-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Who's right and wrong here?
- Thread starter Tapout75
- Start date
-
- Tags
- legal scenario
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Your dad (I assume) who was a cop & you working as security/TSA have different rules & expectations than your normal average guy on the street.
The eye roll was because you come on here saying things as fact that don't jibe with the letter of the law then justify it because "my dad told me & I'm going to college". Then you come on here again saying that you know more because "I've worked security & at the TSA". So what?
I'm John Roberts & my dad was Thomas Jefferson so you should believe everything I say.
The statements you made aren't in the LAW.
You don't have to retreat.
You don't just have be in fear of dying before using deadly force.
You won't be convicted for shooting a person who is threatening you just because they are a mental patient.
You don't have to use less than or equal force.
You don't have to wait until you are being bludgeoned with a hammer to be justified in defending youself with deadly force.
You don't have to sit back, pull out the slide rule & feed all the data in Deep Blue before making the decision to act to defend youself.
Those things are always put out there on the internet (or at the water cooler, or in the gun store or...). If they aren't based on fact then they do nobody any good. They only serve to expand the worlds store of "common knowledge", a lot of which is WRONG!
I'm not exactly how to take that.
Is it a threat or a challenge?
If so, it's in poor form. This is an internet debate. Enjoy it or GTFO.
If it's a friendly invitation then thanks but no thanks. It's nothing personal. I just don't have enough time to do the stuff I need to do (like post on INGO!
) let alone meet some guy (?) I don't even know for lunch.We'll just keep it going here if you don't mind.
Besides I've heard about you TSA guys...
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,.?
BTW Haven't been TSA for a long while... lol Not since shoe searches were big anyway!
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.
BTW Haven't been TSA for a long while... lol Not since shoe searches were big anyway!
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.
And winning before you even take your robe off.
The only real answer here in Indiana is A. Finity is pretty spot on with the legal aspect.
And for what it's worth, I wouldn't try to retreat even if I could. If he's faster than my wife then she'd get caught. The best option, imo, is to do exactly what the OP suggested, though I might not wait until he was that close.
And for what it's worth, I wouldn't try to retreat even if I could. If he's faster than my wife then she'd get caught. The best option, imo, is to do exactly what the OP suggested, though I might not wait until he was that close.
Hey, I'll play in this one! I find that I actually have two answers.
First, the situation the OP described is one in which two legs of the deadly-force defense are clearly present, and maybe the third as well, but we don't have enough data to determine the third one. In most places the justifiable use of deadly force depends on three conditions being met:
1. That the perpetrator have the intent to gravely injure or kill the innocent.
2. That the perpetrator have the means to gravely injure or kill the innocent.
3. That the perpetrator have the ability to gravely injure or kill the innocent.
The perpetrator has, in this case, declared his intent to kill our OP. That satisfies rule 1. He appears to have the ability, or immediacy of proximity, to do so, or he will as soon as he closes the distance to the OP and his wife. That will quite quickly satisfy the requirement in number 3. What isn't clear from the OP is whether the perpetrator has the means to injure or kill him. Now, that leaves us with a dilemma: at what point, and by what means, can we make our decision as to whether this person could gravely injure or kill us?
As we've seen from subsequent posts, there are many opinions on this, and other factors to consider. It may hinge upon the build of the perpetrator and/or the OP, or it might hinge upon discerning a weapon at some point during his charge to close the distance. It might even be his posture, say, if he does his best "Enter The Dragon" scream and pose when he gets close. If nothing deters him, and there's no getting out of his way in time, then satisfying the burden of a reasonable man's belief that grave bodily harm is imminent is a pretty easy thing to do. Unless you live in Illinois.
Here's where it gets very interesting: If this happened to me, faced with the above situation with my wife, I would shoot. The next thing I would do is call the police and wait at as close a reasonably safe distance away as I could for their arrival. During that time, I'd be calling a lawyer, and I'm not saying boo to anybody until said lawyer has my statement and tells me what (if anything) is okay to share with the police. But my story to the lawyer is this: "This guy, out of nowhere, screams my wife's name followed by, "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU!!" She's no match for a guy his size, so I let the air out of him." That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. And here's why.
In this case I can enhance the "third leg" of the self-defense by enhancing the disparate force of the perpetrator's stated intent. If he says it to me, and we're the same size or similar, I'm expected in some places by the law to ramp up my response in measurable and relatively equal ways. There isn't a jury in the world that's going to convict a man for killing a nutjob that has shown and stated every intention of killing his wife. That goes for every state in the US, including Illinois (south of I-80 anyway). I'm expecting any witness present to substantially back my story, because any discrepancy can be covered by the vast differences in eyewitness recollection that is a richly-documented part of criminal caselaw.
Is it a perfect defense? No, probably not. Effective? Absolutely. I'm betting that a jury won't even get the coffee brewed in the jury room before the verdict is in.
But hey, you never know. At least I'll know I managed the risk effectively, and the threat. I'm not taking those kinds of chances, with me or her, for anyone.
Specialized
First, the situation the OP described is one in which two legs of the deadly-force defense are clearly present, and maybe the third as well, but we don't have enough data to determine the third one. In most places the justifiable use of deadly force depends on three conditions being met:
1. That the perpetrator have the intent to gravely injure or kill the innocent.
2. That the perpetrator have the means to gravely injure or kill the innocent.
3. That the perpetrator have the ability to gravely injure or kill the innocent.
The perpetrator has, in this case, declared his intent to kill our OP. That satisfies rule 1. He appears to have the ability, or immediacy of proximity, to do so, or he will as soon as he closes the distance to the OP and his wife. That will quite quickly satisfy the requirement in number 3. What isn't clear from the OP is whether the perpetrator has the means to injure or kill him. Now, that leaves us with a dilemma: at what point, and by what means, can we make our decision as to whether this person could gravely injure or kill us?
As we've seen from subsequent posts, there are many opinions on this, and other factors to consider. It may hinge upon the build of the perpetrator and/or the OP, or it might hinge upon discerning a weapon at some point during his charge to close the distance. It might even be his posture, say, if he does his best "Enter The Dragon" scream and pose when he gets close. If nothing deters him, and there's no getting out of his way in time, then satisfying the burden of a reasonable man's belief that grave bodily harm is imminent is a pretty easy thing to do. Unless you live in Illinois.
Here's where it gets very interesting: If this happened to me, faced with the above situation with my wife, I would shoot. The next thing I would do is call the police and wait at as close a reasonably safe distance away as I could for their arrival. During that time, I'd be calling a lawyer, and I'm not saying boo to anybody until said lawyer has my statement and tells me what (if anything) is okay to share with the police. But my story to the lawyer is this: "This guy, out of nowhere, screams my wife's name followed by, "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU!!" She's no match for a guy his size, so I let the air out of him." That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. And here's why.
In this case I can enhance the "third leg" of the self-defense by enhancing the disparate force of the perpetrator's stated intent. If he says it to me, and we're the same size or similar, I'm expected in some places by the law to ramp up my response in measurable and relatively equal ways. There isn't a jury in the world that's going to convict a man for killing a nutjob that has shown and stated every intention of killing his wife. That goes for every state in the US, including Illinois (south of I-80 anyway). I'm expecting any witness present to substantially back my story, because any discrepancy can be covered by the vast differences in eyewitness recollection that is a richly-documented part of criminal caselaw.
Is it a perfect defense? No, probably not. Effective? Absolutely. I'm betting that a jury won't even get the coffee brewed in the jury room before the verdict is in.
But hey, you never know. At least I'll know I managed the risk effectively, and the threat. I'm not taking those kinds of chances, with me or her, for anyone.
Specialized
Just took the ccw class a few weeks ago and we had this scenario and in this case you had the option to retreat.Also if he was a smaller non threatening person your in trouble.We were told that if your 6'2" and some 5'6" skinny guy approaches you have fun telling the cops you were in fear of your life if no weapon was seen.On the other hand if you could not retreat..or your the little guy and hes a giant...shoot him and hope for the best.Either way your getting arrested since murder is a crime.Hopefully the judge will find it justified.
I wouldn't shoot an unarmed person. What kind of defense is that? He said.Yes, because everyone who carries is:
A: Healthy
B: In shape
C: Quicker than their attacker
D: A black belt in "gangsta-fu" and trained in "pistol whip style"
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.
Last edited:
I wouldn't shoot an unarmed person. What kind of defense is that? He said.
Why? If someone intends to do harm to me or mine I'd kill them in a heartbeat and not think twice about it. As has been stated many times before, people can die from punches to the head. I'd rather kill an unprovoked attacker than risk letting him hit me or get a hold of me.
"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.
I would gladly trade the life of an attacker for my life or my wives life. Also I would feel very little if any guilt.
Also I will only pull a gun if I intend to use it... I am not here to play cops and robbers.
The only reason my gun would be used is to save a life. In this case
i would be saving two lives.
Also I will only pull a gun if I intend to use it... I am not here to play cops and robbers.
The only reason my gun would be used is to save a life. In this case
i would be saving two lives.
indytechnerd
Master
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking 2 different things here, right?
1. the OP scenario = me popping some alleged nutjob because I'm "in fear of" death / SBI. Meaning he never was able to make good on his threat. In this case, we'll never know if he was just going to sock me in the jaw, break a few ribs tackling me, or do that nifty "rip the guy's throat out" move from Roadhouse. The defense here is that I was afraid of the throat rip, so I eliminated that threat.
2. Your quote above regarding the prosecutor's requirements for prosecuting an assault where SBI is involved. In this case, the prosecutor requires an internal injury above and beyond bone fractures. Breaking my jaw is one level, crushing my skull like an eggshell and causing pressure on the brain is another.
First let me comment on what pleasure it's been to join INGO... this my first online
discussion ever and it's very interesting. Being a former practicing black-belt I have learned one absolute truth. You don't know, and can't tell by looking who can kick your
tail . I've seen large men struck so that they were unconcious before they hit the floor
by smaller opponents. I've heard a head hit the concrete like a dropped bowing ball.If someone says he will kill me, and appears healthy, I have no reason to disbelieve him
discussion ever and it's very interesting. Being a former practicing black-belt I have learned one absolute truth. You don't know, and can't tell by looking who can kick your
tail . I've seen large men struck so that they were unconcious before they hit the floor
by smaller opponents. I've heard a head hit the concrete like a dropped bowing ball.If someone says he will kill me, and appears healthy, I have no reason to disbelieve him
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?
What I am saying is that you shoot someone in fear of at least SBI, it will get presented to the prosecutor for review. A prosecutor could easily have a more strigent definition of SBI and that discrepency could lead to serious charges. I am just saying that it is easy to say you will do XYZ when 123 happens with these internet legal discussions. However, reality can be a rude awakening.
Ever shot at such a thin target while they are advancing towards you? You will likely hit the ground and the rounds will skip. Depending on the type of surface, they can travel a great distance with enough energy to wound other people. Be 100% sure of your back drop before shooting towards the ground at that angle. Remember, you own every round you fire and everything that they hit.
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.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv -
KellyinAvonBlue-ID Mafia Consigliere
Members online
- flyingsquirrel
- BE Mike
- dan45
- res04
- Ethanhoosier1
- gdun67
- wtburnette
- OneBadV8
- Romero Zombie
- Crandall Crank
- hoosierdaddy1976
- gdog243
- Cavman
- YankeeDollar
- Born2vette
- djlaundry2000
- Peacekeeper3073
- keeph8n
- aclark
- carsgunsandgirls
- SEH0521
- Leadeye
- DoggyDaddy
- INgunowner
- Edged Tools
- printcraft
- alc1985
- WebSnyper
- melensdad
- LokhXIV
- mcapo
- Cameramonkey
- MrSmitty
- bluzfan66
- tjones
- Jacob271
- dnurk
- snorko
- deo62
- Gascitykid
- NHT3
- Godbybe
- efd1295
- Larry!!!
- slims2002
- STEEL CORE
- JayCo
- chuckp
- zeebandit
- KellyinAvon