Hold your ground and castle law in simple terms please

[Glock22-27]

That being said, say I drew my weapon upon the thief that was stealing things out of my car and he attempts to fire back with his but I'm first to shoot. Say I dont kill him can you use that against me in court?

He then would be able to say he feared for his life since I came at him with gun drawn first, and then I would be the one in jail for attempted murder, or w/e that would fall under?

 

[GuyRelford]

That being said, say I drew my weapon upon the thief that was stealing things out of my car and he attempts to fire back with his but I'm first to shoot. Say I dont kill him can you use that against me in court?

He then would be able to say he feared for his life since I came at him with gun drawn first, and then I would be the one in jail for attempted murder, or w/e that would fall under?

Generally speaking, a person engaged in the commission of a crime cannot claim self defense:

IC 35-41-3-2
(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.

But the complexities that you mention are all examples of why it can be problematic to involve a firearm in the protection of mere property - when deadly force is not justfied absent the need to prevent serious bodily injury or the commission of a forcible felony.

Guy

 

[Butch627]

TFT thank you for your informative and eye opening posts in this thread. I haven't seen this info elsewhere on this sight and it is very interesting. It has cleared up a lot of misconceptions I had about self defense and defense of our property.

 

[GuyRelford]

That being said, say I drew my weapon upon the thief that was stealing things out of my car and he attempts to fire back with his but I'm first to shoot.

This scared be a little.

 

[GuyRelford]

TFT thank you for your informative and eye opening posts in this thread. I haven't seen this info elsewhere on this sight and it is very interesting. It has cleared up a lot of misconceptions I had about self defense and defense of our property.

My pleasure!!

Guy

 

[IndyGunSafety]

IANAL.... but Indiana law includes the word REASONABLE in terms of using deadly force. But REASONABLE is not defined in the law. That leaves a lot of room for interpretation based on the politics of the local authorities IMO. For those of you who have taken a Utah CFP course, you may remember how well REASONABLE is defined under Utah law. Not so in Indiana. The lack of definition for reasonableness is one of the main points I took away from Brian Ciyou's lecture at Indy Gun Safety last year.

Either way, trying to convince a jury that deadly force was reasonable after shooting from your house at somebody breaking in to your garage may be difficult.

 

[GuyRelford]

IANAL.... but Indiana law includes the word REASONABLE in terms of using deadly force. But REASONABLE is not defined in the law. That leaves a lot of room for interpretation based on the politics of the local authorities IMO. For those of you who have taken a Utah CFP course, you may remember how well REASONABLE is defined under Utah law. Not so in Indiana. The lack of definition for reasonableness is one of the main points I took away from Brian Ciyou's lecture at Indy Gun Safety last year.

Either way, trying to convince a jury that deadly force was reasonable after shooting from your house at somebody breaking in to your garage may be difficult.

It's a good point and the "reasonableness" requirement is very real. There are a lot of cases that discuss that requirement, including the rule of proportionality - the force used in self defense must be "proportionate" to the threat.

Unfortunately, Brian has been known to take the reasonableness component of the self-defense statute way too far - in the Second Edition of his book (the red one), he makes the argument that if someone breaks into your home and is swinging a baseball bat at you, you should flee your home because that is more "reasonable" than shooting the intruder. I thought that was ridiculous when I read it (particularly because Ind. Code 35-41-3-2(b) says specifically that there is no duty to retreat. (This is one of the reasons that I refused to buy the Third Edition of his book (the green one that is currently in print) - combined with his very public criticism of open carry.

From page 115 of Indiana Handgun Law (2d. Edition, 2007):

Clearly, the ‘Castle Doctrine,’ via Indiana’s current statutory scheme, does not require retreat. This noted, however, there is at least one critical distinction that appears to exist between the Castle Doctrine and Indiana’s present state of the law on the use of ‘deadly force’ to protect one’s dwelling. The Castle Doctrine’s authority did not include any ‘reasonableness’ component. Indiana’s statute still does. This may well still require retreat. That is, if an intruder is swinging a bat, but is not connecting, and the homeowner has the ability to retreat instead of shooting, is it reasonable to shoot instead of retreat (the reader-Licensee should be able to determine the legally prudent action by now, flee)?

I have no desire to shoot anyone and I would go to great lengths to avoid it, but if someone breaks into my home and is swinging a baseball bat at me, I would have no hesitation about defending myself and my home and I don't think it's appropriate to advise people that there is any legal obligation to flee in that situation.

Guy

 

[IndyGunSafety]

It's a good point and the "reasonableness" requirement is very real. There are a lot of cases that discuss that requirement, including the rule of proportionality - the force used in self defense must be "proportionate" to the threat.

Unfortunately, Brian has been known to take the reasonableness component of the self-defense statute way too far - in the Second Edition of his book (the red one), he makes the argument that if someone breaks into your home and is swinging a baseball bat at you, you should flee your home because that is more "reasonable" than shooting the intruder. I thought that was ridiculous when I read it (particularly because Ind. Code 35-41-3-2(b) says specifically that there is no duty to retreat. (This is one of the reasons that I refused to buy the Third Edition of his book (the green one that is currently in print) - combined with his very public criticism of open carry.

From page 115 of Indiana Handgun Law (2d. Edition, 2007):



I have no desire to shoot anyone and I would go to great lengths to avoid it, but if someone breaks into my home and is swinging a baseball bat at me, I would have no hesitation about defending myself and my home and I don't think it's appropriate to advise people that there is any legal obligation to flee in that situation.

Guy

While you and I may think the prospect of fleeing in that case is "ridiculous", is there a guarantee that every juror in every court is going to share the viewpoint that fleeing from a person swinging a bat is ridiculous? Maybe his book takes it a bit too far.

I run into so many people that say they could never take a human life and would rather be killed than kill someone else. (When it came down to the real thing I often wonder how solid their convictions would be!) So I often wonder what a JURY is going to think. It all comes down to who tells a better story I guess: One's lawyer or the prosecutor.

Do you feel the term "reasonable" should have a legal definition within the law? For example, here is the Utah law: (Has to be taught to every student in the Utah CFP course)

The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.

The above is repeated to include deadly force on real property as well.
​

 

[GuyRelford]

While you and I may think the prospect of fleeing in that case is "ridiculous", is there a guarantee that every juror in every court is going to share the viewpoint that fleeing from a person swinging a bat is ridiculous? Maybe his book takes it a bit too far.

I run into so many people that say they could never take a human life and would rather be killed than kill someone else. (When it came down to the real thing I often wonder how solid their convictions would be!) So I often wonder what a JURY is going to think. It all comes down to who tells a better story I guess: One's lawyer or the prosecutor.

Do you feel the term "reasonable" should have a legal definition within the law? For example, here is the Utah law: (Has to be taught to every student in the Utah CFP course)

The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.​

The above is repeated to include deadly force on real property as well.​

There are no guarantees when it comes to juries, but I think that it is extremely unlikely that a case involving Ciyou's scenario - an intruder is shot after breaking into a home and swinging a baseball bat at the homeowner - ever gets to a jury. Both Ind. Code 35-41-3-2(a) (deadly force to prevent serious bodily injury or the commission of a forcible felony) and 35-41-3-2(b) (castle doctrine) specifically justify the use of deadly force in that situation with no duty to retreat. Prosecutors only file cases they think they can win, and local politics can only influence things so far. In fact, I believe that a prosecutor would be prevented from even arguing to a jury that the "reasonableness' requirement of the self-defense statute creates a duty to retreat - when the statute says specfically that there is no such duty. (You can't make an argument to a jury that is expressly contrary to law.)

I've taken the Utah course, but I'm not sure the quoted definition helps provide much clarity. The term "reasonable" appears repeatedly in the law - including the most common type of court case, the standard tort action for "negligence" (based on the civil duty to act "reasonably" so as to avoid foreseeable damage to others). I don't think it's a terribly difficult concept for people to grasp.

In that regard, we do have Pattern Jury Intructions in Indiana that provide a lot of clarity on this issue - perhaps more than Utah's definition:

A person may use reasonable force to defend himself against another's imminent use of illegal force.   He must reasonably and honestly believe that force is necessary to resist attack.   He cannot use excessive force or a disproportionate amount of force under the circumstances.

The question of the existence of an apparent danger and the amount of force necessary to resist force, can only be determined from the standpoint of the defendant, at the time and under the existing circumstances.   The defendant may use such force as may reasonably be necessary to resist such attack or apparent attack.   He will not be accountable for an error in judgment as to the amount of force necessary, provided he acted reasonabl[y] and honestly.   One who was in no apparent danger and had no reasonable ground for apprehension of danger cannot raise this defense.

Reasonable belief means such belief as an ordinary reasonable person would possess under all the existing circumstances and as viewed from the perspective of such person within the total set of circumstances existing in the particular case.   Reasonable belief does not require that the danger perceived have actually existed, but only that it was reasonably perceived as existing under all the circumstances, including any particular knowledge possessed by the defendant.   However, the reasonableness of the belief must be tested from the standpoint of a person of reasonable sensibilities.

Guy

 

[Hammerhead]

Don't forget (I know you aren't, but someone might) the fact that there is a portion of the IC that states that someone acting in self defense won't come under any legal jeopardy whatsoever. Reasonableness doesn't matter in the bat-swinging psycho intruder story. He's swinging a weapon that can cause SBI, aside from the no duty to retreat, that's pretty clearly a self defense scenario that once the idiot bringing a bat to a gunfight in my house finds himself on the losing end, it would be hard pressed to even come close to court.

 

[griffin]

I would suggest people read this: Street robberies and you - The Basics - AR15.COM Here's the first part. The rest of the post deals with you, when to draw, when to shoot. Good read.

Background

First, my info. I worked in the street of one of America's most violent, dangerous cities for 15 years. I usually worked in the worst part of that city. I spent 15 years in patrol. I liked patrol. It was wild. Most of the time I worked in areas covered in ghetto. By that I mean large housing projects combined with run down slum housing. I have worked all shifts. Later I became an investigator including a robbery investigator. I have spent countless hours in interrogation rooms talking to hold up men. I know them. I am still an investigator but have quit playing the Robbery game because my family was starting to forget what I looked like.

The Enemy

Some may object to me calling hold up men "the enemy." You can call them whatever you like. I can assure you however they are as deadly an enemy as you will find anywhere but the battlefield. Even many soldiers probably lack the viciousness and utter disregard for life most hold up men possess.

No one wakes up in the morning one day and decides to become an armed robber. It is a gradual process that requires some experience and desensitizing. Before a man will pick up a gun and threaten to kill people who have done him no harm in order to get their usually meager possessions he has to get comfortable with some things.

He has to get used to seeing others as objects for him to exploit. He has to accept he may be killed while robbing. He has to accept the felony conviction for Robbery will haunt him all his life. He has to accept he may need to kill a completely innocent person to get away with his crime.

This is a process that starts with stealing candy at the corner store as a child. It progresses through bigger property crimes that may also involve violence. But one day G gets tired of selling his stolen property for nothing and decides it would be better to steal cash. Cut out all that tiresome sales stuff.

Keep in mind many petty thieves, auto burglars, residential and commercial burglars, paper thieves, and hustlers will get to that point and decide not to become armed robbers. Most will. It is a special group of outliers who decide threatening to kill people for a few dollars is the way to go.

Once a man starts armed robbing he has crossed a line most won't. Don't forget that when you are looking these bastards in the eye. Their decision to kill you is already made. Your life means nothing to him. Only his does. His sole motivation for not killing you is he doesn't want a murder case. He has already accepted he may pick one up though.

We hunt hold up men around the clock once they are identified. We send teams of fire breathing fence jumper/door kickers to find them. We will bring their mother to the office and convince her she is going to jail if we don't have Junior in our office in an hour. We have her call her son crying hysterically for him to turn himself in before she is arrested and held without bond as a material witness and her home seized for harboring him. Most of the time they won't. **** their own momma.

We will hit all Juniors friends and family's houses. We make it so no one will harbor him. He is so hot no one will let him in their house or even talk on the phone with him. We put money on him so he knows he is right to be betrayed and set up. We do this because of one thing.

That thing is they WILL kill someone if they keep robbing. That is why the city is willing to pay all the overtime. They don't want the murders. Think about that when you see Junior coming. The more robberies he does the closer he is to killing someone. Maybe you.

The guys who hit you on the street are gang members. They are Gangster Disciples, Vice Lords, Crips, Sureonos, many others. They do not see themselves as part of society. The street is all they know. They don't expect to live long or stay out of prison. They take a delight in your fear and suffering. They are warped individuals for the most part. They can be extremely dangerous.

One time we were locking up a hold up man and having a conversation about how they target their victims. I was saying they pick easy ones, another guy was saying they preferred easy ones but would take anybody.

I pointed out a uniform Officer there was an NFL size guy to that hold up man. Frankly the dude was a monster. I asked hold up man if he would rob him. He said "If I needed the money."

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

I would suggest people read this: Street robberies and you - The Basics - AR15.COM Here's the first part. The rest of the post deals with you, when to draw, when to shoot. Good read.

Great read. Thanks

 

[IndyGunSafety]

Guy: I won't bother quoting your entire response. But as usual, I appreciate your thorough and candid post!

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

Any chance of copying the post that griffin linked to and making it a sticky here? I'm not sure how that works since it is from a different forum but I believe after reading the whole thing that it is one of the best posts I've ever read.

I believe it would be a great reference for all gun owners and even more so for beginners and people who are on the border of getting a gun and becoming familiar with it.

 

[griffin]

I'll also say this. Keep the above in mind when (and if) you choose to watch these. In particular the first one (Vol. 3) tapes a guy who is laying in wait in a nicer part of town for some people to come walking his way because they will have money. And that's how he gets his money. If he has to kill someone, so be it. Think about that when you are walking back to your car from a nice restaurant some day no where near the "hood." These people are sociopaths.

Full movies. Warning: language and violence.

Hood Life Vol. 3
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5MGJ87hPGw[/ame]

Hood Life Vol. 2
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH8FWY7ln9A[/ame]

 

[mrortega]

I would suggest people read this: Street robberies and you - The Basics - AR15.COM Here's the first part. The rest of the post deals with you, when to draw, when to shoot. Good read.

Great post with the link. I read the whole thing and was impressed. The author touched on some things I've always thought about but might have hesitated on: If you feel an encounter about to happen draw your weapon immediately and have it at the ready. If the aggressor continues closing on you be ready to point and fire. If he shows a weapon point and fire immediately without hesitation.

 

[jamesg]

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.

In Georgia I have seen this done personally and it wasn't even a robbery attempt. Neighbor was at bar, met lady, lady comes home with neighbor, couple hours later lady's boyfriend pulls into private property and performs a couple donuts around neighbors home then parks in front of house and proceeds to bang on door. Neighbor walks out with high powered rifle and punches dude, then fires a few rounds straight into the front of the pickup taking out the radiator and block of engine.

Neighbor ended up being sued for the guys property damage but that was the only "charge".

 

[RMOR]

Any chance of copying the post that griffin linked to and making it a sticky here? I'm not sure how that works since it is from a different forum but I believe after reading the whole thing that it is one of the best posts I've ever read.

I believe it would be a great reference for all gun owners and even more so for beginners and people who are on the border of getting a gun and becoming familiar with it.

I agree, great Sticky topic.

 

[jamesg]

now what about the Indiana Supreme Court ruling that made it against the law for Indiana residents to protect themselves from anyone who kicks in the door to your home and screams police and has a badge? .......even if they aren't the cops..... and expects that civil recourse is the appropriate way to handle that situation?

http://newsandtribune.com/publicsafety/x2108372592/Court-No-right-to-resist-unlawful-police-entry

 

[RMOR]

I'll also say this. Keep the above in mind when (and if) you choose to watch these. In particular the first one (Vol. 3) tapes a guy who is laying in wait in a nicer part of town for some people to come walking his way because they will have money. And that's how he gets his money. If he has to kill someone, so be it. Think about that when you are walking back to your car from a nice restaurant some day no where near the "hood." These people are sociopaths.

Full movies. Warning: language and violence.

Hood Life Vol. 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5MGJ87hPGw

Hood Life Vol. 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH8FWY7ln9A

I thought the "N Word" was an offensive term until I watched the first 30 seconds of one of these videos? Then I realized it is used in a similar fashion to the word "the".