Loading ...Defending yourself and property
Recently Georgia joined Indiana and fifteen other states in enacting a “stand your ground” law which allows citizens to use deadly force in responding to threats in public places, without a duty to first retreat. Similar bills are pending in 16 additional states.
Currently the majority common law view found in a majority of states requires that deadly force only be used when death or serious bodily injury is reasonably likely to occur. With the laws which appear to be gaining ground, deadly force can be used to defend yourself or a third person to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (IC 35-41-3-2).
But these states, and especially Indiana, are also liberalizing the justification of force in defense of property. The common view is that deadly force may never be used merely to defend property. Indeed my bar exam review materials take pains to bold and italicize that statement. Yet in Indiana, and perhaps a growing number of states, a person is in fact justified in using deadly force “to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry of or attack on his dwelling or curtilage.”
“Curtilage” is the area immediately surrounding a residence, and the mere throwing of stones at a house could reasonably be considered an “attack on” a curtilage. Like it or not, that’s the law in Indiana and what appears to be a growing number of other states.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:25 am
I’m not surprised at this turn of events.
As violence increases, people are increasingly faced with the often life or death choice of showing restraint or taking decisive action in the face of a pending assault.
The question then arises “At what point do we determine that a victim (or in this case, the potential victim) has the right to defend themselves?”
Is the justifiable answer “Once an actual offense has occured?” Or should reason dictate that a person has a right to defend themselves prior to sustaining injury?
The problem then changes from determining if an assault was life threatening to determining “was an assault pending?”. If I or my family were facing potential violence I’d rather be answering question #2, with all of us in one piece, rather than attending to injuries or worse.
As a general comment, this is a sign that government is acknowledging that they can’t cast a safety net over everyone. There comes a time when citizens need to take immediate action to protect themselves. This seems to be governments way to acknowledge that those actions can be justifiable and are sometimes necessary.
Do I have issues with the property defense? Outside the dwelling, yes. Inside? Absolutely not. Once you breach the walls of my castle you better be prepared to kill or be killed. At that point you’re fair game in my book.