Can You Shoot Him?

[GunLawyer]

Here's the next scenario in our "Legal Quandaries" series, which has generated a positive response so far:

You park your beloved '69 GTO "Judge" convertible at a local shopping mall, just before closing, in order to run in and shop for a last-minute birthday gift for your wife.

When you return to your car, you notice three men around your car, and you realize they've just removed two of your rims and are in the process of loading them into the back of a nearby SUV. When you yell out, two of the men run away, but the third continues to carry your expensive refurbished wheels toward the back of the waiting truck.

Having an Indiana LTCH, you are armed. You draw your .45 cal. handgun from your IWB holster and clearly warn the thief: "Drop my property or I will shoot you."

He ignores you. He is about to load your wheels into the back of the truck.

He has his hands full with your wheels, and you can't see any weapons on his person. Being concerned about using "deadly force" under the circumstances, you decide to shoot him in the calf in order to prevent him from stealing your property.

You deliver a perfectly-placed shot to the back of his lower leg. He screams out in pain, and drops your wheels. The SUV takes off.

IMPD arrives almost immediately, and you tell the responding officers the entire story, exactly as it transpired. They arrest him.

Do you have any legal problems?

[Frank_N_Stein]

You shot an unarmed man that had his back to you, I say you would go to jail.

Edited to add: I personally hate thieves and think a non-fatal shot would show them the error of their ways, but I think that based on the circumstance you would be screwed.

[VUPDblue]

Originally Posted by Frank_N_Stein

You shot an unarmed man that had his back to you, I say you would go to jail.

Edited to add: I personally hate thieves and think a non-fatal shot would show them the error of their ways, but I think that based on the circumstance you would be screwed.

This.

[TODD1]

i concur

[jediagh]

I believe...
In the State of TX you would be okay from criminal suit but not civil.
In the State of IN you are going to be in trouble criminally and civil.
Your life and anyone eles wasnot in immediate danger so deadly force (shooting) was not valid. Me thinks.

[GunLawyer]

But doesn't Indiana law allow the use of "reasonable force" to protect property?

[VUPDblue]

Deadly force against an unarmed individual who's stealing your property is not reasonable...

[clt46910]

I also believe you would be in trouble for shooting an unarmed man that was not a threat to you.

While I agree that he desired it and would do so myself if it was legal to do so. With our present laws, it is not.

Now a flashlight up the side of the head when he has his arms full of your tire and rims, maybe.

[Blaze261]

Originally Posted by Frank_N_Stein

You shot an unarmed man that had his back to you, I say you would go to jail.

Edited to add: I personally hate thieves and think a non-fatal shot would show them the error of their ways, but I think that based on the circumstance you would be screwed.

He nailed it on the first post.

[possum_128]

You go to jail. Deadly force cannot be used to stop someone from stealing property only. Deadly force can only be used to stop a forcible felony not common theft.

In the course of the theft, the man made no verbal thread and no threating moves nor was a weapon of any type seen. The ltch holder was in no danger of life or limb, nor was a third person.