More info on shooting someone to prevent a punch

[MikeDVB]

I suppose I'd rather be alive and in jail than dead and in the ground... That said - sounds like a lose-lose regardless.

I suppose if that was ever the case I'd do my best to make sure my attorney made it clear that people can and actually do die from punches to the face - even singular blows. It happens - it's out there - but I'm no lawyer and I have no idea how much of that could be brought into court... Probably some expensive 'expert' witnesses.

 

[lovemachine]

We need an INGO sparring class with blue guns and boxing gloves.

 

[IndianaResident]

We need an INGO sparring class with blue guns and boxing gloves.

No...jurors in these trials need a sparring class with no gloves.

 

[edporch]

It depends on who's doing the punching and who's being punched.

Say for example, a young large strong man were to punch an elderly man?

When my father was old and frail, one punch could've killed him.
For a man like this to shoot an attacker to prevent this is reasonable.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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.

Home invasions have a different set of rules and is not what's under discussion. IC 35-41-3-2 specifically provides for an intrusion against the home or occupied vehicle as a special circumstance.

No information about the case is given to the jury pool. Trial rules state that no specifics of the case can be discussed at that point. The attorneys ask generic and hypothetical questions, they ask specific jurors specific questions about things they wrote on their jury questionnaire, and then both sides get to strike jurors (for cause and a limited number for no cause).

The questions were very generic. Is it reasonable to use a fist/bat/gun to defend yourself against verbal threats? Is it reasonable to use a fist/bat/gun to defend yourself against a single punch? Is it reasonable to defend yourself with a fist/bat/gun against a punch with more apparently on the way?

 

[88GT]

Why can't I ever be picked for these juries?

 

[bwframe]

Isn't punching range too close for reliable gun work? I mean, sure it's possible, but is shooting from retention (or something like that) the best plan? How many folks actually practice that much? Can the average person draw fast enough to beat the element of surprise?

 

[lovemachine]

I'm just going by the fights I have been in. They always happened fast.

I'm just trying to picture when one would draw their gun. At what point does one fear for their life enough to draw their gun?

When the fist is pulled back, it comes fast. I know that I can't personally draw fast enough to beat a fist flying towards my face.

 

[bwframe]

Gun stuff starts at 1:50 for you hammer/nail folks...

[video=youtube_share;VKDJVkvU2Hs]http://youtu.be/VKDJVkvU2Hs[/video]

 

[Scout]

You don't have to be punched in the head to be injured or killed, google "chest punch death". One of the guys my brother went to boot camp with died because he and a buddy were having a contest to see who could take the hardest punch.

 

[ShootnCut]

Several years ago I was watching a talk show with a young man and woman. The man had been stopped at a RR crossing when the gates came down. He backed up a couple feet, NOT hitting the car behind him. The driver of the car behind him evidently felt "disrespected" and wanted to show his girlfriend, (the young woman on the show) just how tough he was. He walked up to the driver's window and proceeded to beat the hell out of the driver. I mean this idiot went crazy and didn't stop. The pictures showed how badly the guy was injured. Well, the victim of the beating had a LTCH and pulled a 357 from his console and put a single bullet into the idiot's chest. This immediately stopped the beating and ultimately killed the idiot. At the hearing/trial, I don't remember which, they saw the pictures and ruled self defense. Although the young woman was upset at the outcome she admitted there was no call for what her boyfriend did. So, he tried to demonstrate what a bad a** he was but instead demonstrated what an idiot looks like dying.
Even though it's not a single blow case it shows that in certain circumstances an unarmed man can be shot in self defense.

 

[Fargo]

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.

Here is the problem; tens of thousands of people get punched by adult males in this country every day. I would wager that 100's to over 1000 people get punched by adult males in Marion Co. alone every day. Ask any screening deputy prosecutor up there how many come across his desk. Then figure in the probable majority that are never even called in. Of this large number of punching victims, a tiny percentage suffer SBI or death. Once again, ask any screening prosecutor what his ratio of A Misd Battery is to Agg. Batt/Batt w/SBI. It is truly a tiny percentage.

This is why many, if not most, cops/juries/prosecutors/judges do not consider simple punching to be deadly force, nor do they find it reasonable to respond with deadly force. Sure, if you have an eggshell skull or some sort of pre-existing condition, but in general simple punching doesn't get you there. Heck, even a pretty good whupping usually doesn't result in SBI.

I know this goes against the grain of what many on here feel is justified, but as someone who has spent way too much time in the criminal justice system, I can tell you without hesitation that BBI's point in his intial post holds true.

I have been preaching this gun to a fist fight trouble for years. Someone can do everything right and still catch a charge. I will say that the county that an incident happens in has much to do with it. Avoidance is still the best policy imo.

This is absolutely true. This is also part of why I preach the necessity of working actively to elect a pro-self defense prosecuting attorney. IME, the more rural the county, generally the more open to self defense the prosecutor/judge/juries are. Doughnut counties also tend to be pro-self defense; I suppose in part to keep Marion Co. in Marion Co.

Unfortunately, the specifics on a felony grade (not high misdemeanor grade) battery are pretty narrow and don't apply to people walking down the street.[/I] So we are stuck, literally, between idiotic exceptions to the law (if you are a cop or handicapped or preggers, then it's a felony, just us joes who could be killed with a single punch, oh, it's just a misdemeanor, you shoot you go to jail) and the harsh reality of these attacks.

The definition of serious bodily injury is open to speculation...

Not really, it is defined in the Indiana Code as well as further defined in the caselaw.

http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/indiana/in-code/indiana_code_35-41-1-25

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.

That is basically correct. Unconsciousness is specifically mentioned in the definition of SBI linked above.

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.

For me personally, it would totally depend on what county I was in and what judge I was in front of. This is one reason that it is often very advantageous to hire a local attorney. He will know the local terrain and what the local judge(s) normally do or believe about such things.

Best,

Joe

 

[Alamo]

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.

In Texas law, deadly force can be used to defend yourself when you have a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately required to prevent another from using or attempting to use deadly force against you, or to prevent the imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.


Texas law has the following definitions. I don't find "unconsciousness" to be specifically called out (except in the case of sexual assault of an unconscious person), but it would seem to fit the definition of serious bodily injury. Unconsciousness from a punch would basically be a concussion, which is a brain injury. At least as a first responder/EMT, by training and protocol I treat anyone knocked out by force as brain-injured, and let the docs determine otherwise.

"Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing,
death or serious bodily injury."Bodily injury" means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.

"Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

The VERY FIRST concealed handgun permit related-shooting in Texas, 52 days after the first CHL law went into effect, involved one guy punching another and getting shot for his efforts. The newspapers and other antigun types presented it as CHL carrier gone wild, a killing over a simple "scuffle," "a punch or maybe three," a "minor traffic accident;" one of the Texas antigun organizations claimed that if the gun hadn't been present, they two guys would have simply "shouted themselves hoarse and given up." The Dallas police arrested the CHL-equipped shooter, and the DA went to the grand jury seeking an indictment for murder.

The grand jury declined to indict.

What actually happened, as far as I can tell from scattered accounts, was that Tavai clipped the mirror of Hale's vehicle while passing (I believe on a frontage road or exit ramp of a highway) without stopping. Hale followed and wrote down a license plate number. When both vehicles stopped, (again I think) due to backed up traffic, Tavai walked back to Hale's vehicle; Hale rolled down his window thinking there would be a discussion. Instead Tavai started punching Hale through the window. Hale suffered a broken cheek bone and detached retina. Tavai then grabbed Hale and tried to drag him out the window. Hale came up with a pistol and shot Tavai once in the chest, killing him. Tavai was 33, Hale was forty-something IIRC. Tavai was also apparently Samoan. Danger of sterotyping and all that, but I have met a few Samoans and they were big strong lads. I don't know what Hale's physique was like. In any case, the grand jury heard all this and declined to indict Hale.

 

[Amishman44]

Interesting thoughts...how does one 'justify' shooting someone when the 'imminent attack' has not yet occurred? Sort of like the movie "Minority Report" with Tom Cruise! Except that you'd have to prove 'pre-eminent thought' on the part of the perpetrator (aggressor / attacker), which is impossible and not allowed by a court (i.e., you cannot 'prove' what someone else was thinking!)

I hate to say it, but I'd almost go so far as to say 'brandishing a weapon' would be justified if an individual perceived the imminent danger and simply took steps to prevent the attack! If it did prevent the attack, a strong case could be made that the presence of a weapon dissuaded the attack!

Your brain is still your best defense! Stay alert to what's going on around you! Keep your head on a swivel and see what's going on around you is a big step towards not being a victim in the first place! Let others know that you see them and are aware of their presence...while being polite...can reduce the risk of being attacked!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Interesting thoughts...how does one 'justify' shooting someone when the 'imminent attack' has not yet occurred? Sort of like the movie "Minority Report" with Tom Cruise! Except that you'd have to prove 'pre-eminent thought' on the part of the perpetrator (aggressor / attacker), which is impossible and not allowed by a court (i.e., you cannot 'prove' what someone else was thinking!)

I don't have to prove what someone is thinking. I can only act on, and can only testify to, what I can observe and conclusions rationally drawn from those conclusions. If I square up with you, crack my neck, ball my fists up, raise my hands into a boxer's stance and start closing with you those are all things you can see. Those are all things you can testify to seeing. A rational conclusion based on that body language is I am getting ready to punch you. If I threaten you with a pistol and have the weapon in my hand, its not legally required to guess if I'm bluffing or not. I don't have to take the first punch in the first scenario any more than I have to take the first shot in the second just to see what you were thinking. A reasonably prudent person in your hypothetical situation would believe an attack was imminent.

Now again, I think if you shoot someone for an imminent attack of a punch, you're going to have a steep uphill battle to justify it as reasonable.

 

[YoungMilsurpGuy]

Couldnt you just draw and point it at someone coming to punch you, then duck and pistol whip them?

And also, whats the legal stance on using a knife or even shiving the guy with a ballpoint pen? Like the other guy takes a swing at your head, then you either duck or try to block and stab them in the gut?

 

[Yup!]

Couldnt you just draw and point it at someone coming to punch you, then duck and pistol whip them?

And also, whats the legal stance on using a knife or even shiving the guy with a ballpoint pen? Like the other guy takes a swing at your head, then you either duck or try to block and stab them in the gut?

If you can legally stab him - you can legally shoot him.

 

[Fred78]

If what you people are saying about what is an attack is true, then why is it if I lay my hand on a cops arm I'm arrested for assault?

 

[churchmouse]

If what you people are saying about what is an attack is true, then why is it if I lay my hand on a cops arm I'm arrested for assault?

Why not. They have that authority. Not supposed to squeeze the Charmin my friend.

 

[Sgtusmc]

What gets me with this whole issue is that if some jughead want's to start something with me, I'm expected to engage him (and his friends likely) with suitable force to repel the attack. Some of us are older, have kids to think about and aren't necessarily in the mood to be drawn into fights.