I was ALMOST robbed today!

[jbrooks19]

You know nothing, you were not there, and therefor your "opinion" is taken in and quickly disregarded as you do not know what you are talking about. YOU are the one who needs some/more training. You do not need training to have common sense enough to draw your weapon when threatened.. God i wish i could close this thread so people AKA Arm chair quarterbacks would stop running their mouths when they know nothing about the incident.

Have a wonderful day *sarcasm*

I used to like you hickman, on your prior posts about Glocks but the comments you have posted on here have shown your true colors..

you don't need a poll, you need TRAINING. I highly recommend a Force on Force class because I don't believe you were justified drawing your weapon.

Single, unarmed, verbal threat, outside of your vehicle, no witnesses

Even if he hit you, you wouldn't have been justified.

 

[HICKMAN]

I stopped a rape back in Texas in 1998. I've also been through the Texas CCW class and Force on Force training here in Indiana. So don't give me the armchair crap.

YOU WERE WRONG and not justified in what you claim you did.

There is no police record, no news story on this doesn't help either.

I could give a s**t if you like me or not, you need to listen and get some training and know what the law does and does not allow before YOU end up in jail.

What would you have done if he would have CHARGED AT YOU??

 

[U.S. Patriot]

I stopped a rape back in Texas in 1998. I've also been through the Texas CCW class and Force on Force training here in Indiana. So don't give me the armchair crap.

YOU WERE WRONG and not justified in what you claim you did.

There is no police record, no news story on this doesn't help either.

I could give a s**t if you like me or not, you need to listen and get some training and know what the law does and does not allow before YOU end up in jail.

What would you have done if he would have CHARGED AT YOU??

So, your training means you are an expert? I have a lot of training, so I guess I'm a super expert!

 

[U.S. Patriot]

OP, just a quick question. I assume the guy was wearing a jacket of some sort?

 

[jbrooks19]

Yes he had a heavy jacket on, he very easily could have had a weapon under it.

OP, just a quick question. I assume the guy was wearing a jacket of some sort?

 

[jbrooks19]

I guess since you stopped a rape and took some training that means you know everything. I do not "NEED" to listen to anything YOU have to say. I listen and took in a ton of what other people said because it was useful but what you have said is not useful or helpful in any way. You just want to tear apart peoples actions. Go back to your couch. If he would have charged at me i would have shot him just an FYI the officer told me that i was completely justified in what i did, he is an LEO you are not, therefor do not talk when you know not what you are talking about, O one more thing i forgot to mention, i am a Criminal Justice major in college; and we constantly learn laws (especially self defense laws) and i know for a fact that my actions were and are 100% legal.

I stopped a rape back in Texas in 1998. I've also been through the Texas CCW class and Force on Force training here in Indiana. So don't give me the armchair crap.

YOU WERE WRONG and not justified in what you claim you did.

There is no police record, no news story on this doesn't help either.

I could give a s**t if you like me or not, you need to listen and get some training and know what the law does and does not allow before YOU end up in jail.

What would you have done if he would have CHARGED AT YOU??

 

[jbrooks19]

I cant give more Rep today

So, your training means you are an expert? I have a lot of training, so I guess I'm a super expert!

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Yes he had a heavy jacket on, he very easily could have had a weapon under it.

That's why I asked. He could have had a knife, screwdriver, pepper spray, you name it. I said it before. I would rather face the repercussions if any, rather then be a victim.

 

[jbrooks19]

I completely agree with you!

That's why I asked. He could have had a knife, screwdriver, pepper spray, you name it. I said it before. I would rather face the repercussions if any, rather then be a victim.

 

[88GT]

you don't need a poll, you need TRAINING. I highly recommend a Force on Force class because I don't believe you were justified drawing your weapon.

Single, unarmed, verbal threat, outside of your vehicle, no witnesses

Even if he hit you, you wouldn't have been justified.

Been watching this one from afar since it started, but this is just BS pure and simple. You have practically created the requirement of full-on assault by the perp BEFORE the person is legally allowed to respond to the threat. And yet IC clearly states force is justified to PREVENT the threat from becoming actual bodily harm. "Imminent" is judged by the reasonable man standard. And it's absolutely reasonable for a man to think that the douchebag who just threatened him intends to make good on it if he doesn't comply.

Lots of talk about when to draw. I recently read this thread. Food for thought/discussion. For those who think OP was wrong to draw and/or point, or that it's just bad form to draw without the immediate intent to follow through with a discharge, what are your thoughts after reading that thread? And please don't stop at just the OP. Scroll through the +1 responses and read the stories people shared about the violence done by these criminals.

 

[PINski1015]

I stopped a rape back in Texas in 1998. I've also been through the Texas CCW class and Force on Force training here in Indiana. So don't give me the armchair crap.

YOU WERE WRONG and not justified in what you claim you did.

There is no police record, no news story on this doesn't help either.

IC 35-41-3-1
Legal authority
Sec. 1. A person is justified in engaging in conduct otherwise prohibited if he has legal authority to do so.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.7.


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:
(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.
(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, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

According to this he did quite well.

He was threatened, got out of his car and pulled his gun, told the guy to get back and the guy ran.

Tell me how thats not reasonable force?????

Explain to me whats wrong with that????

No really explain?????

I'm waiting

 

[PINski1015]

Been watching this one from afar since it started, but this is just BS pure and simple. You have practically created the requirement of full-on assault by the perp BEFORE the person is legally allowed to respond to the threat. And yet IC clearly states force is justified to PREVENT the threat from becoming actual bodily harm. "Imminent" is judged by the reasonable man standard. And it's absolutely reasonable for a man to think that the douchebag who just threatened him intends to make good on it if he doesn't comply.

Lots of talk about when to draw. I recently read this thread. Food for thought/discussion. For those who think OP was wrong to draw and/or point, or that it's just bad form to draw without the immediate intent to follow through with a discharge, what are your thoughts after reading that thread? And please don't stop at just the OP. Scroll through the +1 responses and read the stories people shared about the violence done by these criminals.

+1

 

[LPMan59]

Words and threats do not cause injury.

agreed. but they do lead to reasonable belief of severe bodily harm or death.

and as for unarmed assault not being a justification, people die from fist fights. people die from just one punch. Severe bodily injury can occur pretty easily and someone announcing their intentions seems pretty clear cut when in comes to Indiana statute.

And I am definitely not going to go a 12 rounds when I'm carrying (not ever, but especially when carrying)...that's just another way for the perp to injure me.

 

[charley59]

You Did an Excellent Job! The appropriate response to the situation. I live in Carroll County and Mom lives in Logansport, so I visit there from time to time. But this kind of thing can happen anywhere. Gee, I guess that is why we carry!

 

[HICKMAN]

So, your training means you are an expert? I have a lot of training, so I guess I'm a super expert!

What self-defense / force on force training have you had? Course dates and instructors please.

Your Coastie training doesn't apply to civil law in Indiana no more than my Army training does.

 

[HICKMAN]

According to this he did quite well.

He was threatened, got out of his car and pulled his gun, told the guy to get back and the guy ran.

Tell me how thats not reasonable force?????

Explain to me whats wrong with that????

No really explain?????

I'm waiting

He stated he wasn't in his car...

 

[HICKMAN]

I guess since you stopped a rape and took some training that means you know everything. I do not "NEED" to listen to anything YOU have to say. I listen and took in a ton of what other people said because it was useful but what you have said is not useful or helpful in any way. You just want to tear apart peoples actions. Go back to your couch. If he would have charged at me i would have shot him just an FYI the officer told me that i was completely justified in what i did, he is an LEO you are not, therefor do not talk when you know not what you are talking about, O one more thing i forgot to mention, i am a Criminal Justice major in college; and we constantly learn laws (especially self defense laws) and i know for a fact that my actions were and are 100% legal.

I never said I knew everything. You said earlier that I know nothing, so I responded with the little bit of experience I do have. Apparently wasn't good enough for you.

My telling you to get self-defense or force on force training is not useful or helpful? Please explain?

You said the officer said it was justified? Would you please PM me the info on the card the officer handed you with the case number and his name?

And since you are a criminal justice major, can you explain to me how shooting at an UNarmed person charging at you is justified by law?

Notice I never said that I would not do the same, but I would have a better chance convincing a jury due to disabilities. I don't know how a college aged man could do the same.

You are so defensive right now, you aren't even reading what's being posted unless it says "good job". You apparently put this out here as a learning lesson, YOU should learn something from it too. Don't discount what other people say just because it doesn't totally agree with what you say.

 

[Caleb]

So Hickman, what you are saying is that the OP should have let himself be robbed, with a possibility of getting his face kicked in or his throat cut?

 

[jgreiner]

IC 35-41-3-1
Legal authority
Sec. 1. A person is justified in engaging in conduct otherwise prohibited if he has legal authority to do so.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.7.


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:
(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.
(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, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

According to this he did quite well.

He was threatened, got out of his car and pulled his gun, told the guy to get back and the guy ran.

Tell me how thats not reasonable force?????

Explain to me whats wrong with that????

No really explain?????

I'm waiting

Great post!!!! +1

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

What self-defense / force on force training have you had? Course dates and instructors please.

Your Coastie training doesn't apply to civil law in Indiana no more than my Army training does.

Neither does you stopping a rape in TX, or you going through a Texas CCW course so why mention it since it has nothing to do with this either.