Late last summer, a spree shooter killed seven people and injured more than 20 while driving around Odessa, TX before he was shot by police. Setting aside the many tactical and marksmanship issues associated with shooting from vehicles, if an armed citizen faced a similar situation in your state, do laws that prohibit shooting from or across roads and from vehicles make an exception for self-defense?
What legal issues could you envision arising from shooting back if caught in a moving attack?
Although our knowledge of the referenced event in Midland and Odessa, Texas last year is simply based upon press reports, we understand the scene of the murders and injuries stretched over 15 miles and occurred during an approximate one-hour time span. Although recognized by the question, we believe it is important to re-emphasize that there are many safety, marksmanship and tactical considerations that must be considered before becoming voluntarily involved in such a chaotic situation. We can only address a small component of the potential legal considerations raised by the question. In Indiana, the most likely charge one might face for shooting across a roadway or from a car would be criminal recklessness. Specifically, Indiana Code 35-42-2-2 indicates, in part, that [a] person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally performs an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person commits criminal recklessness.
Also, we should mention Indiana Code 14-22-6-9, which prohibits shooting across, from, into, or upon a public highway at an animal or object. It’s not likely that someone would be charged under this statute, given that it seems to primarily be meant to address hunting. However, it is possible that someone could be charged under this statute.
More importantly, our Indiana self-defense statute at Indiana Code 35-41-3-2 would have definite applicability and provide the best legal guidance to examine the situation. That Code section, in part, provides that:
A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other 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: (1) is justified in using deadly force; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; 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.
Hence, the primary question will be whether your conduct under the circumstances is consistent with what a reasonable and prudent person would do under the circumstances, knowing what you knew at the time. If justified under our statute, you should not be placed in any legal jeopardy. This protection would also extend to potential civil immunity in response to a civil lawsuit filed against you by the bad guy’s family or estate.
In 2019, Indiana adopted a civil immunity statute that provides, in part, that in no case shall any use of force justified under IC 35-41-3-2 give rise to any claim or action for damages or compensation against a person, employer, or estate of a person using such force by or on behalf of any person who was attempting to commit or committing a forcible felony at the time such force was used; or was attempting to cause or causing unlawful serious bodily injury to any other person at the time such force was used. Not only would you potentially be entitled to summary judgement, but you can also collect your attorney fees for defending a civil lawsuit – provided your use of force was justified under Indiana’s self-defense statute.
Another observation is that Indiana’s “castle doctrine” might also apply to the situation described in the question if the attack was directed at your occupied motor vehicle. Specifically, our “castle doctrine” statute indicates a person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and does not have a duty to retreat 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, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle (note the statute says occupied – don’t use deadly force solely to protect your unoccupied car).
With respect to other legal issues that one could envision, we would refer you to the Attorney Question of the Month that was addressed in the August 2017 edition of the ACLDN Online Journal. That question addressed the likelihood of an armed citizen facing criminal charges for collateral damage, and/or incurring civil liability for a stray bullet. You can find that detailed discussion here:
https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/august-2017-attorney-question
