How many times would this guy have been shot here in Indy?

[Caleb]

Next question, if someone would have shot/killed him, would they be charged?

No

 

[jbombelli]

This makes no sense. So your saying if you disarm your attacker and turn around and use his own weapon on him your crossing the line? But yet you think you being an innocent bystander has the right to shoot the guy in the head?

You ARE crossing a line if you go from DEFENDING yourself to MURDERING the guy. I don't care how you get there, murdering the guy is murdering the guy. A garrote is NOT a weapon of defense. It's a weapon of assassination. If you're being garroted, you're going to die. You aren't going to turn it around, take the garrote off your own neck and out of his hands, take the other guy's back, put it around HIS neck, and strangle him with it. I laugh at anyone who thinks they can pull that off. That said, even if you somehow miraculously DO manage to pull that off, you're still crossing the line from defending yourself to committing murder. You see, once you get the best of the guy you're defending yourself from, it's over. Self defense is done. If you KEEP GOING by continuing to strangle him once you're in a position to withdraw, you're now murdering the guy.



As far as being a third party... you should read the IC if you haven't already. You can use deadly force to protect yourself OR A THIRD PERSON from serious bodily injury or death.

 

[tom1025]

As far as being a third party... you should read the IC if you haven't already. You can use deadly force to protect yourself OR A THIRD PERSON from serious bodily injury or death.

So it's okay for you to use deadly force to stop an attack. But it's not okay for the person being attacked to use the same deadly force that he was being attacked with around you because you in turn would use deadly force to save the life of the bad guy who started the attack to begin with.

Interesting

 

[TTravis]

How many times? It only takes once but some may plug him two or three times just to be sure!

 

[Tanfodude]

If I walk up on somebody garroting somebody else, I'm shooting him. There's no way in the world any of you are going to convince me that someone is garroting someone else in self defense. Period. And I highly doubt I'll be charged with ANYTHING for shooting someone who made a point of making me think he was murdering a third person with a garrote. And keep in mind, that was the whole point of the video - to make people think the guy was murdering somebody in order to see how they'd react. Well, that's how I'd react to a murder happening right in front of me.

And you'd just stand there and watch? You'd not physically interfere? You remind me of all those people in the video who did nothing.

Good for you.

You can use deadly force IF you we're there and WITNESSED how the situation escalated. IF you weren't there from the start, you'll have a hard time defending your actions.

Obviously you're either blind like the ANTI-GUNS or just plain stupid.

Let's say I'm getting attacked, I overpower him and got him in that position, and YES, the muther ****er was trying to kill me so I'm gonna ****ing kill him. Then, you the idiot, came in. And you're going to shoot me??? If I live, I'm gonna make sure you're gonna get butt ****ed in jail.

 

[Tanfodude]

No

Another lawyer wanna be. Man, I'm done. The level of stupidity here IS.......can't even find the words to described it.

 

[Caleb]

Another lawyer wanna be. Man, I'm done. The level of stupidity here IS.......can't even find the words to described it.

Lawyer wanna be? You mean to tell me that if you come across this and you believed with everything you have that this one person's life is in danger, you decide to act in self defense for that guys....that a persecutor is going to charge you for murder in which you honestly believe you were acting in self defense? Really?

You seem to know how everything works, mr "wanna be lawyer"...

 

[Tanfodude]

Lawyer wanna be? You mean to tell me that if you come across this and you believed with everything you have that this one person's life is in danger, you decide to act in self defense for that guys....that a persecutor is going to charge you for murder in which you honestly believe you were acting in self defense? Really?

You seem to know how everything works, mr "wanna be lawyer"...

Explain to me how you're going to shoot someone who had somebody in a deadth choke, in an elevator without witnesses, not knowing who was the initial aggressor? Isn't there a possiblity that the guy that you shot was initially on self defense? Isn't there a possiblity that you could have killed someone who was in the first place not the instigator? Isn't it a possiblity that YOU could have been that person? How would like to be shot since you got that aggressor on choke hold?

Do you really think that it's as simple as that on the IC?? Same thing with self defense, do you really thing it's that simple that you can just shoot someone, even though YOU were the aggressor initially? What you guys are saying is that it's just plain black and white when it's not, ESPECIALLY if you weren't there from the start. Just put yourselves in the shoes of the what if's.

The reason I'm sharing is is that don't wait to find out the hard way that it's not so simple as what the IC says.

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hayes-SDLaw.pdf

This is very informative. I think most of you have already read this and it makes a lot of sense. Hope it will be useful to you.

 

[Caleb]

Explain to me how you're going to shoot someone who had somebody in a deadth choke, in an elevator without witnesses, not knowing who was the initial aggressor? Isn't there a possiblity that the guy that you shot was initially on self defense? Isn't there a possiblity that you could have killed someone who was in the first place not the instigator? Isn't it a possiblity that YOU could have been that person? How would like to be shot since you got that aggressor on choke hold?

Do you really think that it's as simple as that on the IC?? Same thing with self defense, do you really thing it's that simple that you can just shoot someone, even though YOU were the aggressor initially? What you guys are saying is that it's just plain black and white when it's not, ESPECIALLY if you weren't there from the start. Just put yourselves in the shoes of the what if's.

The reason I'm sharing is is that don't wait to find out the hard way that it's not so simple as what the IC says.

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hayes-SDLaw.pdf

This is very informative. I think most of you have already read this and it makes a lot of sense. Hope it will be useful to you.

First off, I don't take kindly to your "lawyer wanna be" attempted insult...secondly, I see what you are saying and while technically true, it also a true possibility that you can deescalate the situation without taking a shot. Chances are there's a security camera in the elevator, so police can sort out their mess...but what you are simply suggesting is just to stand there and call 911 while somebody dies.

 

[Tanfodude]

First off, I don't take kindly to your "lawyer wanna be" attempted insult...secondly, I see what you are saying and while technically true, it also a true possibility that you can deescalate the situation without taking a shot. Chances are there's a security camera in the elevator, so police can sort out their mess...but what you are simply suggesting is just to stand there and call 911 while somebody dies.

Ok, I apologize for that impression that I projected, I just couldn't fathom on how one can just plainly say, "Yeah, go ahead and shoot. It's that simple." basing on the castle doctrine.

If unsure of the situation, then yeah, you can be just a witness. But if you're certain of your actions and you believe you an stop the altercation without anyone getting hurt and that it won't put you in jeopardy, then go ahead and intervene.

You don't have to watch someone die, you can intervene (while also on alert to draw your weapon) by shouting. "Ok you can stop now until police arrives." And from there, you can judge if the person WAS really the aggressor. That guy with the fire extinguisher, in my book, did the right thing. If that door didn't close, the extinguisher could have suppressed both persons.

 

[esrice]

A garrote is NOT a weapon of defense. It's a weapon of assassination.

Wait . . . I've heard this line somewhere before.

A garrote, like any other inanimate object, is neutral. If a guy in an elevator is trying to take my life and the only way I can save it is to choke him out first, I'll do it. The point isn't to kill him, but to keep him from killing me. And choking someone is a surefire way to take their mind off of their task. Sometimes death is a byproduct of such action.

 

[Caleb]

Ok, I apologize for that impression that I projects, I just couldn't fathom on how one can just plainly say, "Yeah, go ahead and shoot. It's that simple." basing on the castle doctrine.

You don't have to watch someone die, you can intervene (while also on alert to draw your weapon) by shouting. "Ok you can stop now until police arrives." And from there, you can judge if the person WAS really the aggressor. That guy with the fire extinguisher, in my book, did the right thing. If that door didn't close, the extinguisher could have suppressed both persons.

The question at hand wasn't what's the best thing to do, it was actually...

[quote=Jeremy1066] Next question, if someone would have shot/killed him, would they be charged?
[/quote]

In short my answer was no but if you had truly believed that person life was in danger, you can legally act in self defense for your person or a 3rd person up to and including using lethal force. Of course, there's the mumbojumbo about forcible felony and whatever, laid out in technical lawyery terms.

 

[MikeDVB]

You can use deadly force IF you we're there and WITNESSED how the situation escalated. IF you weren't there from the start, you'll have a hard time defending your actions.

Obviously you're either blind like the ANTI-GUNS or just plain stupid.

Let's say I'm getting attacked, I overpower him and got him in that position, and YES, the muther ****er was trying to kill me so I'm gonna ****ing kill him. Then, you the idiot, came in. And you're going to shoot me??? If I live, I'm gonna make sure you're gonna get butt ****ed in jail.

You don't have to know the entire situation, imho, so long as a reasonable person would believe that inaction would lead to serious bodily injury or death and that belief could be articulated you *should* be ok.

That said - I would hope anybody with a firearm would not just immediately fire after drawing in such a situation. I am sure, as soon as the firearm was drawn and orders issued things would go one of two ways:
1. They would de-escalate
2. They would escalate

If they escalated that would be the point when the judgement was made. If they de-escalated then you would not shoot.

All of that said, with the way he was being attacked in this particular situation I see no way, under the affects of stress you would certainly experience, that you could get a clean shot without some other physical interaction prior.

I know there will be those that say not to draw unless you ARE going to shoot but that's a great generalization. I would not draw unless I was prepared to shoot but for me drawing is an escalation of force and not necessarily the final step down that path.

I suspect drawing a weapon and giving loud and clear directives would likely be a sufficient level of escalation to take control of the situation in this particular set of circumstances.

There are two things I hope:
1. That I am never put in this position
2. That I go to my grave of natural causes never having to have used my firearm in defense of myself, my family, or a third party.

 

[jbombelli]

You can use deadly force IF you we're there and WITNESSED how the situation escalated. IF you weren't there from the start, you'll have a hard time defending your actions.

Obviously you're either blind like the ANTI-GUNS or just plain stupid.

Let's say I'm getting attacked, I overpower him and got him in that position, and YES, the muther ****er was trying to kill me so I'm gonna ****ing kill him. Then, you the idiot, came in. And you're going to shoot me??? If I live, I'm gonna make sure you're gonna get butt ****ed in jail.

"...YES, the muther ****er was trying to kill me so I'm gonna ****ing kill him" is not self defense. That is murder. Plain and simple. And YOU, if you're successful, will be the one getting butt****ed in jail. You need to get your head out of your *** and learn what you're allowed to do and what you aren't. You need to learn where that line is. Once you have gotten the best of the other guy and you continue on with your "self defense", and you go from defending yourself to "I'm gonna ****ing kill him" you've crossed that line. You're now the bad guy. Congratulations.

Another lawyer wanna be. Man, I'm done. The level of stupidity here IS.......can't even find the words to described it.

Where did you say you got your JD, again?

You don't have to watch someone die, you can intervene (while also on alert to draw your weapon) by shouting. "Ok you can stop now until police arrives." And from there, you can judge if the person WAS really the aggressor. That guy with the fire extinguisher, in my book, did the right thing. If that door didn't close, the extinguisher could have suppressed both persons.

Good luck with that. "STOP, or I'll yell STOP again!" That always works.

So it's okay for you to use deadly force to stop an attack. But it's not okay for the person being attacked to use the same deadly force that he was being attacked with around you because you in turn would use deadly force to save the life of the bad guy who started the attack to begin with.

Interesting

It's not the same application of deadly force. It's strangling the life out of somebody vs. stopping someone from strangling the life out of somebody. If you're defending yourself, once you've bested the other guy you have to stop. Once you are able to withdraw you have to withdraw. If you don't, If you don't stop, you cross that line yourself and put yourself in the wrong. You cross the line from defending yourself to murder. Remember, we're talking about a GARROTE. Not a knife, not a gun, not something that can end a fight quickly when used to best effect. We're talking about a piece of cord you hold around someone's neck, while behind him, tighten it, and strangle him to death. Nobody on this board will ever convince me that you can do something like THAT in self defense. I won't buy it. And I can't picture a police officer or prosecutor buying it, either. "He was strangling me, so I managed to fight my way clear, took the garrote out of his hands, took his back, put the garrote around his neck, and took the next several minutes strangling him to death, because that's what he deserves. I was defending myself." I would bet my house that you'd go to prison with a story like that.

 

[cigarman454]

I wouldn't shoot him but he might be missing some teeth.

 

[esrice]

It's not the same application of deadly force. It's strangling the life out of somebody vs. stopping someone from strangling the life out of somebody. If you're defending yourself, once you've bested the other guy you have to stop. Once you are able to withdraw you have to withdraw.

But how do you withdraw instantly in a moving elevator? Or any other confined space where fleeing isn't an option? I agree with your basic principle but it doesn't work for every situation. IMO it is still defense if you are taking action that would stop the other person from killing you. In such a case you could already articulate ability, opportunity, and intent, as well as the inability to flee.

 

[Bunnykid68]

But how do you withdraw instantly in a moving elevator? Or any other confined space where fleeing isn't an option? I agree with your basic principle but it doesn't work for every situation. IMO it is still defense if you are taking action that would stop the other person from killing you. In such a case you could already articulate ability, opportunity, and intent, as well as the inability to flee.

I agree. And you could always stop choking him once he passed out.

 

[esrice]

I agree. And you could always stop choking him once he passed out.

Or once the elevator stopped and the doors opened. (assuming there wasn't an INGOer outside the door )

 

[Rhoadmar]

Or once the elevator stopped and the doors opened. (assuming there wasn't an INGOer outside the door )

The moral of this story is don't pull this kind of stunt anywhere in Indiana.

 

[jbombelli]

But how do you withdraw instantly in a moving elevator? Or any other confined space where fleeing isn't an option? I agree with your basic principle but it doesn't work for every situation. IMO it is still defense if you are taking action that would stop the other person from killing you. In such a case you could already articulate ability, opportunity, and intent, as well as the inability to flee.

If you've gotten position on the other guy to the point that you can actually put his own garrote around his neck and strangle him, you really don't need to put the garrote around his neck and strangle him. If you were able to fight your way out of a garroting & take that position in the first place, you're certainly good enough to hold that position and keep him down until the elevator door opens, which it is sure to do momentarily. Once it does, you're free to withdraw. Personally, if I somehow managed to pull off that kind of stunt, I'd probably just opt for the rear naked choke rather than trying to use the guy's own garrote against him. Far, far easier to accomplish than taking his garrote away and using it yourself.

I seriously want to know what kind of Bruce Lee / Jason Bourne people we have around here who can fight their way out of a garroting, take the garrote away, take the bad guy's back, and strangle him to death with his own garrote.