Attempted Burglary Raises Questions About Self-Defense and Deadly Force

[Mgderf]

Use the Ned & Jimbo defense:

"They were coming right for us!"

Works every time

 

[LPMan59]

I am leery of one sentence quotes that can easily be taken out of context. Lt. Cacciatore is 100% right. If someone is in your home, AND youre there too, that's a threat. If someone is in your home, at youre not there, kinda hard to articulate a threat. You certainly can't park your truck at the end of the road, scope him from 200 yrds, and put two rounds into his chest through a window, stating that you were in jeopardy, right?

he may have had access to another one of my rifles, officer.

 

[Roadie]

I am leery of one sentence quotes that can easily be taken out of context. Lt. Cacciatore is 100% right. If someone is in your home, AND youre there too, that's a threat. If someone is in your home, at youre not there, kinda hard to articulate a threat. You certainly can't park your truck at the end of the road, scope him from 200 yrds, and put two rounds into his chest through a window, stating that you were in jeopardy, right?

Just sayin' I want to hear all he had to say, not a snippet.

Did you perhaps read the article?

Considering the quote he made was in regards to a burglary(ie, the victim shot at an intruder in her house WITH her), isn't it reasonable to say that he was talking about...oh..I dunno... a burglary where the criminal was in the house with the victim?

 

[GlockZ]

Considering that this state keeps as one of their senators the self admitted Socialist Bernie Sanders, I'd say it's not an isolated attitude. I wonder if our founding fathers had been able to see 250 years into the future if they'd have even bothered?

Our founding fathers thought well into the future. They didn't want a strong government, just one strong enough to keep the union together. They knew the problems cause by a tyrant.

As far as someone breaking into my home. Two thoughts: 1) In fear for my life 2) dead criminals don't testify in court.

 

[JoshuaW]

I found some of the comments on the article a little disturbing, particularly when someone said something about planting a knife.

Maybe Vermont will consider changing to a "Castle Law" over the issue. From my understanding of Rutland, Vermont, this is probably blown out of proportion.

 

[Manan]

The correct response to a investigating officer is, "Sir, thank you for coming. I am the victim and the complainant. I am willing to cooperate and happy to answer any and all questions that you have for me, but I think you'll understand, and I am sure you would do the same in my position, I will need to speak with my attorney before answering ANY questions or making any statement to you.

 

[todkapuz]

Vermont has "Duty to retreat" laws,

That was the first thing I checked in Indiana coming from Texas... if someone comes on my property, and presents a threat... do I have to run to the last closet in the house and cower like a little kid before i can shoot (duty to retreat), or can I legally react to the threat (no duty to retreat).

Saw a few other comments about the person not being in the house at the time of the incident... no if you see them run out of the house with stuff and they are running away... different issue, and I'd be hard pressed to call that self defense. Walk in on them, then that could be a threat.

 

[John Galt]

Uninvited guests that break into my home when I or my family are there constitute a threat to my families safety. I WILL NOT be a statistic, gambling with my families life and HOPING the intruder won't bring harm to us. THEY initiated my swift, defensive response.

 

[45fan]

That was the first thing I checked in Indiana coming from Texas... if someone comes on my property, and presents a threat... do I have to run to the last closet in the house and cower like a little kid before i can shoot (duty to retreat), or can I legally react to the threat (no duty to retreat).

There is not stipulation that they be on your property. You have the right to defend yourself anywhere you might be. No duty to retreat, if someone threatens you or yours, you are within your rights to defend yourself and family.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Considering that this state keeps as one of their senators the self admitted Socialist Bernie Sanders, I'd say it's not an isolated attitude. I wonder if our founding fathers had been able to see 250 years into the future if they'd have even bothered?

Let John Adams answer that for you:
"Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it!"

 

[IndianaGTI]

Clearly, she was in no danger and was attempting to needlessly take human life since her home was burglarized 4 months earlier and no one was hurt. That is clear evidence that she was in no danger. I ave nno idea were se get off thinking that a few items of property are more valuable than a human life. (For those of you that don't understand the rules, purple is used for sarcasm!)

 

[Roadie]

Clearly, she was in no danger and was attempting to needlessly take human life since her home was burglarized 4 months earlier and no one was hurt. That is clear evidence that she was in no danger. I ave nno idea were se get off thinking that a few items of property are more valuable than a human life. (For those of you that don't understand the rules, purple is used for sarcasm!)

You're from England I see

 

[mrortega]

I'd like to see Lt. Cacciatore's reaction to a motorist exiting his vehicle while the fine officer walks up during a traffic stop. "Get back in the car!" "F*** you, pig." "I said get back in" while pulling his weapon. Gosh, is the Lt. now being "reasonable" when assuming he might be in danger? Why should he pull his weapon? Shouldn't he wait until the dude has his hands around the POs neck?

 

[2008blackwrx]

haha agreed!^

 

[hps]

I'm not gonna say anything on an open forum, I'll wait til something happens to decide if i'm in fear of my families life or myself.

 

[Ranger_Ranson]

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.

 

[schafe]

Let John Adams answer that for you:
"Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it!"

Wow. that really fits. I never heard thatJohn Adams quote before.