When to draw or not to draw

[lrahm]

If the guy had a gun and dropped it and put up his hands, you would still not want people to draw?

I am sorry but I disagree with this. Many a criminal has changed their minds both ways. There is no way if a guy had a gun and dropped it would I give him a chance to reconsider his actions and then we are both raising to the draw.

He can always pick the gun up. If I am in that situation he will have a gun on him until I get back-up. I would not try to restrain by myself. I cannot tell you what to do. Every event is different from the next.

 

[lrahm]

One more thing, and I am looking for Guy to "put his two cents in" on this. Be preparred for the local prosecutors to have different takes on different laws. Some prosecutors might be more aggtessive than others while some will look at cases that they can win or a "slam dunk". Meaning the charges that should have been filed suddenly have changed. What one prosecutor might perceive as one charge another might feel it's the lesser one. They will also deliberate for hours what you might have decided to do in less than a second.

 

[linkinpark9812]

One more thing, and I am looking for Guy to "put his two cents in" on this. Be preparred for the local prosecutors to have different takes on different laws. Some prosecutors might be more aggtessive than others while some will look at cases that they can win or a "slam dunk". Meaning the charges that should have been filed suddenly have changed. What one prosecutor might perceive as one charge another might feel it's the lesser one. They will also deliberate for hours what you might have decided to do in less than a second.

+1000. That made me think of ppl at sporting events complaining for hours about a play and what the player could have done better. And I always think, that the decision he made was a split second, and at that exact moment, that is what seemed right to him. You would just have to make a good case if you got taken to court.

 

[GuyRelford]

One more thing, and I am looking for Guy to "put his two cents in" on this. Be preparred for the local prosecutors to have different takes on different laws. Some prosecutors might be more aggtessive than others while some will look at cases that they can win or a "slam dunk". Meaning the charges that should have been filed suddenly have changed. What one prosecutor might perceive as one charge another might feel it's the lesser one. They will also deliberate for hours what you might have decided to do in less than a second.

I agree completely.

 

[lrahm]

To make matters worse. Some prosecutors have been in office so long that they appear to have the local police detectives trained on what the prosecutor will take and how it will be prosecuted. It's like have a bunch of junior deputy prosecutors running around.

 

[GlockZ]

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?

Robbery is robbery I'm not going to ask them if they have a gun I'm going to draw as if they do! Second if someone leads you to reasonably believe they have a gun. Example hand in jacket with two fingers sticking out made to look like a gun is still armed robbery. Either way I'm drawing.......... Either way!

 

[linkinpark9812]

Robbery is robbery I'm not going to ask them if they have a gun I'm going to draw as if they do! Second if someone leads you to reasonably believe they have a gun. Example hand in jacket with two fingers sticking out made to look like a gun is still armed robbery. Either way I'm drawing.......... Either way!

Right. I think I would too. But would you draw and SHOOT?

 

[heisenberg]

Right. I think I would too. But would you draw and SHOOT?

If he was pointing those two fingers in his jacket at me then yes. The robber is leading me to believe he's armed and by pointing his 'gun' at me, whether it's actually real or not... well, then the trigger is going to get pulled.

If he was pointing it at the register operator or someone else I'd give fair warning. Giving a command like "Don't move or I'll shoot!" will quickly give you all the information you need on whether you should shoot or not. If he doesn't move then I wouldn't fire - legally, from my understanding, you could've shot him before even giving him the command but I'm not in the business of making decisions without all the information I can get out of the situation. But if he, in a moment of stupidity, then turned toward me with the two fingers still in his pocket then yeah...I'd let the trigger get squeezed again.

It might be selfish or cowardly to wait and risk an innocent person getting killed but I'd rather have that on my conscious than killing someone with no real intention of killing someone else. Again, that's just my moral position. I think the law disagrees with my morals though...

 

[linkinpark9812]

If he was pointing those two fingers in his jacket at me then yes. The robber is leading me to believe he's armed and by pointing his 'gun' at me, whether it's actually real or not... well, then the trigger is going to get pulled.

If he was pointing it at the register operator or someone else I'd give fair warning. Giving a command like "Don't move or I'll shoot!" will quickly give you all the information you need on whether you should shoot or not. If he doesn't move then I wouldn't fire - legally, from my understanding, you could've shot him before even giving him the command but I'm not in the business of making decisions without all the information I can get out of the situation. But if he, in a moment of stupidity, then turned toward me with the two fingers still in his pocket then yeah...I'd let the trigger get squeezed again.

It might be selfish or cowardly to wait and risk an innocent person getting killed but I'd rather have that on my conscious than killing someone with no real intention of killing someone else. Again, that's just my moral position. I think the law disagrees with my morals though...

I would agree. 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.

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.

Also it is an interesting read about shooting a fleeing felon. If you look under the -3 IC, it is ONLY for LEO. So you could never shoot someone fleeing, no matter how much you can articulate that he was going to harm someone else, unless you see the act occur or is about to occur. That's how I interpreted it. I'll post it below.

IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(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.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.9; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.2; P.L.245-1993, SEC.1.

So citizens can only use deadly force in a citizen detainment situation only under Section 2 (self defense). LEO have it a little different, but it is interesting to know.

 

[Double T]

Interesting. Since I've been carrying I've been wondering what I would do in the event of a robbery. I know most of the people where I shop. They know me. I don't know if I would give warning. They are just trying to do their job after all, no need for an asshat to point or pretend to point a muzzle at them.

I had been wondering as well how a citizen's detainment would work. Interesting read(s) for sure.

 

[linkinpark9812]

Interesting. Since I've been carrying I've been wondering what I would do in the event of a robbery. I know most of the people where I shop. They know me. I don't know if I would give warning. They are just trying to do their job after all, no need for an asshat to point or pretend to point a muzzle at them.

I had been wondering as well how a citizen's detainment would work. Interesting read(s) for sure.

Ya, I knew how citizen detainment worked before, but I thought about if you used a firearm, would that be legal? That's why I posted to get everyone's views on it. It seems like you CAN, but it def. is a case-by-case basis.

 

[GuyRelford]

Why are you guys using the term "detainment"? I understand the meaning of the term, but the name of the chapter in the Indiana Code is "arrest."

 

[linkinpark9812]

Why are you guys using the term "detainment"? I understand the meaning of the term, but the name of the chapter in the Indiana Code is "arrest."

Well after doing some training with LEOs, it's just in my head to use arrest when an actual LEO is charging you with something, while detainment is holding you due to having a reason to believe that you have committed a crime. Civilians can only "detain" AFAIK.

Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:

The title just says relating to an arrest. It also says "to effect an arrest" or "prevent their escape", not to arrest. So detaining would be "to effect an arrest" when a LEO shows up. That's just how I see it as. My .

 

[Double T]

Probably because as soon as police arrive I will probably be detained and disarmed as well.

Citizens arrest in Indiana is holding someone until you can call police and turn them over.

I believe it's IC 35-33-1-4?

 

[GuyRelford]

Well after doing some training with LEOs, it's just in my head to use arrest when an actual LEO is charging you with something, while detainment is holding you due to having a reason to believe that you have committed a crime. Civilians can only "detain" AFAIK.

The title just says relating to an arrest. It also says "to effect an arrest" or "prevent their escape", not to arrest. So detaining would be "to effect an arrest" when a LEO shows up. That's just how I see it as. My .

No, a citizen can definitely "arrest" another person. Ind. Code 35-33-1 is entitled "Arrest," and Section 4 states:

Any person
Sec. 4. (a) Any person may arrest any other person if:
(1) the other person committed a felony in his presence;
(2) a felony has been committed and he has probable cause to believe that the other person has committed that felony; or
(3) a misdemeanor involving a breach of peace is being committed in his presence and the arrest is necessary to prevent the continuance of the breach of peace.
(b) A person making an arrest under this section shall, as soon as practical, notify a law enforcement officer and deliver custody of the person arrested to a law enforcement officer.
(c) The law enforcement officer may process the arrested person as if the officer had arrested him. The officer who receives or processes a person arrested by another under this section is not liable for false arrest or false imprisonment.

Ind. 35-41-3-3 then authorizes a citizen to use of force in "effecting" an arrest (for a felony), and "effect" just means "perform."

And since one of the exceptions to pointing a firearm is in performing a citizen's arrest (not "detainment"), you can bet I'm going to be yelling "citizen's ARREST" to anyone within earshot - so as to justify the fact that I'm pointing the gun.

Guy

 

[linkinpark9812]

Probably because as soon as police arrive I will probably be detained and disarmed as well.

Cotizens arrest in Indiana is holding someone until you can call police and turn them over.

I believe it's IC 35-33-1-4?

Good memory!

IC 35-33-1-4
Any person
Sec. 4. (a) Any person may arrest any other person if:
(1) the other person committed a felony in his presence;
(2) a felony has been committed and he has probable cause to believe that the other person has committed that felony; or
(3) a misdemeanor involving a breach of peace is being committed in his presence and the arrest is necessary to prevent the continuance of the breach of peace.
(b) A person making an arrest under this section shall, as soon as practical, notify a law enforcement officer and deliver custody of the person arrested to a law enforcement officer.
(c) The law enforcement officer may process the arrested person as if the officer had arrested him. The officer who receives or processes a person arrested by another under this section is not liable for false arrest or false imprisonment.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1982, P.L.204, SEC.7.

So I guess they use "arrest" in this one. However, they don't list this one as an exemption to the "pointing a firearm" law and they don't mention the level of force you can use. Kind of weird they don't mention anything about force.

 

[linkinpark9812]

No, a citizen can definitely "arrest" another person. Ind. Code 35-33-1 is entitled "Arrest," and Section 4 states:



Ind. 35-41-3-3 then authorizes a citizen to use of force in effecting an arrest (for a felony).

Guy

Beat me to it by a minute! Yes, they mention the force in the other statue, but only for, like you said, a felony. However, since you are arresting them, you better be damn sure, because the officer isn't liable if you committed false arrest or false imprisonment, according to the last part in that law. I wonder if someone has tried to sue for that? Wouldn't doubt it.........

EDIT: I should say more for the "imprisonment" part getting in trouble for. We can't shoot a guy for running after committing a felony.

 

[24Carat]

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??

 

[Vic_Mackey]

Being in the security field I have learned to use the phrase "for your safety and mine, I am going to detain you". It would be too easy for a prosecutor to say you were impersonating LEO when you said "you're under arrest". I have acted under police before and have said that, but I had police backing.

As far as "draw and shoot". Draw, yes. Shoot, only if necessary. Few years back I was working in Pinnacle Square on 42nd and Post. Around midnight I was sitting in my SUV blacked out and just watching. I saw an urban fella walking around looking in car windows. I got LPD dispatch on the phone and told them what was up and they said back up was on the way and to keep an eye on him.

Next thing I know, he is walking up to the backside of my truck! I saw something shiny in his waistband and knew it was a revolver. I drew my piece and weighed my options, but it only took a second to realize he had the drop on me if I got out lol, so I started my truck and drove around the corner. Well that startled him and he went into a courtyard.

LPD showed up and I told my buddy what was going on and what he had. He pulls his freakin M4 out of the car and we went around the corner on opposite sides and saw the guy trying to jimmy a door. We both had our firearms at the ready and when he reached for his pants (TO PULL THEM UP, of all the dumb times to do it) he heard our safeties click and dropped.

I went forward and secured him and A SHINY CAP GUN! Long story short, the cops let me yell at this guy for about two minutes because I almost.....almost shot him. And they sided with me. My buddy told the guy I was fresh back from Iraq and wouldn't have thought twice about splattering him. He felt bad, apologized(gee, thanks) and took a free ride downtown.

I have drawn my pistol many times since then, mostly for people not taking their hands out of their pockets on stops, or in off duty times when things I happened to be around had the propensity to get ugly.

Rules of thumb I live by: If you deem it necessary to stop a threat on a place/person, draw. If you feel you are about to get f'ed up, draw. In both instances check your backstop, and be prepared for the unexpected.

 

[GuyRelford]

Kind of weird they don't mention anything about force.

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