On Shooting A Car Thief

[mk2ja]

Check it out... a guy in Warsaw woke up to the sound of his truck being stolen, so he got in the other truck and chased the guy!

Truck theft victim helps spoil getaway | The Journal Gazette | Fort Wayne, IN




Ya know, one thing I've kinda wondered about...

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).

Subsection (c) is clearly what applies to somebody stealing your car, right? It is property other than a dwelling, ... or occupied motor vehicle. If you just read subsection (c), it sounds like you can shoot somebody stealing your car. But then if you read that last sentence, it adds that deadly force is only justified if the use of force was justified under subsection (a), which kinda sets you back to the point of not being able to shoot somebody stealing your car unless you're IN THE CAR ("occupied motor vehicle").

It makes me think, what the heck was the point of even writing subsection (c)?! I don't really have any kind of "reasonable force" I can use to stop somebody from stealing my car besides my gun! I reckon one could argue that simply displaying the weapon and ordering the person to stop would count as reasonable, but not deadly, force (since you haven't fired yet).

But then again, maybe subsection (a) doesn't say I can't shoot him unless I'm in fear of serious bodily injury... it does say force can be used to terminate the commission of a forcible felony. According to my limited internetz research, it looks like stealing a car, aka grand theft auto, is a felony; but, is it a forcible felony? Where's that defined?


Basically... I'm just trying to figure out if the guy in the news story above had shot the person trying to steal his car, would he have been justified in that use of force, including deadly force?

And a follow-up question: IF a person can shoot somebody who is stealing his car, at what point can you NOT shoot him? For instance, if you are attacked, you cannot keep shooting once the attack has ended (if somebody breaks into your house, you can't chase him down the street shooting at him). But if somebody is stealing your car, even if they are on down the street, they are still in the act of stealing your car!

 

[SavageEagle]

Tag. Interesting question.

 

[bigus_D]

It is unlawful to shoot somebody who is stealing an unoccupied vehicle.

With that established, the rest of your questions are moot. Except, perhaps, "how exactly is Forcible Felony defined?"

 

[SavageEagle]

It is unlawful to shoot somebody who is stealing an unoccupied vehicle.

With that established, the rest of your questions are moot. Except, perhaps, "how exactly is Forcible Felony defined?"

Maybe, if he's trying to run you down while stealing the vehicle would be forcible, if he's just driving away, no?

 

[IndyMonkey]

Shoot them through the windshield as they are trying to run over you. Just sayin.

 

[EvilleDoug]

I had a dream about something like this last night. No, Really I did.

Anyway, I was wondering about if someone tried to steal one of the vehicles what I would do. Going out side with a gun drawn won't necessarily stop someone and if you shoot them then you're arse would be in the grinder. But, if they took off and you had them in your sights and they were driving at you then I think it would ok to fire. In this way you are preventing an assault with a deadly weapon. Right??

 

[Instant=.40cal=Karma]

...is it a forcible felony? Where's that defined?

Gray area? Sounds like something open to a LEO's or DA's interpretation to me. I would guess something along the lines of car jacking, armed robbery, or assault with a deadly weapon etc...

 

[Clif45]

I had a dream about something like this last night. No, Really I did.

Anyway, I was wondering about if someone tried to steal one of the vehicles what I would do. Going out side with a gun drawn won't necessarily stop someone and if you shoot them then you're arse would be in the grinder. But, if they took off and you had them in your sights and they were driving at you then I think it would ok to fire. In this way you are preventing an assault with a deadly weapon. Right??

Ayoob covered something similar to this in one of his articles. If I can find the magazine I will get it. A guy returned home to his doors open. He called a friend who brought a single shot 410shotgun. The thief walked out with 2 gym bags of stuff. The gym bags were usually kept near the owners handguns. The thief got in his car and started to drive at the owner. The owner stepped out of the way and put that one shot of 410 through the open side window into the thief's face. owner ended up going to court for a few years because others thought he could have just stepped out of the way and not shot. he assumed the thief had multiple handguns and was correct. All in all the guy had a whole lot of trouble on his hands for killing a 2 felony criminal who had said that he wasn't going to go back to jail. Based on that article and my interpretation of the IC, you could shoot them if driving at you in your car, but it would be hard to justify if all you had to do was sidestep. Yes there is no duty to retreat, but I would rather lose my truck then go to jail.

 

[ATM]

Makes sense to me.

(a) pertains to protecting people from different levels of force used against those people.

(b) pertains to protecting places or property that contain people.

(c) pertains to protecting only property that does not contain people and then reiterates that the highest level of protection is reserved only for instances affecting people.

Just my take.

 

[CTC B4Z]

disabling the vehicle should probably be your first concern. Even though it is your vehicle, would you rather have brains all over your upholstery or just a few shot out tires?

 

[mk2ja]

Thanks for all the responses.

It is unlawful to shoot somebody who is stealing an unoccupied vehicle.

With that established, the rest of your questions are moot. Except, perhaps, "how exactly is Forcible Felony defined?"

I like your straightforward, matter-of-fact answer. Do you have any case law precedent to which you could point me? I'm just curious.

 

[SavageEagle]

disabling the vehicle should probably be your first concern. Even though it is your vehicle, would you rather have brains all over your upholstery or just a few shot out tires?

Another question here. Guy is coming at you in your own car. You shoot out the tires or the radiator. What's your liability? Are you going to jail?

 

[EdC]

Based on that article and my interpretation of the IC, you could shoot them if driving at you in your car, but it would be hard to justify if all you had to do was sidestep. Yes there is no duty to retreat, but I would rather lose my truck then go to jail.

Well said. I'll take it a step further and say that I'd rather have my vehicle stolen than have to go through the cost and trouble of a criminal trial, even if I was acquitted at the end. The trial would cost me more than my vehicle is worth.

Not only might stepping aside be an alternative, it might be the safer alternative for me and more effective for protecting life and limb than shooting the BG. A jury might think along those lines, as well.

 

[ATM]

Indiana Code 35-41-1

"Forcible felony" defined

Sec. 11. "Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a human being.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.12.

 

[Denny347]

Another question here. Guy is coming at you in your own car. You shoot out the tires or the radiator. What's your liability? Are you going to jail?

If you fire at a vehicle (or a person for that matter) and miss or the round richochettes, you are 100% legally responsible. If that round hits an innocent...you are screwed. Maybe in the end, the court will find you innocent but the ride to get to tht point will be horrible. If you are not sure of your backstop...don't pull the trigger unless there is absolutely no other option.

 

[SSGSAD]

Thanks for all the responses.



I like your straightforward, matter-of-fact answer. Do you have any case law precedent to which you could point me? I'm just curious.

I don't know any case law, but I remember a Marine, being home on leave, at Mikes car wash, on Lafayette rd., and someone stole his car, drove it right at him, don't remember how many shots were fired, or weather the bg, lived or died, but it was justified.....

 

[singlestacksig]

It is unlawful to shoot somebody who is stealing an unoccupied vehicle.

With that established, the rest of your questions are moot. Except, perhaps, "how exactly is Forcible Felony defined?"

IC 35-41-1-11
"Forcible felony" defined
Sec. 11. "Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a human being.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.12.

 

[dross]

If you fire at a vehicle (or a person for that matter) and miss or the round richochettes, you are 100% legally responsible. If that round hits an innocent...you are screwed. Maybe in the end, the court will find you innocent but the ride to get to tht point will be horrible. If you are not sure of your backstop...don't pull the trigger unless there is absolutely no other option.

Is that also true for cops? If your ricochet hits someone, but you were legal in every other way, are you or your employer liable?

 

[wtfd661]

Is that also true for cops? If your ricochet hits someone, but you were legal in every other way, are you or your employer liable?

You bet it is.

 

[SavageEagle]

If you fire at a vehicle (or a person for that matter) and miss or the round richochettes, you are 100% legally responsible. If that round hits an innocent...you are screwed. Maybe in the end, the court will find you innocent but the ride to get to tht point will be horrible. If you are not sure of your backstop...don't pull the trigger unless there is absolutely no other option.

Well, of course. But that really didn't answer the question. Figure the scenario plays out in the country.