on the subject of self defense, you can only shoot someone if you can prove your life is in jeopardy..meaning if someone shoves you, you cant put a .40 in their face. If someone punches you, you can't double tap them in the chest with a .45. But back to my original statement, bars are privately held business and can tell people to leave whenever and for whatever reason. I institute a no weapons rule at the bars i manage to cover every single person walking in, gang banger, recreational shooter, someone who carries everyday, sword weilding ninja. If I were to say "dudes who look like gang bangers cant carry guns in this bar" that would be discrimination and make the establishment open to a law suit.
my emphasis added...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.
Like the Monkey said, better to be judged than buried...
It is not illegal to carry in bars in Indiana, I see know reason why it should be either. As for worrying if the report might state alcohol was involved who really cares as long as you are the one not getting a dirt nap. Just make sure that the shoot is a righteous shoot...
on the subject of self defense, you can only shoot someone if you can prove your life is in jeopardy..meaning if someone shoves you, you cant put a .40 in their face. If someone punches you, you can't double tap them in the chest with a .45. But back to my original statement, bars are privately held business and can tell people to leave whenever and for whatever reason. I institute a no weapons rule at the bars i manage to cover every single person walking in, gang banger, recreational shooter, someone who carries everyday, sword weilding ninja. If I were to say "dudes who look like gang bangers cant carry guns in this bar" that would be discrimination and make the establishment open to a law suit.
my emphasis added...
I don't have to prove my life was in jeopardy, only that I reasonably believed my life was in jeopardy. Granted, a single shove or a single punch won't lend too much weight to my feeling. It's been discussed in many other threads. Where do you (or I) draw the line?
Your line and mine may be different, maybe not. Do you wand, pat down, or otherwise ensure that nobody has a weapon in your bars? How do you define a weapon? Horror image of bottle attack on teenager | Metro.co.uk
You know it seems pretty simple to me.
If you carry DON'T drink alcohol, it's that simple. If you FEEL it's OK to drink alcohol while carrying you have a much bigger problem and are probably not really mature enough to be carrying in the first place. It's not really worth the chance you are taking. These two materials just plainly DO NOT go together. One of the first things I was taught about firearms. Also before you go off on my post STOP for a moment and give some thought to what I have just said.
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.
Applies to your property.. Not in public...
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.
Applies to your property.. Not in public. Make sure you make note of the word reasonable, which is reasonable in the eyes of the law, not reasonable to a trigger happy person wanting to shoot someone because they feel threatened. There are alot of amatuer paralegals on this board, I would suggest not taking anything you read on here as the absolute truth. Feel free to consult a lawyer or leo before trusting what you read here. Before someone gets butt hurt about my last statement, sure if someone tells you la hacienda has 2.75 dos equis, believe that. If someone tells you that you are within the law to shoot someone because you felt threatened, don't believe it.
(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 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.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a)
The information is coming from a lawyer, sitting next to me. And trust me nothing in my post could be misunderstood. Nice tone though, you'd be fun to argue with.... Lots of yelling and pouting I'd imagine.
The information is coming from a lawyer, sitting next to me. And trust me nothing in my post could be misunderstood. Nice tone though, you'd be fun to argue with.... Lots of yelling and pouting I'd imagine.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a)
Not your tone, roadies. He said if you are interested, google "self defense" shooting and see for yourself or google self defense and case law.
Not your tone, roadies. He said if you are interested, google "self defense" shooting and see for yourself or google self defense and case law.