I was ALMOST robbed today!

[the1kidd03]

I see your point! As long as it was just a verbal threat. Of course, if the guy had a gun in HIS hand, it would be a different situation, right?

Assuming it was a gun, of course. Any number of small differences would drastically change the situation in either favor or opposition to the OP's actions. That is why it's important to discuss what aspects could be possible or most likely to ensure that the OP and everyone is "covering their a$$" in such a situation. The way it is presented here, he could EASILY be put in legal trouble because of many factors. Luckily, he wasn't. It's better to learn what possibly better ways he could have acted which wouldn't land him in any hot water than to criticize those who are offering different point of view from different worlds of experience.

 

[Dirtebiker]

There is a LOT of armchair back patting going on which is pointless. It is more useful to discuss the details of the instance and other possibilities of what could have been done, happened, other ramifications, etc,etc. That is called a learning experience. If you wish to get butt hurt when people try to offer points for such discussion because you simply feel the need to be correct in your/his actions then you shouldn't bother posting in an open forum that is dedicated to better educating on proper firearms use.

I believe the point HICKMANN is trying to make is that, YES what you did was justified to you. That doesn't mean it is justified in the eyes of the legal system. I don't care what your area of study is, it doesn't make you an expert, simply a student. The prosecutors would have ripped you a new hole with your actions had there been a scared witness that didn't hear what the robber said, if the officers were being "pushed" to crack down on firearms, if you had to engage, etc,etc. As someone else pointed out, you got lucky here.

You did feel threatened and that is understandable. On the other hand, the legal system and prosecutors will pick apart your actions FAR worse than anyone here is, so where would you rather have your learning experience?

The op was taking everyone's opinions just fine! It's just when certain individuals continue to go on and on, telling him that he was WRONG to do what has already been shown to be completely LEGAL that he got upset and defensive!
Yes, he should just keep cool and let " know it alls" rant on, but I do understand his frustration!
Your first paragraph can just as well be addressed to your friend Hickman!

A "scared witness" or "officers being "pushed" to crack down on firearms" (whatever that means) has nothing at all to do with the LAWS!!!!!

You are correct, the op was lucky! The "perp" was even luckier to escape with his life! All in all, it worked out well!

 

[mainjet]

Had that attacker come back once the LEO's arrived, as you have explained the situation, he presented no weapon and thus no immediate threat to do bodily harm. He could have easily said to the officers that you pulled a gun on him for no reason, which would get you in the "sights of the legal system," and they don't like people having guns. Then the actions would TRULY get picked apart and based off the information presented here, you would likely loose your LTCH or even have charges against you. They would simply see: this man had no weapon, you pulled a gun, and pointed it at him which alone is a crime under the IC. At this point it would be all about how well you can convey to the court WHY you felt threatened enough to justify DEADLY force when a man said something to you and presented no weapon. I think that would be a MUCH more uphill battle than engaging in logical conversation here.

There are a couple of points that render your argument somewhat mute.

1. You call the police as soon as the situation is safe (like when he ran)
2. You called the police... Why would you call the police if you pulled it on someone?
3. IC does not make pointing a gun a crime inthis situation. I hove shown IC supporting that. I could be wrong but if I am then I need some evidence that I am wrong. Then I will accept it.
4. Chances are, a person who has risen to the level of crime to approach a man face to face and try to rob him, probably has a prior history of crime. Hopefully the person carrying the gun does not (and the fact that he has a LTCH should make that true). So I think that you will be believed first.
5. My guess is there are cameras on the pump area of the gas station.
6. All of the above added to the fact that if there are no other witnesses then it is his word against yours and you have 1-5 on your side.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Had that attacker come back once the LEO's arrived, as you have explained the situation, he presented no weapon and thus no immediate threat to do bodily harm. He could have easily said to the officers that you pulled a gun on him for no reason, which would get you in the "sights of the legal system," and they don't like people having guns. Then the actions would TRULY get picked apart and based off the information presented here, you would likely loose your LTCH or even have charges against you. They would simply see: this man had no weapon, you pulled a gun, and pointed it at him which alone is a crime under the IC. At this point it would be all about how well you can convey to the court WHY you felt threatened enough to justify DEADLY force when a man said something to you and presented no weapon. I think that would be a MUCH more uphill battle than engaging in logical conversation here.

Again, easy to pick it apart on the Internet! He did what his instinct told him to do, he walked away unharmed! HE WON!!!!!
Do you think someone dumb enough to be trying to get money from people this way is also so stupid that he would come back to the scene to try to convince the officer that HE was the victim? I think your stretching here!

 

[HICKMAN]

Some people just can't accept the fact that they are not always right!
Hickman, people here have shown you the I.C., what more do you need?

I don't care about being right... I care about bad information coming out of this thread that can land a fellow INGOer in jail for 1st Degree Murder.

That I.C. is not black and white... it is gray. I am only trying to pass on what I learned from one of John Farnam’s (Defense Training International) instructors in a Force on Force class.

I only want the officer's number because I want to know why that officer thinks he was justifed because it contradicts what I've been told.

At this point, it really doesn't matter if this happened or not, the information be passed around and obsorbed by those with LTCH's does matter.

 

[the1kidd03]

The op was taking everyone's opinions just fine! It's just when certain individuals continue to go on and on, telling him that he was WRONG to do what has already been shown to be completely LEGAL that he got upset and defensive!
Yes, he should just keep cool and let " know it alls" rant on, but I do understand his frustration!
Your first paragraph can just as well be addressed to your friend Hickman!

A "scared witness" or "officers being "pushed" to crack down on firearms" (whatever that means) has nothing at all to do with the LAWS!!!!!

You are correct, the op was lucky! The "perp" was even luckier to escape with his life! All in all, it worked out well!

I suggest you also attend the courses I listed above. Officers are given directives by their command which comes down from prosecutors. Meaning, if they have an agenda against firearms the officers will be pressured into taking action against the OP in this scenario. I don't care HOW you read "the law." It is not as clear cut as many of you seem to think and that is the job of an attorney to interpret it. For example, can you clearly define, based of current information that the attacker was committing a felony? No. So then you have to assume it to be a reasonable threat. Words are not generally such as far as the legal system is concerned, if that were the case I'm sure you'd hear of a LOT more police shootings. This is why a LOT of details when describing such a situation are important to determine justification in action. The "law" is written in a manner to leave loopholes. That is why attorneys exist. If it was as clear cut as many of you seem to believe, then Guy and many others would be out of a job. You're basing your belief in what "the law says" in your own interpretation, which none of us here are professionals at doing. That is why the classes I posted earlier would be an excellent opportunity for many here.

 

[HICKMAN]

Again, easy to pick it apart on the Internet! He did what his instinct told him to do, he walked away unharmed! HE WON!!!!!

In all honesty, you are ONE HUNDRED PERCENT right! The first rule is to win the fight and live.

He did win and for that, praise God.

My fear is the information coming of out the thread based on if he would shot the guy.

Guys, we need to step back a little and stop making this personal and allow ourselves an honest critiqie of this scenario.

Keep the debate open and honest.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Assuming it was a gun, of course. Any number of small differences would drastically change the situation in either favor or opposition to the OP's actions. That is why it's important to discuss what aspects could be possible or most likely to ensure that the OP and everyone is "covering their a$$" in such a situation. The way it is presented here, he could EASILY be put in legal trouble because of many factors. Luckily, he wasn't. It's better to learn what possibly better ways he could have acted which wouldn't land him in any hot water than to criticize those who are offering different point of view from different worlds of experience.

I agree, it good to discuss and learn! That's what we're doing!
The point is, this situation happened in a matter of seconds! He did what came naturally, protected himself! I'm sure if he could have pushed pause, to come here and make sure he was justified in pulling his weapon, he would have!

 

[lovemachine]

Why would you wait for something like this to happen BEFORE seeking training?

What are you talking about? I never said that...

 

[HICKMAN]

Who cares if he was inside or out of his car? Doesn't make a bit of difference! Op was justified in the way he handled the situation!

The Indiana Code cares if it was in a car or not, so yes, it does make a difference.

 

[goinggreyfast]

It's cool OP, don't sweat it. I started feeling sorry for you well over 200 posts back. HA! You done good! I--for one--am not going to second guess your actions. You did what your instincts told you to do and you came out alive and DB would-b robber hopefully learned a valuable lesson well in the end.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda's are MOOT (not "mute" BTW) points in hindsight. We carry to protect ourselves and our loved ones and that's exactly what you did.

Have a nice day jbrooks!

 

[the1kidd03]

There are a couple of points that render your argument somewhat mute.

1. You call the police as soon as the situation is safe (like when he ran)
2. You called the police... Why would you call the police if you pulled it on someone?
3. IC does not make pointing a gun a crime inthis situation. I hove shown IC supporting that. I could be wrong but if I am then I need some evidence that I am wrong. Then I will accept it.
4. Chances are, a person who has risen to the level of crime to approach a man face to face and try to rob him, probably has a prior history of crime. Hopefully the person carrying the gun does not (and the fact that he has a LTCH should make that true). So I think that you will be believed first.
5. My guess is there are cameras on the pump area of the gas station.
6. All of the above added to the fact that if there are no other witnesses then it is his word against yours and you have 1-5 on your side.

Again, they are not "mute." They are just a couple of examples, based on known instances, which I used to demonstrate how the law can be used against an otherwise law abiding citizen. I know of FAR more ludicrous situations. As stated in my other post, the IC is not clear cut in black and white. You are basing your belief on your own interpretation of it. I wouldn't go to court on your interpretation as opposed to a professional who's job is to interpret it (attorney.) For example, how do you define a "reasonable threat?" The court will want to know and if you don't answer clearly it will be used against you. Then you will have explain how his actions justified the use of deadly force, which in this case it wasn't clearly. Simply "feeling threatened" is not enough in the court room. They will fry you for that being your only defense and why your attorney will tell you to "keep quiet."

 

[HICKMAN]

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.

I thought the exact same thing before taking a Force on Force class teaching me otherwise. Was only trying to share the knowledge before the OP told me "I didn't know anything'...

 

[the1kidd03]

I agree, it good to discuss and learn! That's what we're doing!
The point is, this situation happened in a matter of seconds! He did what came naturally, protected himself! I'm sure if he could have pushed pause, to come here and make sure he was justified in pulling his weapon, he would have!

That is why we discuss AFTER the fact, here and now. So the next time, he will be able to handle a situation in a much more educated fashion that is MUCH more likely to keep him out of hot water. I personally, agree with the actions simply because he came out ok and that's really all that matters, but he got lucky that no action was taken against him. It wouldn't be wise to rely on luck again and so we discuss and aim to educate on better understanding of the legal system.

 

[HICKMAN]

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

Explain to me whats wrong with that????

No really explain?????

I'm waiting

I was thinking about this post while driving to work this morning and went back an re-read your full post again and understand now what you were sayin. In my earlier response to you, I was focused on the "what if he shot the guy?", but missed what you saying here.

What I overlooked was your pointing out his use of reasonable force to stop the immenent use of unlawful force

Now, that is a very good point! He was actually successful in keeping this from esacalating because of this.

I was so focused on would he have been justified in shooting the guy I didn't see what you were saying here.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

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.

It still applies to the civilian world. Force does not always mean shooting a threat. Guess I should just forget everything I learned. I also studied Martial Arts for a year and a half.

 

[HICKMAN]

It still applies to the civilian world. Force does not always mean shooting a threat. Guess I should just forget everything I learned. I also studied Martial Arts for a year and a half.

I understand the CG is basically a law enforcement agency on the water, but how does that apply to this thread?

We're civilians now, bound by Indiana law. As I said earlier, I used to think differently until getting some professional training.

 

[HICKMAN]

Listen, to jbrooks19 and all of the others I've seemed to **** off.

This got a little more overheated that I expected and I apoligize.

I got caught up way to much in the "what could have happened".

The reason I even got in this thread was because I ended up getting torn apart on Texas law by a defense attorney. Didn't understand before how they can try to deflect a case from a criminal to assissinate the character of a gunowner, but it does happen.

I am glad things ended quickly before they escalated.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

I understand the CG is basically a law enforcement agency on the water, but how does that apply to this thread?

We're civilians now, bound by Indiana law. As I said earlier, I used to think differently until getting some professional training.

Self defense is self defense. If someone attacks me, I'm going to defend myself. If someone threatens me and I can not retreat, I'm going to draw. Even if that means keeping my weapon bladed down finger off the trigger. Yes, even if you draw, that does not mean you have to actually point the muzzle at the would be threat. That's a choice we as individuals have to make. Do you not draw and take the chance of being wounded or killed. Or do you draw and deal with the repercussions, if any.

 

[kyotekilr]

Kinda jumping in here late but, don't the police draw without firing. Isn't that always a last resort. When you draw first you got the drop on the guy. Why wait until you are in a "high noon" draw with the guy.