cases that help define use of force.

[IndySSD]

The law did not change that much in 2001 .. You still can not use deadly force to protect property outside of your dwelling..

What are you talking about? Yes, according to the Bill I quoted (Enacted July 1 2006 ) to you, you can.

"Nonetheless, Nantz argues that his actions were justified because he was defending his property. Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2 (c), provides the following with regard to whether a person may use force to defend his or her property:
With respect to property other than a dwelling or curtilage, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if he 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 his possession, lawfully in possession of a member of his immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property he has authority to protect. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a) of this section. See footnote
"

Highlighted the applicable excerpt for my previous post. Are you reading what you're copying and pasting?

 

[singlestacksig]

What are you talking about? Yes, according to the Bill I quoted (Enacted July 1 2006 ) to you, you can.



Highlighted the applicable excerpt for my previous post. Are you reading what you're copying and pasting?

your post includes "However, a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a) of this section. See footnote "


so unless you are defening yourself, another, or your home.. you can not use deadly force..

 

[IndySSD]

your post includes "However, a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a) of this section. See footnote "

Yes, please read both red highlights.

so unless you are defening yourself, another, or your home.. you can not use deadly force..

Wrong. The trespassers had shown a superior level of force by bringing additional people to take the dozer. This satisfies the requirements if Nantz just states that he felt they were going to take the dozer by force regardless of how he told them not to.

 

[singlestacksig]

Yes, please read both red highlights.




Wrong.

I did, I also read the whole law..
you are right, I left out protecting your car while you are in it..

But you can not shoot someone just because they are trying to take something..
If they pose a threat to you, or another, say they are doing an armed robbery that is not protecting property, but life & limb..

If you stand in their way and they use force against you.. that is another story.. but just to keep them away you can not use deadly force..

 

[IndySSD]

I did, I also read the whole law..
you are right, I left out protecting your car while you are in it..

But you can not shoot someone just because they are trying to take something..
If they pose a threat to you, or another, say they are doing an armed robbery that is not protecting property, but life & limb..

If you stand in their way and they use force against you.. that is another story.. but just to keep them away you can not use deadly force..

I suggest you speak with a lawyer on the subject as perhaps the wording is throwing you off.

You can without a doubt defend yourself and your property against persons (and I quote from the law.) 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.

I can't narrow it down any more for you, consider yourself a horse led to water.

 

[finity]

I suggest you speak with a lawyer on the subject as perhaps the wording is throwing you off.

You can without a doubt defend yourself and your property against persons (and I quote from the law.) 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.

I can't narrow it down any more for you, consider yourself a horse led to water.

No one is saying that you can't use reasonable force to protect your property but you CAN'T use deadly force. That hasn't changed.

What that decision by the appeals court did was change the definition of what "reasonable force" means. They say that pointing a firearm at someone is using deadly force whether you pull the trigger or not. IOW, you had better be justified in using deadly force when you point a gun at someone or your going to jail for "pointing a firearm".

Here's my :

I totally disagree with that decision. IMO, the court rewrote the law that was enacted by the legislature.

The law (as enacted) makes it a crime to point a gun at someone (as it should be) UNLESS you are justified in using force against someone to protect your property from theft or damage.

What the court did was absolutely negate the exception part of the law by saying that it's ALWAYS use of deadly force if you point a gun at someone so there's no point in EVER pointing a gun at someone unless you meet the justification to use DF.

Then, unbelievably, they go on to say that Petro could have had the right to use DF against Nantz EVEN THOUGH PETRO WAS IN THE ACT OF COMMITTING A CRIME (trespassing at a minimum, theft more than likely) which is explicitly disallowed by law.

That decision is full of FAIL.

Does anyone know if this case was brought to the IN SC or not &, if so, what there decision was?

 

[singlestacksig]

The law (as enacted) makes it a crime to point a gun at someone (as it should be) UNLESS you are justified in using force against someone to protect your property from theft or damage.

What the court did was absolutely negate the exception part of the law by saying that it's ALWAYS use of deadly force if you point a gun at someone so there's no point in EVER pointing a gun at someone unless you meet the justification to use DF.

Then, unbelievably, they go on to say that Petro could have had the right to use DF against Nantz EVEN THOUGH PETRO WAS IN THE ACT OF COMMITTING A CRIME (trespassing at a minimum, theft more than likely) which is explicitly disallowed by law.

That decision is full of FAIL.

Does anyone know if this case was brought to the IN SC or not &, if so, what there decision was?

I have not found that case in the SC records yet..