-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Force Continuum
- Thread starter cosermann
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
ElsiePeaRN
Expert
I love this thread. It's making me think of things in a new way. I've never even considered this topic before. Thanks.
Since this is all new to me, your post, Keyser, confused me a little. You said you pay no attention to the force continuum, but isn't your own approach a force continuum? And isn't your approach of "do whatever is necessary to immediately take control of the situation, and no more than that amount of force" exactly what a force continuum is? Am I misunderstanding this?
Since this is all new to me, your post, Keyser, confused me a little. You said you pay no attention to the force continuum, but isn't your own approach a force continuum? And isn't your approach of "do whatever is necessary to immediately take control of the situation, and no more than that amount of force" exactly what a force continuum is? Am I misunderstanding this?
Glad this thread has generated some thinking. Two reasons I started it:
1. The widely published force continuums out there are from a LEO sort of perspective and don't necessarily translate into something non-LEO folks can easily use. So, how do the rest of us apply the concept? Some good ideas (and not so good ones
) so far.
2. A point that I think the force continuum idea also suggests is - that if you carry only a gun your options are limited.
Example: You're out for a walk and threatened by a large, strong dog. You try all the things you should try first, i.e. avoid, etc., but the dog is having none of it and things are escalating. If you only have a gun, and things don't change - all you can do is shoot, or not shoot. And if you've followed some of the threads on INGO, shooting someone's dog can lead to its own headaches. Whereas, if one is also carrying pepper spray, a walking stick, etc. you have other option(s) that may take care of things just fine.
Something similar could happen with a drunk or an aggressive panhandler - a shot of pepper spray at 12 ft, with a hand on the grip of one's holstered gun might settle things just fine and everyone goes home.
1. The widely published force continuums out there are from a LEO sort of perspective and don't necessarily translate into something non-LEO folks can easily use. So, how do the rest of us apply the concept? Some good ideas (and not so good ones
) so far.2. A point that I think the force continuum idea also suggests is - that if you carry only a gun your options are limited.
Example: You're out for a walk and threatened by a large, strong dog. You try all the things you should try first, i.e. avoid, etc., but the dog is having none of it and things are escalating. If you only have a gun, and things don't change - all you can do is shoot, or not shoot. And if you've followed some of the threads on INGO, shooting someone's dog can lead to its own headaches. Whereas, if one is also carrying pepper spray, a walking stick, etc. you have other option(s) that may take care of things just fine.
Something similar could happen with a drunk or an aggressive panhandler - a shot of pepper spray at 12 ft, with a hand on the grip of one's holstered gun might settle things just fine and everyone goes home.
Really?!
That weak assed example is the best situation you can think of?!
If someone is to freaking ignorant to leave a situation where some drunking douchebag is punching them repeatedly then they deserve to be punched all night.
Yes, it really is this simple...
1.) Avoidance of the situation...
2.) Remove myself from the Situation...
3.) Deadly Force...
I am not a Cage Fighter, so why would I want to go hand to hand with someone.
I am not a Ninja so I will not be bringing an edged weapon to a fight either.
What I will do if a situation does escalate to where 1 & 2 are no longer valid options is shoot the SOB where they stand. A knife fight is NOT someplace you want to be. They are seldom as nice as in the Movies...
silverspoon
Sharpshooter
Maybe in some other state but I'm fairly certain in the state of Indiana you don't have to worry about being sued if you was never charged or acquitted of charges in a defensive shooting. Wasn't that addressed when the "castle laws" was enacted??
silverspoon
Sharpshooter
SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]: 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:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; only 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.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) 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, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, or curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, 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:
(1) is not justified in using deadly force; unless and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
Found it and highlighted it. Don't think you need to worry about civil suits as long as you acted within the law.
(1) is justified in using deadly force; only 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.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) 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, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, or curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, 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:
(1) is not justified in using deadly force; unless and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
Found it and highlighted it. Don't think you need to worry about civil suits as long as you acted within the law.
Relatively Ninja
Sharpshooter
YES!!! I'm specifically trying to put out "weak" examples. Do you seriously believe there is not one single situation where you would ever have to use less than lethal force? What if you're at a family reunion and ole uncle Jimmy won't stop roughhousing with his favorite nephew. He doesn't mean you any harm, but he won't take a hint either. Are you really going to limit yourself to two options (leaving or shooting him)?? What if your wife or girlfriend is in the restroom at a crowded bar and somebody starts giving you crap? Sure you can walk out, but would you really leave your woman behind?
I'm not saying this is something you should default to right away, or is even common, but I just don't think EVERY situation that can't be solved through avoidance should immediately transition to lethal force.
If I remember correctly you're in the military, right? Shouldn't you have some rudimentary hand to hand skills? The other guy doesn't always deserve to make it out alive, but carrying a weapon doesn't absolve you of the responsibility of judicious use of force. If anything it places more responsibility on your shoulders because you have the capability to swiftly end someone's life. My personal view is that a gun is something to fall back on if the threat is too much for me to handle any other way.
Relatively Ninja
Sharpshooter
I'm not so sure... Acting within the law certainly helps, but what I've been told by law enforcement personnel speaking about the legality of civilian use of force is that you will pay for all damages you cause. The state may find you justified in slamming Jimbo's head into a brick wall to end the fight, but civil court is a slippery slope and full of greedy b******s. The prosecution can vet a jury and turn them against you. "Poor Jimbo has a wife and two children, but now he has permanent brain damage! How can he provide for his poor grieving family if he can't remember how to walk? You could have ended this another way, but you chose to do this; your intent was to cripple this man. You should have to pay his bills and provide for his family."
It sounds cruel and twisted, but given the overly litigious state of today's society I'd rather play it safe. And god forbid you should have any hand to hand or martial arts training. They'll paint you as a "trained killer" quicker than you can blink.
Again, this is just what I've been told by the people who have been involved with these kinds of things. If any INGO lawyers would care to step in and reinforce or correct me it would be much appreciated
If force is needed it will be lethal force. Period. You will be giving ample warnings to cease what you are doing and leave me and mine alone. I am not a Prize fighter that fights for fun or money, I fight to survive. Uncle Jimmy won't stop beating his Nephew, Uncle Jimmy knows that Jeremy WILL do him bodily harm. My wife knows that if I am backed into a corner, I am going to be talking to the Cops also.
Yes I am a Soldier. I have more than Rudimentary Training with my hands and other various tools. I have been in enough fights to know a couple of things, there is know referee to call fouls, there is no timer or bell to signal round changes, and there are no rules. If you are fighting for your life with anything less than Lethal Force you are a fool. Regardless, of whether it is with a Firearm, a Knife, or Your Hands. Fighting with anything less than Lethal intent is very Foolish...
That is why Fighting is MY very last option, and it is a Lethal Option...
I'm not so sure... Acting within the law certainly helps, but what I've been told by law enforcement personnel speaking about the legality of civilian use of force is that you will pay for all damages you cause. The state may find you justified in slamming Jimbo's head into a brick wall to end the fight, but civil court is a slippery slope and full of greedy b******s. The prosecution can vet a jury and turn them against you. "Poor Jimbo has a wife and two children, but now he has permanent brain damage! How can he provide for his poor grieving family if he can't remember how to walk? You could have ended this another way, but you chose to do this; your intent was to cripple this man. You should have to pay his bills and provide for his family."
It sounds cruel and twisted, but given the overly litigious state of today's society I'd rather play it safe. And god forbid you should have any hand to hand or martial arts training. They'll paint you as a "trained killer" quicker than you can blink.
Again, this is just what I've been told by the people who have been involved with these kinds of things. If any INGO lawyers would care to step in and reinforce or correct me it would be much appreciated
Go talk with a REAL Lawyer...
You have been misinformed by "several Law Enforcers"...
What Jeremy is saying is very true and he has really good points! I think the same thing.I either dont fight or I fight to kill if I have to fight.Nothing in between.
Im not a LEO, I dont have to arrest someone.I dont need non-lethal tools to help me do my job.
I have been trained in Aïkido and other forms of martials arts with empty hands, baton or knives.
But I wouldnt try any of those techniques in a real fight.
In a real fight you have no rules, you can be attacked by people armed with whatever they want.They can be as many as they want against you alone.There is no weight class, they will be heavier and stronger than you are.And the fight doesnt stop when you start bleeding.
Im not taking any chance in a "fair fight" with non-lethal options.
The guy who will attack me can kill me in less than two seconds with a blade no matter how many times I trained in knife fighting.
If a guy walks towards me with a knife im not gonna try to disarm him even if I did it hundreds of times during training with different partners.
I wouldnt take the chance and answer with lethal force.
Don't overthink this. If someone is in my home at night they WILL be shot. I don't know who else might be standing just around the corner with a weapon. I will not talk or warn. To do less would be to put my family at risk. Out and around if someone is near enough to hurt me or my wife I will display my weapon and yell at them to stop. If they take a another step I will shoot. If there are two or more assailants and they don't stop but start to move apart I will warn them one time. If they keep moving apart from each other I will begin by shooting at the closest one first.
Last edited:
Relatively Ninja
Sharpshooter
Well jeremy, I see that you're pretty set in your ways as far as self defense goes. I'm not going to change your mind so I'll just shut my trap. Good luck with that all or nothing method, I hope it doesn't land you in any hot water.
Although I'm still hoping some INGO lawyers will come weigh in on that legal liability stuff I talked about earlier. Pretty please?
Although I'm still hoping some INGO lawyers will come weigh in on that legal liability stuff I talked about earlier. Pretty please?
I almost agree with jeremy. Most here are not LEOs which the force continuum was made for. It was first designed for officers to explain how they got from point A to B while using force. The lowest force was officer presence and to the other end is deadly force. Most here are trained not trained in the use of impact weapons, hence the weapon on your side. Be careful, some prosecutors don't buy into "extreem pain" for a reason to use deadly force (our old one did not). The most important thing would be to attempt to avoid a situation. If not, be preparred to explain that you feared for your own life and your family.
Well jeremy, I see that you're pretty set in your ways as far as self defense goes. I'm not going to change your mind so I'll just shut my trap. Good luck with that all or nothing method, I hope it doesn't land you in any hot water.
Although I'm still hoping some INGO lawyers will come weigh in on that legal liability stuff I talked about earlier. Pretty please?
As I have said repeatedly I have spent good money with Lawyers to learn what I can and cannot do...
I suggest you do they same...
ElsiePeaRN
Expert
Go talk with a REAL Lawyer...
You have been misinformed by "several Law Enforcers"...
While I agree with jeremy in general here, since he is talking about being faced with a lethal threat, Relatively Ninja also appears correct. An act of self-defense that may not result in criminal charges can result in civil judgments. We DO live in a litigious society and bad guys' families DO sue people and sometimes win. I can understand Ninja's wanting to plan ahead with that in mind. I can also understand jeremy's attitude of "eff 'em." But Ninja is certainly correct that civil juidgments are a risk. The question is, how important is that to you? Obviously more important to Ninja than jeremy.
I find it hard to believe that in INDIANA (not California as in the RK incident) that NON-LEO's (not LEO's as in the RK incident) would be sued based on a act of self-defense that was ruled LEGALLY JUSTIFIED either by a court after a trial or by a prosecutor who decided to not even try it at all.
As far as I know non-LEO's can't be held to have violated a person's civil rights so the federal lawsuit wouldn't have even been an issue.
It's easy to SAY that we're going to have our pants sued off by a BG that we had to defend ourselves from but does anyone have a case from INDIANA in which someone was sued for LEGALLY using any amount of force to defend themselves?
