I was ALMOST robbed today!

[WC Deer Hunter]

I just don't get it.... Why wasn't there a cop around to protect you?

It seems there has to be some redistribution of Rep before I can Rep you again.

 

[jbrooks19]

So what your saying is i shouldnt have drawn my gun because i didnt see a weapon? (DUMB) he threatened me, and to me and many other people that is just cause to draw on someone...

So you weren't really worried for your safety? If he's unarmed, presenting no threat, why defend? If he was a threat, why let him take his leave? Don't worry about answering (not that either of those questions were rhetorical), I'm pretty sure I already know the answer.

As a side note, you'd probably get a more positive response from people if you took and gave constructive criticism instead of defensive outlashes.
Either way, as I said before, good luck.

 

[dom1104]

So what your saying is i shouldnt have drawn my gun because i didnt see a weapon? (DUMB) he threatened me, and to me and many other people that is just cause to draw on someone...

Dude, we have all drawn our guns at one point or another, you are just the guy posts about it on a website.

If you didnt expect 5000 know it alls, why not just......keep quiet about it?

 

[bwframe]

Dude, we have all drawn our guns at one point or another, you are just the guy posts about it on a website.

If you didnt expect 5000 know it alls, why not just......keep quiet about it?

Very good point.
Another being if you had to use your gun in SD next week, how would this thread help or hurt you in court if it came to that?

 

[jb28]

Hey jbrooks, you did what you felt you had to do in the situtation. The douchebag was lucky he didn't catch a few in his chest. Some of these "Know-it-ologists" in here would've done it sooo much different I'm sure( maybe should've been in purple). That's the reason you carry, so if a situation arrises like the one you described, you will be able to protect yourself. Ya I know that self defense training is essential, I don't know if you've had any but, IMO you had the presence of mind to defend yourself, didn't give your $h1t up, and you lived to tell about it. +1 to you buddy!

 

[repeter1977]

To the OP, great job. You came home alive, most important thing. Next, you contacted the police, they took the report and didnt arrest you, which shows you did the right thing. As for all the Monday Morning Quarter Backers, I wouldn't worry, just like in combat, they can all talk all they want about what they would do, but until it happens, they dont know what they will do. You handled yourself as you should have. Better book, since someone already suggested one, is "In the Gravest Extreme" By Massad Ayoob. He mentions in the book to do pretty much exactly what you did. When threatened, draw. When not threatened, dont shoot, IE, when the BG turns and runs. It any rate, once again, good job coming back alive, dont sweat the lil things

 

[crazyhorse909]

To the OP...Good job and thanks for posting. Learn something new every time I get on here

 

[churchmouse]

I just don't get it.... Why wasn't there a cop around to protect you?

It is unfortunate that for no fault of their own the LEO's have become reactionary. They are so overwhelmed with paper work etc. they are instructed to wait for a call before reacting. That is the case here in INDY.
Bad crash in front of my house Sunday night. Cars blocking the road southbound, debris every where, took 1 solid hour to get a LEO and several drove by with out a second look. They will not get involved with out direct order from the mother ship.

 

[jrainw]

OP-great job, I wouldn't have done anything different. I don't believe in drawing my weapon as a detterant, I believe in drawing to shoot. What happened here is the the pos saved his own life by changing his mind immediately. You dont have time for all the bs the Monday morning QBs have said, great job!

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Armchair Quaterbacks FTW!

 

[U.S. Patriot]

So you weren't really worried for your safety? If he's unarmed, presenting no threat, why defend? If he was a threat, why let him take his leave? Don't worry about answering (not that either of those questions were rhetorical), I'm pretty sure I already know the answer.

As a side note, you'd probably get a more positive response from people if you took and gave constructive criticism instead of defensive outlashes.
Either way, as I said before, good luck.

You sir get Armchair Quarterback of the year. It does not matter if someone has a weapon or not. His words alone where a threat. Hypothetical: if I walked up to you and said I'm going to kick your ass, is that not a threat? Oh wait, if I do not have a weapon then I'm not a threat, forgot.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

You sir get Armchair Quarterback of the year. It does not matter if someone has a weapon or not. His words alone where a threat. Hypothetical: if I walked up to you and said I'm going to kick your ass, is that not a threat? Oh wait, if I do not have a weapon then I'm not a threat, forgot.

My point exactly - the man was a direct threat to J. Brooks' life, and should have gotten the treatment all true, life-threatening threats should get - several rounds in the head and/or center of mass.

J. Brooks is still alive, which is great. I am glad that he is even though we don't seem to care for one another too much. As a respectable citizen who means my family no harm, I am honestly and truly glad that things went how they did, that he is still alive and here today.

But what of the other? He is still out there. Almost certainly, none of his life circumstances have changed. He still is probably poor, destitute, or otherwise hard-up, down on luck, however you wish to phrase being impoverished. He probably still needs money. He probably still considers robbing people to be an effective way of getting money. He really has little, if any, incentive to stop trying to rob people with perhaps the exception, the possibility of being held at gunpoint, which, granted, he may well be considering after the encounter with Mr. J. Brooks.

But what conclusion might he come to after having survived this encounter with an armed citizen who half-utilized self-defense? What course of action will he then alter? What about his plans will he then change? Will he go after the obviously defenseless/less-likely-to-be-defended? College co-eds, perhaps? Mothers with kids in the car? Elderly ladies out on their Sunday drives?

The sole point I wished to express is that self-defense is not just defense of the self. So too are we authorized by our founding document to protect others - and my personal opinion is that not only are we authorized to do so, but that we also have a moral duty to do so. Setting aside that INGO does not allow religious discussion, I would have many more sins for which to answer if I did not believe that we are indeed the keepers of our brothers and sisters. I'm also quite Kantian in my personal philosophy; that motive as well as consequence should be considered in all moral acts. That to not punish this man for violating principles of morality itself violates a principle of morality. Not punishing the man for unjustly attempting violent coercion treats him as a lesser moral agent. He must be punished, if only to maintain the integrity and dignity of his self as a human being. Else, why have moral imperatives, or institute rules of conduct? If actions are to have no consequence, why bother creating a system of desirable and undesirable behavior? Actions have consequences: acting outside the permissibility of human law brings consequences, some minor, some severe depending on the behavior. But consequence is a a direct result of action, whether it be positive or negative. If one is pacifistic, squeamish about violence, or truly believe in the State as a final arbiter of judgment, then I suppose holding him at gunpoint until the police arrived and could instill Justice upon him is a moral alternative. There are examples which point toward a just course of action. The Bible, our Constitution, the Magna Carta - they all point toward what should be normative behavior. None include letting wrongdoers flee unpunished merely to perpetrate evil later.
Noted succinctly in Leviticus 24:20 (perhaps one of the more well-known verses of our Holy Book): "Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so it shall be done to him again." Niccolo Machiavelli coined the axiom "if injury need be done to a man, it should be so severe that his retribution need not be feared."

I am glad that Mr. J. Brooks was victorious in coming away alive from circumstances which well could have resulted in mortal harm. Very glad. We read far too often in the newspaper of circumstances in which the attacked fare far worse.

However, his victory is but a half-victory, for he may well have to stand against him again tomorrow.

I do hope, though, that the man who attacked has now had a soul-changing epiphany, that he will forever renounce unjust violence as an option - but I very much doubt that he has, or that he will.

We all have difficult decisions to make in life, none more difficult than what to do when threatened or attacked, and again, I largely think what Mr. J. Brooks did was correct. But I do not feel that it was quite a wholly moral act. I suppose it's of no use anyway, no amount of second-guessing now will right what should have been done.

Good luck.

Post-script: No arms on this chair. Table-chair quarterback would probably be more appropriate.

 

[actaeon277]

Haven't all the salient points pretty much been covered?

Cough cough, ...beating a dead horse... cough, cough

 

[shibumiseeker]

Haven't all the salient points pretty much been covered?

Cough cough, ...beating a dead horse... cough, cough

It was a typical day on USENET. An angry mob beating a greasy spot on the pavement where used to lie the carcass of a dead horse.

 

[HICKMAN]

You sir get Armchair Quarterback of the year. It does not matter if someone has a weapon or not. His words alone where a threat. Hypothetical: if I walked up to you and said I'm going to kick your ass, is that not a threat? Oh wait, if I do not have a weapon then I'm not a threat, forgot.

That is not enough to use a gun on someone...


Might want to get some training or understanding on the local law before you end up in jail for an unjustified shooting, what we learned in the military doesn't always play out in local court systems. I thought the same as you until I took an ACT Force on Force class.

 

[mainjet]

My point exactly - the man was a direct threat to J. Brooks' life, and should have gotten the treatment all true, life-threatening threats should get - several rounds in the head and/or center of mass.

J. Brooks is still alive, which is great. I am glad that he is even though we don't seem to care for one another too much. As a respectable citizen who means my family no harm, I am honestly and truly glad that things went how they did, that he is still alive and here today.

But what of the other? He is still out there. Almost certainly, none of his life circumstances have changed. He still is probably poor, destitute, or otherwise hard-up, down on luck, however you wish to phrase being impoverished. He probably still needs money. He probably still considers robbing people to be an effective way of getting money. He really has little, if any, incentive to stop trying to rob people with perhaps the exception, the possibility of being held at gunpoint, which, granted, he may well be considering after the encounter with Mr. J. Brooks.

But what conclusion might he come to after having survived this encounter with an armed citizen who half-utilized self-defense? What course of action will he then alter? What about his plans will he then change? Will he go after the obviously defenseless/less-likely-to-be-defended? College co-eds, perhaps? Mothers with kids in the car? Elderly ladies out on their Sunday drives?

The sole point I wished to express is that self-defense is not just defense of the self. So too are we authorized by our founding document to protect others - and my personal opinion is that not only are we authorized to do so, but that we also have a moral duty to do so. Setting aside that INGO does not allow religious discussion, I would have many more sins for which to answer if I did not believe that we are indeed the keepers of our brothers and sisters. I'm also quite Kantian in my personal philosophy; that motive as well as consequence should be considered in all moral acts. That to not punish this man for violating principles of morality itself violates a principle of morality. Not punishing the man for unjustly attempting violent coercion treats him as a lesser moral agent. He must be punished, if only to maintain the integrity and dignity of his self as a human being. Else, why have moral imperatives, or institute rules of conduct? If actions are to have no consequence, why bother creating a system of desirable and undesirable behavior? Actions have consequences: acting outside the permissibility of human law brings consequences, some minor, some severe depending on the behavior. But consequence is a a direct result of action, whether it be positive or negative. If one is pacifistic, squeamish about violence, or truly believe in the State as a final arbiter of judgment, then I suppose holding him at gunpoint until the police arrived and could instill Justice upon him is a moral alternative. There are examples which point toward a just course of action. The Bible, our Constitution, the Magna Carta - they all point toward what should be normative behavior. None include letting wrongdoers flee unpunished merely to perpetrate evil later.
Noted succinctly in Leviticus 24:20 (perhaps one of the more well-known verses of our Holy Book): "Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so it shall be done to him again." Niccolo Machiavelli coined the axiom "if injury need be done to a man, it should be so severe that his retribution need not be feared."

I am glad that Mr. J. Brooks was victorious in coming away alive from circumstances which well could have resulted in mortal harm. Very glad. We read far too often in the newspaper of circumstances in which the attacked fare far worse.

However, his victory is but a half-victory, for he may well have to stand against him again tomorrow.

I do hope, though, that the man who attacked has now had a soul-changing epiphany, that he will forever renounce unjust violence as an option - but I very much doubt that he has, or that he will.

We all have difficult decisions to make in life, none more difficult than what to do when threatened or attacked, and again, I largely think what Mr. J. Brooks did was correct. But I do not feel that it was quite a wholly moral act. I suppose it's of no use anyway, no amount of second-guessing now will right what should have been done.

Good luck.

Post-script: No arms on this chair. Table-chair quarterback would probably be more appropriate.

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.

The OP used "reasonable force to stop" the attack. He did not have to shoot because the perp turned and ran. Shooting the perp was not "necessary to prevent serious bodily injury". So while you feel that he should have shot him because he may have to face him another day, you would be wrong.

 

[HICKMAN]

But what is "imminent use of unlawful force"?

Someone saying "gimme your money"?

We might need our resident gun attorney to help us on this one.

 

[HICKMAN]

to the OP, what would be your defense if he ran off and called the cops saying someone had just pulled a gun on him?

 

[jbrooks19]

I already filed a police report saying otherwise.. plus this guy was scared crapless, he would not be thinking about contacting the police. Also just so I can understand, I was supposed to shoot him because he may rob someone I'm the future?

 

[Fedempl]

The op said that the guy stated "and I won't hurt you". As the law states if a reasonable person believes he is in imminent danger he can use what force is necessary. The BG basically said he was going to hurt him unless he gave him money. That to me was a threat he used the force necessary as allowed by law. Luckily that was just showing the firearm. Chances are the BG took off thinking the OP was a LEO. Another stupid mistake he made, but not our problem what the BGs thinks.


Great job and am glad your safe.