The 'won't back down' situation

[kingnereli]

Sure it was.

So the victim believed the attacker was going to us unlawful force. Ok. How are you going to prove that fear was reasonable in court? What you keep dodging is that that the "victim" wasn't reasonably afraid that the attacker was going to use unlawful force. A person could shoot their mail man and "say" he was afraid he was planting a bomb or some other ridicules claim. Because he was afraid doesn't justify the actions because it wasn't a reasonable fear. In the current scenario no reasonable person would have this fear of an unarmed man who has done no more then yell at you given there isn't a disparity of force. I understand the suspicion and remaining alert, but neither of those things are fear. If you pull the trigger you are committing a murder.

You are correct. There is no duty to flee but sometimes it is the best thing. If the whole point is to stay alive then running away is always a viable option. You also get the added benefit of staying out of prison. Fleeing can get you killed in certain circumstances, but when your "attacker" is unarmed and hasn't presented a threat running is better then shooting. You would quickly get tires of shooting everybody who didn't threaten you and didn't attack you. Less lethal alternatives include pepper spray, some blunt weapon or another, stun/taser gun not yelling a command while pointing a gun.

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.

alright, so you think the victim would make a play for the attackers weapon. That may be true if there were no alternatives. If someone pulled a gun on me just for yelling at them my reasonable fear for my life would cause me to try to defend myself in one way or another. The role reversal shows why the guy might be advancing. If you pull a gun on someone for yelling you become the attacker and him the victim. He would have reasonable fear for his life and would be justified in using deadly force on you. If the victim doesn't feel he has a way of escape from a pointed gun and has no other means to protect himself he my see no other option then making a play for your gun. I'll ask again. Why would you do if you lost your temper and yelled at another person only to have a gun pulled on you. Regardless of what particular actions you chose you would feel like the victim.

 

[Boilers]

-Tell the oncoming perp that you consider his advances a lethal threat and will shoot him to defend yourself.

 

[kingnereli]

-Tell the oncoming perp that you consider his advances a lethal threat and will shoot him to defend yourself.

Is this supposed to exonerate you in court? "But judge, I told him that walking towards me was a lethal threat and I would shoot him to defend myself from him walking towards me." I think it would only serve to make yourself feel better about a shooting that is questionable at best.

 

[Boilers]

You worry a lot about step 2.
Get past (LIVE past) step 1, k?

You've got your plan worked out. Let him get within arm's reach of you and your deadly weapon, maybe smooch with him a bit, and THEN see if he's a big meanie. You can go happily along your way with that game plan. It's obvious no one ELSE gives a damn.

 

[kingnereli]

You worry a lot about step 2.
Get past (LIVE past) step 1, k?

You've got your plan worked out. Let him get within arm's reach of you and your deadly weapon, maybe smooch with him a bit, and THEN see if he's a big meanie. You can go happily along your way with that game plan. It's obvious no one ELSE gives a damn.

I suddenly see why you are willing to shoot an unarmed man.

I don't draw my gun every time someone walks my direction. Your just being silly at this point. How did your feelings get hurt?
The logical conclusion is that you can't respond to what I have said so your trying to be insulting.

 

[JNG]

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.

It doesn't matter how strongly you believe that that's what the law should be--that's not what the law is. If you kill someone with empty hands just for walking towards you, you will probably have an uphill climb in your criminal trial.

It's one thing to argue "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six"--I get that. It's another thing altogether to insist on this delusional fantasy that it's possible to shoot unarmed people without facing criminal prosecution (regardless of whether the shooting was objectively right or wrong).

 

[Richard]

So the victim believed the attacker was going to us unlawful force. Ok. How are you going to prove that fear was reasonable in court?

Don't you mean; how is the prosecuter going to prove that it wasn't reasonable?

What you keep dodging is that that the "victim" wasn't reasonably afraid that the attacker was going to use unlawful force.

I've dodged nothing, I just disagree.

A person could shoot their mail man and "say" he was afraid he was planting a bomb or some other ridicules claim. Because he was afraid doesn't justify the actions because it wasn't a reasonable fear.

Non sequitur.

In the current scenario no reasonable person would have this fear of an unarmed man who has done no more then yell at you given there isn't a disparity of force.

I disagree, I think it's safe to say that most assault & batteries generally start off with some sort of a verbal assault as a precursor.

I understand the suspicion and remaining alert, but neither of those things are fear. If you pull the trigger you are committing a murder.

Indiana law is clear, the victim is legally allowed to point their handgun at someone they believe is about to use "unlawful force" on them.

The victim is also legally allowed to use deadly force in order to maintain control of that handgun.

You are correct. There is no duty to flee but sometimes it is the best thing. If the whole point is to stay alive then running away is always a viable option.

The victim in this scenario (for only reasons known to them) choose not to flee & since they are under no legal obligation to do so, they then cannot be punished for not doing so.

You also get the added benefit of staying out of prison. Fleeing can get you killed in certain circumstances, but when your "attacker" is unarmed and hasn't presented a threat running is better then shooting.You would quickly get tires of shooting everybody who didn't threaten you and didn't attack you. Less lethal alternatives include pepper spray, some blunt weapon or another, stun/taser gun not yelling a command while pointing a gun.

We arn't talking about someone who didn't threaten anyone else, we are dealing with a specific scenario involving a clearly aggressive attacker & a victim who is not going to allow violence to be delt upon them, a scenario which you keep expanding & redefining.

alright, so you think the victim would make a play for the attackers weapon. That may be true if there were no alternatives.

See above reply.

If someone pulled a gun on me just for yelling at them my reasonable fear for my life would cause me to try to defend myself in one way or another. The role reversal shows why the guy might be advancing. If you pull a gun on someone for yelling you become the attacker and him the victim. He would have reasonable fear for his life and would be justified in using deadly force on you. If the victim doesn't feel he has a way of escape from a pointed gun and has no other means to protect himself he my see no other option then making a play for your gun. I'll ask again. Why would you do if you lost your temper and yelled at another person only to have a gun pulled on you. Regardless of what particular actions you chose you would feel like the victim.

The law doesn't change simply because you put yourself in the attackers shoes instead of the victims shoes.

If you don't like the laws as they are written, I suggest that you petition your local State Representative to have them changed.

 

[kingnereli]

The law doesn't change simply because you put yourself in the attackers shoes instead of the victims shoes.

If you don't like the laws as they are written, I suggest that you petition your local State Representative to have them changed.

In a self defense claim at your murder trial you would have to present a case that what you did was what any reasonable person would do. Indiana law will NOT protect you in this case. That's the bottom line. It's unreasonable to be afraid of an unarmed man who has neither threatened you nor attacked you. I like that the laws don't protect murderers.

I take it that claiming my argument is non-sequitur is your way of saying you have no response. The mail man comment is relevant because simply saying or feeing that you were afraid is not enough to justify using deadly force. It has to be reasonable fear. This is the part that you are ignoring. Saying you were afraid for you life will help but when the cops see the unarmed dead guy and interview witnesses to find out that he was saying "I'm not going to do anything" you will go to prison. Even if you think he was going to do something.

I didn't say the victim (who is really the attacker if he shoots) should be punished for not running. Read what I said again. You must have missed something.

I have expanded and redefined nothing. I have been using the parameters of the original post the whole time. You, however, are guilty of this. You refer to an unarmed man who has done nothing more then yell as an "attacker." You have referred to overzealous, paranoid man who is afraid of people walking his direction as a "victim." Those are not rational descriptions of the players in this scenario.

You, again, ignored my question. It is a very simple question so it says a lot that you won't answer it. This time I'll make it as simple as possible. Yes or no, if you yelled at someone and they pulled a gun on you would you feel like the victim.

 

[Boilers]

Context with knife/club/etc. if/when I locate the rest of his discussion on ANY threat, as quoted above, I will post it.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7DD9yXMG-U[/ame]

 

[kingnereli]

Context with knife/club/etc. if/when I locate the rest of his discussion on ANY threat, as quoted above, I will post it.

Do you see how he restricted what was reasonable to the presence of some type of weapon? If the man in this scenario had a weapon there wouldn't be any argument.

 

[Richard]

In a self defense claim at you murder trial you would have to present a case that what you did was what any reasonable person would do. Indiana law will NOT protect you in this case.

The victim in this scenario was acting in accordiance with the law, regardless of your constant insistence to the contrary.

That's the bottom line. It's unreasonable to be afraid of an unarmed man who has neither threatened you nor attacked you. I like that the laws don't protect murderers.

You're the one who's being unreasonable.

I take it that claiming my argument is non-sequitur is your way of saying you have no response. The mail man comment is relevant because simply saying or feeing that you were afraid is not enough to justify using deadly force. It has to be reasonable fear. This is the part that you are ignoring. Saying you were afraid for you life will help but when the cops see unarmed dead guy and interview witnesses to find out that he was saying "I'm not going to do anything" you will go to prison. Even if you think he was going to do something.

Your "shoot the mailman" comment's were asinine & held no relevance to the topic at hand.

I didn't say the victim (who is really the attacker if they shoot) should be punished for not running. Read what I said again. You must have missed something.

Umm you keep saying the victim should be charged with murder because the victim didn't flee, that's what I would consider "punished for not running".

I have expanded and redefined nothing. LOL I have been using the parameters of the original post the whole time ROFLMAO. You, however, are guilty of this. You refer to an unarmed man who has done nothing more then yell as an "attacker." prevented from doing anything more you mean. You have referred to overzealous, paranoid man who is afraid of people walking their direction as a "victim." Those are not rational description of the players in this scenario.

I say tomato & you say tamato.

You, again, ignored my question. It is a very simple question so it says a lot that you won't answer it. This time I'll make it as simple as possible. Yes or no, if you yelled at someone and they pulled a gun on you would you feel like the victim.

What part of the victim's fear for their safety "trumps the resulting attackers fear" are you having problems understanding?

 

[JNG]

What part of the victim's fear for their safety "trumps the resulting attackers fear" are you having problems understanding?

You keep stating your opinion for what you would like the law to be, and keep ignoring what it has been shown to be.

For example, how do you square your unfounded opinion with the Piper case I quoted previously?

 

[Richard]

You keep stating your opinion for what you would like the law to be, and keep ignoring what it has been shown to be.

For example, how do you square your unfounded opinion with the Piper case I quoted previously?

My "unfounded opinion" of what the law is, is taken directly & almost word for word from:

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;

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.

 

[kingnereli]

The victim in this scenario was acting in accordiance with the law, regardless of your constant insistence to the contrary.

That statement has been shown to be simply not true.

You're the one who's being unreasonable.

Again, not true. I'm trying to understand what you think is reasonable about shooting a unarmed man that hasn't attacked you.

Your "shoot the mailman" comment's were asinine & held no relevance to the topic at hand.

There relevance is that you hava as much chance of acquittal in this situation as you would if you shot your mailman for walking towards you.

Umm you keep saying the victim should be charged with murder because the victim didn't flee, that's what I would consider "punished for not running".

I keep saying that the attacker will be convicted of murder because he shot an unarmed man.

I say tomato & you say tamato.

You say self defense shooting & the jury says 15 to life.

What part of the victim's fear for their safety "trumps the resulting attackers fear" are you having problems understanding?

I take it that you're just not going to answer my question. So you must know that your answer is detrimental to your argument.

 

[kingnereli]

My "unfounded opinion" of what the law is, is taken directly & almost word for word from:

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;

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 personreasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.

Do you get the point yet?

 

[JNG]

My "unfounded opinion" of what the law is, is taken directly & almost word for word from:

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;

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.

We've discussed those statutes at length, including particularly how they don't mean what you think they mean in light of the statutory language and cases that interpret and apply them.

Rather than repeat the preceding 20 pages, I simply invite you to re-read it carefully.

 

[Richard]

That statement has been shown to be simply not true.

Read & then reread the posted IC statutes & then go back and read & reread my comments, a "reasonable person" would find them to be very consistant with each other.

Again, not true. I'm trying to understand what you think is reasonable about shooting a unarmed man that hasn't attacked you.

What part of the use of the word "imminent" in the IC statutes did you not understand?

There relevance is that you hava as much chance of acquittal in this situation as you would if you shot your mailman for walking towards you.

Once again you trumpet out the mailman nonsense?

I keep saying that the attacker will be convicted of murder because he shot an unarmed man.

That's because you keep leaving out the fact that deadly force is justified by the victim to ensure retention of the victims weapon.

You say self defense shooting & the jury says 15 to life.

I take it that you're just not going to answer my question. So you must know that your answer is detrimental to your argument.

Which question is that? the one about shooting up mailmen? or the one about the attackers "feelings"?

 

[Richard]

We've discussed those statutes at length, including particularly how they don't mean what you think they mean in light of the statutory language and cases that interpret and apply them.

So you're arguement is that the courts have ruled that what is written in the IC statutes isn't what is really the law?

Rather than repeat the preceding 20 pages, I simply invite you to re-read it carefully.

I'd much rather get some housework done today.

 

[kingnereli]

Read & then reread the posted IC statutes & then go back and read & reread my comments, a "reasonable person" would find them to be very consistant with each other.

That is just your opinion and is quite inaccurate.

What part of the use of the word "imminent" in the IC statutes did you not understand?

What part of the word "reasonable" in the IC statutes did you not understand?

Once again you trumpet out the mailman nonsense?

Mailman nonsense = shooting unarmed victim nonsense.

That's because you keep leaving out the fact that deadly force is justified by the victim to ensure retention of the victims weapon.

Given the details of the scenario the attackers weapon should never have came into play against an unarmed man.

Which question is that? the one about shooting up mailmen? or the one about the attackers "feelings"?

The question that shows that reasonable deadly force can be used if someone pulls a gun on you for yelling.

At the risk of oversimplifying your responses it seems that you are ignoring certain details of the scenario as well as misinterpreting the applicable IC statues. You can not reasonably expect to shoot an unarmed man who has done you no harm and is not committing a forceable felony and not go to prison. Yes, the threat has to be imminent but the force has to be reasonable. You may chalk this up as an acceptable outcome or a injustice in the system but Indiana law won't protect you in this situation.

What is most aggravating is that there are several other options then shoot or be disarmed that will keep you alive and out of prison. I don't want to see you or anyone you may be influencing to go to prison because they stepped over the line do to a misunderstanding the law. Deadly force can not come into play unless you have a reasonable fear of imminent unlawful force or are preventing a forceable felony. Neither applies to this scenario.

In fact, if someone pulls a gun on me for yelling at them I would surely do whatever I could to stop that imminent threat of unlawful force. It's only reasonable to do so.

 

[Richard]

blah blah blah, buh, blah blah blah.

/end conversation.