self defense question

[barnstormer37]

In Indiana in most cases, shooting an intruder in a home invasion situation will be condoned by the local law enforcement agency/prosecuter , and result in no prosecution.

My question is how about if you are CC and become involved away from home? Of course there can be a whole bunch of different circumtances, but what I'm asking about is if getting mugged or car-jacked. If you shoot the culprit what action can/will be taken against you? What about witnesses/no witnesses or family members involved? I think there is a phrase of some kind that amounts to "stand your ground and protect". Is that the law in Indiana?

What about if you are a bystander in a Walmart or a bank or, say, a barber shop and a BG comes in, pulls a gun and proceeds to attempt a robbery? Is it legal to intervene?

I know I could probably research this and come to my own conclusions, but that wouldn't give you guys the chance to expound your thoughts.

 

[chezuki]

I know I could probably research this and come to my own conclusions, but that wouldn't give you guys the chance to expound your thoughts.

Regardless of anyone's "thoughts", it's pretty well spelled out in law.

Information Maintained by the Office of Code Revision Indiana Legislative Services Agency
IC 35-41-3
Chapter 3. Defenses Relating to Culpability

IC 35-41-3-1
Legal authority
Sec. 1. A person is justified in engaging in conduct otherwise prohibited if he has legal authority to do so.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.7.
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
(b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in IC 35-41-1-17, IC 35-31.5-2-129, or IC 35-31.5-2-185.
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other 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.
(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other 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.
(e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against any other 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 (c).
(f) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other 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.
(g) Notwithstanding subsections (c) through (e), 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.
(h) Notwithstanding subsection (f), 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.
(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful 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.
(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;
(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action; or
(4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:
(A) acting lawfully; or
(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.
(k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
(A) acting unlawfully; or
(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and
(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1; P.L.161-2012, SEC.1.
IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has

probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.

 

[CitiusFortius]

Yes you can.....but be prepared to get a lawyer anyway. House breakins are (for the most part) cut and dry.

Outside the house, even if they don't bring charges, you might get slapped with a wrongful death lawsuit etc.

Guns should be the LAST line of defense. Don't shoot unless you want your target dead.

 

[Aaron1776]

Generally speaking, in IN, you're not going to see criminal charges for gunning down a mugger with a weapon or what appears to be a weapon, minus those absurd situations where it looks like you started the fight.

It is also legal to intervene to stop a forcible felony. Again, minus situations where you were apart of making the event occur.

That being said.

You are most likely going get sued in civil court by the attacker's retarded family and their ambulance chasing lawyer.
Also expect your firearm to be gone for a minimum of 2 weeks if the shooting is cut and dry. Months and months if it isn't.

EDIT:

Do yourself a favor. Have an emergency legal savings acount.
Make friends with local PD officers who can vouch for you.
Make friends with your local elected officials. Esp the DA and Sheriff.
Make friends with some lawyers
Have at least an idea of who you're going to hire if you get sued.
Gets lots of quality training.
Learn self defense law forward and backward.

Don't let legal BS cause you to hesitate to save your own life or another's

 

[Cheapdiesel]

I don't understand this part "(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;" who is it refering to the person using force or the person force is being used on?

 

[wolfman]

The answer to all of your carry law questions can be found here Tactical Firearms Training, LLC . I think there is even a Gun Law class on March 30.

 

[Mango]

First and foremost, in any situation where you use a weapon, do NOT make a statement without your attorney present. Adrenaline, shock, whatever can have a serious effect on what comes out of your mouth. Use your right to remain silent and legal consultation.

 

[g+16]

I have legally carried for most of my life, and thank god have never had to draw my wepon. The one key phrase that I have been told by LEO's that I have been around is when the first officer arrives I FEARED FOR MY LIFE, NOT I'm sorry or I was confused. I have been told it would not matter if it was one round or if you emptied the magazine, one mugger or two, other have said best if one story mine (all bad guys dead), which would be find if their was no one else around. My bottom line would be if you knew you were about to killed if you did not react. Everyone knows what they would like to do in a situation, but until faced with that situation you would never be certain. Just my

 

[wcd]

In Indiana in most cases, shooting an intruder in a home invasion situation will be condoned by the local law enforcement agency/prosecuter , and result in no prosecution.

My question is how about if you are CC and become involved away from home? Of course there can be a whole bunch of different circumtances, but what I'm asking about is if getting mugged or car-jacked. If you shoot the culprit what action can/will be taken against you? What about witnesses/no witnesses or family members involved? I think there is a phrase of some kind that amounts to "stand your ground and protect". Is that the law in Indiana?

What about if you are a bystander in a Walmart or a bank or, say, a barber shop and a BG comes in, pulls a gun and proceeds to attempt a robbery? Is it legal to intervene?

I know I could probably research this and come to my own conclusions, but that wouldn't give you guys the chance to expound your thoughts.

My thoughts here "In the gravest extreme the role of the Firearm in personal defense" Very good book with tmeless information.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I don't understand this part "(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;" who is it refering to the person using force or the person force is being used on?

The person that committed the crime/force is being used on.

 

[jwh20]

The person that committed the crime/force is being used on.

In other words, if YOU are the criminal and are committing or fleeing you CANNOT use lethal force and be covered by this statute. In Indiana, a criminal has no right of self-defense. California? Criminals have all rights, victims have none...

 

[K_W]

The person that committed the crime/force is being used on.

Not correct. The line means that if YOU are committing or have committed a crime and are attempting to escape, you ARE NOT justified in using deadly force to protect yourself.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Not correct. The line means that if YOU are committing or have committed a crime and are attempting to escape, you ARE NOT justified in using deadly force to protect yourself.

My mistake, based on the fact that the poster I answered only quoted part of the statute.

 

[rockhopper46038]

A couple people have mentioned the concern over the inevitable civil lawsuit from the survivors of the dead "altar boy". While I have no doubts they are correct, the IC pretty clearly states that "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." I would consider a civil lawsuit to be "legal jeopardy". Why the disconnect?

 

[Racechase1]

Courts like at criminal law one way, civil cases another.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Granted. But any dictionary would define a civil lawsuit as both separately "legal", " and "jeopardy", as well as jointly "legal jeopardy".

 

[threedhuntr]

First and foremost, in any situation where you use a weapon, do NOT make a statement without your attorney present. Adrenaline, shock, whatever can have a serious effect on what comes out of your mouth. Use your right to remain silent and legal consultation.

^^^^^^^ This. No matter how much you think any statement might help out your case ...... DO NOT SAY IT. Do not give ANY information ( aside from identification of yourself) at all before seeking legal representation.

IANAL just my