Squatters and Indiana law ?

[K_W]

Read a story where a family was on vacation for three weeks and when they returned a guy was living in their home. He had changed the locks, filed change of address, reconnected the home phone in his name, and had done some work around the property. The man claimed ownership and the family had to evict him through the courts.

(EDIT: Correction: I had it backwards... it was a soldier back from deployment, who came home to a family of squatters in his home.)

What would happen in Indiana?

What do you do if someone is already inside your home and won't leave? (considering castle doctrine does not allow you to use force to make them leave once they are already inside.)

 

[churchmouse]

Snatch their worthless A$$ up and heave them out on the street.

As to the castle doctrine......it is my castle.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

considering castle doctrine does not allow you to force them to leave once they are already inside.

Why considering this? I come home and someone else is there, they are an intruder and will be dealt with accordingly.

Argue the semantics of it... but I walk into my house, and THEN become aware someone else is there that shouldn't be.... they get dealt with.

 

[chezuki]

if I come home and someone else is there, they are an intruder and will be dealt with accordingly.

This.

 

[K_W]

Why considering this? I come home and someone else is there, they are an intruder and will be dealt with accordingly.

thnue the semantics of it... but I walk into my house, and THEN become aware someone else is there that shouldn't be.... they get dealt with.

Indiana law only allows you to use force to terminate unlawful entry... once they are in and standing there, you cannot shoot them unless you life or a third persons life, is in danger. Same could be said if they are in there when you arrive.

 

[chezuki]

Indiana law only allows you to use force to terminate unlawful entry... once they are in and standing there, you cannot shoot them unless you life or a third persons life, is in danger. Same could be said if they are in there when you arrive.

I must have missed where he said "shoot them".

 

[churchmouse]

Indiana law only allows you to use force to terminate unlawful entry... once they are in and standing there, you cannot shoot them unless you life or a third persons life, is in danger. Same could be said if they are in there when you arrive.

Who said they would be shot. More like pummeled and beaten senseless as they were ejected from my "Castle". A lot less paper work involved. LEO would be called after they were stacked up out front. My neighbors would have me alerted as soon as this crap got started.

Seriously, how would you (OP) deal with this.

 

[K_W]

I must have missed where he said "shoot them".

Indiana castle doctrine. "upto and including deadly force"

 

[K_W]

Who said they would be shot. More like pummeled and beaten senseless as they were ejected from my "Castle". A lot less paper work involved. LEO would be called after they were stacked up out front. My neighbors would have me alerted as soon as this crap got started.

Seriously, how would you (OP) deal with this.

I'd call the police, but the question was, what happens then? In the story the squatter had papers with the address on it, in his name, same as the homeowner did.

 

[chezuki]

Indiana law only allows you to use force to terminate unlawful entry... once they are in and standing there, you cannot shoot them unless you life or a third persons life, is in danger. Same could be said if they are in there when you arrive.

You are misinterpreting the law. Also the legal requirements to justify "deadly force" and "reasonable force" are different. If someone is in my house, I will use "reasonable force" to remove them. How they react to that "reasonable force" will dictate if escalation is required.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Indiana law only allows you to use force to terminate unlawful entry... once they are in and standing there, you cannot shoot them unless you life or a third persons life, is in danger. Same could be said if they are in there when you arrive.

Did you know they were there prior to entering your home? Say you enter through garage, put your things down in kitchen.... look over, and suddenly there's a stranger standing on other side of the living room.

Do you have to meet the person, at the door, for it to be considered "unlawful entry"? Do I have to "see" them enter for it to be "unlawful entry"?

For all I know, they just "unlawfully entered" while I was hanging my coat up

 

[churchmouse]

I'd call the police, but the question was, what happens then? In the story the squatter had papers with the address on it, in his name, same as the homeowner did.

That would be your choice.
A simple canvas of the area would prove who lives there.

 

[chezuki]

Indiana castle doctrine. "upto and including deadly force"

Cite code please.

 

[churchmouse]

You are misinterpreting the law. Also the legal requirements to justify "deadly force" and "reasonable force" are different. If someone is in my house, I will use "reasonable force" to remove them. How they react to that "reasonable force" will dictate if escalation is required.

In other words......well, you know.

I am being a bully again. I am done. Enjoy.

 

[chezuki]

Cite code please.

I'll help.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
(b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in IC 35-31.5-2-129 or IC 35-31.5-2-185.
(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.
(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.
(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).
(f) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other 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.
(g) Notwithstanding subsections (c) through (e), 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.
(h) Notwithstanding subsection (f), 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.
(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful 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.
(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;
(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action; or
(4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:
(A) acting lawfully; or
(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.
(k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
(A) acting unlawfully; or
(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and
(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.

 

[K_W]

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
**** Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
****(b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in IC*35-31.5-2-129 or IC*35-31.5-2-185.
****(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.
****(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.
****(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).

I guess "terminate" could be said to mean remove from... but a squatter is not forceful felon and I can't beieve force would be justifiable in court, much less deadly force.

 

[Dosproduction]

i dont know but if i came home with my daughters and some strange guy was in the house i would fear for me and my daughters lives. I think the guy was deffently there to commit a felony no other reason for him to be in MY HOUSE.

 

[chezuki]

Indiana castle doctrine. "upto and including deadly force"

I feel you're trolling at this point, but I'll play along for now... I still don't see where GPIA7R (the guy you quoted) said he was shooting anyone.

Why considering this? I come home and someone else is there, they are an intruder and will be dealt with accordingly.

Argue the semantics of it... but I walk into my house, and THEN become aware someone else is there that shouldn't be.... they get dealt with.

 

[K_W]

I feel you're trolling at this point, but I'll play along for now... I still don't see where GPIA7R (the guy you quoted) said he was shooting anyone.

I'm certainly not trolling. It's an honest question.

 

[88GT]

Did this happen in California? i wouldn't count on anything coming out of California as reasonable.

Indiana law only allows you to use force to terminate unlawful entry... once they are in and standing there, you cannot shoot them unless you life or a third persons life, is in danger. Same could be said if they are in there when you arrive.

If they are in, they are a threat to my life.