You and I must interpret this differently.If you carry a gun, be prepared to take a beating. Unless the bad guy shows a deadly weapon, you cannot use yours. Unless he has you by weight or your out numbered.
The correct answer would be "B"
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.
IC 35-41-1-25
"Serious bodily injury" defined
Sec. 25. "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes:
(1) serious permanent disfigurement;
(2) unconsciousness;
(3) extreme pain;
(4) permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ; or
(5) loss of a fetus.
IC 35-41-1-11
"Forcible felony" defined
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.
Good example to illustrate that self defense is more than carrying a sidearm. Knowing how to handle yourself without it is just as important because threats of bodily harm are not all created equal. Some will clearly require deadly force and others will not...the rest will be in the middle.
I don't know the practical legal considerations, but let's get into the philosophical and logical for a moment.
I'm 6'2", and I weigh 300 pounds. To put that in perspective, when I'm in really, really good shape I weigh 250. I ran my first and only marathon a few years ago at 290.
I've never understood why I should have a different standard of defense because I'm big and scary. In fact, if you think about it, it should lower the threshold.
Let's say the scenario described happens to me. The guy weighs a buck fifty and has pencil arms.
What do I know about him? He's threatening a guy who looks like me and continuing to advance. Why must I assume I can beat him in a fight? This guy might be like Bruce Lee, who weighed 120 pounds. Also, I'm carrying a weapon, not in a retention holster. What if we're rolling around on the ground and he gets my weapon? I don't have a baton, or pepper spray, or a taser.
Let's take it up a notch. Let's say I pull my pistol and tell him not to come closer and he still advances. Are you saying I shouldn't shoot him then?
To paraphrase Ayoob, I don't know anything about this guy except that he is threatening to kill me and is advancing on me with apparently the intent to do so. What does he know about me? He knows I'm bigger than he, he knows I'm stronger than he, and he knows I've got a weapon and I've said I'll shoot him. If he continues to advance isn't it reasonable for me to believe that he has every intention of winning this fight? He knows it's a fight to the death, he set that standard and I have a deadly weapon. Is it prudent of me to assume that he can't win the fight, and leave me dead?
Again, I understand some of the legal difficulties, but do you see my philosophical point?
See in a situation like this, being if the person was not so much larger than you and didn't have a weapon and still kept coming at you after you drew your firearm, a clean shot to the leg might be sufficient...non-lethal (mostly) and keeps that whole worry of man-slaughter off the table ;-)
See in a situation like this, being if the person was not so much larger than you and didn't have a weapon and still kept coming at you after you drew your firearm, a clean shot to the leg might be sufficient...non-lethal (mostly) and keeps that whole worry of man-slaughter off the table ;-)
Two words: Tueller drill <--Wikepedia Link.
The Tueller Drill is a self-defense training exercise to prepare against a short-range knife attack when armed only with a holsteredhandgun.
Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, UtahPolice Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover 21 feet (6.4 m). So he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. These results were first published as an article in SWAT magazine in 1983 and in a police training video by the same title, "How Close is Too Close?"[1]
A defender with a gun has a dilemma. If he shoots too early, he risks being charged with murder. If he waits until the attacker is definitely within striking range so there is no question about motives, he risks injury and even death. The Tueller experiments quantified a "danger zone" where an attacker presented a clear threat.[2]
The Tueller Drill combines both parts of the original experiments by Tueller. There are several ways it can be conducted:[3]But we all know that gunshots don't instantly stop the attacker, unless hit in the spine or brain...so even then you may get carved up pretty bad before the gunfire subdues the attacker.
- The "attacker and shooter are positioned back-to-back. At the signal, the attacker sprints away from the shooter, and the shooter unholsters his gun and shoots at the target 21 feet (6.4 m) in front of him. The attacker stops as soon as the shot is fired. The shooter is successful only if his shot is good and if the runner did not cover 21 feet (6.4 m).
- A more stressful arrangement is to have the attacker begin 21 feet (6.4 m) behind the shooter and run towards the shooter. The shooter is successful only if he was able take a good shot before he is tapped on the back by the attacker.
- If the shooter is armed with only a training replica gun, a full-contact drill may be done with the attacker running towards the shooter. In this variation, the shooter should practice side-stepping the attacker while he is drawing the gun.
And there you go. We already have a standard that has been upheld in many courts.I think something interesting would be to hear how a police officer would respond and be treated after his or her response. I just can't see some one doing this to a police officer and them not firing.
a clean shot to the leg might be sufficient...non-lethal (mostly) and keeps that whole worry of man-slaughter off the table ;-)