Deadly force law enacted
Hoosiers can defend themselves without fleeing first
By The Associated Press
March 23, 2006
INDIANAPOLIS - Gov. Mitch Daniels signed into law legislation endorsing Indiana residents' right to use deadly force against intruders, a change that prevents courts from ruling that individuals should flee first before using a gun.
The legislation signed into law Tuesday states that Hoosiers do not have to retreat before using deadly force to prevent serious bodily injury to themselves or someone else.
Indiana did not previously require residents to retreat before using a gun or other deadly weapon. The new law, however, clarifies state law and prevents courts from determining that Hoosiers should run before using a gun.
"This bill would eliminate any duty to retreat that a court might decide is necessary," said Rep. Eric Koch, R-Bedford, the bill's author.
The law makes Indiana one of only three states, along with Florida and South Dakota, with a deadly force law. Fifteen other states are considering similar legislation, according to the National Rifle Association.
Critics maintain that such laws can encourage gun violence and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence calls such legislation "shoot-first" bills.
"It's really a potentially dangerous solution to a nonexistent problem because there is not a scenario of legitimate self-defense anywhere in the country that doesn't get treated by juries, prosecutors and police as self-defense," said Peter Hamm, a campaign spokesman.
The NRA has lobbied across the nation for what it calls "Stand Your Ground" bills.
"Law-abiding citizens should not be forced to retreat when they're being attacked by criminals whether it's inside their home or outside their home," said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist.
Jane Jankowski, the governor's press secretary, said he supports residents' right to use deadly force in a life-threatening situation.
Is this in effect upon signing ?
I believe it will go into effect July 1.
Do they prefer the criminals rape, shoot, stab first; then we get to shoot? Where do these people live, Utopia?
All of you guys should realize that the bill did NOTHING. What the bill sought to do was already the law in Indiana (for more than 125 years in fact). There is no legal obligation to retreat in Indiana already.
The bill was a case of band wagon jumping because Florida passed a similar law. Why our legislators wasted time and money on this is an exercise left to the reader.
Here is the law pertaining to use of force. You'll note that at no point is there any mention of retreating. The law says it. The case law supports it. No duty to retreat. Everyone who has any possibility of using force to defend themself or their property should know this backward and forward.
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 is justified in using deadly force only 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 is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person 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.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling or curtilage, 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 is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person 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.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), 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.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), 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.
Pointing firearm at another person
Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.
At least their heart was in the right place.. and it leaves people with the impression that the anti-gun people are in full retreat in Indiana..
You could look at it that way, but I'm a bit too cynical lately. I see as a bit of cheap political grandstanding that was essentially a slam dunk to pass since it was already the law.