When to draw or not to draw

[GuyRelford]

Hoping you are still on here Guy.

Scenario, and individual carries as a requirement of their employment and job responsibilities. A Gun Fight ensues during a forced felony. By NOT being LEO the individual is chilled if the perp decides to run away??

A non-LEO may not use deadly force against a fleeing BG, even if he just committed a felony.

 

[Vic_Mackey]

I thought they did away with the "fleeing felon" law in the '80s?

 

[linkinpark9812]

No, the way the code is organized, it's not weird at all. Chapter 35-41-3 is all about "Defenses Relating to Culpability," which means it identifies defenses that justify conduct which would otherwise be illegal. So just like "self defense" justifies force that would otherwise be illegal in Section 2, "citizen's arrest" justifies the use of force in Section 3.

Guy

Got it, so it is just the way they organized the code and they don't want any redundancy so they are stated separately.

But IDK, I guess you should use the word arrest, because the code doesn't explicitly state detainment. I guess, though, like you stated early, say "CITIZEN arrest" so as to not confuse you with impersonating a LEO.

 

[troycowan]

If my weapon ever leaves my holster its because I feel my life is being threatened, therefor If drawn Im prepared to take the lie of another, to save my own or a 3rd parties. that being said I hope I never have to. If BG drops his weapon he is going to the ground, Id either use the weapon to cover him or physically detain him until police arrived. I could be wrong but Id think if he doesnt have a weapon, mine would most likely be holstered.

 

[GuyRelford]

I thought they did away with the "fleeing felon" law in the '80s?

My statement doesn't rely on a "fleeing felon law," it is based on the fact that, outside of the home, nothing in Indiana law justifies the use of deadly force by a non-LEO against a person who is no longer a threat to cause serious bodily injury or commit a forcible felony.

Guy

 

[lrahm]

I thought they did away with the "fleeing felon" law in the '80s?

A police officer nay use deadly force on a felling felon (Tenn. vs. Garner) if the officer fears that person may committ a similar crime/danger to the public. If an officer sees a bad guy shoot a person and he runs, the officer can shoot. If its a simple theft, no go.

Before the case came down (late 70s - early 80s) there were a lot of shots fired for most anything.

Date 1985.

 

[GuyRelford]

A police officer nay use deadly force on a felling felon (Tenn. vs. Garner) if the officer fears that person may committ a similar crime/danger to the public. If an officer sees a bad guy shoot a person and he runs, the officer can shoot. If its a simple theft, no go.

Before the case came down (late 70s - early 80s) there were a lot of shots fired for most anything.

Date 1985.

This has now been codified as Ind. Code 35-41-3-3(b):

(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily
injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.

This is also why I qualified my earlier statement to a "non-LEO."

Guy

 

[lrahm]

This has now been codified as Ind. Code 35-41-3-3(b):



This is also why I qualified my earlier statement to a "non-LEO."

Guy

Thank you. That made it easier to explain.

 

[GuyRelford]

If BG drops his weapon he is going to the ground, Id either use the weapon to cover him or physically detain him until police arrived.

As I teach in my personal protection courses, it is almost never a good idea to attempt to "physically detain" a BG, particularly by yourself. LEOs are trained to "take down" suspects, and even with trained LEOs, that is designed to be a multi-person process if at all possible.

Assuming you are leglly justiified in holding someone at gunpoint, order the BG to the ground/floor with his chin on the ground, his legs and arms spred wide and his palms turned up. Do not approach him, touch him, or attempt to "frisk" him. Stay at a safe distance (well beyond arms' reach) that still allows you center-of-mass shots if he makes a move to cause you harm. Keep him in that position until LEOs arrive.

What you say to the 911 operator (assuming you can make that call), how you appear to LEOs when they arrive and how you interact with the responding officers are all critically important issues too (among other things, to avoid getting shot) - but that goes well beyond this thread.

Guy

 

[lrahm]

As I teach in my personal protection courses, it is never a good idea to attempt to "physically detain" a BG, particularly by yourself. LEOs are trained to "take down" suspects, and even with trained LEOs, that is designed to be a multi-person process if at all possible.

Assuming you are leglly justiified in holding someone at gunpoint, order the BG to the ground/floor with his chin on the ground, his legs and arms spred wide and his palms turned up. Do not approach him, touch him, or attempt to "frisk" him. Stay at a safe distance (well beyond arms' reach) that still allows you center-of-mass shots if he makes a move to cause you harm. Keep him in that position until LEOs arrive.

Guy

Great piece, I have ran into handcuffing problems where it took 5 people to place cuffs on one person. +1

I hear the treadmill calling me, crap. Take care.

 

[lovemachine]

As I teach in my personal protection courses,

Guy

I'd be interested in learning more about these classes...

 

[GuyRelford]

I'd be interested in learning more about these classes...

Awesome! Check out www.tactical-firearms.com.

Guy

 

[lovemachine]

Awesome! Check out www.tactical-firearms.com.

Guy

LOL. Shoulda known it would have been on your site.

Do you know when your 2012 schedule will be up?

 

[GuyRelford]

LOL. Shoulda known it would have been on your site.

Do you know when your 2012 schedule will be up?

I'm still finalizing things with Eagle Creek Pistol Range - so it will probably be mid-February. Thanks for the interest!

Guy

 

[Boost Lee]

Regarding whether or not it's okay to shoot if the BG decides to run after you've already drawn your firearm to maintain him until LE arrives...

I think it's only common sense to stick with your ORIGINAL intentions for carrying and that's to protect yourself from imminent threat.

If he's fleeing AWAY from you, unarmed... Consider the heated situation you were in Done and be a good witness.
If he's jumped up and is reaching for his weapon he previously threw down or charges at you... Your instincts better kick in quick.

Just stating. Guy already has this thread held down, anyway.

 

[Vic_Mackey]

I see what you're saying now, Guy lol. Of course you can't shoot someone in the back. Not only is it illegal, but dirty.

 

[Hammerhead]

I see what you're saying now, Guy lol. Of course you can't shoot someone in the back. Not only is it illegal, but dirty.

Not necessarily. You can't shoot someone fleeing. If I'm behind a guy pointing a gun at someone in an attempt to rob them, I'm going to shoot them in the back if I have to. If I end up wrestling with a BG and my gun is pointed at his back, I'm going to shoot him.

There are times to shoot someone in the back. As a citizen, there is never a time to shoot a fleeing BG.

 

[finity]

However, what about scenarios where you go to pull the gun, and the guy stops his act (drops his weapon, puts hit hands up, doesn't run). Would you continue to point the weapon at him?

Yes

Is he still a threat? maybe he threw his gun out of his reach.

Yes, he is still a threat. Nothing in the IC says anything about the threat being only from a weapon. Until he is leaving the area then he is still a threat.

Also what about pulling your firearm to stop a potentially non-deadly but forcible felony (someone trying to rip a purse out of someone's hand, etc)?

All "forcible felonies" are potentially deadly. That's what makes them "forcible".

Here is the definition:

IC 35-41-1-11
"Forcible felony"
Sec. 11. "Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a human being.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.12.

Can you name any felonies against a person that couldn't potentially end up with with the serious bodily injury of that person?

Rape, Robbery, kidnapping, aggravated battery, murder, etc are all forcible felonies therefore you are justified in using deadly force.

My question is "What is the different between reasonable force and deadly force?"

You already posted the definition of deadly force.

Reasonable force is any force that the average person would consider reasonable under the circumstances.

Deadly force could be reasonable force.

From this law, if someone is trying to pull a purse/book bag/etc (robbery), a forcible felony, is pulling a gun to stop the act reasonable force or deadly force?

Yes.

It is both.

The real question here I think is if the act described is a robbery or a theft?

If the person is grabbing at the purse while the other person is holding it then it is probably a robbery. If a person grabs someones purse & runs off without touching, threatening or using any force against the other person (like taking it from a seat next to the person) I would say it is theft.

So you have to be careful in how you respond. You can't shoot someone for just stealing your stuff (theft).

Even when not shooting, I would constitute it as deadly force.

And the INSC seems to agree with you.

In the exception of pointing a firearm, it says reasonable force is an exception if covered under the -2 or -3 IC's.

I can't find an IC that defines reasonable force, but I did find deadly force.

I think pointing a loaded firearm would be deadly force. But the IC somewhat contradicts itself in "IC 35-47-4-3
Pointing firearm at another person".

And that is the problem here. The INSC decided a case in a way that seems to be in direct contradiction to the clearly worded IC above.

But what if a weapon isn't being shown, but implied, but a place is getting robbed? You would still be covered under citizen detainment? Or would you also be authorized for deadly force because of the implied weapon?

As I said before, the IC doesn't require there to be a weapon involved for you to be jusdtified in using deadly force. You just have to be reasonably sure that your use of force (deadly or not) was reasonable under the circumstances that YOU reasonably believed at the time.

EX:

If a pre-teen kid threatens to kill you if you don't give him your money & you see no evidence of any weapon then even force less than deadly force would likely be unreasonable (unless it's 5 year old girl - we all know how dangerous they can be ).

OTOH, if you are a 100 lb weakling (man or woman) & a big mean looking guy (or woman ) threatens you, even without a weapon, you could be found justified in using deadly force against them to protect yourself.

Right, and you also did mention a violent felony. IN considers a robbery, at the very least, a Class C felony. So if someone you see is being robbed but that person, from what you see, has no weapon, should you still draw AND shoot, just DRAW, or be a good witness? Or a citizen detainment with your firearm? or something else?

Again it depends.

Does it seem that deadly force is necessary to protect the other person from potential serious bodily harm? A weapon definitely makes that justification easier but it's not necessary.

Are you big enough or in good enough shape to physically stop the BG from continuing on? In that case it would be hard to justify deadly force then also hard to justify pointing a gun at them to get them to comply.

OTOH, if there is a reasonable chance that the BG COULD injure you then using your gun COULD still be the right thing to do. You just have to be able to articulate the reasons to the police/prosecutor/jury.

Even if the guy says he has a gun but just has a weird shape in his pocket, I think I would want to take the chance to make this guy give up. If he doesn't have a gun, he is either going to run or give up right there. If he turns towards you, then in your mind, since he articulated he had a gun, could shoot him.

If he SAYS he has a gun & ACTS like he has a gun, it would be in your best interest to take him at his word & respond like he has a gun. You are under no obligation to be psychic or to actually KNOW if he has a gun or not.

I'd shoot.

If you wait till he is turning toward you you are already behind the curve in your OODA loop & you could end up dead.

And that is what is nice. Say the guy gives up right there, doesn't run. I would probably keep the gun on him until police arrive. The "pointing a firearm" law doesn't apply to self defense OR lawful detainment by a citizen. So I am guessing that in Indiana, until you actually fire the weapon, it would just be reasonable force, rather than deadly force. Though, I'm sure its not as cut and dry, black and white, etc.

I think it has less to do with the actual shoot/no shoot action than it does with the fact that the person WAS a legitimate deadly force threat mere moments before & could reasonably be believed to AGAIN be a legitimate deadly force threat in mere moments from now.

It all goes back to what that mythical "reasonable person" would do.

In Nantz the INSC found that pointing a firearm WAS deadly force & not reasonable in Nantz' case because Nantz could not articulate any deadly force threat to himself from the other people there.

If he could have justified the use of deadly force at ANY TIME during the encounter I doubt Nantz would have been convicted in the first place.

I see what you're saying now, Guy lol. Of course you can't shoot someone in the back. Not only is it illegal, but dirty.

I don't think "playing dirty" is a big concern (OK none at all) in legitimate self-defense. I'm going to do what I have to do to win as long as I have a reasonable belief that I need to use deadly force to protect myself.

Fight, scratch, kick, bite, throw dirt, shoot them in the back... If they are still a real threat then all options are on the table.