Check it out... a guy in Warsaw woke up to the sound of his truck being stolen, so he got in the other truck and chased the guy!
Truck theft victim helps spoil getaway | The Journal Gazette | Fort Wayne, IN
Ya know, one thing I've kinda wondered about...
Subsection (c) is clearly what applies to somebody stealing your car, right? It is property other than a dwelling, ... or occupied motor vehicle. If you just read subsection (c), it sounds like you can shoot somebody stealing your car. But then if you read that last sentence, it adds that deadly force is only justified if the use of force was justified under subsection (a), which kinda sets you back to the point of not being able to shoot somebody stealing your car unless you're IN THE CAR ("occupied motor vehicle").
It makes me think, what the heck was the point of even writing subsection (c)?! I don't really have any kind of "reasonable force" I can use to stop somebody from stealing my car besides my gun! I reckon one could argue that simply displaying the weapon and ordering the person to stop would count as reasonable, but not deadly, force (since you haven't fired yet).
But then again, maybe subsection (a) doesn't say I can't shoot him unless I'm in fear of serious bodily injury... it does say force can be used to terminate the commission of a forcible felony. According to my limited internetz research, it looks like stealing a car, aka grand theft auto, is a felony; but, is it a forcible felony? Where's that defined?
Basically... I'm just trying to figure out if the guy in the news story above had shot the person trying to steal his car, would he have been justified in that use of force, including deadly force?
And a follow-up question: IF a person can shoot somebody who is stealing his car, at what point can you NOT shoot him? For instance, if you are attacked, you cannot keep shooting once the attack has ended (if somebody breaks into your house, you can't chase him down the street shooting at him). But if somebody is stealing your car, even if they are on down the street, they are still in the act of stealing your car!
Truck theft victim helps spoil getaway | The Journal Gazette | Fort Wayne, IN
Ya know, one thing I've kinda wondered about...
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
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; 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, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(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 (c) is clearly what applies to somebody stealing your car, right? It is property other than a dwelling, ... or occupied motor vehicle. If you just read subsection (c), it sounds like you can shoot somebody stealing your car. But then if you read that last sentence, it adds that deadly force is only justified if the use of force was justified under subsection (a), which kinda sets you back to the point of not being able to shoot somebody stealing your car unless you're IN THE CAR ("occupied motor vehicle").
It makes me think, what the heck was the point of even writing subsection (c)?! I don't really have any kind of "reasonable force" I can use to stop somebody from stealing my car besides my gun! I reckon one could argue that simply displaying the weapon and ordering the person to stop would count as reasonable, but not deadly, force (since you haven't fired yet).
But then again, maybe subsection (a) doesn't say I can't shoot him unless I'm in fear of serious bodily injury... it does say force can be used to terminate the commission of a forcible felony. According to my limited internetz research, it looks like stealing a car, aka grand theft auto, is a felony; but, is it a forcible felony? Where's that defined?
Basically... I'm just trying to figure out if the guy in the news story above had shot the person trying to steal his car, would he have been justified in that use of force, including deadly force?
And a follow-up question: IF a person can shoot somebody who is stealing his car, at what point can you NOT shoot him? For instance, if you are attacked, you cannot keep shooting once the attack has ended (if somebody breaks into your house, you can't chase him down the street shooting at him). But if somebody is stealing your car, even if they are on down the street, they are still in the act of stealing your car!