Situation question that I'm fuzzy on/ are you going to jail?

[smitty12b]

Just make sure he doesn't have a buddy that came in earlier, you don't want one in the back.

 

[GIJEW]

+1 regarding the decision to shoot the BG, as for going to jail--or not, my understanding is that self defense is an "affirmative defense" for homicide. The burden of proof is on you to show that you were justified. The RO doesn't have the authority to make that call, and would have to take you to jail so the prosecutor/judge can sort it out.

 

[H.T.]

I was trying to find the post on here that quated this IC. But it states that a BG may not bring a lwasuit against an individual who injures said BG while he is Commiting a crime. So if you shot the BG and he lived he couldn't sue you because you paralyzed him.
However I am not sure if this applies to the family if you kill the BG. This does bring up another question. If a regular citizen who kills a BG can be sued by the BG family. Then can a LEO who kills a BG be sued by there family?
Also how many lawsuits have been brought against a citizen or Leo who's killed a BG, of those how many were thrown out?

AS for the scenario. I'd drop the guy.
I know one person on here said they wouldn't because of a possible suit. WHat happens if he shoots the clerk and runs out. Seeing your family in the car waiting for you ,he decides that he should kill them to.
I'd rather take the chance of a law suit, than have to face the fact that innocent people died because I did nothing.

 

[Srtsi4wd]

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.
(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).


Does the above highlighted section mean that a civil suit by the BG's family is out of the question as well? I would think that being sued for money you dont have would constitute legal jeopardy. Or is it criminal legal jeopardy?

 

[henktermaat]

I was trying to find the post on here that quated this IC. But it states that a BG may not bring a lwasuit against an individual who injures said BG while he is Commiting a crime. So if you shot the BG and he lived he couldn't sue you because you paralyzed him.
However I am not sure if this applies to the family if you kill the BG. This does bring up another question. If a regular citizen who kills a BG can be sued by the BG family. Then can a LEO who kills a BG be sued by there family?
Also how many lawsuits have been brought against a citizen or Leo who's killed a BG, of those how many were thrown out?

AS for the scenario. I'd drop the guy.
I know one person on here said they wouldn't because of a possible suit. WHat happens if he shoots the clerk and runs out. Seeing your family in the car waiting for you ,he decides that he should kill them to.
I'd rather take the chance of a law suit, than have to face the fact that innocent people died because I did nothing.

There's lots of "what if" scenarios that might or might not play out in many different ways. You have to cap off your interation somewhere, and I draw the line at my own personal danger.

 

[henktermaat]

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.
(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).


Does the above highlighted section mean that a civil suit by the BG's family is out of the question as well? I would think that being sued for money you dont have would constitute legal jeopardy. Or is it criminal legal jeopardy?

The blue section above is where fuzziness comes in. All they have to do is say you used unreasonable means.

 

[Neo46121]

Ok this brings me to another variable of the scenario. Will it make a difference is said BG is shot in the back while standing at the counter? I know once he heads for the door an is shot in the back it's a big no no

 

[henktermaat]

Ok this brings me to another variable of the scenario. Will it make a difference is said BG is shot in the back while standing at the counter? I know once he heads for the door an is shot in the back it's a big no no

That's exactly the kind of hair-splitting you'll have to worry about as a whole group of people work their hardest to make sure you see prison. I don't know about you, but I can't trust myself to keep a flow-chart of yes/no choices and outcomes in my head in a high stress situation like described in the Original Post.

 

[Wabatuckian]

One word of advice: Drop to a knee for the shot, and aim for the head.

Josh <><

 

[dross]

This is an interesting read. I would not intervene because of the possible legal ramifications. I would not pull my trigger unless me or my own family were in mortal danger. Selfish? probably.

People get sued for trying to help out car accident victims, for crying out loud. It's a nutty world.

Your position brings up some interesting philosophical points.

First, the law. Of course, you should have no legal obligation to take action in a situation like that.

Second, your natural rights. You have the natural right to choose whether to help someone, or not. You would be perfectly within your rights.

Third, your moral obligation. Do you have a moral obligation to help someone else at the risk of your own life? I think you do, but the question must ultimately be up to you.

I'd just like you to consider if everyone shared your point of view. For instance, I see a couple of teenagers beating up an old lady to take her purse, it's within my rights to let it happen - thereby protecting myself from injury - but personally, I couldn't live with myself if I didn't do something.

Or if the guy started executing everyone in the place, but you were well hidden. It's your right to stay hidden and safe, but again, I couldn't live with myself.

Consider the story of Anne Frank (and the countless untold stories like hers). Those people were perfectly within their natural rights to have let the Frank family be caught. That Dutch father, risking his own family to save someone else's family - he could have made a different decision. His conscience led him to heroism, and I'm glad and proud that some choose that path.

 

[dross]

Ok, put yourself in this spot.

Say your out one evening, and realize your in need of fuel. You stop by your neighborhood gas station and fill up. You go inside and get a cup of coffee, soda, candybar, etc. However before you get to the counter to pay for your items someone walks in and sticks a weapon in the clerks face. He hasn't seen you yet and is demanding the money in the till.

Now for the question: let's say you draw your CC'd pistol and protect the clerk by "taking care of business". The clerk and yourself are unharmed but there is now a deceased BG on the floor. The clerk calls the local PD and an LEO is on scene in minutes. Both the clerks story and your own are the same, there was a robbery in progress and you dropped the BG in his tracks.

Are you going to jail? Would especially like to hear from an LEO or 2

thanks or reading an hopefully I get the information I'm looking for

I've read that in some states (I don't know which one) there's a different standard to protect someone else's life. I don't understand the thought behind such a law, but I guess they exist.)

To me, the legal question doesn't enter in to it. Our human obligations are like our rights, we get them when they're born, they aren't subject to the machinations of the whores we elect, who think the law is there to serve them, not us.

When a man points a gun at another man, and then orders him to do something he wouldn't otherwise do, he is telling him with his actions that he's willing to kill him to obtain compliance. Assuming that this is not in the course of the man with gun legitimately doing so (LEO, citizen defending himself) then we must assume that someone (in this case, the clerk) is about to be killed. We don't know if the clerk will comply, and we don't know whether the man will shoot him AFTER he complies. What we do know is we're looking at a human predator who has indicated with his actions that he is about to kill someone. He's the same as said it.

His life is forfeit, in that instance, for the greater good of protecting the clerk, who was going about his legitimate business.

 

[Clif45]

This is an interesting read. I would not intervene because of the possible legal ramifications. I would not pull my trigger unless me or my own family were in mortal danger. Selfish? probably.

People get sued for trying to help out car accident victims, for crying out loud. It's a nutty world.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

 

[CapBuster49]

If the situation happened as you described....the most I could see happening is you being taken to the PD for interviews with detectives, your gun being taken as evidence in the case, and the case going to the Prosecutors Office/Grand Jury for a hopeful result of Justifiable Homicide.



Would you ever get your gun back? If not I will make sure to use a cheapo shotgun in home defense or pack a keltech for CC...