Tasers vs. Firearms... Will the state dictate your defensive methods?

[SavageEagle]

I stumbled upon this article through yahoo. Granted its from the NYT, but this makes a good point. Can and will the states dictate what defensive weapon you can use to defend yourself whether at home or on the street? Scary stuff. Be afraid, very afraid!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/opinion/02robinson.html

 

[Paul]

wow, just wow. some people have no concept of reality. i really think that some of these people dont realize there is just evil in this world and that non lethal ways wont work with them.

 

[SavageEagle]

i really think that some of these people dont realize there is just evil in this world and that non lethal ways wont work with them.

You're absolutely right. But to a point, tasers and such are a good investment for those sheeple who are afraid of guns. They can take down an attacker who is NOT hopped up on drugs. Those that are on drugs, well, you can stop them, but they will get back up. But I mean, COME ON! The second amendment doesn't just apply to federal government. It applies to all government. Remember, the Bill of Rights aren't just rights granted by the Constitution, but by God himself. I know I'm and preaching to the choir, but GRRR it makes me so mad!

 

[singlesix]

Indiana and other states have enacted the Castle Doctrine which puts the right of the home owner over that of the criminal in your home. You don't have a duty to retreat. You have the right to use deadly force.

 

[kedie]

If I'm carrying a taser, and one or both of the darts misses my target, what do I do then? With my H&K I've got another 11 rounds to solve the problem.

 

[SavageEagle]

singlesix- very true, we all know this, they don't or dont care. But still. A Taser isn't a bad thing to have as a BUG or an alternitive to Deadly Force. Yet even with the Castle Doctrine you are only allowed to meet a certain force with same force. So if someone's coming at you with a kitchen fork, you can't pull your OO Buck shotty or SBR out and blow them to their maker. I highly suggest Bryan Ciyou's "Indiana Handgun Law" to anyone in Indiana who owns a gun.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Indiana and other states have enacted the Castle Doctrine which puts the right of the home owner over that of the criminal in your home. You don't have a duty to retreat. You have the right to use deadly force.

Not only in your home, re: IN law. Note that IANAL and TINLA disclaimers apply

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).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and (B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.

If I'm reading that correctly, Sec 2a covers any defensive use of force "reasonably believed" necessary. Sec 2b covers your home, yard, or attempted carjacked vehicle. 2c covers property other than residence (business? ), and 2d covers aircraft. Not sure how you'd implement deadly force on an aircraft, but hey, that's how it reads.

I really like the part where we're protected from *any* legal jeopardy, civil or criminal.

Blessings,
B

 

[Paul]

singlesix- very true, we all know this, they don't or dont care. But still. A Taser isn't a bad thing to have as a BUG or an alternitive to Deadly Force. Yet even with the Castle Doctrine you are only allowed to meet a certain force with same force. So if someone's coming at you with a kitchen fork, you can't pull your OO Buck shotty or SBR out and blow them to their maker. I highly suggest Bryan Ciyou's "Indiana Handgun Law" to anyone in Indiana who owns a gun.

Not true if they are in your house. Now if you are at a restaurant and somebody comes at you with a fork, who knows

 

[AFA1CY]

A hit from a Taser causes an instant muscular spasm that can disable any attacker, no matter how determined.

WRONG!
WRONG!
WRONG!
WRONG!
WRONG!

 

[Bigum1969]

Anyone seen the entire Rodney King Video?

That should answer questions about the effectiveness of Tasers.

 

[SavageEagle]

Not true if they are in your house. Now if you are at a restaurant and somebody comes at you with a fork, who knows

The way I read the law, and the way it's explained in the book "Indiana Handgun Law", If they are unarmed, or surrendering you may not shoot. Also according to case law, you may not shoot them in the back. Now, if they are "turning" to run away and you just happen to place a shot in their leg....

 

[Paul]

The way I read the law, and the way it's explained in the book "Indiana Handgun Law", If they are unarmed, or surrendering you may not shoot. Also according to case law, you may not shoot them in the back. Now, if they are "turning" to run away and you just happen to place a shot in their leg....

Yes but coming at you with a fork = they are armed with a weapon. As dumb as it sounds, a fork can be considered a weapon.

 

[Bigum1969]

Yes but coming at you with a fork = they are armed with a weapon. As dumb as it sounds, a fork can be considered a weapon.

Forks can indeed be weapons. Check this out...

Police: Man Stabs Mom, Assaults Another Woman With Chicken - Detroit News Story - WDIV Detroit

 

[SavageEagle]

Oh its not stupid at all. A tic tac can be a weapon. a piece of paper can be a weapon. it's all in how you use it.

 

[singlesix]

Person is in my home! I am going to see him make a move that to me threatens my life or that of my family. And because I was so scare I am going to put more than one round into the person. Dead man can't sue. You break into my home I am not going to be asking what your intentions are!

 

[SavageEagle]

Dead man can't sue.

I don't plan on asking anything but get on the floor or I'll shoot. BUT BUT BUT BUT! DEAD men can't sue! BUT DEAD MEN'S FaMiLy'S can and will sue! You are NEVER free and clear from civil suits. Lawyers see this time and again. Which is why there are many threads in here about securing a lawyer or at least having a card for a lawyer always with you when you carry.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Forks can indeed be weapons. Check this out...

Police: Man Stabs Mom, Assaults Another Woman With Chicken - Detroit News Story - WDIV Detroit

I'm waiting for the story out of Michigan that the Legislature has passed a new law requiring background checks for frozen chicken and a 5 day waiting period.

 

[Santee]

You always fire your weapon to stop the action of the criminal, twice center of mass, then one to the head. As long as the criminal is continuing to act, you continue to try to stop them. The criminal died as a result of you seeking to stop him in the commission of a crime. NEVER admit that you shot to kill!!!!

That is what the LEO's say about shooting a person. They never shoot to kill, but to stop their criminal action. They are supposed to shoot, center of mass, in other words, center of chest, to stop the offender.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...So if someone's coming at you with a kitchen fork, you can't pull your OO Buck shotty or SBR out and blow them to their maker.

Not true if they are in your house. Now if you are at a restaurant and somebody comes at you with a fork, who knows

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.

Might I suggest that you reconsider that position, Paul (and anyone else who thinks you can shoot anytime someone is in your house uninvited?)
We've all seen the example of the neighbor kid coming home drunk and not realizing he's in the wrong house- I'd hate to think that if he turned around from the fridge with a fork in hand he'd end up dead. Would it be defensible? Possibly. It would depend on whether or not you could show that he threatened you and/or that deadly force was necessary to stop his entry/presence in your home. The prosecutor would most certainly ask if you couldn't have just told him to get on the ground or if you couldn't have otherwise convinced him to leave.

Would you have to live the rest of your life knowing you killed the neighbor kid over a slice of pie from the fridge? Definitely. I don't know from personal experience, thank you God, but I can imagine the nightmares from that would go on forever.

Of course there are times when deadly force is required, and I don't in any way wish to minimize the gravity of that situation. I do want to ensure that the people with whom I chat here are around for a long time. Somehow, I don't think they let you have access to INGO from the state prison.

Blessings,
B

 

[RonPaulSupporter]

So how come civilians are treated like criminals when they shoot an attacker in self defense? I can easily recall two cases of police shooting people that weren't even armed and not suffering any consequences for their actions: ie. Sean Bell who was shot at 50 times by NYPD officers, Amadou Diallo shot 19 times. So how can that happen, but a civilian who is justified in defending themselves from a criminal attack is supposed to use the "less-than-lethal" method of incapacitating the individual.