[purpleplymouth]

Score one for the homeowner.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/29393925/detail.html

 

[camr]

Hopefully, Indiana is a Castle Doctrine state.

 

[rj2938]

Umm, not so fast...This one may get sticky for the homeowner yet. Care to guess why?

 

[deskjockey]

Umm, not so fast...This one may get sticky for the homeowner yet. Care to guess why?

if IN has a castle doctrine then he is fine.

if not, I can foresee some bullshit

 

[rj2938]

Hopefully, Indiana is a Castle Doctrine state.

It is, however you have to look at the wording of the law and its sub-sections. The perp was shot in the back...

Does this mean he was fleeing?
If so, at the point of flight, based on most castle doctrines, is there anymore iminent danger?

I am not a lawyer...

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]: 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; only 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, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, or 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:



If a person is in flight, or leaving a dwelling, they are no longer attacking and they are terminating occupation themselves.

I love Castle Doctrines, but I don't believe they are the free for all end alls people make them out to be.

If someone knows for sure, by all means correct me if I am wrong. I would like to know.

 

[deskjockey]

I think hes good to go:

A 47-year-old homeowner got his handgun and scuffled with Quincy Davis, of Anderson, before shooting the teen in the back, police said.

which doesnt prove the perp was retreating, scuffling with a gun means it could have gone off and hit the dude in the back.

I can see if the perp was running away from the dude and the homeowner chased and shot him, bad juju there.

perp should be dead, only 1 side of the story to tell.

 

[rj2938]

I think hes good to go:



which doesnt prove the perp was retreating, scuffling with a gun means it could have gone off and hit the dude in the back.

I can see if the perp was running away from the dude and the homeowner chased and shot him, bad juju there.

perp should be dead, only 1 side of the story to tell.

It has always been my feeling...

 

[Mac Tools]

Here's another story of a burglar breaking in to the wrong vehicle

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/br...pines-suspect-sought-20111005,0,5464798.story

 

[Chuck West]

Dead men tell no lies! But they vote!
Seriously tho, if all the good peeps made this a known thought all across America, criminals would probably commit less crime!
That is, if? the press would only report the news thru out the land.

 

[camr]

It is, however you have to look at the wording of the law and its sub-sections. The perp was shot in the back...

Does this mean he was fleeing?
If so, at the point of flight, based on most castle doctrines, is there anymore iminent danger?

I am not a lawyer...

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]: 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; only 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, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, or 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:



If a person is in flight, or leaving a dwelling, they are no longer attacking and they are terminating occupation themselves.

I love Castle Doctrines, but I don't believe they are the free for all end alls people make them out to be.

If someone knows for sure, by all means correct me if I am wrong. I would like to know.

I picked up on the "in the back" statement.

With castle doctrine, the shooter can probably come out OK. There could be a lot of reasons the perp had his back to the shooter besided fleeing/retreating. Maybe he was reaching for a weapon, perhaps? You get the drift.

However, if there isn't a castle doctrine law, the shooter is probably screwed a hundred times over.

Hopefully, there are no repercussions.