Castle Doctrine question

[mrortega]

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.

Go ahead and try and be sure to say "Hi" to your new roommate, Bubba, in Michigan City.

 

[g00n24]

Go ahead and try and be sure to say "Hi" to your new roommate, Bubba, in Michigan City.

Straight from the code:
(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.

Clearly the person in both scenarios is unlawfully entering your dwelling. Any reasonable person seeing someone break through a window and start climbing in can reasonably believe that person is entering the dwelling unlawfully. This part of the code clearly states you do not need to believe you are in danger of physical harm (obviously that is in the code too). So...you should not be facing any charges and will never see a jury.

 

[mrortega]

Straight from the code:
(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.

Clearly the person in both scenarios is unlawfully entering your dwelling. Any reasonable person seeing someone break through a window and start climbing in can reasonably believe that person is entering the dwelling unlawfully. This part of the code clearly states you do not need to believe you are in danger of physical harm (obviously that is in the code too). So...you should not be facing any charges and will never see a jury.

I understand where you are coming from citing IC but I believe that the jury would decide that the intent of the law is to not restrict someone IN their home from not being able to use deadly force to keep someone from entering. HOWEVER, if you are outside the home you don't have to shoot to protect yourself. You just walk away and call the cops, a far cry from having someone trying to come in at you. Unfortunately, too much legislation is so vague that it invites a judge or jury to make the interpretation and then the case law rules. I do believe that if the facts were that you were standing outside looking around the corner from a BG trying to enter a window and you shoot him you are in deep doo doo. Again, see if you can get an outside, north facing window at Michigan City so you can watch the Lake Shore trains go bye.

 

[ckcollins2003]

Straight from the code:
(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.

Clearly the person in both scenarios is unlawfully entering your dwelling. Any reasonable person seeing someone break through a window and start climbing in can reasonably believe that person is entering the dwelling unlawfully. This part of the code clearly states you do not need to believe you are in danger of physical harm (obviously that is in the code too). So...you should not be facing any charges and will never see a jury.

My two cents... for what it's worth.

First and foremost, in scenario 1, lets say you do come home and see someone trying to crawl through the window to your home. He/she is most likely going to notice someone pulling in the driveway and run off. If not, his partner will notice and inform him and most likely they will drive off. Very rarely is there a home invasion where there is only 1 attacker/thief and most thieves are not looking for violence, they are looking for things to sell for money. That being said, if the idiot somehow did not notice a multi thousand pound machine pulling in, I'd do 1 of 2 things, either go inside real quick, run to the window, and see the look on his face. Or I'd just call the cops and stay outside, letting the police do their job. That is why we pay them... and lets face it, if he didn't notice you coming home, he's probably blind and deaf and extremely confused.

As for scenario 2, I'd most definitely use force if my family's lives are in danger. Before shooting him outside of the house, I'd get 911 on the phone, get my family into a safe room away from where he is intruding, then proceed to whatever means necessary.

You have to remember that after you take the life of another person, consequences will follow. The law states that you must feel deadly force is necessary. I don't see how you could find it necessary in scenario 1. Noone's life is in danger and a jury will be the one to choose your fate. Scenario 2, I say have at it. No way a jury would convict someone of murder when the intruder could have harmed someone else, but when it's shooting over property, you may have a different outcome.

In both cases, make sure it's not a police officer, as you have no right to resist unlawful entry of a police officer.

 

[mrortega]

My two cents... for what it's worth.

First and foremost, in scenario 1, lets say you do come home and see someone trying to crawl through the window to your home. He/she is most likely going to notice someone pulling in the driveway and run off. If not, his partner will notice and inform him and most likely they will drive off. Very rarely is there a home invasion where there is only 1 attacker/thief and most thieves are not looking for violence, they are looking for things to sell for money. That being said, if the idiot somehow did not notice a multi thousand pound machine pulling in, I'd do 1 of 2 things, either go inside real quick, run to the window, and see the look on his face. Or I'd just call the cops and stay outside, letting the police do their job. That is why we pay them... and lets face it, if he didn't notice you coming home, he's probably blind and deaf and extremely confused.

As for scenario 2, I'd most definitely use force if my family's lives are in danger. Before shooting him outside of the house, I'd get 911 on the phone, get my family into a safe room away from where he is intruding, then proceed to whatever means necessary.

You have to remember that after you take the life of another person, consequences will follow. The law states that you must feel deadly force is necessary. I don't see how you could find it necessary in scenario 1. Noone's life is in danger and a jury will be the one to choose your fate. Scenario 2, I say have at it. No way a jury would convict someone of murder when the intruder could have harmed someone else, but when it's shooting over property, you may have a different outcome.

In both cases, make sure it's not a police officer, as you have no right to resist unlawful entry of a police officer.

But, but what if it's officer Harless in scenario 1?