My understanding of Indiana state law on this sort of thing is that you are allowed to use force, even lethal force, to defend yourself or your home but once the Bad Guys start to retreat/leave you have to stop using force. You’re allowed to use force to stop a threat, you are not allowed to hunt down/pursue the threat and then kill it, either intentionally or not.
Yes my stuff is more important to me than your life.
( just in case you are confused about what will be my reaction to your theft. )
Either all life is sacred or no life is sacred.
The horror…
I am more than willing to live in a world where everyone has the same attitude as mine…
I’d say that pistol whipping someone in the head multiple times while threatening to kill him and his wife should be characterized more harshly than “scratching”. Or “taking his crap”, for that matter.
I would have a very expansive definition of “temporary insanity” for someone who went through that ordeal. Did he chase them the next day or something?
It’s always easier to just shoot the sons of bitches. If you have to shoot them in the back, make sure you have a good way to get rid of the bodies that will never be traced back to you…
It wasn’t just a robbery, it was a violent home invasion:
"He said he returned home from work sometime after 2 a.m. and was rushed by five men, each with a gun and wearing dark clothes and ski masks, as he reached his front door.
He said one of the men tackled him, hit his head with a gun and that they made him go inside with him and turn off the alarm.
He said one of the men, who described as short in height and not heavyset, struck him repeatedly in the head with a pistol during the robbery which he estimated lasted about four minutes.
When he led them to a lockbox under his bed, the man struck him again and asked him to take them to the “big safe.” Beumer said the men retrieved his keys from his truck and made him open it…"
So, while the charges are technically justified, I’d be really surprised if he was convicted. He wasn’t in a rational mode. Being pistol whipped will do that to you, I suppose.
It seems to me that the law- makers and law enforcement have established a policy that mere citizens will not engage in activity that threatens the dominance of the authorities. This is the old.“Can’t take the law into your own hands” cliche. It’s a power-mongering tactic wrapped up in some twisted moral haggling. Simply put, it’s in the best interests of the elite royalty, their puppet political cronies, and the para-military police if we, as mere citizens, don’t aspire to protect ourselves or our property. That would give us the beginnings of a feeling of independence and self reliance that threatens their status.
What kind of brainwashing does it take, over a period of decades … TV, print, internet, to convince the descendants of pioneers that our homes and persons are not worth fighting to defend? If a criminal trespasses and breaks into a home, he has set his own life at a lower value than anything in that home … it’s the act of violent aggression that is the the actual break-in, that forfeits the criminals life. The lawmakers don’t care if your home is violated, on an individual basis, as long as the general crime rate doesn’t negatively impact their next election. And the police don’t want you doing their job, not because they don’t know you are justified in defending your property, but because doing so threatens their authority and spotlights their own inability to effectively defend you themselves.
The nightmare of authoritarians is that their subjects will gain confidence and independence, especially if that independence leads to a forceful re-evaluation of the status quo.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion of course. No matter how wrong. The trend is actually to put much tighter controls on motor vehicle pursuits by the police. Every pursuit is dangerous to all parties and to those that are unlucky to be in the area. And that is for police officers in cars with lights and sirens to warn the public and are presumably trained in the techniques. Some random citizen playing TJ Hooker in a pickup truck is doubly dangerous to all of those around him. He was damn lucky it was only one of the bad guys that died. Bottom line, it is illegal to kill someone over property regardless if you are the police or a regular citizen. No one should be allowed to use deadly force against another unless they are currently in danger of death or serious bodily harm.
You are incorrect in this, SirGalahad. I live in Indiana which has “castle law” and have had to defend my property by force. The rule is pretty simple - in your own home you are allowed to use force to defend yourself, your family, AND your property.
Once the Bad Guys leave/retreat, though, you can NOT pursue them.
So the robbery victim could have legally killed the robbers in his own home or on his property, it was the PURSUIT of those robbers after they fled that has lead to murder charges. It’s a subtle distinction but a crucial one. You are allowed to defend yourself, but chasing the bad guys once they’re off your property is the job of the cops.
Regardless of the formalities that must be followed, this guy does NOT belong in jail.
I spent the first 22 years of my life in Indiana. I suspect this won’t make it to trial. There’s a very high likelihood of getting a sympathetic jury. They’ll probably get him to take a manslaughter plea (IANAL).
I don’t think this man feels “damn lucky” that his home was invaded and he was threatened and pistol-whipped. Too bad he didn’t get both of them. Maybe next time.
Speaking as a common citizen, I personally think this policy is in MY self interest. I don’t want every yahoo who gets robbed engaging in high speed pursuits on the roads I and my family use.