Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 1/27/2006 6:41:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2006 6:44:41 AM EDT by rhino_]
Discussion of "duty to retreat" under Indiana law.

See message in next entry.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 6:43:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2006 6:45:29 AM EDT by rhino_]
Did any of you receive the e-mail from NRA-ILA urging you to support a bill in the Indiana Legislature that would eliminate the "duty to retreat"? Was anyone else confused by the need to eliminate something that doesn't exist in our state?

Here is the text from the e-mail (emphasis is mine):


Indiana Moves Forward in Supporting Your Right to Self-Defense!

On Wednesday, January 25, the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee passed House Bill 1028 by an overwhelming vote of 7-1. Sponsored by Representative Eric Koch (R-65), HB 1028 protects your right to have a firearm in a locked vehicle, as well as affirms your right to self-defense by removing the "duty to retreat" in the face of a criminal attack!



Comments?

Is it a matter of explicitly asserting there is no duty to retreat to make it more iron clad in the law, or do the bills authors and sponsors just not know there isn't a duty to retreat in the law as it currently exists?


FYI, here is the pertinent section of the Indiana Code. You'll note that there is no "duty to retreat" either explicit or implied, regardless of the location.


IC 35-41-3-2
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.

Link Posted: 1/27/2006 5:05:04 PM EDT
Rhino, are you a lawyer by any chance?
Gump
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 6:20:19 PM EDT
Non-issue or not, the firearm in a locked vehicle thing is VERY IMPORTANT to those of us that risk our jobs every time we pull onto company property! The way I see it the retreat thing is added verbage that doesn't harm anything or take anything away, and only further solidifies the fact that we don't have to retreat. I guess I'll have to actually read the bill though.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 6:22:47 PM EDT
Also, SB51 I believe is rewriting the code you referenced to remove the word curtilage and change it to property so as to clear up some confusion as to what "curtilage" really means. I don't know where this bill is currently at though.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:47:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gump:
Rhino, are you a lawyer by any chance?
Gump




No, I am not. I apologize if that was unclear.

Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:49:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GUNGUY1911:
Non-issue or not, the firearm in a locked vehicle thing is VERY IMPORTANT to those of us that risk our jobs every time we pull onto company property! The way I see it the retreat thing is added verbage that doesn't harm anything or take anything away, and only further solidifies the fact that we don't have to retreat. I guess I'll have to actually read the bill though.



That is a good thing. I'm just concerned about unintended consquences of restating places where our licenses to carry are invalid. It may be a warrantless concern.

Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:02:41 PM EDT
I'm lucky. My employee handbook specifically states "Persons who have conceal carry permits MAY leave firearms locked in their vehicles on company property."

I want the legislation passed so every employer has to allow it.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 4:51:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By IndianaDean:
I'm lucky. My employee handbook specifically states "Persons who have conceal carry permits MAY leave firearms locked in their vehicles on company property."

I want the legislation passed so every employer has to allow it.



Dare to dream but for the most part they don't ask you don't tell.
Top Top