Man arrested for slapping stranger's 2 y/o at Wal-Mart... and a "what if" discussion

[dburkhead]

My understanding of the law is that you are able to use a gun if neccessary to stop a felony. I don't remember ever seeing anything that said you could only use it to stop a leathal force attack.

forcible felony, but yeah.

 

[bigus_D]

forcible felony, but yeah.

Yea... I see that word, "forcible", in the code... but I'm not exactly sure what that means? For that matter, I'm not exactly sure what constitues a felony and what doesn't.

EDIT: I just found this... not sure if it is actually from the Indiana Code or not:
"Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or
threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent
danger of bodily injury to a human being.

Also, I'm just referencing the code because that is the law of the land... I'll shoot if I feel it is neccessary to protect my self, wife and/or child, or a third party from impending harm (regardless if my intretation is 'right' or consistent with yours or not). I won't shoot as a first action, but I certainly won't enter into a physical fight before drawing. Action 1: attempt to diffuse situation. Action 2: withdraw from situation if appropriate Action 3: Draw. If drawing and ordering the assailant to cease doesn't stop the threat, shooting is the next action.

 

[HICKMAN]

cygnus has valid points...

I still want to know why MOM wasn't standing between perp and child the second he made a threat?

 

[dburkhead]

Yea... I see that word, "forcible", in the code... but I'm not exactly sure what that means?

There are a lot of "felonies" that don't involve force. Break into and steal a car. Felony, but no threat of force. That sort of thing.

 

[Bill of Rights]

There isn't anything that says in black and white that a gun is only to be used to stop a lethal force attack.

Actually, the law says you can use deadly force to stop more than just a "lethal force attack". As just a singular example:

(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 personreasonably 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.

The law does say that you must believe that you are unable to stop the attack in any other way, however.

Wayyyyyy to generic and vague. I'll respond in a similar fashion: No it does not.

Actually, it does, and you quoted it yourself. I was paraphrasing from memory. "A person is justified...if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the ...entry of or attack on..."
To me, that means that you have to believe you're unable to stop the attack in any other way, i.e. that level of force is necessary.

IC 35-42-2-1
Battery
Sec. 1. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits battery, a Class B misdemeanor. However, the offense is:
[...]
(2) a Class D felony if it results in bodily injury to:
[...]
(B) a person less than fourteen (14) years of age and is committed by a person at least eighteen (18) years of age;[...]

IC 35-45-2-1
Intimidation
Sec. 1. (a) A person who communicates a threat to another person, with the intent:
[...]
(2) that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act;[...]
commits intimidation, a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) However, the offense is a:
(1) Class D felony if:
(A) the threat is to commit a forcible felony;
[...]
(2) Class C felony if, while committing it, the person draws or uses a deadly weapon.
(c) "Threat" means an expression, by words or action, of an intention to:
(1) unlawfully injure the person threatened or another person, or damage property;
(2) unlawfully subject a person to physical confinement or restraint;
(3) commit a crime;
(4) unlawfully withhold official action, or cause such withholding;
(5) unlawfully withhold testimony or information with respect to another person's legal claim or defense, except for a reasonable claim for witness fees or expenses;
(6) expose the person threatened to hatred, contempt, disgrace, or ridicule;
(7) falsely harm the credit or business reputation of the person threatened; or
(8) cause the evacuation of a dwelling, a building, another structure, or a vehicle.


If a person at least 18 years old states an intention to commit a crime (or to injure another person of less than 14 years of age, (a Class D felony, and by definition, forcible), the intimidation alone is a Class D felony. If the person uses a weapon (which can really be anything other than an empty hand), it becomes a Class C felony.

Indiana law allows for deadly force (anywhere) to stop a "forcible felony". Assault on a 2 y/o is a clearly a "forcible felony".

Indiana does not have a statute defining "assault", but does have intimidation, which is essentially the same thing in this context. I'm not quibbling about which word we use, though. If I read your point correctly, you're mainly commenting on the "anywhere" portion of the law.

Anyone who would have shot that scum bag would have been 100% within the law.

Also Cyngus, the person (people) who 'instructed you" about a "force paradigm" are wrong. You aren't a cop (that I know of). You have no such requirements.

Also with the "Castle Doctrine" YOU don't have to prove anything about why you used deadly force. The burden of proof is back where it belong, squarely on the prosecutor. Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty, but you could expect to be asked to show why you had that belief that the force you used was necessary and why that belief was/is reasonable.

I don't advocate going around shooting people for kicks, even when the law allows it, but a man hitting my daughter (3 or 5 years old) is a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. The real threat of an assailant trumps any "what ifs" about over penetration of rounds or the possibility of missing, by leaps and bounds. Especially considering, in this case, you wouldn't be more than 3 or 4 feet from the attacker... missing isn't as likely as aiming across the store. If you did miss? thats for the monday morning quarter backs. Not to be debating while some nutjob is laying into your child.

In any event, it's an individuals choice and their child on the line. I can't think of any greater reason to use deadly force than to defend my child... but thats just me.

I agree with you. The only point I can see on which we look to be disagreeing is if the force was necessary. A verbal threat by itself is not a reason to draw and fire. It most certainly IS a reason to block the person's access to the child, either by interposing yourself, by removing the child, or by laying down surpressing fire while calling in an air strike.

Like you, I don't want to show off my shiny new gun and I am not looking for confrontation as a way to see who has the biggest *member* in town... I'll draw if I have to, but I really hope I never have to.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[No Time to Shoot]

cygnus has valid points...

I still want to know why MOM wasn't standing between perp and child the second he made a threat?

Why wasn't she making a scene right then and there to attract attention to the situation? When the man grabbed the child from her why didn't she claw his eyes out or send his nuts through his mouth.

If that was my wife it wouldn't have went so well for him.

 

[stony]

Why wasn't she making a scene right then and there to attract attention to the situation? When the man grabbed the child from her why didn't she claw his eyes out or send his nuts through his mouth.

If that was my wife it wouldn't have went so well for him.

+1 He'd been better off tangling with me than momma. I would have been swinging before the words rolled off his tongue.

 

[No Time to Shoot]

My wife works for the local government and she gets threatened on a daily basis face to face. There is almost always a bystander there willing to step in and give them an attitude adjustment. It just seems odd that she didn't make a fuss over the situation, and try to get help. Where is the motherly instinct to protect your young? I can't imagine a woman letting some stranger attack their child and stand there watching it.

 

[HICKMAN]

Why wasn't she making a scene right then and there to attract attention to the situation? When the man grabbed the child from her why didn't she claw his eyes out or send his nuts through his mouth.

If that was my wife it wouldn't have went so well for him.

Yup, as I said, they'd have to peel my wife off of him.

 

[Cygnus]

Last comment from me.
I was always looking at the "what if" portion of this from a personal level. Perhaps I missed the intent of the "what if?" portion.

I totally agree with Bloodeclipse on the female draw and see.
The points on what a female should have done I can't answer because I am a male. I'd defer this to the women around here, some of whom have expressed their thoughts already. Some LEO opinions would be interesting is well.
In the end I believe we're all on here for the same reason. We support and want to keep our 2A rights and want to learn and educate each other as well.
And yes carrying lethal force is a great responsability that should not be taken lightly. I just want to balance that with the first inalienable right in the preamble......

I appreciate the postive and negative feedback. As well as the +/- reps. That's how I learn.....

(a few closet moderates out there eh?)

 

[zstep7]

After my daughter came in to this world, I don't carry for me anymore.

 

[dburkhead]

(a few closet moderates out there eh?)

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" Barry Goldwater, acceptance speech for the 1964 Presidential nomination.

 

[tharlow514]

It just seems to me like there would be a progression of aggression. The first option would be for her to remove herself and child from the location immediately and call the police. If he were to pursue then immediate force would seem reasonable. I don't believe he would have done this if there had been a male/father with them. It is an uderstatement to say he is a coward and has no empathy toward mothers or children.

 

[CSK22]

Ok so no ones ever been out to eat with that screaming nose picking wipe on the back of your head 2 year old in the booth behind you?

not that that justifies anything, just made me think of that

 

[Paco Bedejo]

"Paige sustained "slight redness to the face," but was otherwise unharmed."

He wasn't exactly beating her or manhandling her...simmer down fellas.

It was wrong, but anyone who walks around the store with a loud child is wrong too.

That's all I'll say.

 

[Joe Williams]

"Paige sustained "slight redness to the face," but was otherwise unharmed."

He wasn't exactly beating her or manhandling her...simmer down fellas.

It was wrong, but anyone who walks around the store with a loud child is wrong too.

That's all I'll say.

I have a hard time comprehending what kind of character a person would have to have to make a 2 year old child the wrong doer here, or that would minimize what the perpetrator did. But stay away from my kid.

 

[No Time to Shoot]

I would like to thank Joe for his negative rep here it is for everyone to see:

"Hurt our cause indeed... what cause.. that of cowards unwilling to defend their own family?"

Last time I checked beating someones *** that threatend your family doesn't make you a coward. I think it's pretty obvious who the coward would be in that situation, It seems you have a serious inferiority complex and rely on your gun way to much. What if you pull your gun out and it goes click instead of bang? Then what are you going to do to defend your family? A gun is a tool just like a sledge hammer but like a sledge hammer it's not always the right tool for the job.

 

[Joe Williams]

I would like to thank Joe for his negative rep here it is for everyone to see:

"Hurt our cause indeed... what cause.. that of cowards unwilling to defend their own family?"
snip.

And just because I hate whiners who take private business public, I'm going to give you more as soon as I give out enough good rep to others to do so.

Since you chose to take it public, I say you are a coward because you would choose to deny those smaller and weaker the right to defend themselves, and you bully them into making decisions that could cause them their lives, and that of their families. Your "beat their butt" theory is good chest beating talk, in the real world it's ignorant, and a good way to get yourself or your kid killled. IOW, you are a moron if you choose to carry a gun and get into fistfights, and mentally incompetent to carry a gun.

 

[Bisley Man]

My wife said she would have shot the baby beater if that was our son at that age. That's what a Mother thinks. Now, I haven't read anyone's response that makes me want to put them down, agree or not. That's why this is a FORUM, diferent ideas are discused, not cussed(no foul language but nuclear flame throwing) Reps to Cygnus and No Time to Shoot.

 

[No Time to Shoot]

And just because I hate whiners who take private business public, I'm going to give you more as soon as I give out enough good rep to others to do so.

Since you chose to take it public, I say you are a coward because you would choose to deny those smaller and weaker the right to defend themselves, and you bully them into making decisions that could cause them their lives, and that of their families. Your "beat their butt" theory is good chest beating talk, in the real world it's ignorant, and a good way to get yourself or your kid killled. IOW, you are a moron if you choose to carry a gun and get into fistfights, and mentally incompetent to carry a gun.

You sir have some serious issues. There are far better ways to handle that situation than to pull your gun out in a possibly crowded public place because someone verbally accosted you. I am not denying you the ability to defend your family, I'm telling you that there are better tools to use in that situation so you don't endanger our families! How did you ever survive High School?