Homeowner shoots BG in .....

[IncendiaryGunner]

Please provide links to show evidence that what you say is true. Can you show even one case where there was clear evidence of a person using deadly force against someone who broke into their home & then was subsequently arrested & tried. Generally, in IN, unless there is some real question about the facts in the case, you'll be OK in the situation in the OP.

I, myself, was arrested and tried in the state of Indiana for using deadly force against someone who broke into my home.

I was dragged through court for years, and I learned from experience that while you may use self defense to justify your actions, you can still be arrested, and tried for a felony offense for defending yourself. It will cost you money, it will cost you time, and it will not be a fun experience. Is it better than letting someone kill you? Ofcourse...

A good portion of the time it does come down to being able to "prove" to a jury that you had reason to believe your life was in danger. When you hurt someone with a deadly weapon, be prepared to defend yourself legally.

In the end, many real life cases come down to "clear evidence" being hard to decipher. Take for example this case, the perpetrator was found outside of the home he broke into, and it comes down to whose word to believe. Personally, I am biased and will almost always give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt - but if you think that because they were in your home you have a free pass off the hook - that I would disagree with.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

And face it, it's going to depend upon the local Prosecutor and his take on "guns". My wife was on a jury some years ago, in a case where an older (Korean War vintage) veteran was accosted by a young man who leaned in his vehicle window to confront him over some issue. When he saw the .38 in the veteran's console, he backed off, called the police, and accused the vet of threatening him. Prosecutor wanted the vet convicted on felony battery (IIRC). Wife said "Hell no" and refused to even consider voting for conviction. He was acquitted, Prosecutor was pissed, and my wife never got called for jury duty again...

 

[finity]

I, myself, was arrested and tried in the state of Indiana for using deadly force against someone who broke into my home.

I was dragged through court for years, and I learned from experience that while you may use self defense to justify your actions, you can still be arrested, and tried for a felony offense for defending yourself. It will cost you money, it will cost you time, and it will not be a fun experience. Is it better than letting someone kill you? Ofcourse...

A good portion of the time it does come down to being able to "prove" to a jury that you had reason to believe your life was in danger. When you hurt someone with a deadly weapon, be prepared to defend yourself legally.

In the end, many real life cases come down to "clear evidence" being hard to decipher. Take for example this case, the perpetrator was found outside of the home he broke into, and it comes down to whose word to believe. Personally, I am biased and will almost always give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt - but if you think that because they were in your home you have a free pass off the hook - that I would disagree with.

Dang it!

I fell into my own trap.

That's why I use "weasel words" like "generally" & "almost always" when I talk about situations like this. I know it COULD happen. I'm just saying it's "highly unlikely".

I'm sorry that it happened to you. That's a bunch of BS. We can only hope that the prosecutor honestly had some doubt about who was telling the truth based on objective evidence at the scene & that he wasn't just going after a homeowner who "dared" defend his home with deadly force.

Even knowing your situation, I still say that it's unlikely that someone "will DEFINITELY be" arrested for killing someone who breaks into their home & is still a threat at the time.

OTOH, this does provide support for what I've also said before:

You're use of deadly force has to be reasonably necessary. Even if someone breaks into your house you can't just kill them no matter what. If they are leaving or they have surrendered they are no longer a threat, therefore deadly force is not necessary. If you use DF in that case you will PROBABLY (& rightly) be charged.

 

[Armed Eastsider]

I think if somebody breaks into your home or vehicle you should have free reign on what to do with them. Beat them, kill them, torture them, whatever. How many less pieces of sh** would be out there breaking into our homes that we go to work every day to pay for?

 

[Ram-jac]

Personally I don't see anything wrong with leaving the house and politely asking the BG's to return the possesions they removed from said property. Now it becomes their choice to either return the items or to escalate the situation. I don't think "intent" to harm could be demonstrated.....in the case posted in OP.....sounds like Mr. Horn was just attempting to recover his items and the BG's came at him and he defended himself......atleast if I were on a jury that's how I would perceive it.
It's almost as if some believe that the homeowner/victim has no right to recover their property and the "only" reason they would pursue the BG's would be to shoot them.......
how about letting the homeowner attempt to recover their property and if the BG attacks them then they have the right to defend. I also believe, as others have stated, that property isn't worth dying over........but is that what the BG believes??? So when confronted by the owner the BG's actions would dictate what happens next........and considering their chosen line of work the next decision they make might also be a bad one........but again it would be their choice.

 

[rich8483]

And face it, it's going to depend upon the local Prosecutor and his take on "guns". My wife was on a jury some years ago, in a case where an older (Korean War vintage) veteran was accosted by a young man who leaned in his vehicle window to confront him over some issue. When he saw the .38 in the veteran's console, he backed off, called the police, and accused the vet of threatening him. Prosecutor wanted the vet convicted on felony battery (IIRC). Wife said "Hell no" and refused to even consider voting for conviction. He was acquitted, Prosecutor was pissed, and my wife never got called for jury duty again...

especially if the perp just saw the weapon and the driver wasnt holding it. and thats on top of the fact that the guy was in or trying to get in the car. was she allowed to say what others voted? i dont need names of course, just curios what the general public said.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with leaving the house and politely asking the BG's to return the possesions they removed from said property. Now it becomes their choice to either return the items or to escalate the situation. I don't think "intent" to harm could be demonstrated.....in the case posted in OP.....sounds like Mr. Horn was just attempting to recover his items and the BG's came at him and he defended himself......atleast if I were on a jury that's how I would perceive it.
It's almost as if some believe that the homeowner/victim has no right to recover their property and the "only" reason they would pursue the BG's would be to shoot them.......
how about letting the homeowner attempt to recover their property and if the BG attacks them then they have the right to defend. I also believe, as others have stated, that property isn't worth dying over........but is that what the BG believes??? So when confronted by the owner the BG's actions would dictate what happens next........and considering their chosen line of work the next decision they make might also be a bad one........but again it would be their choice.

i have the understanding that if you confront a BG to ask him to stop what hes doing, leave the rims on your car etc. and the BG then threatens you, he was the one who escalated the situation making deadly force a viable option at that time.