More info on shooting someone to prevent a punch

[Gluemanz28]

Indiana and Texas was the only two states that stated that you could use deadly force if you were in fear of being rendered unconscious not just fear of death. I am not sure where to look this up so can someone clarify if this is still law.

 

[Denny347]

Indiana and Texas was the only two states that stated that you could use deadly force if you were in fear of being rendered unconscious not just fear of death. I am not sure where to look this up so can someone clarify if this is still law.

And yet a jury can still send you up the river.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

To be clear, the incident I referenced was not a "knockout game" incident. I've yet to see one in Indianapolis. Just a regular ol' argument turns physical. The victim is not particularly young or old, and I am unaware of any underlying health issues.

There are many good points brought up in this thread, as in the others, and I don't have any easy answers for you. I found the responses of the prospective jurors troubling, and while I don't doubt that many could be swayed when presented with facts and circumstances, it does show that the default is "unreasonable" and you need to overcome that. That's obviously harder than just confirming someone's already held beliefs.

One thing I have done is I started to carry a non-lethal option. While obviously not the right tool for all situations, it does give me more options. This is obviously useless against a sudden and random attack, but if guys are jawjacking and working themselves up to a physical fight, a quick hosedown of pepper spray may let me control the situation long enough to act or remove myself, as appropriate.

Like Denny, if I ever found myself in that situation I think I'd go with a bench trial. I'm curious as to what our resident lawyers have to say about bench vs jury in cases like this.

 

[AndersonIN]

Tagged! Great subject and input! INGO Rocks

 

[Jack Burton]

This is why, God forbid, that when you wind up in a trial you need a competent lawyer who understands the totality of self defense. Under the circumstances of the OP I can live with a jury selection from the crowd of people he outlined. An ignorant jurist can be educated by a good lawyer who walks the expert witness though the ins and outs of the situation. And it doesn't have to be a high priced Ayoob who is the expert.

It's like the Zimmerman case. Some of the jurists "hearts" told them one thing, but once they understood the application of the actual law they felt obligated to vote for acquittal.

I cannot imagine owning and carrying a gun without having studied The Law of Self Defense by Andrew Braca

Law of Self Defense

He is a member here and had posted that he will give a discount with the keyword INGO.

 

[cedartop]

It's too bad nobody has classes that deal with this type of thing. (Shameless plug for Managing Confrontations.)

 

[Manatee]

I can grok it all in a one-on-one situation. Even there, as an old guy, if I can't talk my way out of a fight and back down, I'm not going to take a beating. Never have.

With a gaggle of youths (a murder of youths? works for crows, why not zombies), my fear of great bodily harm increases exponentially. A situation like that might require someone to shoot and shoot often.

 

[Kurr]

I am not a big guy, 5'8" 165lbs or so. Up till a year when I was 39 i was 130-135lbs. I have ruptured disk in my neck. A good punch as far as I'm concerned could leave me paralyzed. And if you hit me and knock me down or out, for all intents and purposes I am at your mercy and the beating will stop when you decide to. I "may" or "may not" be able to defend or reciprocate.

Due to all this and more, as far as I'm concerned, every fight is a fight for my life, and once someone initiates violence against me, that's how I'm gonna respond. I won't be beat to death if I can help it, and don't see why I should leave my condition up to my attacker.

 

[shibumiseeker]

I am not a big guy, 5'8" 165lbs or so. Up till a year when I was 39 i was 130-135lbs. I have ruptured disk in my neck. A good punch as far as I'm concerned could leave me paralyzed. And if you hit me and knock me down or out, for all intents and purposes I am at your mercy and the beating will stop when you decide to. I "may" or "may not" be able to defend or reciprocate.

Due to all this and more, as far as I'm concerned, every fight is a fight for my life, and once someone initiates violence against me, that's how I'm gonna respond. I won't be beat to death if I can help it, and don't see why I should leave my condition up to my attacker.

My philosophy is similar. I will do everything I possibly can to avoid, defuse, deescalate, and run away from a physical confrontation. But if it is inevitable I am not going to fight "fair." I am going to fight as if my life depended on it because as far as I know, it does. Yes, I may pay the price later, but I have to be around to even have a later and one step at a time as far as I am concerned. Sometimes I have less than lethal means at my disposal, but sometimes not. I will use every advantage I can to ensure I am not the one laying in a hospital in a semi-vegetative state, which IMO is worse than death.

 

[nakinate]

My philosophy is similar. I will do everything I possibly can to avoid, defuse, deescalate, and run away from a physical confrontation. But if it is inevitable I am not going to fight "fair." I am going to fight as if my life depended on it because as far as I know, it does. Yes, I may pay the price later, but I have to be around to even have a later and one step at a time as far as I am concerned. Sometimes I have less than lethal means at my disposal, but sometimes not. I will use every advantage I can to ensure I am not the one laying in a hospital in a semi-vegetative state, which IMO is worse than death.

Unless it is a sporting event or something of similar nature there is no such thing as an "unfair fight" (unless you are the aggressor I suppose.)

 

[shibumiseeker]

Unless it is a sporting event or something of similar nature there is no such thing as an "unfair fight" (unless you are the aggressor I suppose.)

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. There is a significant segment of the population who thinks that physical violence is appropriate at times other than mortal peril, and who fight or pick fights just to "have some fun" or to "teach a lesson." Many of these people post right here on InGO, people who would never think to pull a gun on someone else but who think that punching someone who called them a name or some other verbal slight is fine justification to throw a fist and that a beatdown for some slight is an acceptable response, and they claim they would never want to kill someone as part of it. To those kinds of people, someone fighting back with fists is a fair fight and that person pulling a gun is an unfair fight.

So please explain how you differentiate between what some people call a "fair" fight and what you are saying?

 

[calum]

A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other 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.
(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other 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.

The key to all of this is the sprinkling of the word "reasonable" throughout the statute. That means that ultimately, a jury will have to agree that the defender's actions were reasonable. I think the key to a lot of this is in where you defend yourself. Indianapolis? You'd better wait until you've been hit, or perhaps stabbed before you shoot the guy. Rural Indiana? I think a bigger guy coming at you in a manner that strongly suggests he intends to assault you would be enough for a jury to find that shooting was "reasonable."

 

[churchmouse]

My philosophy is similar. I will do everything I possibly can to avoid, defuse, deescalate, and run away from a physical confrontation. But if it is inevitable I am not going to fight "fair." I am going to fight as if my life depended on it because as far as I know, it does. Yes, I may pay the price later, but I have to be around to even have a later and one step at a time as far as I am concerned. Sometimes I have less than lethal means at my disposal, but sometimes not. I will use every advantage I can to ensure I am not the one laying in a hospital in a semi-vegetative state, which IMO is worse than death.

Exactly. I was taught that there is not anything fair about a fight. You are basically going to war and the winner walks away. This philosophy was taught to me by my uncles. Army rangers with the mindset that once you commit you do every and anything possible to end the war as quickly and decisively as you can by what ever means possible. It is a very sound philosophy. It has served me well throughout my life. It has also had some not so acceptable side effects.

That said, I have also learned that no one clearly wins a fight. There is always a price attached. This could be physically/mentally/socially/financially/legally. Knowing this I am not so aggressive anymore. Partially due to wisdom gained from age and from the knowledge (wisdom) of the price attached. I never started a fight but have ended more than a few. I do everything I can these days to negotiate a peaceful compromise. If that fails, well, it's on.

 

[JB357Mag]

I thought I read that serious bodily injury is
anything that can put you in the hospital.

A hard punch to the head can put you in
the hospital.

If Im punched or attempted to be punched out
of the blue, ie no proceeding argument or issues,
if I can help it the puncher is getting shot.


Jimmy

 

[Yup!]

Two punches, dead.

New Braunfels student dies after punched at school | kvue.com Austin

 

[88GT]

Denial is a real deal my friend. People do not want to believe bad things are going on until it hits them in the face.

Literally, huh?

A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other 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.
(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other 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.

The key to all of this is the sprinkling of the word "reasonable" throughout the statute. That means that ultimately, a jury will have to agree that the defender's actions were reasonable. I think the key to a lot of this is in where you defend yourself. Indianapolis? You'd better wait until you've been hit, or perhaps stabbed before you shoot the guy. Rural Indiana? I think a bigger guy coming at you in a manner that strongly suggests he intends to assault you would be enough for a jury to find that shooting was "reasonable."

I agree. We are given the defense to use deadly force right there in IC. It comes down to reasonable. I think reasonable will largely depend on the efforts, if any, of the shooter to avoid having to shoot. If the shooter is keeping pace with the puncher in the verbal sparring match, it would probably be a lot more difficult to convince a jury that his actions were reasonable. On the other hand, repeatedly retreating, verbally de-escalating (with words, tone of voice, etc), attempts to completely disengage will go a long way towards the reasonable nature of the action.

OP, thanks for the real world info. Academic discussions are great for fleshing out positions, but it's nice to apply them to real situations for comparative purposes.

 

[Yup!]

The problem with this argument is the punch is concealed until a mere seconds before it's delivered. If someone were to point a knife or gun at you, it's an announced threat. A punch can be delivered with less warning than a shot or a stab.

If the puncher were to say, "I'm going to punch you" a better argument could be made that you shot out of self defense if you could prove the threat was credible and the puncher has the capability to deliver a deadly blow.

The other issue is the punch:death ratio is considerably smaller than the shot:death or stabbed:death ratios. Someone who delivers a punch very often doesn't suspect the person will die. Their intentions are to harm - but it's not likely they are intending to kill. If they were intending to kill, they would employ a weapon.

So unfortunately, you have to take a punch or two to determine if it would be considered deadly force. Once you determine that the punches are deadly force capable, then you can respond with opposing deadly force.

 

[Trigger Time]

To be clear, the incident I referenced was not a "knockout game" incident. I've yet to see one in Indianapolis. Just a regular ol' argument turns physical. The victim is not particularly young or old, and I am unaware of any underlying health issues.

There are many good points brought up in this thread, as in the others, and I don't have any easy answers for you. I found the responses of the prospective jurors troubling, and while I don't doubt that many could be swayed when presented with facts and circumstances, it does show that the default is "unreasonable" and you need to overcome that. That's obviously harder than just confirming someone's already held beliefs.

One thing I have done is I started to carry a non-lethal option. While obviously not the right tool for all situations, it does give me more options. This is obviously useless against a sudden and random attack, but if guys are jawjacking and working themselves up to a physical fight, a quick hosedown of pepper spray may let me control the situation long enough to act or remove myself, as appropriate.

Like Denny, if I ever found myself in that situation I think I'd go with a bench trial. I'm curious as to what our resident lawyers have to say about bench vs jury in cases like this.

Good advice! Thanks for the thread!

The he next part of my post is not directed towards anyone, just my thoughts and opinions.
I've also been carrying less lethal options for a few years now. Like BBE said it's not always the answer. sometimes more of an escalation of force is necessary sometimes no force. If possible my first option is to deescalate and walk away. Even if I have to look like a ***** if it means getting out of a potentially life threatening situation. I know who I am, And sometimes it just not worth it. I got all my **** and vinegar out when I was younger. No one gets a broken face, jewels, Ect, Win! Some people will seriously kill you for nothing more than feeling disrespected.
pepper spray - YES. To get away.
keys or a baton (in some areas where it's not worth the risk of a felony gun charge) - YES. To get away.

Some people have medical issues that prevent them from running away from a fight. So maybe their threshold for use of lethal force is higher. I'm not saying running away is the right answer or the wrong answer. That choice has to be made based on the situation.

If my life is seriously threatened and I feel there is no less lethal option then situation dependent I will use ANY means necessary to stop the threat, and get away! If a uneducated or politically motivated prosecutor wants to take it to trial then of coarse that would suck but I would face it knowing that I made the right decision in the moment. I have no desire to kill or seriously mame anyone who isn't a threat to life or serious bodily injury (potentially permanent). If you carry a gun with a chip on your shoulder or to boost your ego then you shouldn't carry one IMO.

Everytime we as responsible gun owners for self defense use choose to leave our residences ( even inside our residence), with a firearm in order to protect our lives and other innocent lives if you so choose (hopefully no one is a coward and would let an innocent person die), you (IMO) risk your personal freedom or at least place it potentially into a courts hands if your forced to deploy a weapon. There's a loss of innocence by being an aware, prepared, and responsible citizen. I prefer this over being a sheep.

thanks to Hollywood, potential jurors without real life experience think that a person can take unlimited punches to the face and body and still get up and go out on the town. Those of us who have even a basic knowledge or experience of fighting understand that when you get hit by someone who lands a good punch, permanent damage is possible. Chipped teeth, broken or ruptured things and even internal bleeding leading to death.

 

[gstanley102]

To be clear, the incident I referenced was not a "knockout game" incident. I've yet to see one in Indianapolis. Just a regular ol' argument turns physical. The victim is not particularly young or old, and I am unaware of any underlying health issues.

There are many good points brought up in this thread, as in the others, and I don't have any easy answers for you. I found the responses of the prospective jurors troubling, and while I don't doubt that many could be swayed when presented with facts and circumstances, it does show that the default is "unreasonable" and you need to overcome that. That's obviously harder than just confirming someone's already held beliefs.

One thing I have done is I started to carry a non-lethal option. While obviously not the right tool for all situations, it does give me more options. This is obviously useless against a sudden and random attack, but if guys are jawjacking and working themselves up to a physical fight, a quick hosedown of pepper spray may let me control the situation long enough to act or remove myself, as appropriate.

Like Denny, if I ever found myself in that situation I think I'd go with a bench trial. I'm curious as to what our resident lawyers have to say about bench vs jury in cases like this.

Great post and follow up.
I am curious about the jury you mentioned in the original post.
I am surprised that a jury could be found like the one in the OP with what seems to be a rash of home invasions in Indy recently.
What information were they given about the case prior to the questioning?
I think this can influence a potential jurors response.

 

[Redskinsfan]

A single punch from an adult male is deadly force. I know personally within my extended family of a man that is presently facing criminal charges because he is struck another man once, the man fell to the asphalt and died two days later in the hospital. That one punch was fatal. I do not intend to ever let anyone strike me with a fist, if I can I will use deadly force to repel it because I know a fist to be deadly force.