Using Deadly Force

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

onthejon55

Moderator
I know that my home state has some variation of the "castle doctrine" as law when it comes to defending ones property. I was wondering of anyone knew if that meant you had the right to protect your property if it was located on public land. for example what if someone carjacks me at gun point at a stoplight. since their gun is pointed at my head the entire time i don't have a chance to draw on them during the first part of the confrontation. but then after i get out and they prepare to make off with my vehicle do i have the right to gun them down even if they are no longer threatening me?
 
I don't know either the letter nor the spirit of your state's law, but I would have to opine that it would be a crap-shoot as far as your defense since you indicate that there is a decline in threat level. To, basically, react 'post crime' while the booger is departing in your car (and you are now out of immediate danger) would come real close to vigilante-ism... wouldn't it? In my state, a lot of weight is given to the 'Reasonable Person Rule' as in, "What would a reasonable person do?" Study your state's laws and better yet- refer to the instructors of your state's CCW programs, it doesn't cost anything and knowledge is your friend.
 
do i have the right to gun them down even if they are no longer threatening me?
Click to expand...

caveat: Each state's law is different - check for YOUR state.

Although the "Castle Doctrine" usually extends to cars and motel rooms, you'd be hard-pressed to defend shooting a fleeing BG. For a CWP holder to shoot, there MUST be: opportunity, ability, and intent. Our state law says an "imminent fear of life or severe bodily injury." If a BG is running or driving away - unless they're shooting at you as they flee, you can't shoot.

That being said, one of our local sheriffs said, "If a person breaks into your home, you may assume they're there to harm you, not to just rob you - and you may act accordingly."

It's a fine line, and a good lawyer can wrangle "defense of property" into "defense of life". However, forensics can beat that. They'll KNOW if you shot the guy in the back as he was fleeing. Then you're up S*** ceek.

My advice? Let him go - property is not worth the hassle you'll be in. That's what you carry insurance forr.
 
As Keltyke said, the law varies, check your state. Here's the relevant section of the Indiana code.

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. 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).
Click to expand...


The emphasis is mine.

The way I read it, and this is a lay opinion, you may use deadly force only if the vehicle is occupied and you are trying to prevent entry or terminate an attack.

Do not rely on that as legal advice.

I know I sure wouldn't shoot, and I wouldn't want to have it put to the reasonable person test if I had done so.
 
Last edited:
You are virtually never justified in firing at a fleeing suspect, even police don't shoot fleeing car thieves. There are exceptions in some states for shooting someone you have WITNESSED committing a violent felony (murder or rape), with the emphasis on violence having actually occurred. Even in castle doctrine states you can't just blast away at someone who is running away. For instance, you find someone inside your door and as you raise your gun they run outside. If you shoot now your probably going to jail.
 
The time and expense of loosing a car and wallet pales compared to the legal fees and court time.
As someone better than me said "Your firearm is an emergency tool."
A lost car is not an emergency !
 
The only reason to shoot someone is because they’re doing something RIGHT THEN!! that can’t be tolerated. That generally means a violent felony.

Rape, assault, attempted murder, kidnapping all qualify. Running down your driveway with your TV doesn’t qualify. Looking through the window at your naked girlfriend doesn’t qualify.

Someone coming toward you in the dark inside your home qualifies in most states. Just hope it isn’t a drunk 16 year old who got lost and stumbled in through the front door you forgot to lock.
 
The time and expense of loosing a car and wallet pales compared to the legal fees and court time.
Click to expand...
+1

I've got $1000 deductible on my car. That would buy less than 4 hours of an attorney's time.

My gun is to protect me and mine. Stuff can be replaced.
 
In the end, we all have to live by our own ethics.
Mine tell me that I won't kill someone unless it's unavoidable. I wouldn't shoot a car jacker after the fact unless he was shooting at me while he drove away. Just like I wouldn't shoot by default if someone was in my house even if the law said I could.
 
You could
A call your insurance company, pay a deductable and some higher rates, or

B Have a blood splattered car that will be taken in as evidence, not be able to get anything from your insurance company to get a new car, lose your gun and probably ccw. oh, and the whole murder trial thing.

I'd call lojack on the dude instead, he won't even know what hit him when he gets pulled over for the felony stop:D
 
but then after i get out and they prepare to make off with my vehicle do i have the right to gun them down even if they are no longer threatening me?
Click to expand...
That depends on your state's laws. But even if you could, why would you? Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
 
And it's threads like this one that make me visit this and other boards less and less frequently. It always seems like somebody's posting about how badly they really want to shoot someone else, basically just to do it.

No wonder we haven't cleaned out all of the terrorists in Iraq yet. All of the wanna-be killers are still in the US posting on the internet. :rolleyes:


Fortunately this board does have a large number of sensible folks, and you can see that in this thread too. All hope is not lost. :cool:
 
Stagger Lee there is no terrorists in Iraq FYI, just a religious civil war with our army in the middle. terrorists come for Saudi Arabia, and fill in the blank a-stan. however I agree with the rest of your statement. I generally do not read the tactics and training section of any forum because the posts are not about either tactics or training 90% of the time
 
I don't think that I would even think about shooting someone AFTER they carjacked me. I'm guessing that a lot of the reasons people have such a "want to shoot" attitude is frustration with the criminal justice system. I would be willing to bet the farm that most would not be inclined to shoot anyone unless they feared for their life or that of a loved one.....and from the way some talk, even that would not happen. It's easier and better for the board to let guys blow off a little steam then to get into what Capt. Charlie calls "a urination competition" (something that he accused me of):D
 
I'm guessing that a lot of the reasons people have such a "want to shoot" attitude is frustration with the criminal justice system.
Click to expand...

Agree. It just seems that the criminal, no matter the crime, has more power over the victim. I do believe in innocent until proven guilty, but there's some cases that it sounds more like innocent until....ah forget it, he's innocent. Fair sentencing is also nonexistent. Maybe it's just me but I feel eye for an eye is applicable. Have I ever been in a situation where a loved one was victimized severely? No. Hopefully never will. I think victims and their families should have a say in the punishment of the criminal IF proven, beyond ANY doubt, guilty. As in 3 people saw it happen or else-wise. Kyle
 
Here's the problem with this thread (and many others like it).

The original question assumes the BG is only interested in taking your car, and that you know he only wants to take your car.

In a real life situation you may not know that's all the BG wants. You don't know what the BG is willing to do to you to take your car. You don't know if the BG is a case of road rage wanting to shoot you or beat you senseless. You don't know anything other than a guy is approaching your car with a gun. You won't know that he only wants your car until he drives off and leaves you behind. You can only assume he intends to hurt you.

What if your kids or your wife is in the car and he takes you out of the car?

I wouldn't shoot if the guy is driving off with my car, ESPECIALLY if I have family in the car. However, if he has a gun and he's getting into my car but hasn't driven off yet, and I'm able to access my gun, I might shoot him before he starts driving.

Things to think about:

1) You are always responsible for your bullets and their destruction. If you shoot at a moving vehicle, what else or whom else might you hit?

2) If the carjacker is struck with the bullet and unable to control the vehicle. You then have a deadly weapon out of control moving down the road. You may be responsible for the damage the vehicle causes.
 
However, if he has a gun and he's getting into my car but hasn't driven off yet, and I'm able to access my gun, I might shoot him before he starts driving.
Click to expand...
At which point I always have to ask "why?" What do you hope to achieve by this, other than getting even? You're still going to lose your car (police will impound it), perhaps for a longer time than jsut the carjack, and given that you have shot the guy, I doubt your insurance will cover the damage or pay for a rental car. Throw in the bills for the lawyer, time lost due to court and such, "why?"
 
I am inclined to shoot because an armed and dangerous person is on the loose who very well may hurt someone else.

A poster on another thread said he was confronted by a guy with a shotgun. He drew his pistol in response but never fired and the shotgun BG took off in his own vehicle. Later the shotgun BG murdered someone else.

I know we're not (or I'm not) talking about being LEOs, but if an attacker has a gun out, you can only assume he's means to hurt you. You aren't safe from him until the BG is gone. Just because he's now in the car doesn't mean you are out of danger. What if he intends to shoot the witness?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top