Will You be Convicted of a Crime?

[GuyRelford]

The only information not supplied is the assumed distance. IMO not matter the distance (within 200 ft) this is a "no charges" incident. As long as a when giving your statement you don't mention "shooting toward shadowy figures" and state "stopping the percieved threat".

Great points. Multiple security cameras in the area confirm that you could only see shadows. The distance (kids to you) when you opened fire was 35 feet.

 

[LPMan59]

Great points. Multiple security cameras in the area confirm that you could only see shadows. The distance (kids to you) when you opened fire was 35 feet.

well in that case i'm screwed. I couldnt hit anything at 35 feet.

 

[finity]

I'm with the majority on this.

It is completely reasonable to fear SBI from someone threatening you with death then charging at you. Even if there was no "weapon" involved there were three of them against you. Adding in the "weapon" (which no REASONABLE person would be required to know was fake in the heat of the moment in a DARK alley) just adds more reason to act in JUSTIFIABLE self-defense.

The only crime committed here was by the three "gangsters". If you play adult games then sometimes you get adult consequences.

 

[techres]

Not convicted.

1. Threat issued.
2. Threat acted upon.
3. Forcible felony begun.
4. Fear for life/bodily injury.
5. No evidence it is anything other than life or death.

They lost. You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

I would not, NOT wait to engage if my wife's life and limb depended on me acting immediately to defend myself and her.

Oh, and the third guy is the one who will be charged with murder if one of his buddies dies. He was a part of the opening felony (robbery) and during the commission of that crime a death took place. He can claim whatever he wants, he is going to pay for the crime.

My 2 cents.

(of course anything can happen, but this is my read of the law as best as I see it)

 

[Sylvain]

Great points. Multiple security cameras in the area confirm that you could only see shadows. The distance (kids to you) when you opened fire was 35 feet.

Not a bad shot in the dark and that distance.
Do I get a marksmanship medal?

 

[ryknoll3]

Great points. Multiple security cameras in the area confirm that you could only see shadows. The distance (kids to you) when you opened fire was 35 feet.

A bullet traveling 850 fps would cover that distance in 4/100th of a second, so if they decided to fire first, you'd be in serious danger. Still think it's a good shoot.

 

[Hoosierdood]

(snip) Civil suit will probably be a given, (snip)

IN law says that no one found using deadly force will be put in any legal jeopardy. That includes civil.

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.

I would think the law is very clear on this point.

 

[Jim W.]

I fully agree, you did nothing wrong.

 

[Relatively Ninja]

But, I may rethink carrying a gun knowing I shot and killed 2 innocent people, even if I thought my life was in danger.

How would you feel if the opposite was true? What if you weren't carrying a gun and three teenagers put the fear of God in you because you think you and your wife are about to be killed? Would you go home and say "thank goodness I wasn't carrying a gun, I might have shot those kids"?

What if the guns the teenagers had weren't fake and you and your wife didn't make it home that night? Two innocent people died, but it was you and your wife instead of a couple hooligans that were threatening people. It may sound callous, but I'm with the majority here; "You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes."

Oh, and I don't think you would be convicted of a crime. Fear of your life, video cameras, eyewitness's statement, etc..

 

[amhenry]

I agree that you'll likely not be convicted of a crime. Having your wife confirm the verbal threat that you received seems especially important.

 

[Bill B]

I agree with this.

But the real question is if they will find 12 potential jurors who will be as open minded as you and I. Plus you just know the prosecutor will make you look like a careless POS.

I don't have to have 12 to prevent conviction, just one.
I say good shoot. There was a threat articulated and acted upon. A few years ago a cop in chicago shot a person with a cell phone, thinking it was a gun. If a "highly trained professional" can make the mistake in a dark alley it is not unreasonable to assume that I could make the same mistake with somebody's squirt gun.

 

[ryknoll3]

I don't have to have 12 to prevent conviction, just one.
I say good shoot. There was a threat articulated and acted upon. A few years ago a cop in chicago shot a person with a cell phone, thinking it was a gun. If a "highly trained professional" can make the mistake in a dark alley it is not unreasonable to assume that I could make the same mistake with somebody's squirt gun.

You should see all of the fancy cars her family rides around in now because of that shoot. =/

 

[Quad]

I don't have to have 12 to prevent conviction, just one.
I say good shoot. There was a threat articulated and acted upon. A few years ago a cop in chicago shot a person with a cell phone, thinking it was a gun. If a "highly trained professional" can make the mistake in a dark alley it is not unreasonable to assume that I could make the same mistake with somebody's squirt gun.

While that may be true, wouldn't it be nice to know that you had been acquitted of a crime instead of worrying about a career DA retrying you, therefore incurring even more legal fees?

 

[sloughfoot]

I darn near shot a guy that walked into the Police Station one night when I was working the desk. I drew but didn't point at him.

It turned out he had a cell phone in his hand. The whole thing took maybe 1 1/2 seconds before I stood down.

Would you be convicted? It depends on what you say in the aftermath more than anything.

 

[kludge]

Civil suit will probably be a given...

IN law says that no one found using deadly force will be put in any legal jeopardy. That includes civil.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
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.

I would think the law is very clear on this point.

Anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody. A sympathetic judge, on an admission that it was dark and you could not identify the target or a weapon might allow a civil suit to go forward.

 

[scott delaney]

your going to jail for man slaughter.....from your own story you did not make a move to defend but went on the offencive with out a true threat.....if i was on the jury i would understand and hang but to many people out there with guns doing wrong that some people just want it all to stop.....this might just be what they would use as an example

 

[ryknoll3]

your going to jail for man slaughter.....from your own story you did not make a move to defend but went on the offencive with out a true threat.....if i was on the jury i would understand and hang but to many people out there with guns doing wrong that some people just want it all to stop.....this might just be what they would use as an example

What about "is justified in using deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent severe bodily injury to the person, or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony" requires anyone to do something defensive? How is someone screaming "give me your money or die" and running at you with a gun (fake or not, no way to determine) not a true threat?

What exactly is a "move to defend"?

 

[shooter521]

IN law says that no one found using deadly force will be put in any legal jeopardy. That includes civil.

Despite what the law says, I know folks who have been sued civilly for that very thing.

 

[GuyRelford]

The immunity provided by Ind. Code 35-41-3-2 only applies if you used force "by reasonable means necessary" as defined in that statute. So the question becomes - who decides that? And whoever decides that, what would they decide in this situation?

 

[youngda9]

No. But depending on the color of the players in this scenario things could get interesting, to say the least.