Hypothetical-- shooting at a car of an escaping arsonist?

[evsnova74]

This is a pretty specific situation and I'd have to imagine somewhat rare, but this morning someone tried to torch my el camino at around 4:30am. I happened to be up watching f1 practice but missed the whole thing. (the only real damage it suffered was a busted rear window)

Anyway, suppose I had happened to look out the window, second story, looking out over Washington street, and happened to see these fellows near my car (which is backed in in front of a garage across Washington). Then say I notice the fire being started, and I grab my ar15 and start trying to place shots in the engine bay to stop the vehicle from escaping?

Legitimate use of a firearm? I'd be surprised if it was, but that's why I'm asking. I don't think I'd ever have the balls to do something like that, seeing stories like the Jorge Zimmerman thing makes me scared to death to even use my pistol in a case of clear cut self defense. But isn't a legitimate cause for using a firearm protection of property? How exactly is that defined?

 

[Dwight]

Was your life (or an innocent other's) in danger of death or serious bodily injury? That is your answer....

 

[indytechnerd]

Based on your scenario, you'll have a cooked Camino and plenty of time in a small concrete room to reflect on it. There are plenty of threads (and an FAQ) that will get you more information on this.

 

[evsnova74]

Was your life (or an innocent other's) in danger of death or serious bodily injury? That is your answer....

I figured as much, I'm just confused by this wording:

"IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
...
(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other 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."

It looks like the key word there is "occupied", but this adds to my confusion:

"IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony."

I guess I just don't get why property is even mentioned, I thought it was as you described and even that is sometimes questionable...

 

[evsnova74]

Based on your scenario, you'll have a cooked Camino and plenty of time in a small concrete room to reflect on it. There are plenty of threads (and an FAQ) that will get you more information on this.

It seems to me on the face of it that shooting at a car is far worse than firing a warning shot, and if you can get in a lot of trouble for just firing a warning shot it puts shooting at a car over the top in that regard. Also the first thing I did was scour the faq (shocking I know, lol) and I either dismissed the section it's in thinking that it wasn't in there or this subject isn't in it. I did check it though...

 

[indytechnerd]

I figured as much, I'm just confused by this wording:

"IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
...
(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other 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."

It looks like the key word there is "occupied", but this adds to my confusion:

If you're in your car, house, garage, etc., and someone is trying to climb in to remove your limbs from your body, you can shoot them. If they are dragging you neighbor out of her car, intent on performing unspeakable acts, you can shoot them. If they're stealing your neighbor's car while she's on vacation, then we move on to the next section.

"IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony."

I guess I just don't get why property is even mentioned, I thought it was as you described and even that is sometimes questionable...

Notice the difference in (d)(1) of the 1st block vs. §3(a) of the second block. No where in the second block is deadly force mentioned. Additionally, we've gone from preventing whatever evil we're talking about, to after the fact. Speculating, I'd say this means you can't jump in the family truckster and chase the evildoer(s) down before going all John McClane on them.

If it were me, and we'd passed on to block #2, I'd employ the following rule: "Be a good witness".

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

We believe that police fire on escaping felons on a regular basis, is this an urban myth? If not, how do THEY get away with it?

Arson is a felony. You would be firing on an escaping felon. It doesn't seem kosher but we are under the impression that you can only fire when life is involved. Is this really true? I have to wonder. Is there a specific law that allows police to fire on a felon but excludes me from doing the same thing?

I would be sorely tempted to fire away, but I don't believe that I actually would. On the other hand, if I was on your jury, I would refuse to convict if given those circumstances. Jury nullification is a powerful tool. That must be why I have never been on a jury despite being called up at least a dozen times.

 

[remauto1187]

The real answer you should be looking for is who did you tick off that they would take the time to break into your vehicle just to set it on fire.

 

[jedi]

evsnova74

I suggest you take this course: Comprehensive Indiana Gun Law
Personal Protection in the Home (5-29)

Here is a review of it:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...nsive_gun_law_seminar_aar_from_june_23rd.html

It is the BEST money you will ever spend on getting legal questions to all the Indiana firearm laws. It's an eye opener.

Tactical Firearm BTW is an INGO site supporter and advertiser as well.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

We believe that police fire on escaping felons on a regular basis, is this an urban myth? If not, how do THEY get away with it?

You believe incorrectly. We can't shoot a fleeing felon JUST because he is a fleeing felon. Read the SCOTUS case Tennessee V Garner for an idea of when a fleeing felon can be shot, but basically when he still presents an immediate threat. An arsonist who's already committed arson isn't an immediate threat now, unlike say, an active shooter who's killed three students and fleeing deeper into the school with a rifle in his hand.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Anyway, suppose I had happened to look out the window, second story, looking out over Washington street, and happened to see these fellows near my car (which is backed in in front of a garage across Washington). Then say I notice the fire being started, and I grab my ar15 and start trying to place shots in the engine bay to stop the vehicle from escaping?

No. You are very unlikely to disable the vehicle firing an AR-15 into the engine bay anyway. If you happen to have a .50 mounted in your window, you'd have a solid chance. Shooting a car to prevent an escape is way outside the realm of a good idea, civilian or LEO. Shooting the felon themselves may be a bad shoot, may be a good shoot, depends on the situation. In an accomplished arson that the suspect is now fleeing from I would say it falls outside the guidelines of Tennesee vs Garner.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

You believe incorrectly. We can't shoot a fleeing felon JUST because he is a fleeing felon. Read the SCOTUS case Tennessee V Garner for an idea of when a fleeing felon can be shot, but basically when he still presents an immediate threat. An arsonist who's already committed arson isn't an immediate threat now, unlike say, an active shooter who's killed three students and fleeing deeper into the school with a rifle in his hand.

This certainly cinches it. If the police can't shoot to make apprehension then nobody can. That does make me curious about what pretext police use to hold people at gun-point. I absolutely KNOW that is a regular practice. (been there more than once)

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I figured as much, I'm just confused by this wording:

"IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
...
(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other 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."

It looks like the key word there is "occupied", but this adds to my confusion:

"IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony."

I guess I just don't get why property is even mentioned, I thought it was as you described and even that is sometimes questionable...

Keep reading. There is a difference between "reasonable" force and "deadly" force. Although deadly force can be reasonable force it isn't necessarily so.

(e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against any other 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 (c).

And subsection (c) is.

(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other 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.

If someone is attacking your occupied home or vehicle it's pretty much codified that you have a reasonable belief of serious bodily injury/death.
You also left out part of the section on Use of force relating to arrest

IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.

You can't use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon unless you can articulate a reasonable belief that they posed a threat of serious bodily injury to yourself or a third person.

Basically using deadly force to stop a fleeing felon is only legal under the same statutes as protecting a person or property.

 

[evsnova74]

The real answer you should be looking for is who did you tick off that they would take the time to break into your vehicle just to set it on fire.

Apparently a Lt. from the fire dept just called my mom to get the vin (this happened on her property) and told her that 4 other fires were started this morning within walking distance. It appears to be totally random at this point...

 

[evsnova74]

I think I get it now, at the point where they're only just breaking in, even though they haven't harmed you yet, and all they've done is attacked your property, you have reason to believe that after the act of attacking your property they're going to cause you severe bodily harm?

 

[paddling_man]

According to this youtubing hang-up-a-shingle trainer, shooting at someone fleeing is a good idea. <<--- CLICK LINK. It just goes to show you that you should take everything you read on the internet with a grain of salt and vet trainers credentials and experience with a fine tooth comb.

As much as I would want to shoot at these folks, I would hope better judgment would hold sway and my finger would stay off the trigger.

 

[Reuben Cogburn]

Would it make a difference if the car was inside your curtilage?

We never park our cars on the street but in an area enclosed by a fence and a gate alongside the house (if not in the garage).

To go a bit further, what if the thug was not running away but was instead being confrontational?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I think I get it now, at the point where they're only just breaking in, even though they haven't harmed you yet, and all they've done is attacked your property, you have reason to believe that after the act of attacking your property they're going to cause you severe bodily harm?

Sorta. Think carjacking or home invasion. There is a high likely hood of the scum hurting/planning on hurting you or yours. If someone is breaking in to an occupied car/home there is a presumption of reasonable belief that there is a threat of SBI/death.

And IANAL/TINLA.

Would it make a difference if the car was inside your curtilage?

We never park our cars on the street but in an area enclosed by a fence and a gate alongside the house (if not in the garage).

To go a bit further, what if the thug was not running away but was instead being confrontational?

Maybe? Is the curtilage occupied?
For instance I have a driveway that is enclosed by a fence with a gate. It might be considered curtilage. Just because my car is parked there doesn't mean I can open fire because someone is breaking into it. Now if I was standing there and the guy had a knife in his hand......

Also a fence and gate alone do not necessarily mean it's curtilage nor does the lack of one. Is a farmers field 2 miles from his home curtilage simply because he has a fence an gate around it? Is a privacy screened patio attached/next to your home curtilage even without a fence and gate?
Curtilage Law & Legal Definition
curtilage legal definition of curtilage. curtilage synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Define confrontational. Is he just saying F-U after you tell him to get away from your car? Or is he saying back the F up or your going to get cut while he has a knife in his hand?

IANAL/TINLA.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

evsnova74

I suggest you take this course: Comprehensive Indiana Gun Law
Personal Protection in the Home (5-29)

Here is a review of it:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...nsive_gun_law_seminar_aar_from_june_23rd.html

It is the BEST money you will ever spend on getting legal questions to all the Indiana firearm laws. It's an eye opener.

Tactical Firearm BTW is an INGO site supporter and advertiser as well.

And while I haven't had the chance to take this class myself, I've heard nothing but good things about it. I do intend to take it when I can and would say that the above is good advice.

 

[cobber]

We believe that police fire on escaping felons on a regular basis, is this an urban myth? If not, how do THEY get away with it?

They don't get away with it, because they don't do it. If they do it, they become members of the X Police