Can You Shoot Him?

[Jack Ryan]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer

You folks really nailed this one!

In other conversations, I have heard some folks refer to an intended non-lethal shot (to an extremity, for example) as something other than "deadly force." However, as many of you stated very clearly in your responses, shooting someone - no matter where - will virtually always be considered "deadly force" under Indiana's statutory definition:

"IC 35-41-1-7
'Deadly force' defined
Sec. 7. "Deadly force" means force that creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury."

It would be very hard to argue that any shooting did not "create a substantial risk of serious bodily injury."

So the question then comes down to whether the shooter was justified in using "deadly force."

Indiana does allow "reasonable force" to be used to protect property (like your rims), but "deadly force" must be independently justified:

"IC 35-41-3-2(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)."

Under these facts, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to justify the use of deadly force:

"(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."

Here, there was no threat of serious bodily injury to the shooter. The BG's hands were full with the rims, he was apparrenty unarmed, and he was walking away. And while a crime was being committed under these facts, it was clearly not a "forcible felony."

Indiana law defines "forcible felony" as follows:

"IC 35-41-1-11
"Forcible felony" defined
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 a result, because there is no "use or threat of force against a human being," or an "imminent danger of bodily injury" under these facts, we can't label this crime as a "forcible felony" and the use of deadly force would not be justified to prevent it.

For all these reasons, the many of you who concluded that this shooting was most likely not justified, and would probably subject the shooter to both criminal prosecution and civil liability, were exactly right - in my opinion.

Thanks for participating!

Guy

Wasn't there a guy in Indianapolis a few years ago who was washing his car or something like that, a BG jumps in the car and takes off, the owner drew his weapon and killed the BG driving away from him with his property.

If I remember correctly the guy was never prosecuted, though the dead BG's family gave the shooter a living heck. I don't remember what all happened in civil court.