Please end my FB debate on justified shoot

[Kirk Freeman]

If they are not in your car, I would think you would be justified in shooting or cutting one of your own tires, immobilizing the car.

No. If we don't need to shoot beyond a reasonable doubt to save our DNA, then we keep the pistol in the holster.

We don't have badges or salad suits and thus are not dripping with qualified immunity.

Let's not risk projectiles bouncing off metal wheels. Let's not have to have the police check any other box other than victim.

 

[gregkl]

I literally just spent about 5hrs of today in the Guy Relfords Essenentials of Indiana Gun Law class. This is covered explicitly. Deadly force is not justified with property crimes. Unless said property is being occupied and a forcible felony is occurring AND deadly force is necessary to stop/ prevent said crime. Simply put: someone stealing your car in the driveway while you are inside= so long car. Someone stealing your car while you are operating it at a stoplight= may use deadly force.

Quite possibly the most informative, useful, and applicable firearms class I have ever taken.

 

[churchmouse]

2 so members voted yes.

I thought we banned SnS a long time ago. Thats crazy

 

[churchmouse]

In a perfect world.... Don't start none won't be none. Stupid should hurt.
I would not convict. It's high time the victims rights were restored over criminals.

Agreed but we (almost) all know the libs have infected our rights.

 

[pack-indy]

Quite possibly the most informative, useful, and applicable firearms class I have ever taken.

Same here.

 

[MCgrease08]

My head hurts from reading through that. Plenty of chest beating vigilanties out there.

It's threads like that the anti-gunners point to when they claim gun owners are all violent Rambo wannabies just looking for the chance to shoot someone.

 

[HubertGummer]

As much as the little bast***s would deserve a few bullet wounds, we can't shoot(as stated above, no deadly threat). So the criminals can continue on their way and rob who knows how many more.

 

[HubertGummer]

Quite possibly the most informative, useful, and applicable firearms class I have ever taken.

Same here.

Yes, well worth the money. Guy teaches it very well and its nice to get legal info directly from an lawyer who know the laws. I'd recommend that class to anyone who is thinking of carrying.

 

[actaeon277]

Thanks pac-Indy. That doesn't satisfy the Facebook idiots though

Sadly nothing can satisfy the idiots on Facebook.

It's not just Facebook.
I've heard really silly stuff out there.
And, if you counter it, show them the law, they still refuse to believe.

I've been wrong before. But I'd like to think I'm open minded enough to change it when shown the evidence.

 

[actaeon277]

And yes, Guy Relford's class is great.

I've taken the 8 hour class. And the shorter class. It's good to refresh the knowledge, and see what's changed.

 

[gregkl]

It's not just Facebook.
I've heard really silly stuff out there.
And, if you counter it, show them the law, they still refuse to believe.

I've been wrong before. But I'd like to think I'm open minded enough to change it when shown the evidence.

When people are ruled by their emotions, facts won't change their mind. And that is a fact.

 

[eatsnopaste]

now, if this was in Tennessee, could you say you thought they were protesting in your driveway and run them down?

 

[Kutnupe14]

This gets very sticky, and Guy would disagree that the pointing of a firearm could be justified in a property crime as that act alone is considered deadly force under Indiana statutes. Reasonable force may be applied, yes. Now if you are enacting a citizens arrest and the crime being committed is a felony, then yes you are legally justified in pointing a firearm to arrest them. Same act, but viewed differently by the law.

35-41-3-2
35-41-3-3

Obviously, this is a matter of debate, but in practice, I have never seen anyone hemmed up for pointing a gun at someone breaking into their car or retreating from their home with ill-gotten gains (and it happens a lot). Never. It's never even been a consideration to charge that person. It just depends on who you'd rather take you chance with in deciding which is reasonable; a group of voters sitting on a jury, or the guy, who you aren't sure is armed who is victimizing you.

 

[pack-indy]

Obviously, this is a matter of debate, but in practice, I have never seen anyone hemmed up for pointing a gun at someone breaking into their car or retreating from their home with ill-gotten gains (and it happens a lot). Never. It's never even been a consideration to charge that person. It just depends on who you'd rather take you chance with in deciding which is reasonable; a group of voters sitting on a jury, or the guy, who you aren't sure is armed who is victimizing you.

Agreed. I doubt a prosecutor is going to split hairs on something like this, but I'm also not going to be the one to find out either!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Agreed. I doubt a prosecutor is going to split hairs on something like this, but I'm also not going to be the one to find out either!

I feel ya, that's why I said I wished people would just "let it go," when it comes to material crimes. But I understand how hard that would be, and how angry people are when they are victimized. I don't support shooting people who commit property crimes, but in the moment, I completely understand why people do it.

 

[pack-indy]

I feel ya, that's why I said I wished people would just "let it go," when it comes to material crimes. But I understand how hard that would be, and how angry people are when they are victimized. I don't support shooting people who commit property crimes, but in the moment, I completely understand why people do it.

Exactly.

 

[Trigger Time]

2 so members voted yes.

I thought we banned SnS a long time ago. Thats crazy

id be more concerned about the people who voted no but in real life would shoot them because they are hot heads that can't use rational thought under pressure. Think before you act people and obey the law as it is written now. Don't get arrested because you ended a criminal. If I was on the jury I'd vote to clear (nullification) you but others would not.

i wouldn't shoot them because I know I'd go to jail most likely. (So voted no). However my personal view is that one should be allowed to ventalate thieves! Like you can in Texas. I hope one day our state representatatives will pass a law allowing us to shoot thieves in the act. For now I'd just call the police. Let them have fun with them. Although 911 sucks so bad that by the time you are transferred and then the run is relayed to an officer if they aren't already on another run, they respond and the perp is already gone. Or at least that's been our experience

 

[Trigger Time]

I feel ya, that's why I said I wished people would just "let it go," when it comes to material crimes. But I understand how hard that would be, and how angry people are when they are victimized. I don't support shooting people who commit property crimes, but in the moment, I completely understand why people do it.

i learned a long time ago not to act out of anger. Everything we do even violent actions must be calculated and thought out even in a rapid evolving moment. Some people lose their minds, other people see things slow down to almost slow motion and react.
i do think stealing is an act that should be punished by death if caught in the act. However one should follow the laws of their land (state) so as not to be locked up for doing the right although illegal thing.

 

[gregr]

The surest way to end Facebook debates is to log off Facebook...

 

[gregr]

Let's expound on this. While you can't just shoot them for the crime they are committing, you are allowed to employ a "reasonable amount of force," to prevent the crime. Drawing down on them and approaching them to get them to flee or leave, is certainly reasonable. Threatening to shoot them (but not actually doing it) is also reasonable. As much as I would like to say "it's just stuff, leave it," that's not how many people would typically respond... so it's best to know your options.

^^^^^ THIS. Does anyone else ever think through the what ifs throughout the day, aka Walter Mitty? I`m at the check out at Aldi`s, two sketchy looking dudes are directly in front of me, and I`m between them and my wife. One lady being rung out just ahead of them. I watch as they step up and the cashier starts to ring up their grocery`s, and I think through: If they drew weapons now and began a robbery, could I safely draw and fire? Would I announce myself first and allow an opportunity for them to drop weapons? Would I draw at all, or stand down and hope they simply take the money and not harm innocents?

Lots of what ifs, and it`s a huge responsibility knowing that if you draw, and especially if you fire, everything changes. If you don`t draw and fire and someone get`s hurt of killed, everything changes...