I was asked this question. What would you do?

[JJGatesE30]

I actually like the naked idea. But if it doesnt work and I still have to shoot him, well, lets just say I hope my relatives are not watching the news that night.

 

[JoshuaW]

Depending on how threatened I felt, I might draw. You can never really determine the situation unless you are actually there.

I have been in a similar situation before. I slid into another vehicle. Completely my fault, but the weather did play a huge part. I was getting out of my car to take a look at the damage, and the other driver started screaming at me and walking towards me quickly. I just sat right back down in my car and shouted "I have already called the police, Im not talking to you until then." He proceeded towards my car, still shouting. He yelled at me through the window for a moment, smashed his hand against my car, yelled some more, then walked back to his truck.

When I first saw he was continuing towards my car, I did three things. One, I got back into the car and locked the door. Two, I dialed (but did not hit "Send") 911 again. Three, I pulled my knife out of my pocket and held it so I could get the blade up quickly while still keeping it out of view of the other driver. It didnt come to that, but I was getting very worried when he hit my car with his fist. It all worked in my favor though. The cop was relatively understanding, and noted all of it in the accident report. My insurance company really played up the situation and was able to get his insurance company to pay my $250 deductible. (His truck was barely scratched, with minimal paint transfer. Maybe $300 worth of damage, which Im sure his company paid. My car had $1800 worth of damage. Not a good day)

Lastly, not all "liberals" are anti-gun. By most of your standards, I might be considered a liberal (or a very lukewarm conservative :P). Im extremely pro-gun though. Political opinions are just that, opinions. They do not define you, and therefore radically judging someone because of their opinions is a good way to be called ignorant.

 

[j706]

Holy cow I am afraid there are some people on here that are one fender bender away from a prison sentence and or financial ruin.

 

[Que]

Holy cow I am afraid there are some people on here that are one fender bender away from a prison sentence and or financial ruin.

If arrested, I hope they don't cover their face with an INGO t-shirt.

 

[printcraft]

Leave window rolled up. Stay inside. Call police. Make sure draw is clear in case it is needed.

Good idea.


Ring Ring
911 what is your emergency?
Yes, I Mr. blank, I need an officer at main and market street,
I'm in my car and there is some guy threatening me and trying to break into it to
get at me, I am armed, please send help asap. I think he may be armed.


Use cell phone to record the tazing for future enjoyment.

(see post #9)

Don't much wanna be wrasslin' a feller in a thong neither...

Yo.

 

[jbombelli]

Every situation is different. You never know what's the right way to handle it until it happens.

IF somebody is set on causing "serious bodily injury" to me, and I think he's capable of it, I have no duty to retreat and I WILL shoot him.

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





Many, many times I have seen ONE PUNCH result in "serious bodily injury" as defined above. ONE PUNCH. So... if someone with the capability of beating my a** comes at me intending to beat my a**, I'm going to shoot. Period. The law doesn't require that I run away, nor does it require that I get my a** kicked.

 

[j706]

Every situation is different. You never know what's the right way to handle it until it happens.

IF somebody is set on causing "serious bodily injury" to me, and I think he's capable of it, I have no duty to retreat and I WILL shoot him.

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



Many, many times I have seen ONE PUNCH result in "serious bodily injury" as defined above. ONE PUNCH.

Most people are well aware of the state statute and it is a good common sense law but the key word here is "Reasonable". That is the part that can make things go either way. Just something to consider.

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: rea·son·able
Function: adjective
1 a : being in accordance with reason, fairness, duty, or prudence b : of an appropriate degree or kind c : supported or justified by fact or circumstance reasonable belief that force was necessary for self-defense> d : [SIZE=-1]COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE[/SIZE]
2 : applying reason or logic; broadly : [SIZE=-1]RATIONAL [/SIZE]1 reasonable mind> —rea·son·able·ness noun —rea·son·ably adverb

 

[roscott]

Really, it depends how big and scary the guy really is.

Unless he looks like Lou Ferrigno, I might leave my gun in the car and step out for a good scuff-up. I'm still young and dumb enough to enjoy a good scuffle.

 

[jbombelli]

Most people are well aware of the state statute and it is a good common sense law but the key word here is "Reasonable". That is the part that can make things go either way. Just something to consider.

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: rea·son·able
Function: adjective
1 a : being in accordance with reason, fairness, duty, or prudence b : of an appropriate degree or kind c : supported or justified by fact or circumstance reasonable belief that force was necessary for self-defense> d : [SIZE=-1]COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE[/SIZE]
2 : applying reason or logic; broadly : [SIZE=-1]RATIONAL [/SIZE]1 reasonable mind> —rea·son·able·ness noun —rea·son·ably adverb

So is it NOT reasonable to believe that being punched in the head can result in unconsciousness or other "serious bodily injury" as defined?


But note, regarding going either way... that's why I said in my post "...and I think he's capable of it..."

I'm not going to shoot the 90-year-old man hobbling over on a walker rattling "I'm going to kick your a**". But I WILL PROBABLY shoot the 25-year-old guy that has 50 pounds on me and rage in his eyes, with his veins all bulged out screaming "I'm going to f***ing kill you" whether he has a weapon in his hands or not.

Lastly, I don't think most people are actually aware of that statute. I can point to a hundred instances right here on INGO where people have said things in direct contradiction to it.

 

[lovemachine]

Several good ideas. I wouldn't get out of my vehicle. Keep the doors locked, windows up. If he's trying to get in, call the police. And that's only if I'm unable to drive away. If he's about to break in before the police get there, I'll draw my weapon and make ready. After that, it's his call to walk away and live.

 

[jeremy]

I would have to use my ROE, have my decision reviewed by JAG, and get the COLs blessing first...

 

[Hammerhead]

But you have to make sure your direct superior has the proper "Request to Kill an A**hole" form first, in triplicate.

 

[T-rav]

(see post #9)

Don't much wanna be wrasslin' a feller in a thong neither...

Look at post 26. T-rev is ready to wrestle.

Darn spell check never catches that cause it is spelled right, I wouldnt have to shoot I would just step out of my truck

 

[beararms1776]

Darn spell check never catches that cause it is spelled right, I wouldnt have to shoot I would just step out of my truck

That should send em running

 

[Manan]

It is actually NOT if "you feel your life is in danger", it is "Would a reasonable person" feel that their life was in danger. Usually a jury decides ones like this. I would run.

 

[beararms1776]

I'd rep you 100X if I could.

This, to me, is the very heart of what drives the anti-gun/libtard d-bag crowd. They are the bullies of the world, plain and simple. They know, deep in their black hearts that *they* have an insatiable underlying need to prove to the world that they are always right all the time, to dominate, and thus they cannot be trusted to act reasonably with a firearm. They know deep down that their fragile but insatiable ego will get the better of them even in the mildest of disputes, and they will not be able to resist "the power of the gun" if they had one. Their meglomania makes them think that their personal character flaws are shared by everyone else, so they project this onto others and come up with the knee-jerk reaction to stop other people from acting like the a-holes they know they are by banning everyone from owning guns.

It does not surprise me one bit that the armed OP, whom his libtard acquaintance would likely say is "looking for trouble/wants to be a vigilante", would be the one to seek a peaceful solution if at all possible, while the anti-gun idiot would be the first one to resort to violence. Typical anti-gun idiot.

I fart in his *specific* direction...

Amen to that my friend. You definately know the flip flop bully kind. Your always wrong no matter what. The best thing to do is walk away from em. Those type people can delibrately irritate a person. They feed off of drama. I wouldn't want to associate and trust them outside of work. I'm not a cliquer and rarely associate outside work with co-workers for that reason.

 

[Disposable Heart]

Having spoken to a lawyer who is an avid gun guy (jmb79 here on the board), he says there IS case law AGAINST the disparity of size arguement. He did not cite the specifics (hoping someone here would), but you cannot, unless enfeebled or something similar, use "he was bigger than I was" as a shooting defense.

Anyone have actual law to dispute or support this? Would this be for criminal or civil court, or both?

 

[raider600]

I'm 63 years old. Almost any threat to me is serious and I may respond with deadly force. If a raging 10 year old is attacking me, I may hold him until his parents show up, but if a 6'3" SEIU thug lays his hands on me, I'll pump his chest with as many shots as I can get off.

This is good haha

 

[DownByTheTracks]

I've only been involved in one road rage incident (pick up truck blocked the road), I held my Glock up in the window and the guy sped off. Even in this situation where the aggressor was not up in my face my heart was beating rapidly and adrenaline pumping.

I honestly don't know what I would do with someone in my face. I could theorize all I want, but not having any situation training I can't say "I would run" or "I would shoot". I would prefer to not shoot someone, but it's hard to say...

 

[finity]

The implication of your liberal friend's question seems to be, that he'd rather be gravely injured or dead than to use lethal force against someone else to prevent grave bodily injury to himself, or even his own death. You might ask if that's really what he's trying to say.

Umm, no it’s not. If you really read his post I think you’ll notice that his “liberal” friend said he’d shoot if he was threatened. It was the “pro-gun” guy who said he wouldn’t defend himself (at least with his gun).

Way to make stuff up about a thread to further your own political opinion.

Real life scenario would of course be different but I just have the issue of an unarmed person. I didn't think about this before but a person could carry a bottle of mace in their car for a situation like that or a tazer. But if they were fataly injured with a gun or tazer and they were unarmed, that may not play out so well for the defender.

If you can articulate & get a jury to believe that you were in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury then it wouldn’t matter AT ALL if they were unarmed.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense does it. I mean being all anti gun and all then shoot an unarmed man. Typical. Then again he never did make much sense.

You are putting YOUR opinion on him. Like was stated above (& several other places in this thread), it is not totally unreasonable (i.e. it could make sense) to shoot an unarmed man. Just because YOU state you never would doesn’t mean others are stupid if in a justifiable scenario they would.

I'd rep you 100X if I could.

This, to me, is the very heart of what drives the anti-gun/libtard d-bag crowd. They are the bullies of the world, plain and simple. They know, deep in their black hearts that *they* have an insatiable underlying need to prove to the world that they are always right all the time, to dominate, and thus they cannot be trusted to act reasonably with a firearm. They know deep down that their fragile but insatiable ego will get the better of them even in the mildest of disputes, and they will not be able to resist "the power of the gun" if they had one. Their meglomania makes them think that their personal character flaws are shared by everyone else, so they project this onto others and come up with the knee-jerk reaction to stop other people from acting like the a-holes they know they are by banning everyone from owning guns.

It does not surprise me one bit that the armed OP, whom his libtard acquaintance would likely say is "looking for trouble/wants to be a vigilante", would be the one to seek a peaceful solution if at all possible, while the anti-gun idiot would be the first one to resort to violence. Typical anti-gun idiot.

I fart in his *specific* direction...

Ahhh, I guess that half the people on this thread are “black-hearted liberals” who could not be trusted to act responsibly & not shoot an unarmed man since there are that many pro-gun people who said they would shoot the guy, too.

You need to look into the mirror of INGO before spouting a bunch of crap that could describe many of the people here.

From what I have learned you can take the level someone has attacked you with or go one step above. For example if someone for no reason just punches you, you can punch back OR use less than deadly force.

No. There is No requirement in IN law that says that. There are only three requirements to justify use of deadly force:

1 – reasonable fear of SBI (which includes death)
2 – to stop a forcible felony
3 – to stop an attack on your home or occupied car

We don’t have to follow any force continuum. We aren’t bound by any “one step higher” rule. If the situation meets the above criteria then you can use deadly force.

I would never use deadly force until I was in fear of my own life.

You don’t JUST have to be in fear of death. Serious bodily injury includes many things less than death. For example, “potential unconsciousness” is justification to use deadly force in self-defense.

If hes just wanting to throw hands ill oblige him. If he has a weapon

& what happens when he just happens to get that lucky shot that kills you or makes you unconscious so he can kill you at his leisure?

Not to mention that as soon as you “oblige him” your claim of SD just got way harder should the situation take a deadly turn. You can't use SD as a justification if you have "entered into combat" with the other person.

Lastly, not all "liberals" are anti-gun. By most of your standards, I might be considered a liberal (or a very lukewarm conservative :P). Im extremely pro-gun though. Political opinions are just that, opinions. They do define you, and therefore radically judging someone because of their opinions is a good way to be called ignorant.

OMG! Not another one!

Reasoned common sense. I like it.

Lastly, I don't think most people are actually aware of that statute. I can point to a hundred instances right here on INGO where people have said things in direct contradiction to it.

Yep. Exactly. Even after the IC has been posted several times in the same thread.

Having spoken to a lawyer who is an avid gun guy (jmb79 here on the board), he says there IS case law AGAINST the disparity of size arguement. He did not cite the specifics (hoping someone here would), but you cannot, unless enfeebled or something similar, use "he was bigger than I was" as a shooting defense.

Anyone have actual law to dispute or support this? Would this be for criminal or civil court, or both?

Oh great!

That makes no sense at all. How could any court reasonably decide that it is unreasonable for a 90lb man to be in fear of AT LEAST SBI from someone 2-3 times his size or ½ to 1/3 his age, even if unarmed?

I’d really have to see it to believe it.