Normally I would not give much credence to a case of “convicted burglar sues homeowner who shot him”, but in this case I think the homeowner probably deserves some punishment.
Convicted burglar files lawsuit against homeowner who shot him during attempted break-in
This seems, on its face, to be a cut and dried, open and shut, kick it out of court with prejudice kind of case of a homeowner “standing his ground” and defending his “castle”. But I submit that it’s not, and I see why the burglar thinks his case might actually get somewhere.
Reviewing the article, it seems as if the would-be burglar had set off the alarm in the garage he was breaking into. By the time the homeowner came out, the burglar was off the property, running away, and posing no threat to the homeowner. I’m no lawyer, but it seems pretty clear, in that case, Indiana’s Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law implies that the use of deadly force is not an option.
Yet the homeowner apparently followed the burglar out into the alley and shot him in the back — whether on purpose, or serendipitously, seems up in the air, given that the homeowner seems to have admitted he didn’t know what he was shooting at — as the burglar was running down the alley (which is not part of the homeowner’s property, or “curtilage” as defined at law). In other words, he continued to pursue and shoot at the miscreant after both had left the property.
Now, I’m perfectly willing to admit that, as a non-lawyer, I may be wrong about how the Castle Doctrine law is interpreted and applied, but it seemed pretty simple for me to connect the dots between IC 35-41-3-2 and 35-41-3-3 to get to “deadly force was not sanctioned”. Plus, I’ve always been told that if they’re running away and off the property, you’re best advised not to shoot, Castle Doctrine or no. (The bad jokes about “if he was going out the window when you shot him, drag him back into the house before you call the cops” not withstanding, you are probably putting yourself into legal jeopardy if you do damn fool shit like that.)
The homeowner’s clear violation of Rule 4, “Be sure of your target and what is beyond it,” also comes to mind, but of course that is a common-sense thing, not the law.
It should be interesting to see how this plays out, particularly as a test of just how far courts are going to allow the Castle Doctrine to stretch. I really think the court is going to have to find that the homeowner violated the letter of the law, but I don’t know how they’ll deal with that. Probably with a slap on the hands, since the cops were apparently down with what he did and no criminal charges were filed against him — so far as I can see — at the time it happened. But who knows.
Guess we’ll find out. In the meantime, CCW holders need to remember something very, very, VERY important.
Namely: You’re not a cop. Let the police, sheriff, or other local constabulary handle it if you, your property, and your family are not in any immediate danger. They have that three-digit speed dial direct to dispatch for a reason, and it’s their job to deal with this kind of thing. In fact, they’d probably be a lot happier if you stopped at your property line like the law suggests you ought to, rather than running out going root-toot in the dark at something you don’t even know what it is.
For instance, if this dude had remembered that simple bit of advice, he’d probably still be alive. But that’s another story.