Who's right and wrong here?

[norman428]

I see you are an expert. Don't you think you could hit a guy in the legs at 10ft? Or would it be better to aim for the groin?
I am definitely not an expert, but if I can't hit a pop can at 10ft, I might as well get rid of my gun.

Its not about being able to hit a pop can at ten feet. When you have to draw, and are in fear for your life, you not exactly at the range all calm and collected, it just got serious, your blood is pumping, your stress level is on high, and your about to pull the trigger in someone's direction, knowing what's about to happen to them.
And your not exactly closing one eye and taking aim for his legs, because if you are your situational awareness just went down the drain, and you can no longer see the rest of him, what his hands are doing, what his body language is.
Aim center of mass if your going to pull the trigger, Much larger target, You can see what the rest of him is doing while staying on target, And if you shoot him in the leg, He's going to sue you, You're right, he may not win, but he has a side to the story now. A one sided, truthful, story is much easier to tell the police.

 

[rugertoter]

This is a sticky situation here. There is a lot of gray area in the law on this. I really think it would come down to the judge and jury here. That could be a flip of the coin when it comes to the decision they come up with. Even if you were ruled as justifiable homocide, there could be a civil trial where you could loose everything. I think I need to start carrying pepper spray as well as a gun. I think in this situation I would try to scurry my wife and I away, but if not would most definetely deploy the pepper spray and just try to kick the crap out of the guy after that. If neither option was available, then reluctantly I would shoot his butt in the leg if I could. If he had any kind of weapon on him, I would not even worry about the pepper spray, I would warn him, then shoot him if he did not break off the attack. Hope it never happens to any of us.

 

[Roadie]

I wouldn't shoot an unarmed person. What kind of defense is that? He said. Maybe carry a stun gun for a situation like that. The last thing I would want to do is take a life. That's a heavy tab for that kind of action against an unarmed man. That is of course unless a person is just trigger happy.

People can be killed by unarmed men.
The attacker has no respect for YOUR life, yes?

 

[Roadie]

I see you are an expert. Don't you think you could hit a guy in the legs at 10ft? Or would it be better to aim for the groin?
I am definitely not an expert, but if I can't hit a pop can at 10ft, I might as well get rid of my gun.

Have you ever taken any firearm self defense classes?
These are things addressed in the class I took, and it really opened my eyes..

Ever tried to unholster, aim, and fire, while you are moving?
While under threat?
While under pressure?
While the target is moving?
While taking into account what is behind the target?

Sorry, but comparing shooting a pop can at 10ft to a self defense situation is like saying you could win the Indy 500 because you can drive your pickup "pretty good".

 

[Iroquois]

Last year I was shooting pop cans with some buddies. One of the guys shot the can,I
shot the clothes-pin holding the can. I love my old blackhawk. Of course that's not the real
world ...I missed a large deer at 30 yrds with that same gun. If 'buck fever' can effect
marksmanship this bad , how much more would a combat situation do so?
This is my take on this scenario : draw your gun while placing yourself between your wife and the bad guy. Holding the gun at hip level with both hands, shout loudly
'stop,who are you,I have a gun, why are you attacking US? leave US alone,I don't
want to shoot you.'
All the while pointing the gun at the ground between me and the attacker.
I would not shoot until I felt I had no choice but I would definetly not let him touch me
or my wife. If I had to shoot I would shoot center mass at least twice or until he retreated. I would call the police myself and report an attempted murder.Then I would
call an ambulance for my distrought wife and the attacker. I would tell the police he tried to kill me and I want to call my lawyer. I would tell my wife to say nothing till
she talked to my lawyer and only in private. I would rather lose my freedom than my
life and I will not abandon my duty to defend my wife.

 

[jdhaines]

After a recent class...I would answer "Attend ECQC through shivworks." Manage the unknown contact appropriately.

 

[Denny347]

I see you are an expert. Don't you think you could hit a guy in the legs at 10ft? Or would it be better to aim for the groin?
I am definitely not an expert, but if I can't hit a pop can at 10ft, I might as well get rid of my gun.

I can surely do that standing towards a static target. We are talking about a person running at you whom you believe will kill you. Your heart rate jumps, vision narrows, and there is not time to line up your sights. You point-shoot. Center mass will give you the best chance to hit your target. I am a firearms instructor and have been for about 12yrs. I am also a combatives instructor. I have done force on force simunition training and know firsthand how the body reacts. Large targets become small and small target become microscopic. Shooting at paper will do little to prepare yourself other than muscle memory/trigger control.

 

[finity]

"clearly defigned" is a matter of opinion. Here in Indy, the Prosecutor requires surgery to file a charge with SBI. Broken bones DO NOT meet their criteria of SBI, it is simple assault. Unless the broken bone causes another injury...brain injury, femorial injury...etc. "Vanilla" broken bones are not included. Being knocked dizzy or briefly unconscious does not seem to work for them either. Just saying. You may be in the right in the end but the criminal court process could be draining (emotionally and financially) and if you catch criminal charges, you will see the "victims" family get a lawyer, they will feel free to sue you for wrongful death and civil procedures are so much worse than criminal, they can go on for years and years.

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.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.26. Amended by P.L.261-1997, SEC.1.

Since it CLEARLY (clearly - definition of clearly by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.) says in the IC you posted above that deadly force is justified to prevent you being knocked unconscious then I can only conclude that your prosecutor is a rogue. He obviously has no respect for the law.

There is no qualifiers ("briefly", etc.) in the IC for "unconsciousness".

I've had broken bones before & known others that have as well. If the prosecutor could see that as causing extreme pain then, well...see above.

Let someone break his legs, arms, etc. & then tell us that he wasn't in "extreme pain".

I'd like to bring up another aspect. If you show your weapon and the guy still advances, doesn't that change the situation? Clearly he understands this is now a fight to the death, one that he initiated. How could you NOT be in fear of severe bodily injury?

IMO, you would be.

Unless you were in Denny's jurisdiction then I guess you'll just have take the beating & hopefully you don't die.

Eh, if you do I'm sure that the prosecutor & the rest of the towns officials & newspapers would feel really sorry for you & your wife & kids. They might even get to convict the guy for murder...One that wouldn't have happened if you hadn't been threatened with prison for reacting to a threat.

I bet the prosecutor wouldn't even lose a minute of sleep because it was his policy that promoted the death of an innocent person.

Geez...

This is a sticky situation here. There is a lot of gray area in the law on this. I really think it would come down to the judge and jury here. That could be a flip of the coin when it comes to the decision they come up with.

I think that in IN you'd probably have a fairly good chance of beating it if you acted as a normal reasonable person.

Even if you were ruled as justifiable homocide, there could be a civil trial where you could loose everything.

Again it would be highly unlikely here.

It's also debatable if it would even be allowed to go anywhere from the start because of this:

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.

If neither option was available, then reluctantly I would shoot his butt in the leg if I could.

Come on now. Pick one or the other.

If he had any kind of weapon on him, I would not even worry about the pepper spray, I would warn him, then shoot him if he did not break off the attack.

There is no requirement in the law to warn him.

It may bolster your case but don't act under the (false) impression that your legally required to do it.

That is only for cops & even THEY don't HAVE to if it's not feasible.

 

[finity]

Also I'd like to point out that unless I don't comprehend the language used very well, can anyone find Castle Law for me pertaining to happenings in the public and not on private property, property owned by family, or plane hijackings, etc,.?

Here you go:

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.
...

(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).

Section (b) (that I left out) deals with your house, car or curtilage.

Section (a) deals with the response to a threat when you are not in your home, car or curtilage. IOW, it's what you asked for above.

I threw in section (c) to show that, even though you can't use deadly force to stop somebody from stealing your stuff (theft, not robbery), the response of the BG CAN elevate the situation to one in which deadly force is justified.

BTW Haven't been TSA for a long while... lol Not since shoe searches were big anyway!

You can take the groper out of the TSA but you can't take the TSA out of the groper...

Finity, it's neither a threat nor a challenge. The internet is such a difficult means to actually relate to something a person is trying to say that a lot of times it creates miscommunications and no one is at fault.

 

[Denny347]

Since it CLEARLY (clearly - definition of clearly by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.) says in the IC you posted above that deadly force is justified to prevent you being knocked unconscious then I can only conclude that your prosecutor is a rogue. He obviously has no respect for the law.

There is no qualifiers ("briefly", etc.) in the IC for "unconsciousness".

I've had broken bones before & known others that have as well. If the prosecutor could see that as causing extreme pain then, well...see above.

Let someone break his legs, arms, etc. & then tell us that he wasn't in "extreme pain".



IMO, you would be.

Unless you were in Denny's jurisdiction then I guess you'll just have take the beating & hopefully you don't die.

Eh, if you do I'm sure that the prosecutor & the rest of the towns officials & newspapers would feel really sorry for you & your wife & kids. They might even get to convict the guy for murder...One that wouldn't have happened if you hadn't been threatened with prison for reacting to a threat.

I bet the prosecutor wouldn't even lose a minute of sleep because it was his policy that promoted the death of an innocent person.

Geez...




I think that in IN you'd probably have a fairly good chance of beating it if you acted as a normal reasonable person.



Again it would be highly unlikely here.

It's also debatable if it would even be allowed to go anywhere from the start because of this:

[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]



Come on now. Pick one or the other.



There is no requirement in the law to warn him.

It may bolster your case but don't act under the (false) impression that your legally required to do it.

That is only for cops & even THEY don't HAVE to if it's not feasible.

So far in my career, I have worked during 3-4 different elected prosecutors. It has always been the same. We have about 20 or so deputy prosecutors who screen cases. They make the final calls on what is a crime in our fair town. It is a roll of the dice sometimes for legit charges to stick. But I do have first hand working knowledge on what they consider SBI. I am only playing devil's advocate here. To offer a different point of view. If you truly believe your life could be in jeopardy...by all means, do what you need to do.

 

[E5RANGER375]

i have only read the first post here, so this is my opinion.

If I didnt see a weapon, I would be inclined to first get my wife into a safe position and armed with her pistol in case I go down. then I would address the threat. If I deem Im really in fear of my life or hers then I would be fine with using deadly force. that might not necessarily mean using my gun. I might improvise and throw him in front of a car.

 

[dross]

I'd just like to point out that Denny is a major buzzkill.

Denny: You know, you have to have a reason to shoot someone.
Denny: You could get in a lot of trouble if you shoot people without a good reason.
Denny: You know, it's really hard to shoot people when you're scared and all worked up.
Denny: Don't shoot at their legs, you might hurt someone else.
Denny: Serious bodily harm actually means something.

And here's where he really went over the line:

Denny: Actually shooting someone is different than talking about it on the internet.

WTF? Who invited this guy to the F-ing party anyway?

 

[Denny347]

I'd just like to point out that Denny is a major buzzkill.

Denny: You know, you have to have a reason to shoot someone.
Denny: You could get in a lot of trouble if you shoot people without a good reason.
Denny: You know, it's really hard to shoot people when you're scared and all worked up.
Denny: Don't shoot at their legs, you might hurt someone else.
Denny: Serious bodily harm actually means something.

And here's where he really went over the line:

Denny: Actually shooting someone is different than talking about it on the internet.

WTF? Who invited this guy to the F-ing party anyway?

http://video.adultswim.com/family-guy/buzz-killington-the-buzz-kill.html

 

[Benny]

 

[cqcn88]

After reading the same IC posted several times, I've come to this conclusion:

One does not need a weapon of any kind to be considered a threat. I know I can cause someone extreme pain and broken bones with my bare hands, so its reasonable to believe that a complete stranger could have that ability as well.

One does not need to know anything about the attacker because its irrelevant. Size in this case doesn't matter :-P You can't know anything about a stranger threatening and advancing to attack you anyway, which is probably why it isn't required by IC.

Drop the attacker, drop him dead. None of this wound him crap. He MIGHT have a gun and be able to shoot me from a distance even with bullet holes in his legs. Besides, a dead witness is better than one that can argue over the events.

I have also discovered that I have great hope that several people on this thread are NOT on my jury if this unfortunate event ever happens to me. The IC is very plain on a matter like this. If a REASONABLE person has REASONABLE belief that death or injury is imminent, deadly force is justified. I'd say if a guy of any size, shape, form, or mental status is coming at me and my wife, saying he wants to kill me, who in their right mind would not consider that reasonable belief that my person and my wife is in danger?

 

[Dragon]

After reading the same IC posted several times, I've come to this conclusion:

One does not need a weapon of any kind to be considered a threat. I know I can cause someone extreme pain and broken bones with my bare hands, so its reasonable to believe that a complete stranger could have that ability as well.

One does not need to know anything about the attacker because its irrelevant. Size in this case doesn't matter :-P You can't know anything about a stranger threatening and advancing to attack you anyway, which is probably why it isn't required by IC.

Drop the attacker, drop him dead. None of this wound him crap. He MIGHT have a gun and be able to shoot me from a distance even with bullet holes in his legs. Besides, a dead witness is better than one that can argue over the events.

I have also discovered that I have great hope that several people on this thread are NOT on my jury if this unfortunate event ever happens to me. The IC is very plain on a matter like this. If a REASONABLE person has REASONABLE belief that death or injury is imminent, deadly force is justified. I'd say if a guy of any size, shape, form, or mental status is coming at me and my wife, saying he wants to kill me, who in their right mind would not consider that reasonable belief that my person and my wife is in danger?

I still disagree.. Show me in the IC where it isn't stating about being on private property and then I will agree. It only deals with your car/home, property of someone allowing you to protect it, and a plane being hijacked.

 

[eldirector]

I still disagree.. Show me in the IC where it isn't stating about being on private property and then I will agree. It only deals with your car/home, property of someone allowing you to protect it, and a plane being hijacked.

The very first part of Use of Force to Protect Person or Property.

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

It does not specify a location at all.

I believe you are referring to 35-41-3-2(b), (c), and (d), which give further allowances for use of deadly force. In its most basic form, though, no location is defined.

 

[finity]

If you truly believe your life could be in jeopardy...by all means, do what you need to do.

But that's exactly my point.

It's not just my LIFE that needs to be threatened before I use deadly force.

If the prosecutors of your "fair town" don't like the way the law is written then they either need to run for office & change it or get someone who has been elected to do it for them.

They can't just make up their own laws. THEY ARE NOT THE KINGS OF THEIR TOWNS.

It doesn't matter how many prosecutors have been abusing their positions of authority, it is still an abuse.

The king of England had hundreds of years of precedent to justify him screwing the colonists around & he wasn't right then either.

 

[finity]

I still disagree.. Show me in the IC where it isn't stating about being on private property and then I will agree. It only deals with your car/home, property of someone allowing you to protect it, and a plane being hijacked.

You asked someone to show you & I did. I think it was fairly clear.

Did you not read that post or do you have me on "ignore" too?

 

[drobpk]

I can surely do that standing towards a static target. We are talking about a person running at you whom you believe will kill you. Your heart rate jumps, vision narrows, and there is not time to line up your sights. You point-shoot. Center mass will give you the best chance to hit your target. I am a firearms instructor and have been for about 12yrs. I am also a combatives instructor. I have done force on force simunition training and know firsthand how the body reacts. Large targets become small and small target become microscopic. Shooting at paper will do little to prepare yourself other than muscle memory/trigger control.

OK Denny, your point is well taken. I get the point.