Castle Doctrine question

[g00n24]

Sorry if this has come up before...
Scenario 1:
You are not home, no one is home. You pull up to your house, park your car and walk to your door and notice someone at the side of your house breaking in through a window. Indiana says you can use force to stop a forceful/unlawful entry into your house, do you have to be INSIDE your house when doing so? You are not investigating a noise outside, you just got home and witnessed this...if that makes any difference.
Obviously, the best thing to do in this situation is call the cops and let them clear your house, but are you in your legal right if you use lethal force to stop the forceful entry into your dwelling?

Scenario 2:
This time your children/wife/loved ones are in your home. You drive up, park and see the guy breaking in as you walk to your door. This time you may not want to wait for the police because your family is in the house and you have to protect them immediately. Can you legally use lethal force while the guy is trying to/in the process of breaking in?

 

[7.62]

Sorry if this has come up before...
Scenario 1:
You are not home, no one is home. You pull up to your house, park your car and walk to your door and notice someone at the side of your house breaking in through a window. Indiana says you can use force to stop a forceful/unlawful entry into your house, do you have to be INSIDE your house when doing so? You are not investigating a noise outside, you just got home and witnessed this...if that makes any difference.
Obviously, the best thing to do in this situation is call the cops and let them clear your house, but are you in your legal right if you use lethal force to stop the forceful entry into your dwelling?

Scenario 2:
This time your children/wife/loved ones are in your home. You drive up, park and see the guy breaking in as you walk to your door. This time you may not want to wait for the police because your family is in the house and you have to protect them immediately. Can you legally use lethal force while the guy is trying to/in the process of breaking in?

On scenario 1 you can defend your home or car...the car you must be occupied to prevent any legal action...but I dont think IC says you have to be in home but let me look and get back with you.

Scenario 2: you absoultely have the right to use deadly force. And IMO even if you didnt and knew your family was in danger, I would act immediately regardless. But like I said, In Indiana you are good to go.

 

[jblomenberg16]

My understanding is that castle doctrine refers not only to the physical dwelling, but also the property itself. It might be a little sticky in an actual court room defense, but in short, the person(s) in your scenarios have no more right to be on your property than he does in your home.

 

[7.62]

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).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another 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.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), 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.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), 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.
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.

 

[g00n24]

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
(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..

Ok, from that it seems like your location at the time of the attack makes no difference whatsoever. Unless, it's a car, then it has to be occupied. Like I said I knew you can use force to stop an entry I just wasn't sure if you have to be inside what the BG is entering/attacking. Thanks.

 

[7.62]

Ok, from that it seems like your location at the time of the attack makes no difference whatsoever. Unless, it's a car, then it has to be occupied. Like I said I knew you can use force to stop an entry I just wasn't sure if you have to be inside what the BG is entering/attacking. Thanks.

No problem!, thats why I orginally said this...

On scenario 1 you can defend your home or car...the car you must be occupied to prevent any legal action...but I dont think IC says you have to be in home but let me look and get back with you.

Scenario 2: you absoultely have the right to use deadly force. And IMO even if you didnt and knew your family was in danger, I would act immediately regardless. But like I said, In Indiana you are good to go.

...But I just wanted to give you IC to be sure!

 

[ryknoll3]

The IC says you are justified in using reasonable force, INCLUDING deadly force to stop the attack upon or unlawful entry into your home, occupied vehicle or curtilage.

I think the biggest hurdle would be convincing a jury that deadly force WAS the REASONABLE option in protecting an UNoccupied home. If I was on the jury, no way I'd ever vote to convict someone of shooting to protect ANY of their belongings, but I think that would be the rub.

If you were to prosecuted, I think the argument would've been to stay outside and wait for the popo.

 

[Hammerhead]

Doesn't matter if you are not standing inside the home as the guy is breaking in the side window. The law says unlawful entry into the home. It says nothing of the home having a person physically inside. It also says that if you use justifiable deadly force, as in this case, you will not suffer any legal consequences, criminal or civil.

Now, in scenario 1, do you need to use deadly force? That might depend. Can you get the drop on the guy and hold him at gun point? I'm thinking about the guy still in the process of crawling in and you are able to stick the barrel of your sidearm against his body/head/uncomfortable location while he's unaware and caught off guard. Do you need to pull the trigger then? Probably not, but you'd legally be justified.

Scenario 2? Seeing a guy crawling into my home I know is occupied by my family and he obviously wants to do very bad things, he's probably going to earn one of those stupid prizes you get for playing stupid games.

 

[Sylvain]

The IC says you are justified in using reasonable force, INCLUDING deadly force to stop the attack upon or unlawful entry into your home, occupied vehicle or curtilage.

I think the biggest hurdle would be convincing a jury that deadly force WAS the REASONABLE option in protecting an UNoccupied home. If I was on the jury, no way I'd ever vote to convict someone of shooting to protect ANY of their belongings, but I think that would be the rub.

If you were to prosecuted, I think the argument would've been to stay outside and wait for the popo.

I agree, in that case I dont think you could use lethal force, shooting the guy in the back because he broke into your empty house is not an option.
Your life is not in danger at this point.

 

[Exodus]

I agree, in that case I dont think you could use lethal force, shooting the guy in the back because he broke into your empty house is not an option.
Your life is not in danger at this point.

What if his intent is to burn your house down after he grabs the small pistol safe next to your bed then flees.

 

[g00n24]

I agree, in that case I dont think you could use lethal force, shooting the guy in the back because he broke into your empty house is not an option.
Your life is not in danger at this point.

I agree your life is not in immediate danger, but the law says you would be protected. Which is where I was coming from with this question. I don't see how the location of the shot placements would make any difference considering how the law is written, no matter how bad a prosecutor wants to come after you.

 

[jblomenberg16]

I agree your life is not in immediate danger, but the law says you would be protected. Which is where I was coming from with this question. I don't see how the location of the shot placements would make any difference considering how the law is written, no matter how bad a prosecutor wants to come after you.

You might be protected in a criminal investigation, but you will lose your ar$e in the civil suit that will follow.

 

[Hammerhead]

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.

I believe this means that there's no way in hell you'll be put in legal jeopardy for either of these scenarios. The person is breaking into your home, you're protecting yourself and/or your family from a forcible felony, SBI, and the unlawful entry of your home.

 

[finity]

I think it goes back to the definition of "reasonable" as mentioned above.

THe law is written so that you don't need to be in fear of serious bodily injury because it presumes that if someone is illegally entering your home then they mean to do you harm because you WERE INSIDE.

If you weren't inside at the time I'm not sure that a jury would find your automatic use of DF to be REASONABLE. You can't kill someone for just stealing your stuff & you are under no imminent theat of SBI if he's goimg in & you're out.

It could honestly go either way so I'm not sure I would just start blasting away at the guy.

Now, if you confronted him (which you can legally do) & he then subsequently threatened you with SBI then your use of DF would be (or should be) considered reasonable.

The bottom line is that you shouldn't assume that you will be protected by the castle doctrine if you or anyone else is not in the home at the time. It all hinges on the term "reasonable".

 

[JoshuaW]

What if his intent is to burn your house down after he grabs the small pistol safe next to your bed then flees.

Still in direct harm. Indirect perhaps, but that is not what the IC says.

Now if you saw the guy climbing out of your window with your small pistol in hand, and a bucket of gasoline, you should be justified in shooting him dead, even if you could have possibly fled. Then again, that would go for just about anyone who was up to know good and had a small pistol, whether they just broke into your house or not.

 

[H.T.]

Since it does take a bit of effort to climb through a window.
I would unlock door,.pull sidearm turn corner wait for bg
to get completely in house.

 

[mrortega]

I believe a jury would be justified in convicting you if you used deadly force to stop someone from entering your home or other building if you knew no one was inside. After all, there is no death penalty for burglary. If you either don't know if anyone is in your home or are sure it is occupied a "reasonable man" would agree that deadly force is justifiable because of the immediate threat of grave harm or death to the occupants.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Good to go, but I would be more inclined to NOT shoot on #1.

Now, in scenario 1, do you need to use deadly force? That might depend. Can you get the drop on the guy and hold him at gun point? I'm thinking about the guy still in the process of crawling in and you are able to stick the barrel of your sidearm against his body/head/uncomfortable location while he's unaware and caught off guard. Do you need to pull the trigger then? Probably not, but you'd legally be justified.

Scenario 2? Seeing a guy crawling into my home I know is occupied by my family and he obviously wants to do very bad things, he's probably going to earn one of those stupid prizes you get for playing stupid games.

You speak of "earning one of those stupid prizes for playing stupid games" SO in reality you yourself are dabbling in playing a stupid game with your life by thinking that you can sneak up and stick the barrel of your side arm in the side or head of a BG, doing that earns you a Darwin Award for getting to close to a BG and creating a opportunity for them to have that split second to sweep your firearm and disable you.

Also just a thing to note, if you are close enough to put the gun to their head and pull the trigger, this can be interpreted by a over zealous DA and Grand Jury as an EXECUTION. If this is the conclusion they come to, the Castle Doctrine will not protect you.

IANAL, but you must see what I'm getting at.

Safe distance from the BG is your friend, NEVER close that gap and create a problem for yourself that you may not overcome and loose your life because of it.

 

[Hammerhead]

Perhaps. I was actually going to make a reference to the movie Bulletproof when Damon Wayans catches Adam Sandler hanging out the window in the cabin when Adam tries to escape naked.

I'm not saying it's a good idea to do so, I was asking if it was possible. If someone is climbing into your window, it could be a real compromising position for the burglar. Obviously you want to assess the situation and act appropriately.

 

[g00n24]

I believe a jury would be justified in convicting you if you used deadly force to stop someone from entering your home or other building if you knew no one was inside. After all, there is no death penalty for burglary. If you either don't know if anyone is in your home or are sure it is occupied a "reasonable man" would agree that deadly force is justifiable because of the immediate threat of grave harm or death to the occupants.

I don't think a jury could convict you because charges should never be brought against you. The IC makes it clear that you can stop an unlawful entry into your dwelling, my original question was if the IC makes any reference to you having to be occupying your dwelling at the time of using force. After reading it directly it appears you don't have to be inside your house.