To the Officers on here?

[finity]

just make sure that if you do have to shoot him you kill him, but as for any other physical violence ur literally better of shooting him and killing him in terms of legality and repercussion.

Wrong!

That's terrible advice. You DO NOT have any justification to kill someone. You only have justification to use deadly force to stop a threat of serious bodily harm or a forcible felony. If the threat stops, then - legally - you have to stop using deadly force. Anything other than that could land you in jail for a very long time.

Killing someone is never better than injuring them as long as the threat is eliminated. Let's say you somehow made a mistake in your belief that using DF was legal in a certain situation you were involved in. If you kill the person then you will now be charged with murder. If they are just injured then it would only be battery or similar.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Wrong!

That's terrible advice. You DO NOT have any justification to kill someone.

The kid approached the man with a knife. That would be more than execuse to defend with Deadly Force.

Justification is relative to the one living. Whose word to accept, the criminally infected kids, or the tax paying, law abiding citizen? Nevermind, America rewards the criminal and punishes Law abiders, tip to the wise.


[

Killing someone is never better than injuring them as long as the threat is eliminated.

Opinion.

Let's say you somehow made a mistake in your belief that using DF was legal in a certain situation you were involved in. If you kill the person then you will now be charged with murder.

Perhaps. But then again, America is going straight to the dog. However, murder might be abit extreme. I doubt the Law could convict on murder if someone even intended to do harm.

If they are just injured then it would only be battery or similar.

Well, again, hooray for America... Punish law abiding folk, and reward Criminals.

Eitherway, I have no problem of defending my family and myself, as it is said... "I pity da fool"

 

[finity]

The kid approached the man with a knife. That would be more than execuse to defend with Deadly Force.

Yes, that's true.

That's not what I was responding to & that's not what abrumlev was addressing when he said "just make sure that if you do have to shoot him you kill him".

That statement goes beyond what the law allows in self-defense. You don't have the right (i.e. justification) to "kill" someone. You only have the right to stop the threat - using only REASONABLE force. If the threat no longer exists, in this case because the attacker has been shot & is no longer attacking, you have to stop using any force whatsoever. You can't "MAKE SURE...YOU...KILL HIM" if there is no more threat.

If that advice is followed then the person would be at a much higher risk of going to prison.

Justification is relative to the one living. Whose word to accept, the criminally infected kids, or the tax paying, law abiding citizen? Nevermind, America rewards the criminal and punishes Law abiders, tip to the wise.

That's a bunch of hogwash. You've been listening to too many sound bites on right-wing radio.

First, our prisons are overflowing so we obviously aren't rewarding the criminals. Mistakes are made & bad people do get re-released back into society but unless you advocate getting rid of part of the Bill of Rights & transforming America into a third-world dictatorship, you have to accept the good with the bad. The only way to make sure no BG ever gets released is to never release ANYBODY who ever goes to jail FOR ANY REASON. Is that what you had in mind?

Second, if you embark on the course of action advised by abrumlev, then you would no longer be law-abiding. You would be acting outside the constraints of the law & would be, by definition, a criminal.

YOU CAN"T KILL SOMEONE WHO NO LONGER POSES A THREAT TO YOU. THAT IS ILLEGAL.

Opinion.

Sorry.

Fact.

I'm sure someone can post court cases from IN that have resulted in the conviction of someone (for at least battery if not worse) who did not stop using force on the other person when the threat to them was over. Singlestacksig just posted several cases recently & if I'm not mistaken that scenario was included in the list.

Perhaps. But then again, America is going straight to the dog. However, murder might be abit extreme. I doubt the Law could convict on murder if someone even intended to do harm.

Umm...

That's exactly what murder (homicide) is - the intentional killing of someone else.

IC 35-42-1-1
Murder
Sec. 1. A person who:
(1) knowingly or intentionally kills another human being;
.
.
.
commits murder, a felony.

If the threat has ceased & you continue to attack then you can no longer claim self-defense. If you intentionally kill that someone when there is no threat to you, that's murder. That's the law. It has happened.

Well, again, hooray for America... Punish law abiding folk, and reward Criminals.

Eitherway, I have no problem of defending my family and myself, as it is said... "I pity da fool"

Hey, I'm sure that you could find somewhere in the world where you could punish even minor trangressions against you with the death of the offender. You know, might makes right & all. I don't think I'd want to live there though. If I had to make a choice between here with all the flaws we have in our justice system & living in the kind of place where people are allowed to take the law into their own hands, I'm staying right here, thanks.

Oh & before you or anyone tries to say otherwise, I fully support peoples right to self-defense including the use of deadly force where necessary. I just also agree that when the need for use of force stops (i.e. the threat ceases) that your right to continue use of force (especially deadly force) ceases as well. It's called being "a civilized society". Get used to it.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Yes, that's true.

That's not what I was responding to & that's not what abrumlev was addressing when he said "just make sure that if you do have to shoot him you kill him".

A dead criminal is the best kind of criminal. Otherwise, we get some disgusting puke lawyer saying the defender is at fault, for not allowing the criminal to have his way.

Sorry, but shoot to kill for this very reason is more than enough for defenders to ensure "A Job well done".

That statement goes beyond what the law allows in self-defense. You don't have the right (i.e. justification) to "kill" someone. You only have the right to stop the threat - using only REASONABLE force. If the threat no longer exists, in this case because the attacker has been shot & is no longer attacking, you have to stop using any force whatsoever. You can't "MAKE SURE...YOU...KILL HIM" if there is no more threat.

Im curious, if the Criminal lives, does he still not pose some form of threat? Legally, Im sure, he'd take up a chance to punish his victim for standing up.

If that advice is followed then the person would be at a much higher risk of going to prison.

Well, then America must Reject this perverted desire to reward criminals and punish law abiding citizens.

That's a bunch of hogwash. You've been listening to too many sound bites on right-wing radio.

I dont listen to Right wing radio. I have common sense.

First, our prisons are overflowing so we obviously aren't rewarding the criminals.

This is your example of punishing criminals? Free education? Free food? Healthcare? Free cable?



This appears to be more of example of the privatization of the Prision industrial complex & compounded by weak punishment.

Mistakes are made & bad people do get re-released back into society but unless you advocate getting rid of part of the Bill of Rights & transforming America into a third-world dictatorship, you have to accept the good with the bad. The only way to make sure no BG ever gets released is to never release ANYBODY who ever goes to jail FOR ANY REASON. Is that what you had in mind?

Child molesters, rapist, repeat offenders, murders (Cold blood killers) all deserve death, including those who seek Gang lifestyles that seek to destroy the community.

Second, if you embark on the course of action advised by abrumlev, then you would no longer be law-abiding. You would be acting outside the constraints of the law & would be, by definition, a criminal.

Says who? Until someone is threatening your life, I dont expect a reasonable answer.

The OP was threatened, if he has kids, which Im sure he does, they are now at risk.

As a father, I am charged with the duty to protect, allowing those who threaten, to live another day to do more harm, seems abit foriegn to me.

Anyways, again. A law abiding citizen who kills a criminal is not a criminal, no matter what the law says in that regard.

YOU CAN"T KILL SOMEONE WHO NO LONGER POSES A THREAT TO YOU. THAT IS ILLEGAL.

You can ENSURE the threat is eliminated.

Sorry.

I know.

I'm sure someone can post court cases from IN that have resulted in the conviction of someone (for at least battery if not worse) who did not stop using force on the other person when the threat to them was over. Singlestacksig just posted several cases recently & if I'm not mistaken that scenario was included in the list.

Examples of corruption doesnt dispove me.

That's exactly what murder (homicide) is - the intentional killing of someone else.

THEN DONT EFFING CARRY A GUN FOR YOUR PROTECTION. It's not a toy, it has the ability to kill. Therefore ANYONE carrying for the cause of protection, is an effing criminal murderer.

If the threat has ceased & you continue to attack then you can no longer claim self-defense. If you intentionally kill that someone when there is no threat to you, that's murder. That's the law. It has happened.

A Criminal sueing someone who defended himself is still a Threat, as his legal actions, seek to disrupt the family.

Hey, I'm sure that you could find somewhere in the world where you could punish even minor trangressions against you with the death of the offender. You know, might makes right & all. I don't think I'd want to live there though.

Not a problem. I dont believe that Society would desire Criminal rewarders amongst them.

If I had to make a choice between here with all the flaws we have in our justice system & living in the kind of place where people are allowed to take the law into their own hands, I'm staying right here, thanks.

Being a Law abider, I think I'd choose to live amongst the other.

Oh & before you or anyone tries to say otherwise, I fully support peoples right to self-defense including the use of deadly force where necessary. I just also agree that when the need for use of force stops (i.e. the threat ceases) that your right to continue use of force (especially deadly force) ceases as well. It's called being "a civilized society". Get used to it.

So YOU would give criminal a right, who had the role been reverse left you dying in your blood, your son tortured to death and your wife/daughter raped?

I approach every criminal with this mindset, expecting the worse. And with this I would be more than enough secure in my position.

 

[abrumlev]

what im saying is there are stories and instances where the person who was having there life threatened and they shot but did not kill that person who was attempting them harm, the person who was shot has pressed charges and won, it happens more often then ud think actually, if i had actual case numbes and what not id list them, but i was merely saying he cant press charges on you if hes dead, i wasnt saying to go out and find the kid and shoot him, i was saying for future instances of your life being threatened by this individual.

 

[Muddy_Ford]

NHV- One small point for you to ponder. A criminal cannot file any type of suit against you if it is judged a righteous self defense.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

NHV- One small point for you to ponder. A criminal cannot file any type of suit against you if it is judged a righteous self defense.

What is needed to say Righteous self defense?

I've seen and heard of alot of situations, where I thought it was pretty righteous, and the defender up getting suied and losing.

 

[Muddy_Ford]

What is needed to say Righteous self defense?

I've seen and heard of alot of situations, where I thought it was pretty righteous, and the defender up getting suied and losing.

One where the Prosecutor, Judge and Officers all woke up on the right side of the bed.

Sorry, but I can't really come up with an appropriate answer to your question because everything is going to be completely circumstantial. I'm sure the definition in each of our minds and the thought process used for each of us to get there, will not ever mesh perfectly with another persons. Somethings will probably just never be able to be black or white because in the real world most things are inevitably be some shade of gray. So all we can really do is train and hope that if the moment ever unfortunately is upon us we react in a way in which we can hold our head up high and live the rest of our lives with our decisions that we will have to make in the blink of an eye.

 

[1032JBT]

NHV


A couple things for you.......I am not a criminal rewarder as you called another poster, but that poster was right. If the threat ceases then you must stop your aggressive actions as it will no longer be considered self defense. You may use deadly force to protect yourself and is said BG happens to die in the course of you using deadly force then so be it, but you can't "make sure he's dead". If you do and it gets found out you did......get used to the smell of friction and burned up anal lube.


You can and probably will be sued no matter the outcome of the criminal investigation (BG dead or not). If I shoot someone in the line of duty and it's open and shut that I was jutsified I will still be sent to a grand jury with the charge listed as........Murder. If the grand jury clears me it still doesn't prevent the family or suspect from suing me. Criminal Murder and Wrongful Death are two completely different beasts.


Just for the record I am speaking from not only the expierence of being a cop for 12 years but also being on the reciving end of someone trying to kill me. I have used eadly force in a couple different ways and it's not something to take lightly........before or after. Thank God I haven't shot every person I legally could have or there would be a lot of people not breathing today.

 

[finity]

A dead criminal is the best kind of criminal. Otherwise, we get some disgusting puke lawyer saying the defender is at fault, for not allowing the criminal to have his way.

Fortunately, you don't get to decide to kill someone "just case they needed killin' ".

Im curious, if the Criminal lives, does he still not pose some form of threat?

Legally, not if he has stopped any overt action that constitutes a "threat".

Legally, Im sure, he'd take up a chance to punish his victim for standing up.

I have no idea what you just said.

This is your example of punishing criminals? Free education? Free food? Healthcare? Free cable?

Ah, now I see where you're coming from.

Yeah, I guess your right. Criminals don't deserve to eat for the time they're in custody. It sure makes those years in prison kind of uncomfortable, not being able to eat & all.

If they get sick while there, heck, just let them die. It's better for society.

Education? Yeah, there's never any chance that getting an education will give someone a chance to become a productive member of society instead of being that "repeat offender" that you mentioned.

Death to all criminals! Smoke a joint & ge the death penalty! Yay!

I think I've heard of that happening...in the middle ages. Funny, it didn't stop all crime then either.

BTW, I agree with you about the free cable, but even with that there are very few people who are OK with being in prison. The only ones I know of are the ones who have become so institutionalized that they can't function at all on the outside.

If you ask anybody who's been in prison if they WANT to go back, most would say no. Some even kill/die to try not to go back after committing another crime. I doubt they see prison as any type of vacation as you seem to think it is.

This appears to be more of example of the privatization of the Prision industrial complex

I don't get it. Are you now saying that we incarcerate too many people that we shouldn't be just to increase profit for those private companies who run the prisons?

Child molesters, rapist, repeat offenders, murders (Cold blood killers) all deserve death, including those who seek Gang lifestyles that seek to destroy the community.

Then lobby to get the law changed to punish those people in that manner. Until then YOU don't get to choose the death penalty for ANYBODY you think DESERVES it.

Says who?

Says the IN law. Have you ever even actually read it? I think that is pretty important information, especially if you carry a gun for self-defense. Unless you don't really care what the laws because you'll do whatever you want in spite of what it says anyway?

The OP was threatened, if he has kids, which Im sure he does, they are now at risk.

Yes, he was. & if he would have used his gun (or any other means) to stop the immediate threat to himself & the other person died then I would support him 100%. If he pulled his gun & the other person dropped the knife & ran &, knowing that, he continued to attack then I would agree that he was acting outside the law & should be punished. Vigilante justice has no place in our society.

It sounds that from the situation his kids would still be at risk even if he had killed the BG. Others in the gang could still take retaliatory steps against him. Do you think that he should have the right to hunt down & kill every person related to the BG who MIGHT do him harm? Where does he stop? When every person who has the Potential to threaten him is dead? Does HE get to decide who has that potential?

Anyways, again. A law abiding citizen who kills a criminal is not a criminal, no matter what the law says in that regard.

So you advocate acting outside the law because you don't agree with it? I have no problem with civil disobedience in some cases but when we're talking about killing someone, that's a little too extreme (for most people, I guess).

THEN DONT EFFING CARRY A GUN FOR YOUR PROTECTION. It's not a toy, it has the ability to kill. Therefore ANYONE carrying for the cause of protection, is an effing criminal murderer.

Nah. You already know thats not what I'm saying. Using a gun to stop the immediate threat is no problem & is well within the law. Don't try to twist my words into something they're not to try to bolster your argument.

A Criminal sueing someone who defended himself is still a Threat, as his legal actions, seek to disrupt the family.

Using that logic, then so would be his family if you killed the BG. Do you advocate killing them so they can't possibly sue you, as well?

Besides, in IN, there is some debate about the ability for him or his family to successfully sue you if your use of force was legally justified.

So YOU would give criminal a right, who had the role been reverse left you dying in your blood, your son tortured to death and your wife/daughter raped?

Yep.

That's the great thing about it. I don't get to decide what someone else's rights are. Society sets standards of conduct among it's members. It's not always right but, as I already said, I don't think I'd like the alternative.

what im saying is there are stories and instances where the person who was having there life threatened and they shot but did not kill that person who was attempting them harm, the person who was shot has pressed charges and won, it happens more often then ud think actually, if i had actual case numbes and what not id list them, but i was merely saying he cant press charges on you if hes dead, i wasnt saying to go out and find the kid and shoot him, i was saying for future instances of your life being threatened by this individual.

Do you think those charges would be lessened in that situation if you actually killed the BG? The person (BG/victim) doesn't bring charges in a criminal case. That is done by the State. Even if the BG was dead, charges would still be brought if the killing was found not to be justified...only now you are charged with murder instead of just battery.

 

[JoshuaW]

What is needed to say Righteous self defense?

I've seen and heard of alot of situations, where I thought it was pretty righteous, and the defender up getting suied and losing.

INDIANA has protections against civil litigation for the defender. I have not heard of a case in INDIANA where someone has been successfully sued for legally defending themselves. Now, this protection is mentioned many times. I have not done exhaustive research, nor am I a lawyer, so I can not say definitively. Like everything else, the laws very in every state. Indiana has a protection that some other states may not. It is worth being familiar with the laws, especially if you are going to carry a gun for protection.

 

[jbombelli]

Looks like a good opportunity to post this copy/paste from the IC. Please read the last sentence.

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.

***************************

My attorney says that means that criminals in the state of Indiana cannot sue their victims. If you shoot a guy in self-defense and that level of force is reasonable, and he lives, he can't sue you. If he dies, his estate/family can't sue you, either.

 

[JHAWK1980]

UPDATE:

I have noticed a few posts here where members have came through the "hood" and how "quiet" it is. Officers have upped there patrol here and school started back. I have to drive my kids and have notified the school and police that 2 of the "kid gang" attend school with my kids. I have also put in a request for door to door pick up for my kids which should start soon.

Also want to add again that I am glad that I did not
shoot the kid. I have heard from so many people
that I should have "killed the sob". Even officers.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in self defense. But I
have no intention of EVER killing ANYONE. Remove
the threat. Had I have shot that boy not only
would I have to deal with that. My wife and kids
would also. I was in a bicycle accident in '97 (I was
17) and the 14 y/o boy I hit lost his life. 13 years
later I still remember his name, his face, what he
was wearing, and the smell of his blood on the hot
street. I will never forget that and it was a accident.
It's one thing to tell another person what to do
but until your put in the position, all you have is
opinion. That's just my