the urgency of the situation. Harmon, 849 N.E.2d at 730-31. When a person uses more force than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances, the right of self-defense is extinguished.