Use of lethal force

Discussion in 'Firearms' started by Tango3, Jan 22, 2007.

  1. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    This is a pretty good article explains the application of lethal force in the way I've always understood it. I don't think these basic tennents are any different from state to state. (I E. you can't shoot sombody for stealing your tv)

    If anybody has any argument I'd love to hear it...
  2. kckndrgn

    kckndrgn Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    first part looked good, I'm just taggin' this for referrance for when I get home.

  3. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    Actually, that article is not correct for some states. A lot of us have so called "castle doctrine" now. Here in Indiana, I can shoot somebody trying to steal my tv if I believe it's necessary to stop him (and I do). My life doesn't have to be threatened.

    Heres the Code:
    IC 35-41-3-2
    Use of force to protect person or property
    35-41-3-2 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).

    I like the old saying, It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. If somebody is in my house without a seriously good reason, I'm going to assume they mean me harm.
  4. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    "necessary terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling"

    I read this as... if he's in my house stealing my tv and I believe force is necessary to terminate that unlawful entry... bang bang.

    Maybe I'm reading it wrong... I'm not very good at legaleeze.

    Of course you know right before I fired, he yelled something about killing me :)
  5. BigO01

    BigO01 Monkey+++ Founding Member

    While I agree that that article pretty much describes my understanding of the use of deadly force I have the following personal rules I always try to follow before thinking of going for a gun .

    1 in the house they have to get by "The dog" before I deal with them .
    When I was younger some fool broke into our screened in back porch where our mix breed German Sheppard slept . His/their screams woke up the whole family at 3am , we found what was left of bloody clothing on the porch and out in the yard once the sun came up . NO ONE ever tried to break in our home again .

    So pretty much for them to get past the dog they will need a weapon and they will get shot .

    2 Out of the home I live in the real world where people love to sue at the drop of a hat even if I were to win a civil suit for injuring or scaring someone defending their lives it would all but ruin me financially . I would have to be very certain that a stranger was about to die and reasonably certain that it wasn't their fault for the attack "IE two drug dealers fighting" before I got involved .

    We live in a world of ugly realities and getting sued to death is one of them . I am more concerned about my families financial future than some strangers life .

    If you were expecting Superman or Batman you will be sorrily disappointed .
  6. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    What happened here? Your post is gone Tango.

    I didn't piss ya off or anything did I?
  7. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    I was trying to decipher the "legalese" , thought I had a contradictory line of logic working but my wife wanted to go out to dinner, I hadn't really polished my "argument" so rather than leave a half baked idea out hanging in the wind I just deleted it...:)You are lucky in that your state spells it pretty clearly, BUT:
    it says "reasonable force"( Oh iIsee it says "reasonable force including deadly force" but then conclude justifying deadlyforce only under subsection "A"

    "reasonable force" for protection of property; and "deadly force" only applies under subsection a( a person is in danger):???am
    I seeing a contradiction here or just dead braincells floating by??

    Where's Massad Ayoob when you need him???
  8. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    In reading it over again (multiple times), I've come to the conclusion that it talks itself in a perfect circle. Boggles the mind it does, how legislators can take a simple thing and make it completely FUBAR.
  9. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer


    It can be twisted... What do the local gunshops say? My understanding of these "castle laws" are that anybody in your living room at 2am is up to no good and it is reasonable for the homeowner to fear;Just like you said.
    have you had an ccw training? I wonder how the law is interpretted.

    No...wait , perhaps it all falls under the denial of unlawful entry or unlawful interference. and that's that...I equate "deadlyforce is appropriate to protect people..Reasonable force (?) to protect property ( I do remember specifically when I was in nuclear weapons maint, my first 4 years we would convoy live "special" weapons from the weapons storage area to be uploaded to a bomber on a SAC base.We were specifically briefed "deadly force was authorized to protect the weapons".
  10. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Surely somebody here has had recent ccw training? What are they teaching afar as straight protection of property?
  11. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    In MO we are trying to GET a castle doctrine law and hopefuly one like FL has where it also protects you anywhere you can legally be and protects you from civil suits as well so my CCW training last year wouldnt be of any help.

    As far as my take on how that law above would be interpreted though would be that it is not legal to just walk in and see someone stealing you TV and shoot them without warning BUT that it would provide considerable 'wiggle room' protection from 'escelation of force' issues. Basicly meaning that without it if you tell the guy to stop and he stays and you swing on him then he pulls a knife so you pull a gun and shoot him you are probably ok since you used 'reasonable force' to stop the theft without retreating so even though that lead to the guys choice to pull the knife (thus creating a threat to a person that allows for deadly force) it was all justified. Without it, like here, if you challenge the thief and it escelates into a deadly force confrontation it could be decided that it was your fault it escelated and so it wasnt justified.

    Thats at least what I got out of it.
  12. gillman7

    gillman7 Monkey+++

    I took my CCW about 6 months ago, and we have the Castle Law here as well. It does not mean that you can shoot someone that is stealing your property. You are only allowed to use the amount of force to control the situation. For example if you walk in and someone is burglarizing your house and they run away, you can NOT shoot at them. However if you are in your house, and they break in, you are legally allowed to assume that they are going to do you serious harm and in that instance you are allowed to use force. You must be able to show that they broke in and they were threatening you. (Read into that what you must have prepared in case it escalates to that)
  13. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    We had a case here not long ago of a convenience store that got robbed, the manager chased the guy into the parking lot and shot him as he was running away. No charges filed against the manager.

    In the case of finding someone in my house robbing the place, I wouldn't shoot once the guy is outside and running away, but, my intention upon finding said bad guy in my house is to kill him... period, right or wrong, court or not, he'll never repeat the offense. I may end up in jail, but burglarizing my house is a crime punishable by immediate death. I don't want a guy that's already robbed me to spend 6 months in jail getting really pissed at me for putting him there and then get out with revenge on his mind. That's just how I feel about it.
  14. RightHand

    RightHand Been There, Done That RIP 4/15/21 Moderator Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    I have had my home broken into and possessions stolen. Luckily, I was not at home at the time. Would I have used deadly force if I had been home? No - possessions are only that - possessions. If my life was in danger or the life and safety of my family, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to do whatever was necessary, up to and including deadly force, to protect life.
  15. gillman7

    gillman7 Monkey+++

    Trust me, I am definitely not saying not to shoot someone that is justified, or make value judgements for someone else. I just feel that you should be prepared ahead of time for a situation, rather than make a decision based on the emotion at the time of the incident.

    Here is my concern, nothing I have is worth my freedom, or my family's financial stability. On the other hand, God help anyone that threatens my family's security, whether through stealing our preps, or menacing them with bodily harm. If it is bodily harm, the decision is simple, drop the hammer. If it is preps, depending on the societal atmosphere (SHTF etc) whether it would be worth risking jail time. If I surprised them and they took off immediately and my family was there, I would try to stop them as much as I could, but only use the force necessary to resolve the problem. I think some people fantasize about "Shoot First" without realizing the consequences. I am a fairly big guy, 6' around 250, and spent several years bouncing, and still work security part time, and there are many ways to contain people without lethal force. It would also be harder for me to claim that I felt threatened as opposed to my 5'4" wife. (So, I would shoot, and give the gun to my wife.....J/K)

    Do not take lightly the process of arrest and lawyer fees either. We are all here to prepare and protect our families, but that is hard to do if we are incarcerated or paying attorney fees. Than being said, I do agree with Blackjack in that most people brazen enough to burglarize are going to be aggressive when confronted.
  16. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    Ok.... while I completely agree with you, "posessions are only that" and can be replaced, I view an intruder in my home always as jeopardizing the safety and lives of myself and family wether he has my tv in his hands or a weapon, and not only now, but the next time he or one of his crack head buddies tries it. I don't want to always be wondering if he will return.

    Am I on the fringe here? That has been known to happen ;) but I like to be aware of it.

    Does anybody else see intruders as corpses awaiting judgement?
  17. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    I tend to figure that if they break in ESPECIALY when its obvious people are there that its only reasonable to assume they are prepaired to use force to acomplish their goals and so are a threat. As far as 'only possesions' I can see that but then too its only a thief you would be shooting and I tend to view thieves as vermin, so while I might not shoot them if they droped the goods and ran or if they surendered due to the legal ramifications, I wouldnt have a lot of moral qualms about seeing a thief sent to higher judgment than the courts would provide for trying to steal the posessions I had worked to earn.
  18. sheen_estevez

    sheen_estevez Monkey+++

    I've always felt that if someone breaks into my house, when we are home is there for no other reason then to cause harm to me and my family, that being said, I wouldn't plan on going out looking for the bad guy or bad guys (careful here people the bad guy may not be alone) but would set up a defensive position with my family behind me, if the intruder then makes a move down the hall for example, that person is not walking out of my house.
  19. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    good debate; now think lawyers will do this monday morning qtr backing after a shooting a comfy conference or court room with a cup of coffee.and without your personal interest or good intentions being utmost on their mind..:
    obviously Some shoot /no shoot situations are completely clear( like in the movies...
    but its pretty easy to come up with gray scenarios i.e. : parking lot mugge with a knife:face to face bang! (dead homeboy).
    same mugger shot in the back with the homey's testifying he was running away: bang! (cell door closes behind you..).
    Thanks for all the informed input...and the other input too for that matter..
  20. sheen_estevez

    sheen_estevez Monkey+++

    I think the bottom line is if you can get out of the situation unhurt that is the first course of action, it's a bit different with someone in your house
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary