Saw a woman beating the literal s**t out of her 3 yr old today...

[Michiana]

Is this a serious question?

But that brings me to my question, had I been carrying (in the ltch app process atm), at what point, if any would it have been legitimate to use my firearm to gain control of the situation? I know it would have had to get way out of hand for me to end up pulling the trigger in a public parking lot, and part of my gut feels like it would be best to keep it holstered, but part of me also feels like that at least brandishing the weapon would have been an option to protect this child.

I dont want to sound like one of those crazy people that the gun control people love to use in their arguments, pulling my firearm to perform whatever vigilante justice I deem necessary, but I feel like the safety of this little kid is also a big concern.

I'm just a little shaken up right now and its kinda eating at me I didnt do more to stop it earlier...

My question to you is are you asking a serious question or just trying to build posts? If pulling a gun in a situation like this even crossed your mind for an instant I have to question you maturity to be issued a license to carry a firearm in public.

 

[IUGradStudent]

This has been an excellent thread and I agree with much of the advice. I do not think showing or drawing your gun would have been at all advisable. I do think that if the woman was actually punching her 3 year old in the face, and if she refused to stop when you approached the car, then you would have been morally and legally justified in using physical force to restrain her. In that case, she is clearly committing a crime and you can stop her. 99 out of 100 times (barring her being 300 lbs, on meth, or a martial artist) this will defuse the situation. A call to the police is warranted.

With that being said, I just wanted to highlight my agreement with Throttle's comment (which I've copied part of below). If I am in my car giving my 6 year old son a dozen or so full-swing, open-hand swats to his rear for mouthing off to his mother, I am going to be darn annoyed if you call the cops on me. Discipline, including spanking, is good (when done for a good reason). Abuse (e.g. punching in face) is bad. Encourage discipline, call the authorities for abuse.

There are far too many people out there that will call in a report of child abuse for a slap in the mouth or a well deserved spanking. It has gotten to the point where children literally walk all over parents in public because parents are afraid to discipline them. I am not one of those scared parents, when my children need discipline they will get discipline. The whole beating them about the head and face thing sort of goes beyond that and I don't consider that discipline but rather abuse. As a child, I got more than my fair share of smacks in the mouth and spankings...

 

[WabashMX5]

Thanks for relating the actions you took in California. Does anyone have info as to Indiana? Is it necessary to identify that you are not a police officer, so long as you do NOT falsely identify yourself as being one?
Example: in the above OP, had I been the one there, would I have been within the law to go up, order the woman to stop and when she did not, grab her and take her down and hold her there, telling her "I'm placing you under arrest"?

Guy? Kirk? Bueller? Anyone?

I don't see anything in the citizen's arrest statute that would require Mirandizing, etc.; and at least one Indiana case acknowledges that an ordinary citizen making an arrest is "not a law enforcement officer acting under color of law," and that Fourth Amendment privileges against unreasonable search and seizure "do[ ] not apply to actions of private persons when they are not acting as agents of police authorities." State v. Hart, 669 N.E.2d 762, 765-66 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).

So -- though I never give out legal advice over the Internet, nor do I do so for free -- I wouldn't expect a private citizen to be required to Mirandize.

But be aware that the same case makes another important point in passing -- that someone who makes an improper citizen's arrest can be sued for money damages. At that rate, you'd better be doggoned sure of what you're doing, because the consequences can be significant.

 

[Sailor]

Let me get this straight. You and a friend witnessed a woman hitting a child in the face 20-30 times and you let her leave with the child?

Am I the only one here who would have not allowed this?

2 men one woman, and a call to 911 that a woman is violently beating her child and now trying to flee. Let the police and DCS handle it when they get there. If she does that in a public parking lot, what will she do at home?

 

[Hornett]

First,

With that being said, I just wanted to highlight my agreement with Throttle's comment (which I've copied part of below). If I am in my car giving my 6 year old son a dozen or so full-swing, open-hand swats to his rear for mouthing off to his mother, I am going to be darn annoyed if you call the cops on me. Discipline, including spanking, is good (when done for a good reason). Abuse (e.g. punching in face) is bad. Encourage discipline, call the authorities for abuse.

SPOT ON


I am surprised though that no one here has mentioned what I believe to be an obvious course of action. Get between the woman and the child. If you grab the kid, you have the possibility of kidnapping charges. If you restrain the woman, you have the possibility (almost certainty) of battery charges. Get between them and do your talking. You may take some hits from the woman, but that gives you the best chance to talk to her and calm her down. While I DEFINITELY DO NOT APPROVE of her actions, some people just have bad tempers and need time to settle down. Her interaction with me would determine whether or not I would call the police and CPS, but she would have to do some FAST and SMOOTH talking to talk me out of it.

Edit: No need for a gun here. Good Job OP. IMHO

 

[GuyRelford]

I don't see anything in the citizen's arrest statute that would require Mirandizing, etc.; and at least one Indiana case acknowledges that an ordinary citizen making an arrest is "not a law enforcement officer acting under color of law," and that Fourth Amendment privileges against unreasonable search and seizure "do[ ] not apply to actions of private persons when they are not acting as agents of police authorities." State v. Hart, 669 N.E.2d 762, 765-66 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).

So -- though I never give out legal advice over the Internet, nor do I do so for free -- I wouldn't expect a private citizen to be required to Mirandize.

But be aware that the same case makes another important point in passing -- that someone who makes an improper citizen's arrest can be sued for money damages. At that rate, you'd better be doggoned sure of what you're doing, because the consequences can be significant.

As usual, I agree completely with WabashMX5's comments.

And as I said earlier, I strongly agree with the many comments that have stated that introducing a firearm into this situation would have been a very bad idea. From your perspective, she is an unarmed woman and you likely had the ability to intervene without involving a firearm. However, the OP’s question points out the very interesting relationship among Indiana’s statutes on “self-defense,” “citizen’s arrest,” and “pointing a firearm.”​

First, “reasonable force” is justified against another person to protect yourself or a third person from what you reasonably believe to be the imminent (or in this case continuing) use of “unlawful force.” Deadly force is justified under Indiana law if you reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent “serious bodily injury” or the commission of a “forcible felony” against you or a third person (as well as in some other situations, inapplicable here). The relevant statute is IC 35-47-3-2, which states in part: ​

“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.”​

In this scenario, no one is talking about using deadly force, but what if you drew your firearm and ordered the woman to stop striking the child and held her at gunpoint for the authorities? This is what creates the interplay between Indiana’s statutes on “citizen’s arrest” and “pointing a firearm.”​

Under IC 35-33-1-4,​

“(a) Any person may arrest any other person if:

(1) the other person committed a felony in his presence;

(2) a felony has been committed and he has probable cause to believe that the other person has committed that felony; or
(3) a misdemeanor involving a breach of peace is being committed in his presence and the arrest is necessary to prevent the continuance of the breach of peace.
(b) A person making an arrest under this section shall, as soon as practical, notify a law enforcement officer and deliver custody of the person arrested to a law enforcement officer.
(c) The law enforcement officer may process the arrested person as if the officer had arrested him. The officer who receives or processes a person arrested by another under this section is not liable for false arrest or false imprisonment.”​

Note here, as mentioned by Wabash MX5, that there is nothing in the statute that says that YOU cannot be held liable for false arrest or false imprisonment if you are not justified in making the “citizen’s arrest.”​

So the question is whether a citizen’s arrest would be justified under IC 35-33-1-4. In that regard, in this situation, you may likely have at least one felony being committed in your presence (battery against a person less than 14 years of age under IC 35-42-1(a)(2)(B)):​

“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;”​

That may allow someone to conduct a citizen’s arrest under these circumstances. But how much force can be exerted in making that arrest, and can someone point a firearm? Those questions are covered by entirely different statutes. ​

Under IC 35-41-3-3(a):​

“(a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:

(1) a felony has been committed; and

(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.”​

So again, what is “reasonable force” under this scenario? This is where the woman’s status as an unarmed female may likely affect how much force would be considered “reasonable” under the circumstances. ​

But again, what about just holding her at gunpoint – without using any other force? ​

That is covered in IC 35-47-4-3:​

“Pointing firearm at another person

Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:

(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.”​

As we’ve discussed, IC 35-41-3-2 is the self-defense statute that justifies the use of “reasonable force” if necessary to prevent “the imminent use of unlawful force” against you or a third person, and justifies “deadly force,” if one reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent “serious bodily injury” or the commission of a “forcible felony”. (Here, is interesting to note that felony battery would most likely constitute a “forcible felony” under Indiana’s definition, contained in IC 35-41-1-11, although again – no one is suggesting that it would be appropriate to use deadly force in this situation): ​

"’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.”​

IC 35-41-3-3 is the “use of force” statute that covers “citizen’s arrests.” ​

So the bottom line to be answered by the responding officers (and ultimately by the prosecutor and perhaps a jury), would be whether drawing and pointing your firearm was "reasonable force" under the circumstances. Ultimately, I think that comes down to a question of whether there were other options availbable to you to cease the "'unlawful force" that the woman was using against her child.​

As always (and again) – this isn’t intended to be legal advice and should not be read as such – it’s just my view of the law and my identification of the applicable statutes.​

 

[dieselman]

My question to you is are you asking a serious question or just trying to build posts? If pulling a gun in a situation like this even crossed your mind for an instant I have to question you maturity to be issued a license to carry a firearm in public.

For all of those who are wondering, yes i really did witness this occurring. At the moment, i did not consider using a handgun at all, the thought didnt cross my mind until later i was simply collecting opinions on if it would have been a lawful situation to pull a gun, my gut feeling was that it wasnt and you guys have confirmed that.

On the note of you questioning my maturity, i believe that is a little harsh. i feel like an immature person would have just got in their car and done nothing. i do intend to arrange training after i get my ltch for what its worth.

 

[masterblaster-c]

You could have pulled the wepon to pistol whip the dumb #*&%$ !

 

[Bisley Man]

Why is it that new members are accused of building posts when they start a thread? All of us had under 50 posts when we were new to INGO. I'm starting to believe that some think one needs thousands of posts and a boatload of reps before they are taken seriously. If you disagree with a newcomer, by all means say so. But "pulling "rank on them and dissing their "new" status is not what I thought INGO was about.

 

[JetGirl]

If you disagree with a newcomer, by all means say so. But "pulling "rank on them and dissing their "new" status is not what I thought INGO was about.

Repped.

 

[ocsdor]

Because in our age of electronics and entertaining gadgets, being sent to your room, the car, or wherever isn't a punishment anymore. It's a chance to catch up on game time or texting.

That is why you take all of that garbage out of their room and leave them with nothing but furniture and walls to look at.

 

[ocsdor]

So the question is whether a citizen’s arrest would be justified under IC 35-33-1-4. In that regard, in this situation, you may likely have at least one felony being committed in your presence (battery against a person less than 14 years of age under IC 35-42-1(a)(2)(B)):

“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;”​

That may allow someone to conduct a citizen’s arrest under these circumstances. But how much force can be exerted in making that arrest, and can someone point a firearm? Those questions are covered by entirely different statutes.​

I believe a more important question is whether you can prove that the woman was committing Battery, and not just exercising her right to give the child reasonable corporal punishment.


​

 

[JetGirl]

That is why you take all of that garbage out of their room and leave them with nothing but furniture and walls to look at.

You're preaching to the choir.
I'd rather my kid not even crutch on all that stuff.
First time we went to a new-to-us dentist when we moved here, they handed my girl a GameBoy to pass the time. She said, "what does this do?"
They told her it was a game. She looked at it for several minutes...then put it down and picked up a book.
Yay me.

 

[ar15junkie]

I assume you are speaking of a force continuum?

Everyone should read up on what that is... it could save them from a lot of trouble.

I'm no lawyer but heres my basic understanding.

Disparity of force is more about how and when you can use a certain level of force against another. An example would be, a 250lb UFC fighter in top physical condition should not need to use your handgun to stop a scrawny 140lb guy from committing a crime. Assuming the scrawny guy has no weapons or other modifiers of force.

Now the reverse, considering the disparity of force rules would say that the scrawny guy could use a knife or bat or gun even to prevent the UFC fighter from committing the same crime.

The rules would change if perhaps there were 2 or 3 scrawny guys against 1 UFC fighter.

 

[Cygnus]

Repped.

I repped him as well. This is a not a "post building" thread IMO. It has substance and legit questions. Much different from the "I like cheese do you?" Post padding threads.

 

[Cygnus]

I believe a more important question is whether you can prove that the woman was committing Battery, and not just exercising her right to give the child reasonable corporal punishment.


[/left]

If the beating was as described there would be marks on the kid's face. Hitting a child in the face is not "reasonable corporal punishment" as far the laws go.
IANAL.

 

[GuyRelford]

I believe a more important question is whether you can prove that the woman was committing Battery, and not just exercising her right to give the child reasonable corporal punishment.


[/left]

I didn't assume it was actually a battery (although the OP made is sound like one) - that is why I used the word "may."

 

[SMiller]

There is no brandishing law in Indiana, put your hand on your weapon while it is in the holster and approach the vehicle, you need to be on high alert when you come to the door because the crazed mother could reach in her purse or _______ and grab a weapon. Stop her with the least amount of force possible and go from there. Wait for IMPD to show and they will take it from there.

 

[ocsdor]

There is no brandishing law in Indiana, put your hand on your weapon while it is in the holster and approach the vehicle, ...

This is called Intimidation with a deadly weapon, and it IS a Felony.

I suggest you read all the prior post in this thread.

 

[Cat-Herder]

I was taught that the gun only comes out when it's time to shoot, and to use all other means to mitigate a problem before it comes to that.

It's always been a sad, injust world. It's good to know there's still a few good guys out there.