Hold your ground and castle law in simple terms please

[warhawk77]

Can someone explain in simple terms what Castle doctrine and Stand your ground?

I have used google but lots of legal speak. From what I understand

Castle doctrine says I can shot anyone breaking into my house, car or business

Stand your ground says I don't have to say "I'm about to blow your head off get out" or try to leave the house thru a "safe" exit point.


If you guys have a link where I can read up my self that would be great.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

There are still states where a response to a threat is legally acceptable only if all avenues of escape have been exhausted, no matter where you are. In other words, you have to be cornered, no way out. Castle doctrine means you are free to respond within your home or vehicle, and "stand your ground" means you don't have to try to run away anywhere else. If someone threatens you, you can make them stop, however you have to.

 

[warhawk77]

That is my understanding of the law.

This came up because my wife and I have talked about moving to a different state but looking into some our options I don't like the laws they have on the books. I was surprised how many states don't share the same laws we have.


Thanks

 

[Hoosier8]

HOUSE ENROLLED ACT No. 1028
AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning firearms and self-defense.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]: Sec. 2. (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; only 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.
(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, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, or 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 not justified in using deadly force; unless and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another 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.
(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.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), 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.


Curtilage: The land immediately surrounding a dwelling, such as a yard and outbuildings, where some of the regular activity of the occupant's home life takes place, where the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that is usually demarcated, fenced off, or otherwise clearly protected from public scrutiny. Such land is regarded as a part of the dwelling itself and is protected from warrantless searches under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Also called open fields doctrine or messuage.

 

[finity]

There is a slight but kind of important difference between the two commonly used phrases "castle doctrine" & "stand your ground".

You are mostly correct that the law gives you the justification* to use deadly force to stop or prevent someone from breaking into your house or OCCUPIED vehicle (the OCCUPIED part is extremely important here - you can't kill someone for breaking into your empty car in the driveway). That is the commonly accepted meaning of "castle doctrine".

The law doesn't extend that automatic justification to your business though.

The "stand your ground" doctrine, while also referring to your duties during a "castle doctrine" event, also refers to the use of deadly force any where else other than the above (house, occupied car or curtilage). Basically, the phrase "no duty to retreat" IS the "stand your ground" law. It also provides justification* to use deadly force, as long as you are doing nothing illegal yourself, if the attack meets certain specified criteria. Namely, for an attack outside your home or occupied, vehicle you have to be in jeopardy of "serious bodily injury" or the BG has to be in the commission of a "forcible felony", both of which are defined by IN law:

IC 35-41-1-11
"Forcible felony"
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 added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.12.

IC 35-41-1-25
"Serious bodily injury"
Sec. 25. "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes:
(1) serious permanent disfigurement;
(2) unconsciousness;
(3) extreme pain; (4) permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ; or
(5) loss of a fetus.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.26. Amended by P.L.261-1997, SEC.1.

Note that you don't JUST have to believe that you're going to die before you can respond to an attack with deadly force. There are 5 other criteria under SBI including "extreme pain" & "unconciousness" & forcible felonies include rape, kidnapping & robbery (not theft, though - again, there is a difference).

The biggest difference between the two concepts (castle doctrine & stand your ground) is the different criteria used to justify the use of deadly force.

Notice under "castle doctrine", it says nothing about being in jeopardy of SBI or a forcible felony. If someone is breaking into your house or your occupied vehicle (carjacking) the PRESUMPTION is there that those conditions ALREADY exist.

* In BOTH instances above your use of deadly force HAS to be considered "reasonable" in order to be used as a legal defense. IOW, a legally defined "reasonable person" with normal judgement & knowing the same details as you would need to believe that the use of deadly force was NECESSARY to protect yourself or others, or your home, from an IMMINENT threat.

 

[SouthernIndy]

great answer, thanks

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

Note that you don't JUST have to believe that you're going to die before you can respond to an attack with deadly force. There are 5 other criteria under SBI including "extreme pain" & "unconciousness" & forcible felonies include rape, kidnapping & robbery (not theft, though - again, there is a difference).

All 5 do not have to be met only 1 has to be met to be justifiable use of deadly force. IANAL but that is how I understand the law. If I am missing something someone else please share your opinion.

IC 35-41-1-25
"Serious bodily injury"
Sec. 25. "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes:
(1) serious permanent disfigurement;
(2) unconsciousness;
(3) extreme pain; (4) permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ; or
(5) loss of a fetus.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.26. Amended by P.L.261-1997, SEC.1.

 

[finity]

All 5 do not have to be met only 1 has to be met to be justifiable use of deadly force. IANAL but that is how I understand the law. If I am missing something someone else please share your opinion.

No, you are completely correct.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

You only have to meet only 1 of those criteria to be justified in using DF as long as that use of DF was considered otherwise reasonable.

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

No, you are completely correct.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

You only have to meet only 1 of those criteria to be justified in using DF as long as that use of DF was considered otherwise reasonable.

Ok I thought you were saying all 5 had to be met.

These 2 right here are pretty easy to meet
(2) unconsciousness;
(3) extreme pain;

 

[Eric70]

Ok now I'm really kind of confused. My house sits on a hill in front of my garage. From my bedroom window I have a perfect view of my garage that holds way too many $$ in tools. If I awake and find someone loading my stuff up.... Can I just shoot or do I need to first tell them to stop... Or just call the cops? Since it is not my dwelling?

 

[finity]

Ok now I'm really kind of confused. My house sits on a hill in front of my garage. From my bedroom window I have a perfect view of my garage that holds way too many $$ in tools. If I awake and find someone loading my stuff up.... Can I just shoot or do I need to first tell them to stop... Or just call the cops? Since it is not my dwelling?

I think you are walking on VERY thin ice by just shooting. Also telling them to stop before you shoot makes absolutely no difference on the legality of shooting them.

Some may argue that the garage you can see from your house is part of your curtilage & it very well may be so BUT you have to be able to convince the police, a prosecutor or a jury of that AND convince them that it was reasonably necessary to kill someone because they were stealing your stuff with absolutely no threat to you.

I personally think that would be a hard sell. Now, if the garage was connected to your house I think it makes it way easier to convince people that you were protecting you home from invasion.

Also no one is telling you that you can't go out to try to get them to stop even by using physical force to stop them. You just can't use deadly force unless they do something to make the use of DF justified (i.e. meeting the criteria I talked about above). Since we have no duty to retreat & we are allowed by law to use physical force (but not deadly force) to protect property if they then escalate the situation to a deadly force encounter then...well...you do what you feel is reasonably necessary.

If they run away, even with your stuff in their hands then I think you better not shoot them.

YOU CAN'T SHOOT SOMEONE FOR JUST STEALING YOUR STUFF.

As always,

 

[warhawk77]

Thank you everyone that does clear it up

+1

 

[03A3]

Eric70 If the thieves are actually loading a vehicle, shoot up said vehicle to the point that it cannot leave or get very far if it does. I wouldn't put any rounds thru the passenger compartment.
And be be ready in case they return fire. They probably wouldn't, but could of course. You never know.

 

[finity]

If the thieves are actually loading a vehicle, shoot up said vehicle to the point that it cannot leave or get very far if it does. I wouldn't put any rounds thru the passenger compartment.
And be be ready in case they return fire. They probably wouldn't, but could of course. You never know.

Bad advice.

If you shoot toward them it's like using deadly force on them. Look up the definition of deadly force. Better yet, I'll do it for you:

IC 35-41-1-7
"Deadly force"
Sec. 7. "Deadly force" means force that creates a substantial risk
of serious bodily injury.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.8.

I don't know about you but I think shooting at an occupied vehicle could be an act that creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.

If they are just stealing your stuff then running away leave the gun out of it.

 

[03A3]

I see what you're saying finity. The scenario I have in mind is the thieves are in your garage and/or at the rear of the vehicle they are loading, and the front end of the vehicle gets shot up without having anybody in the field of fire.
I agree that that personal belongings are not worth going to court, let alone jail over. But if the criminals can be stopped without injuring/killing them, or putting anyone else at risk, then why not?

 

[GuyRelford]

Ok now I'm really kind of confused. My house sits on a hill in front of my garage. From my bedroom window I have a perfect view of my garage that holds way too many $$ in tools. If I awake and find someone loading my stuff up.... Can I just shoot or do I need to first tell them to stop... Or just call the cops? Since it is not my dwelling?

You've gotten some good answers to this already. More specifically, Indiana law does not justify the use of deadly force merely to protect property:

(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).

"Subsection (a) is the "serious bodily injury" and "forcible felony" rule that's been discussed.

Guy

 

[GuyRelford]

I see what you're saying finity. The scenario I have in mind is the thieves are in your garage and/or at the rear of the vehicle they are loading, and the front end of the vehicle gets shot up without having anybody in the field of fire.
I agree that that personal belongings are not worth going to court, let alone jail over. But if the criminals can be stopped without injuring/killing them, or putting anyone else at risk, then why not?

You really need to read Nantz v. State (link: No.) and Upp v. State (link:http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8470690569052463096&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr).

In Nantz, the court found that merely pointing a loaded firearm at someone's head was found to be unreasonable force (in fact, "deadly force") utilized in the defense of property, and the defendant was convicted of "pointing a firearm," which is a Class D felony (if the gun is loaded.)

In Upp, the court found that the defendant had been properly convicted of criminal recklessness after he fired several shots in the direction of a trespasser, but claimed he was not actually trying to hit him.

Here's a quote from Nantz:

By pointing a loaded gun at Petro's head, Nantz created a variety of risks that could have lead to serious bodily injury.   In Upp v. State, 473 N.E.2d 1030, 1032 (Ind.Ct.App.1985), this court affirmed the defendant's conviction for criminal recklessness.   In that case, Upp asserted the defense of property defense, and claimed that although he fired his gun several times, he was not trying to hit the trespasser in his back yard.  Id. at 1031, 1032.   We concluded that even assuming that Upp was not attempting to shoot the trespasser, his behavior still created a substantial risk of bodily injury because Upp could have missed his aim or a bullet could have struck a stone, ricocheted and injured the trespasser.  Id at 1032.

Although Nantz did not fire his handgun as the defendant did in Upp, by pointing the gun at Petro's head, the gun could have accidentally discharged or Petro could have grabbed the gun causing serious injury or death to one or both of these men.   Further, under Ind.Code § 35-41-3-2(a), Petro may have arguably had the right to use deadly force to defend against Nantz's action of pointing a loaded firearm at him, creating a substantial risk of injury.   “ ‘Permitting one to threaten to use deadly force leads in dangerous progression to an unacceptable conclusion.   Here, the victim would have been entitled to use deadly force to repel the perceived threat.’ ” Commonwealth of Virginia v. Alexander, 260 Va. 238, 241, 531 S.E.2d 567, 569 (2000) (citation omitted).

Consequently, we conclude that Nantz's conduct, pointing a loaded firearm at Petro's head, was unreasonable force to use to protect his alleged property interest in the bulldozer.   Thus, Nantz failed to prove his defense of property defense.   Therefore, we find that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for pointing a firearm, as a Class D felony.

Guy

 

[03A3]

Ok understood. It's a shame that all you can do is call 911 as you watch them load and leave with your stuff. It seems that we should have more rights than that.

 

[GuyRelford]

Ok understood. It's a shame that all you can do is call 911 as you watch them load and leave with your stuff. It seems that we should have more rights than that.

True, and there are a couple of options. You can still use "reasonable force" to protect property - you just can't use deadly force. In addition, Nantz wasn't a "citizen's arrest" case, and one of the exceptions to the crime of "pointing a firearm" is when a person is using force to effect a lawful citizen's arrest. Of course, that begs the question of why you would ever want to point a firearm if you can't pull the trigger, but that's the current state of Indiana law.

Guy

 

[mrortega]

Eric70 If the thieves are actually loading a vehicle, shoot up said vehicle to the point that it cannot leave or get very far if it does. I wouldn't put any rounds thru the passenger compartment.
And be be ready in case they return fire. They probably wouldn't, but could of course. You never know.

Bad move. How about a reckless homicide charge?