Lethal force in self-defense is legal, Indiana law says

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060322/NEWS01/603220444

By Bill Ruthhart

Indiana has become the third state to join an emerging national debate on self-defense, making clear that people have the right to use deadly force when threatened without first trying to back away.

Gov. Mitch Daniels on Tuesday signed House Enrolled Act 1028, which says Hoosiers do not have to retreat before using deadly force to prevent serious bodily injury to themselves or someone else. More than a dozen other states are considering similar legislation.

The change may be largely symbolic. Unlike in some states, Indiana did not previously require residents to retreat before using a gun or other deadly weapon.

The new law, however, clarifies state law and prevents courts from determining that Hoosiers should run before using a gun.

more

Why should muggers and bullies have all the fun? For that matter, why should muggers and bullies be allowed to live? How can anyone possibly be pro-mugger or pro-bully?

If you choose not to defend yourself, fine. Don't force your cowardice onto others.

Whats to say someone says that YOU threatened them?
This isn't about not protecting yourself from bullies, this is about the wackos having GUNS.

Oh, and the "have all the fun" phrase gave you away.
You think mugging and bullying are FUN??

Yeah, I'm glad YOU get the right to shoot anyone you please.

The point is that if somebody is breaking into your house (or presenting a valid threat to your life in any circumstance), some states require that you retreat as far as humanly possible before you defend yourself. That's unacceptable, in my opinion.

Yes, there's the possibility that somebody might shoot an "intruder" and lie about the circumstances, but that has nothing to do with the sanity of a law that doesn't allow somebody to protect themself.

I'm all for the change.

As far as I am aware, the law is and always has been that you have no duty to escape when you're in your house. It's called the "castle defense."

And from what I can tell, this Indiana law changes nothing. In most states, when you're outside of your home, you have a duty to escape (if you can do so safely), rather than resorting to the use of deadly force. Indiana was already an exception to that rule, and allowed the use of deadly force even if you could have escaped safely. This new law just codifies and clarifies the Indiana rule.

Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty, and I am very hesitant about giving the power to levy the death penalty on intended victims unless they couldn't have gotten away safely.

More here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x526452

-Laelth

You think police don't investigate self-defense shootings?

A forensic expert will be able to determine EXACTLY what happened in terms of who was where.

Also, being "threatened" does not allow you to use potentially lethal force in self-defense. See post #13 for the actual criteria by which a shooting may be ruled self-defense.

You CANNOT "shoot anyone you please," and if you take the time to actually study the statute and case law, you'll find that the anti-self-defense lobby is full of BS on this one.

Guy has gun, he "feels" threatened.
He SHOOTS someone.
Someone DIES.
Shooter is investigated, someone is STILL DEAD.


Huh...how is that confusing??

I understand the intellectual argument, but when are frightened people thinking?

I'm done, you win.
I still think it is a BAD LAW.

"Feeling" threatened is not sufficient.

You have to have a reasonable fear.

when does a person that feels threatened think rationally?

I understand the law, what you seem to forget is human nature.

I really am done now...

Get outside, enjoy the sunshine!

:hi:

READ THE DAMN LAW, MAN!!!!

Because mere FEAR is not sufficient grounds for self defense..."REASONABLE fear" is the general criteria, not just "fear." Reasonable fear being defined as

"(a) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(b) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(c) The citizen using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, AND

(d) Force used was not excessive -- greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor."

In every state in this nation, as far as I am aware.

You are saying condition A. above would be sufficient on its own to make a shooting automatically justifiable self-defense. That's absolutely, totally, completely incorrect. Condition B. also applies (the fear of death or serious bodily harm must be REASONABLE), as well as C. (you weren't the instigator of the conflict), and D. (you didn't use excessive force, i.e. lethal force against a nonlethal threat).

You are parroting Bradyite talking points without actually having studied the text of the new law OR the existing statutes and case law. Research the issue for yourself.

So Rape becomes a Capital Offense? :shrug: Now one can arbitrarily put to death someone they feel might rape them? Ain't amerika Grand?

that's not what the law changes. I don't know of any state that requires you to submit to being raped. None.

BTW, a "capital crime" is a crime that can be judicially punished by the death penalty after the fact, and has absolutely nothing to do with self-defense. Second-degree murder is NOT a capital crime, for example, but you can darn sure use potentially lethal force to stop someone from murdering you.

When my sisters nephew was killed by his friend, his friend first said seth had shot himself. The forensic expert said it was unlikely because of the angle the bullet entertered. But it still wasn't enough. Until the kid confessed, seths death was considered a suicide.

Then came the big trial where the foresensic expert couldn't know what happened, and nobody else could get out of the kid, what happened. Was there an argument, was he threatened etc. He kept changing his story, seth was dead before the police got to the scene, and the kid who killed him did 1 year in Juvenile hall - he was 16 when he killed seth. Seth was 16 also.

We later found out that the kid had tried to get Seth to kill his (Seths)mom, with him and Seth had refused.

when faced with losing a few bucks?

There are most certainly cases where lethal force is justified. Like when it is a case of kill or be killed. But when it's kill or be mugged? What if it's a poor 17-year old kid?

If not faced with the loss of one's own life, and if flight would prevent a situation from escalating to the point where someone dies, the CHRISTIAN and liberal thing to do is flee. 'Forcing cowardice' on someone? That just doesn't make sense.

Seriously, you think someone should risk their life, trying to steal a few bucks?

(What if it's a poor 17-year old kid?)
Then that kid may have made a very fatal decision.

but they DO allow you to use lethal force to stop a threat to your life.

If a guy comes up to you and demands $5, no, you can't shoot him.

If a guy comes up to you, pulls a knife on you, and demands $5, you can use potentially lethal force to stop him. Not because he wants your money (that's irrelevant), but because he is threatening to take your life, he has demonstrated the means to do so, and you have no idea if he will kill you or not even if you hand him your wallet.

That's nothing new; that's the way self-defense law has worked for a thousand years. AFAIK, every state in the nation allows you to defend yourself from someone who illegally places you in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and has always done so.

Take a life as first resort and not last resort. Now that is a truly Republican attitude. Why not just pre-emptivily kill them because you know someday they may want to do you harm? It is how Amerika does things in this day and age.

by whatever means necessary.

I don't own a gun, and I am repulsed by violence, but if someone's coming at me with a knife, I'm going to do whatever I need to do to ensure he/she fails.

Did you read mine?

I didn't say any of that.
OF COURSE you have the right to protect yourself if someone is in your house.
But what about the guy that takes the last donut?, the last newspaper from the box?
The one that cuts you off?

Mighty slippery slope to say that YOUR (or ChristianLibrul, now theres a name that rings bells) perception is all it takes to shoot someone.

the anti-self-defense lobby?


Maybe it's time for a brief overview of self-defense law in general.

The general criteria that must be met for a homicide to be ruled justifiable are pretty much the same in every state. I'll quote from Steve Johnson, Concealed Carry Handgun Training, North Carolina Justice Academy, 1995, pp. 3-4, but these criteria would apply in every state, AFAIK. (Note that North Carolina IS a Castle Doctrine state.)



(Emphasis added.)

Note that ALL FOUR conditions must generally be met in order for a shooting to be ruled justifiable, even if the intruder is in your house (at least that's the case here in NC, and NC is a Castle Doctrine state).

It should also be noted that a claim of self-defense is not an automatic exemption to the laws against homicide. Rather, it is what is known as an affirmative defense; unlike the regular innocent-until-proven-guilty standard applied to a criminal act, the onus in a self-defense shooting is on the shooter to demonstrate that the shooting WAS indeed justifiable self-defense. In other words, if the shooting is questionable, it is much more likely to swing against the person claiming self-defense than it is to swing in their favor.

There are a few other conditions that may constitute justifiable self-defense; for example, NC extends the castle doctrine to state that if someone is in the act of actually breaking into my house, I can shoot the home invader as they kick the door down or crawl through the window and it would automatically be ruled justified (the presumption is that if the guy is kicking your door down, he's not there to sell magazine subscriptions). Once the act of forced entry is completed, the situation reverts to the criteria above, even inside your home.

Some states add a FIFTH criterion, that of running away from the imminent lethal threat before turning to defend yourself (and hoping the attacker doesn't kill you while your back is turned). Indiana did not have such a provision, so this law changes nothing in that regard.

eom

Alot of times when I go shopping or take a trip to the post office whenever I go to my car and someone else is getting out of their own sometimes they get nervous when they see my approaching my own car, I guess they think I'm going to carjack them, anyway with these laws I could be killed for simply trying to enter my own car.

Scary!

Read the criteria above under which the use of force may be considered justifiable self-defense. You CANNOT shoot someone because you "feel threatened"; you MUST be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm as would be perceived by the average person of ordinary mental firmness. The law would only apply to you if you actually DID try to carjack the other guy, not to a situation where he's merely worried about you as a potential threat.

The "you can shoot anybody whom you feel threatened by" line does not come from the new law, from any rational legal analysis thereof, or from self-defense case law in any "stand your ground" state. It comes from anti-self-defense-lobby press releases, and should be taken with the same grain of salt you'd use for an NRA press release.

"... Unlike in some states, Indiana did not previously require residents to retreat before using a gun or other deadly weapon."

I didn't think I was required to get chased into a corner of the bathroom before fighting back. Glad to get that clarification.

Wonder if that applies to jack-booted Robocops kicking in your door? "Hands UP, Atheist SCUM!"

should we have to run and cower when criminals threaten us?

As long as LEO and criminals use guns for self defense, then law-abiding citizens should have the choice of defending them self with efficient/effective tools and guns are best only tools for that job.

That's why my Democratic Party's Platform says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do." See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

I'm not sure how many states have such laws, but it's at least a dozen, and a majority of states have Castle Doctrine laws. A number of other states are also considering clarifications to their self-defense laws at the moment, including Kentucky and Alabama, off the top of my head.

Maybe they're the third state the anti-self-defense lobby has noticed?

I have a carry permit, I would do all I could to avoid shooting someone. If a knife comes out I will shoot to kill. There is no good reason I should have to submit to the whims of a criminal.




You will notice the wounds are on his back? I guess he was trying to "retreat" ?This guy did not expire from his wounds. There are other photos of his front side where organs are exposed.

California!

Here's the text of the bill in case anyone gets a bizarre urge to read what the changes to Indiana law actually are, before commenting:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2006/IN/IN1028.1.html