Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Life and property

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    If someone is stealing the wheels from my car in my drive way, can I use deadly force (my .44 MAG) against them in the great State of Indiana ???

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    West Lafayette, IN, , USA
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post

    If you want to be dragged into court and probably charged with something, go for it. If someone is stealing your wheels, call the cops, call a neighbor and have them block off the street....

    Walk outside with your gun and tell them to stay put or they will be shot, and hold them till the police come...

    There are a lot better outcomes than shooting and killing someone in your yard stealing wheels.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indiana, ,
    Posts
    96

    Post imported post

    If you are that worried about you wheels being stolen, I think it is high time you switch to some steelies untill you can park somewhere more secure. You have auto insurance, that's what comprehensive coverage is for. Switch it to a $0 deductable. The added premium is much cheaper than court fees.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    squarepeg wrote:
    If you are that worried about you wheels being stolen, I think it is high time you switch to some steelies untill you can park somewhere more secure. You have auto insurance, that's what comprehensive coverage is for. Switch it to a $0 deductable. The added premium is much cheaper than court fees.
    Not to mention what a .44 might do to your tire.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    79

    Post imported post


    A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

    Indiana and Georgia, among other states, already had stand your ground caselaw and passed "stand your ground" statutes

    Heres indiana's law code: http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod.../ar41/ch3.html

    Go
    :celebrate's

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis, ,
    Posts
    133

    Post imported post

    Unoid wrote:


    Indiana and Georgia, among other states, already had stand your ground caselaw and passed "stand your ground" statutes

    Heres indiana's law code: http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod.../ar41/ch3.html

    I would hate to be the one to have to defend myself to a jury in this instance. It's significantly different than an intruder breaking into your house, Castle Doctrine notwithstanding. In this case, your life is not in immediate danger. Deadly force may not be considered "reasonable force" in this case.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Is there anywherethat lists all the states with Castle Doctrines? That would be a good map to put on the front page.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    I agree the circumstances would provide the details of the outcome.

    If I go out and confront the thief, and shout " hey!!!.... drop the lug wrench and get away from my car " thief stands and says " I'm gonna bash your head in with this wrench if you don't go back in the house " I reply " I have a gun...get away from my car " thief moves towards me. I pull the trigger.

    Imagine the same scenario with any item on my property, a shovel, a rake, anything that belongs to meand does not belong in a thief's hands.I feel there is a bad idea floating around in society's head that people have to be a coward first. I'm not condoneing needless death, but i'm quite franklyin favor of cutting down confrotational thieves.

    Isure after a few instances, an indivigual whoused their firearmsto defend their property and ultimately their life would have theirpermit pulled and labeled a vigilante with hourly drive-by's by LEO's.

    Slightly unrelated but does anyone remember the instance of the school teacher who shotLEO's a few years back for forced entry into his home here in Indy, I think he did 4 years awaiting trial and was ultimately acquitted.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gary, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    518

    Post imported post

    The only state where deadly force may legally be employed in the defense of property is Texas. Therefore, you better be damn sure your life is in jeopardy before you use deadly force; thus, if he already has the wheels and is running away, you're just SOL, but at least you're alive.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Greenwood, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    Indiana codified the Castle Doctrine in the last session. You may protect your property or property you are in control of.

    IC 35-41-3-2
    Use of force to protect person or property
    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; 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, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
    (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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gary, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    518

    Post imported post

    Shinz1212 wrote:
    Indiana codified the Castle Doctrine in the last session. You may protect your property or property you are in control of.
    Exactly, if you're in control of it. You are not in control of your property if the thief already has it and is running away, and thus, as I said in my last post, deadly force would not be justified. Also, do not forget that your life has to be in jeopardy, which it is not if you confront the thief while he is in he act of stealing the wheels or is already running away with them.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    tattedupboy wrote:
    Shinz1212 wrote:
    Indiana codified the Castle Doctrine in the last session. You may protect your property or property you are in control of.
    Exactly, if you're in control of it. You are not in control of your property if the thief already has it and is running away, and thus, as I said in my last post, deadly force would not be justified. Also, do not forget that your life has to be in jeopardy, which it is not if you confront the thief while he is in he act of stealing the wheels or is already running away with them.
    This is the exact type of response I hear most often, a person with a weak grasp of the law in place cannot utilize his own rights to the law. Knowledge is POWER, know your rights and your state's laws.

    I'm sure there are a million ways to spin a scenario to your advantage in a forum, but as the old saying goes, "dead men tell no tales"

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    tattedupboy wrote:
    The only state where deadly force may legally be employed in the defense of property is Texas. Therefore, you better be damn sure your life is in jeopardy before you use deadly force; thus, if he already has the wheels and is running away, you're just SOL, but at least you're alive.
    IC 35-47-2-4 Version a
    Qualified or unlimited licenses to carry handguns; fees; exemptions from payment of fees
    Note: This version of section effective until 7-1-2007. See also following version of this section, effective 7-1-2007.
    Sec. 4. (a) Licenses to carry handguns shall be either qualified or unlimited, and are valid for:
    (1) four (4) years from the date of issue in the case of a four (4) year license; or
    (2) the life of the individual receiving the license in the case of a lifetime license.
    A qualified license shall be issued for hunting and target practice. The superintendent may adopt rules imposing limitations on the use and carrying of handguns under a license when handguns are carried by a licensee as a condition of employment. Unlimited licenses shall be issued for the purpose of the protection of life and property.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gary, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    518

    Post imported post

    HiRoller wrote:
    tattedupboy wrote:
    Shinz1212 wrote:
    Indiana codified the Castle Doctrine in the last session. You may protect your property or property you are in control of.
    Exactly, if you're in control of it. You are not in control of your property if the thief already has it and is running away, and thus, as I said in my last post, deadly force would not be justified. Also, do not forget that your life has to be in jeopardy, which it is not if you confront the thief while he is in he act of stealing the wheels or is already running away with them.
    This is the exact type of response I hear most often, a person with a weak grasp of the law in place cannot utilize his own rights to the law. Knowledge is POWER, know your rights and your state's laws.

    I'm sure there are a million ways to spin a scenario to your advantage in a forum, but as the old saying goes, "dead men tell no tales"
    Actually, my grasp and knowledge of the law is quite strong, thank you very much. The fact of the matter remains that the criminal justice favors the criminal in situations such as this, regardless of what the law actually says. Even with the letter of the law seemingly on the side of the law abiding citizen, you are still going to have to convince 12 people that you acted accordingly if something like this ever happens. So, do not attempt to second guess my knowledge of the law and how it works for law abiding citizens, because I do know what I'm talking about.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    This is not an attack on your knowledge or bashing someone, but I bet you did go back and read thru the posted excerpts from the IC. Dialog and forums are here to promote awareness. If someone says one thing that will get me to think or dig a little deeper, it's done it's job.

    Personally, If I were in the in the scenario suggested, on my property, armed with one of my many firearms, I would give the thief every opportunity to flee. However, if he made just one half step towards me or used language in any sort ofthreating manner, I would sayhe just commited suicide by home owner.



    Sincerely, Clint Eastwood

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    79

    Post imported post

    Tatted is correct. Our justice system is curropt and out of touch with common citizens.
    IE: (rapists / molesters = instant death penalty, instead of 3 years in jail)

    Just hope that the DA in lake county follows STATE laws isntead of allowing charges pressed.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    Unoid wrote:
    Tatted is correct. Our justice system is curropt and out of touch with common citizens.
    IE: (rapists / molesters = instant death penalty, instead of 3 years in jail)

    Just hope that the DA in lake county follows STATE laws isntead of allowing charges pressed.
    If I can't rely on this guy to defend my interests, who can I rely on ?

    Welcome






    Carl Brizzi,
    Marion County Prosecutor



    "Criminals have a choice...


    Victims don't"



    I ran for Marion County Prosecutor because I care about our community and I want to do everything I can to ensure safety, not just for my family but for all of us.

    My vision for the Marion County Prosecutor's Office continues to be based on three fundamental principles: Prosecution, Protection and Prevention.

    Tough, but fair, prosecution is job one. My primary responsibility as Marion County Prosecutor is to put violent criminals in jail, where they can no longer endanger our society. What good is opportunity or economic prosperity if we can't feel safe in our own homes or walking down the street at night?

    As Prosecutor, I target habitual violent criminals, gun-toting felons and drug dealers who threaten our freedom and destroy people's lives. It is my mission to prosecute deserving offenders aggressively and without apology

    --Carl Brizzi
    Marion County Prosecutor

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    Don't shoot someone over a set of rims thats just asking for trouble. As its already been said here thats what your car insurance is for. That said if you ask the person to get the hell off your property and they try to attack you then shoot them. But you will probably wish you hadn't, what its going to cost you in legal fees would buy you 100 sets of rims. I honestly hope to god that I never even have to draw a weapon let alone use one.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    dwilson9725 wrote:
    Don't shoot someone over a set of rims thats just asking for trouble. As its already been said here thats what your car insurance is for. That said if you ask the person to get the hell off your property and they try to attack you then shoot them. But you will probably wish you hadn't, what its going to cost you in legal fees would buy you 100 sets of rims. I honestly hope to god that I never even have to draw a weapon let alone use one.
    +1 on that!!

    I have seen questions like this asked before...

    I do not like the thought of some joker stealing my property... But insurance will cover it.

    I personally cannot justify killing a man over my property. Just like I cannot understand how a criminal can kill someone for a few dollars or a watch.

    It is sad that people are so eager and willing to kill another over something that can be replaced.


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    79

    Post imported post

    A criminal can easily be replaced...

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Greenwood, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    Not everything can be replaced LEO. Rims yes, television yes, the pocket watch you grandfather carried on him in WWI no. If they are successful in stealing your rims what is to stop them from coming back and taking the things that can't be replaced. Or harming your wife because you weren't home when they came in to take your TV.

    Think about it, it's not about taking a life for property. It's about stopping a criminal from doing harm. A responsible gun owner knows that his firearm is not there to kill but to stop a threat to his life and the life of others.

    And with the LE record for apprehending/recovering at 17% you can almost guarantee the bad guy will be back and bolder the next time.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    dwilson9725 wrote:
    Don't shoot someone over a set of rims thats just asking for trouble. As its already been said here thats what your car insurance is for. That said if you ask the person to get the hell off your property and they try to attack you then shoot them. But you will probably wish you hadn't, what its going to cost you in legal fees would buy you 100 sets of rims. I honestly hope to god that I never even have to draw a weapon let alone use one.
    +1 on that!!

    I have seen questions like this asked before...

    I do not like the thought of some joker stealing my property... But insurance will cover it.

    I personally cannot justify killing a man over my property. Just like I cannot understand how a criminal can kill someone for a few dollars or a watch.

    It is sad that people are so eager and willing to kill another over something that can be replaced.
    How do you define replaceable? And who gets to define it?

    My kids are insured and I can always have more. Guess they can be replaced too.

    I don't care if it's my garden shovel, rims or anything else.

    IT'S MINE AND YOU CAN'T HAVE IT.

    You'll get one chance to put "it" down......If your lucky.
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post


    How do you define replaceable? And who gets to define it?

    My kids are insured and I can always have more. Guess they can be replaced too.

    I don't care if it's my garden shovel, rims or anything else.

    IT'S MINE AND YOU CAN'T HAVE IT.

    You'll get one chance to put "it" down......If your lucky.
    And if you actually shoot someone over a set of rims and say something like that to the judge where do you suppose you will be spending the rest of your life? The bottom line is you have no right to apply deadly force until you fear for your or someone elses life. Chances are if you catch the guy hes going to run and not make it off with the 'loot' anyway, criminals are cowards. Although I do agree we should have more property rights then we do, the fact is we do not. I can tell you one thing you won't see me trying to explain to a judge that I killed someone because they were trying to steal my rims or car stereo or whatever, I just really really do not see that as a good position to be in and I'd much rather replace the goods than risk going to prison for life over it.

    Anytime you use deadly force you risk going to prison if the Judge/Jury do not see things your way (EVEN IF YOU WERE IN THE RIGHT), that is the scary thing. To me a couple thousand bucks in property is not worth the risk. That and if you have to hire a defense attorney for a murder charge your going to be spending a lot more money than if you just call the insurance company and have your stuff replaced. It's just not worth it....to me anyway.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    HiRoller wrote:
    tattedupboy wrote:
    The only state where deadly force may legally be employed in the defense of property is Texas. Therefore, you better be damn sure your life is in jeopardy before you use deadly force; thus, if he already has the wheels and is running away, you're just SOL, but at least you're alive.
    IC 35-47-2-4 Version a
    Qualified or unlimited licenses to carry handguns; fees; exemptions from payment of fees
    Note: This version of section effective until 7-1-2007. See also following version of this section, effective 7-1-2007.
    Sec. 4. (a) Licenses to carry handguns shall be either qualified or unlimited, and are valid for:
    (1) four (4) years from the date of issue in the case of a four (4) year license; or
    (2) the life of the individual receiving the license in the case of a lifetime license.
    A qualified license shall be issued for hunting and target practice. The superintendent may adopt rules imposing limitations on the use and carrying of handguns under a license when handguns are carried by a licensee as a condition of employment. Unlimited licenses shall be issued for the purpose of the protection of life and property.
    Um, what? This law covers the scope and lifetime of a carry license, not justification. "Protection of property" is shooting a burglar or home invader, not an escaping thief. Shooting at someone escaping with your stuff is attempting to RECOVER property, and the only state in which that is allowed is Texas.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    Shinz1212 wrote:
    Not everything can be replaced LEO. Rims yes, television yes, the pocket watch you grandfather carried on him in WWI no. If they are successful in stealing your rims what is to stop them from coming back and taking the things that can't be replaced. Or harming your wife because you weren't home when they came in to take your TV.

    Think about it, it's not about taking a life for property. It's about stopping a criminal from doing harm. A responsible gun owner knows that his firearm is not there to kill but to stop a threat to his life and the life of others.

    And with the LE record for apprehending/recovering at 17% you can almost guarantee the bad guy will be back and bolder the next time.
    You cannot assume that if you let a criminal escape that he'll be back for more later. If that criminal is not attempting to harm you physically when you pull that trigger, there is no justification. Period. Your opinion of criminals and what should be done to them notwithstanding, the criminal must pose an imminent threat to you. Protection of property is included because property is regarded as an extension of self in most common-law interpretations.

    Let's explore that last point. Let's say that a burglar who has broken into your homecan beequated with a rapist. Are you allowed to shoot to prevent rape? In most cases, yes. Are you allowed to shoot to prevent burglary? In most cases, yes. Are you allowed to track your rapist down the next day (or even an hour afterward)and kill him to get your self-esteem back? Almost universally, no. Are you allowed to chase down the burglar and kill him to get your property back? Almost universally,no.

    You are allowed to shoot to defend. You are not allowed to shoot to avenge. The quick mental rule is present vs past tense. If youwould tellsomeone on the phone right that second"the guyis doing X" and X is a forcible felony or threat of same, you are justified. If you would tell someoneon the phone"he did X", you are not justified even if the act X was "killing the family next door with a blunt axe".

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •