The 'won't back down' situation

[Richard]

You better have tons of witnesses and the "aggressor" better be some kind of mega karate master for that to be the case. Pulling a gun on an unarmed man changes the bottom line. switch places for a bit. If you lost your temper and yelled at somebody and they pulled a gun on you then surely you would feel like you were the victim and he was the threat.

Prehaps you could you show me in which of the IC statutes where they require that there must be tons of witnesses &/or that the attacker has to be a Kung Fu master?

That seems extremely limited in scope to me, but then again there must be an awful lot of folks getting assaulted or mugged or raped or etc in front of lots of witnesses by Kung Fu masters every day in this State for it to be of such concern.

 

[kingnereli]

Prehaps you could you show me in which of the IC statutes where they require that there must be tons of witnesses &/or that the attacker has to be a Kung Fu master?

That seems extremely limited in scope to me, but then again there must be an awful lot of folks getting assaulted or mugged or raped or etc in front of lots of witnesses by Kung Fu masters every day in this State for it to be of such concern.

I obviously did not say those were requirements were in the statutes. However, if you are prosecuted for this shooting(which you probably would be) and you claim self defense you are going to have to prove that you were in fear of your life or serious bodily injury and that those fears were reasonable. You would have a hard time of this unless there were plenty of witnesses to testify of the others guys aggression and threats. Although according to the OP the he said ""chill out, I'm not going to hurt you. I'm unarmed, I'm not going to do anything." So witnesses might be a bad thing.

Now if the guy was a Kung Fu master it would help your disparity of force arguments. It is about the only way I can think of that an able bodied male would be reasonably afraid of an unarmed man to the degree that deadly force is warranted. If the cops show up and there is an unarmed man with your bullet(s) in him you are going to prison for a long time. The only thing that might prevent this is if you could prove disparity of force.

 

[Richard]

I obviously did not say those were requirements were in the statutes.

If they are not in the statutes, then they are not legally required.

However, if you are prosecuted for this shooting(which you probably would be) and you claim self defense you are going to have to prove that you were in fear of your life or serious bodily injury and that those fears were reasonable.

Agreed, however I for one find it reasonable for the victim to assume that the attacker's continued advance constitutes such a threat.

You would have a hard time of this unless there were plenty of witnesses to testify of the others guys aggression and threats. Although according to the OP the he said ""chill out, I'm not going to hurt you. I'm unarmed, I'm not going to do anything." So witnesses might be a bad thing.

The victim will have to play his or her cards as they are delt to them, I however would not advise a victim to allow an attacker to get close enough to wrestle control of their firearm away from them though, regardless of what is coming out of the attackers mouth at the time.

Now if the guy was a Kung Fu master it would help your disparity of force arguments. It is about the only way I can think of that an able bodied male would be reasonably afraid of an unarmed man to the degree that deadly force is warranted. If the cops show up and there is an unarmed man with your bullet(s) in him you are going to prison for a long time. The only thing that might prevent this is if you could prove disparity of force.

Abled bodied male or not, there is no legal requirement for a victim to allow an attacker to get close enough to them to disarm them.

Just because the circumstances *could be twisted* in a court room inorder to prosecute/persecute the victim, does not mean the victim is in the wrong or acted inappropriately.

 

[JNG]

Just because the circumstances *could be twisted* in a court room inorder to prosecute/persecute the victim, does not mean the victim is in the wrong or acted inappropriately.

And just because the shooter was in the right in his own eyes and God's, doesn't mean he won't go to jail under the law.

 

[Richard]

And just because the shooter was in the right in his own eyes and God's, doesn't mean he won't go to jail under the law.

No one said the system was perfect, you just have to "do whatcha gotta do" to survive the encounter and hope some DA doesn't feel like @#$%'ing you in your @$$ afterwards.

 

[Boilers]

I have not read all of this discussion.
I have seen reports of fatal one-punch attacks. Empty hands can and do kill, with or without intent. Period. End of story.

I also now know what it's like to feel very helpless. The last several months of my life have been one of recovering from a serious illness. I could do very little for myself. Let alone defend myself. I am still smaller/weaker than I was in junior high school. No way am I going to give another person the chance to take away from me and my family that which I have fought months to regain ... my life.

 

[JNG]

No one said the system was perfect, you just have to "do whatcha gotta do" to survive the encounter and hope some DA doesn't feel like @#$%'ing you in your @$$ afterwards.

 

[kingnereli]

Abled bodied male or not, there is no legal requirement for a victim to allow an attacker to get close enough to them to disarm them.

Just because the circumstances *could be twisted* in a court room inorder to prosecute/persecute the victim, does not mean the victim is in the wrong or acted inappropriately.

This isn't an "attacker" it is an unarmed man walking in your direction. He has yelled, but never attacked. You won't convince any jury that you were reasonably afraid. The gun should never have came out in the first place so the non-attacker wouldn't be close enough to disarm you.

You also didn't answer my question. If you lost your temper and yelled at somebody and they pulled a gun on you then wouldn't you feel like you were the victim in need of defending yourself? I know I would. You would have a better case if the roles were reversed in this way.

So, there better be a large enough disparity of force for you to shoot an unarmed man. You better be disabled, a petite woman against a large attacker(not a guy walking toward you, an actual attacker) or something like that or you are going to jail, and not by twisted circumstances but because you actually committed a murder.

I'm also having trouble seeing why there isn't more acknowledgement that in this scenario there are more options then shoot or be disarmed.

 

[indoorsoccerfrea]

if someone is yelling at me, then no, i am not going to shoot them. i may put my hand in my pocket on my gun, but i wont draw simply because someone is yelling. if they advance and ignore my commands to stop, then the gun may come out. if they continue to advance while my gun is out, then that shows me they are either crazy or confident in their abilities, even against me and my gun. i am a young able-bodied guy, but if some stranger is pissed off at me and is charging, i am not going to risk discovering too late that he has had a knife in his fist this whole time or that he IS a karate master.

obviously different situations call for different responses, but if they ignore commands to stop and continue advancing when i have drawn, then things are unfortunately going to get hairy pretty quick.

 

[JosephR]

Someone approaching me while my pistol is out will get shot as I would definitely assume they have ill intentions. That's enough to get me out of criminal prosecution. You go for a cop's gun, you get shot. You go for mine, you've got the same ill intentions.

 

[Richard]

Someone approaching me while my pistol is out will get shot as I would definitely assume they have ill intentions. That's enough to get me out of criminal prosecution. You go for a cop's gun, you get shot. You go for mine, you've got the same ill intentions.

Yup it's really a no-brainer, I don't understand why so many people are having a hard time understanding such a simple concept.

 

[kingnereli]

Someone approaching me while my pistol is out will get shot as I would definitely assume they have ill intentions. That's enough to get me out of criminal prosecution. You go for a cop's gun, you get shot. You go for mine, you've got the same ill intentions.

I don't think that you are looking at this situation clearly. Here is what we know for sure. Someone has yelled at you. You pull your gun which is way too premature. The guy walks your direction saying he is unarmed and is going to do nothing. Whether or not you feel you should shoot is debatable, but don't be so sure that will get you out of prosecution. I am not saying there is never a legitimate need to shoot an unarmed man, but in this particular scenario if you shoot then you are a murderer and should go to prison.

I am curious to see some replies to my suggestion to reverse the roles. This would bring new light onto why the guy is advancing.

 

[Richard]

I don't think that you are looking at this situation clearly. Here is what we know for sure. Someone has yelled at you. You pull your gun which is way too premature. The guy walks your direction saying he is unarmed and is going to do nothing. Whether or not you feel you should shoot is debatable, but don't be so sure that will get you out of prosecution. I am not saying there is never a legitimate need to shoot an unarmed man, but in this particular scenario if you shoot then you are a murderer and should go to prison.

I am curious to see some replies to my suggestion to reverse the roles. This would bring new light onto why the guy is advancing.

It's not just a guy yelling at someone else, it's a matter of firearm retention.

What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

 

[kingnereli]

It's not just a guy yelling at someone else, it's a matter of firearm retention.

What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

I am having trouble understanding why some people keep saying that it is more then just a guy yelling when the original post says the only thing that has happened to this point is a verbal assault(yelling.) In fact, it is a guy who is no longer yelling. Go back and look at it. I am also having trouble understanding why (since it is just a guy yelling) anyone would pull their gun at that point in a confrontation. I am having trouble understanding why someone would shoot in this situation when you had no business even unholstering their gun. I am having trouble understanding why other options aren't explored then just shoot or lose your gun. I am having trouble understanding why nobody has responded to my role reversal question. I'm having trouble understanding why those that have said they would shoot in this situation won't acknowledge the high probability of prison time right or wrong.

 

[Richard]

I am having trouble understanding why some people keep saying that it is more then just a guy yelling when the original post says the only thing that has happened to this point is a verbal assault(yelling.) In fact, it is a guy who is no longer yelling. Go back and look at it. I am also having trouble understanding why (since it is just a guy yelling) anyone would pull their gun at that point in a confrontation.

Why would anyone pull their gun at that point?

I thought this had already been covered like a dozen times ... because the victim believed the attacker was about to use "unlawful force" against them.

I am having trouble understanding why someone would shoot in this situation when you had no business even unholstering their gun.

So your saying that the victim should just curl up in a ball & allow the attacker to deliver all of the "unlawful force" on them that they want?

I am having trouble understanding why other options aren't explored then just shoot or lose your gun.

There was, the victim pointing the firearm & issuing commands to "STAY BACK" & "LEMME SEE YOUR HANDS" were discussed from the beginning.

I am having trouble understanding why nobody has responded to my role reversal question.

Probably because none of us are stupid enough to continue to advance on someone pointing a firearm at us.

I'm having trouble understanding why those that have said they would shoot in this situation won't acknowledge the high probability of prison time right or wrong.

Because that was already discussed ad nauseum.

 

[kingnereli]

Because that was already discussed ad nauseum.

OK. You completely ignored all my points.

1. The victim had no reason to believe the attacker was going to use unlawful force and would certainly never convince a jury of that.
2. Shouldn't shoot if you shouldn't have your gun out in the first place.
3. Other options include running away, using less-lethal force, etc. not yelling commands with a gun you shouldn't be pointing.
4. Role reversal has been ignored because it sheds light on why the guy was advancing and why you shouldn't be pointing your gun and why you will be convicted of murder if you shoot.
5. The probability of prison time hasn't been wouldn't have been discussed so much if it was acknowledged in the first place.

Try again.

 

[bwframe]

Jeez, 216 posts, lots of arguing.

Against an unarmed attacker, drop into a defensive stance. Just the idea that you might fight back will fend off the average idiot.

Point your weak hand index finger at them while reaching for your belt line and giving loud commands to back off. Better yet, blind them with a beam from your flashlight. If they keep coming, deploy your knife and let them see it.

At this point in time you have a lot of options. A blow with your light/kubaton to the central nervous system. Cutting various ambulatory tendons, etc. There's a 99% chance that you'll just see them running away (while wetting their pants.) All of this before you even think of dropping your knife and going to gun.

 

[kingnereli]

Jeez, 216 posts, lots of arguing.

Against an unarmed attacker, drop into a defensive stance. Just the idea that you might fight back will fend off the average idiot.

Point your weak hand index finger at them while reaching for your belt line and giving loud commands to back off. Better yet, blind them with a beam from your flashlight. If they keep coming, deploy your knife and let them see it.

At this point in time you have a lot of options. A blow with your light/kubaton to the central nervous system. Cutting various ambulatory tendons, etc. There's a 99% chance that you'll just see them running away (while wetting their pants.) All of this before you even think of dropping your knife and going to gun.

Would you look at that? Other options besides murder or getting murdered.

 

[Richard]

OK. You completely ignored all my points.

That's not true at all, all of your "points" have been covered over & over again, so forgive me if I am not that inclined to delve deeply into addressing stuff that's already been discussed.

1. The victim had no reason to believe the attacker was going to use unlawful force and would certainly never convince a jury of that.

The victim believed the attacker was going to use "unlawful force" & that's the only requirement in the statute.

2. Shouldn't shoot if you shouldn't have your gun out in the first place.

See above reply.

3. Other options include running away, using less-lethal force, etc. not yelling commands with a gun you shouldn't be pointing.

There is no statute requiring a victim to flee from an attacker & pointing a firearm while issuing command to STAY BACK is "less-lethal" force.

4. Role reversal has been ignored because it sheds light on why the guy was advancing and why you shouldn't be pointing your gun and why you will be convicted of murder if you shoot.

It wasn't ignored it, it is just not very plausable to think anyone in their right mind would continue to advance on an armed person pointing a firearm at them for any other reason than they intended to make a play for that weapon.

5. The probability of prison time hasn't been wouldn't have been discussed so much if it was acknowledged in the first place.

Try again.

Sure it was.

 

[Muddy_Ford]

Action is faster than Reaction. Always.

I hope you are extremely confidant in your knife handling (slash whatever) skills. Because if you are in close enough quarters to use it then their will no longer be any time to clear your holster before your "assailant" (if that's what he chooses to be) is on top of you. And then you would be fighting for your life. Either way the outcome is solely on the other man. When he stops advancing like he has been repeatedly asked and then told too, I stop escalating my level of force. By the way a knife is still a deadly weapon so if threatened enough to deploy it, why not deploy the one with the better range?????

Plus depending on when this would happen.....like say i was just going to the gas station real quick...the only two weapons I would have at my disposal would be my knife and my gun(my amex cards)...since it is in all reality not practical to get all "kitted" up for a quick errand.

No matter what squeezing the trigger is THE LAST resort. Sometimes presentation of your firearm may be enough, but if you present it, be prepared to use it, and defend your actions later. And always exhaust all other options available to you first.