(IN) Trooper's Shooting Of Burglary Suspect Spotlights Self-Defense Law

[Drizzt]

Trooper's Shooting Of Burglary Suspect Spotlights Self-Defense Law
Professor: Unarmed Burglars Can Be Lawfully Shot

POSTED: 7:34 pm EST December 20, 2005

INDIANAPOLIS -- Laws allowing people to use deadly force to stop someone from unlawfully entering their dwellings are being highlighted by this week's fatal shooting of a burglary suspect by an off-duty state police trooper.

Police said Trooper Joel D. Wilson, 39, was alone inside his east-side Indianapolis home Monday when he fired two shots through the front door, striking Theodore E. Hixenbaugh at least once. Wilson told authorities that Hixenbaugh had first knocked on the door and, when Wilson didn't answer, Hixenbaugh tried to kick the door down.

Wilson told police that after Hixenbaugh knocked, Wilson watched Hixenbaugh from a concealed position and determined that he didn't know who Hixenbaugh was.

Information on whether Hixenbaugh was armed wasn't available. Indiana University law professor Henry Karlson said state law says citizens can use deadly force to stop even an unarmed person's unlawful entry into their dwellings.

"If there are people in the residence, (burglars) are putting them at risk, and that's why Indiana law allows a reasonable person to use deadly force to prevent that," Karlson said.

Karlson said the law allows people to defend themselves from burglars without first exposing themselves.

"You don't have to put yourself at risk. You don't have to say, 'Oh, by the way, I'm here,' and give (the burglar) the first shot. You don't have to give the burglar the first shot," Karlson said.

Police said Wilson's home also was burglarized about three weeks before Monday's shooting.

State police are investigating the shooting. The findings will be forwarded to the Marion County prosecutor's office, which will determine whether any charges will be filed.

State police said they will seek a court order to search the car of Hixenbaugh, who was a 22-year-old Noblesville resident. Police found the car about a half-block away from Wilson's house.

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/5591346/detail.html

 

[Warren]

Just based on that it looks like a good shoot.

Do cops who shoot somebody off-duty have to go through the whole IA (or whoever does it) investigation thing as they would with an on-duty shoot? Or is this one of those "your jurisdiction may vary" type of things?

 

[yonderway]

I don't know what's so sensational or controversial about this. It's just common sense. Someone breaks into your house? Shoot them dead. It's simple.

 

[Ryder]

I don't know what's so sensational or controversial about this.

The badguy never entered the house nor harmed the shooter. That is controversial to the way a lot of people think, even on this board.

Since this guy was a state trooper I am not sure how the writer could imagine this applies to ordinary people? That can of worms went empty a long time ago and is also very controversial. Although, this being Indiana, who knows. They are fairly pro-gun.

 

[Jayb]

The bad guy doesn't have to enter the house in Indiana......State Trooper or not

SECTION 1. IC (Indiana Code) 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2002]: Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect himself the person or a third person from what he the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in using deadly force only if he the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to himself 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 himself the person or his family a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if he the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on his 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 he 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 his the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of his the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property he the person has authority to protect.

 

[benEzra]

Here in North Carolina, the law explicitly allows the use of deadly force to stop someone in the act of breaking into your house, if you are inside. Armed or not, disparity of force or not, if you are locked inside your house and someone is illegally trying to break in, there is a legal presumption that they are coming for you and therefore you can shoot to stop the forcible entry. That's the Castle Doctrine in a nutshell, and I imagine the law is similar in most states.

Once the intruder is inside, however, then the ordinary rules of self-defense apply (i.e., the intruder must present an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm in order for a defensive use of a firearm to be ruled justifiable).

 

[El Tejon]

Professor Henry Karlson.


Ryder, it is not material that the attacker never entered the dwelling or harmed the defender. As Jay says, the law applies to us lowly, mud-encrusted serfs as well as the noble, perfumed knights of the Indiana State Police.

 

[Fidel Castro]

Legal in the Gunshine State too

Bravo!!! One more down, who knows how many to go before the criminals get a clue they have more to lose than 30 days in the hole and we are not going to stand for their crap anymore!!!! '30 days in the hole' just got six feet deeper!!

<:salute Trooper Wilson>

 

[yonderway]

The badguy never entered the house nor harmed the shooter. That is controversial to the way a lot of people think, even on this board.

The only reason he didn't enter the house is because he was shot in the process of trying to violently kick the door in.

Would it have been smarter of him to wait for the goblin to get through the door first? Maybe. Hindsight, though, is 20/20.

 

[Jayb]

sorry, changed my mind.......

 

[Standing Wolf]

No loss

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Interesting.

An off-duty trooper shoots a guy through a closed door and it's a good shoot.

Last week a private citizen did EXACTLY the same thing and the overwhelming sentiment here was that he was an idiot for shooting through a closed door.

Are LEOs issued X-Ray glasses now? Is that the difference?

 

[mrmeval]

I'm in Indiana and I can kill them, the moaners can go spit.

The badguy never entered the house nor harmed the shooter. That is controversial to the way a lot of people think, even on this board.

Since this guy was a state trooper I am not sure how the writer could imagine this applies to ordinary people? That can of worms went empty a long time ago and is also very controversial. Although, this being Indiana, who knows. They are fairly pro-gun.

 

[HI express]

California-Hunker down

Drizzt,
At lease you folks get to defend yourself without having to expose yourself.
Here in sunny California? You get to dial 911 in this situation and hope that the PD folks arrive before the BG kicks the door. If the BG gets in then you better be able to explain in detail what went down when you put a round into the perp who committed forcible entry. If you can't in a court of law or at least before the police, the D.A. might just want to prosecute your heinie just for the halibut.

Seen it happen to some local folks in the past. So you bar the heck out of your door, hunker down and call the PD and try not to hurt the perp so you don't get prosecuted for defending your home.

Don't you love it?:banghead:

 

[ARperson]

Interesting.

An off-duty trooper shoots a guy through a closed door and it's a good shoot.

Last week a private citizen did EXACTLY the same thing and the overwhelming sentiment here was that he was an idiot for shooting through a closed door.

Are LEOs issued X-Ray glasses now? Is that the difference?

In this particular case, the front door had a very large oval glass insert which allowed the shooter to ID the bad guy...or at least his location. I for one don't really care who's on the other side of the door if he's trying to force his way in (all my friends and family know better!). But I would not shoot someone I couldn't see. This cop could at least see where the bad guy was.

I didn't read the article since I got the news story on the local news, but the cop only fired twice...which for LE around here is pretty good. They tend to empty the magS and then see what they hit. Well, at least the local IPD. State troopers (which this guy was) are probably better trained...and smarter.