Saw something interesting tonight..

[Cemetery-man]

Now I'm assuming all of you that are drinking at the bar while carrying are walking or hitching a ride home? I hate to think of someone commiting a felony while possessing a handgun!

 

[peterock]

on the subject of self defense, you can only shoot someone if you can prove your life is in jeopardy..meaning if someone shoves you, you cant put a .40 in their face. If someone punches you, you can't double tap them in the chest with a .45. But back to my original statement, bars are privately held business and can tell people to leave whenever and for whatever reason. I institute a no weapons rule at the bars i manage to cover every single person walking in, gang banger, recreational shooter, someone who carries everyday, sword weilding ninja. If I were to say "dudes who look like gang bangers cant carry guns in this bar" that would be discrimination and make the establishment open to a law suit.

 

[indytechnerd]

on the subject of self defense, you can only shoot someone if you can prove your life is in jeopardy..meaning if someone shoves you, you cant put a .40 in their face. If someone punches you, you can't double tap them in the chest with a .45. But back to my original statement, bars are privately held business and can tell people to leave whenever and for whatever reason. I institute a no weapons rule at the bars i manage to cover every single person walking in, gang banger, recreational shooter, someone who carries everyday, sword weilding ninja. If I were to say "dudes who look like gang bangers cant carry guns in this bar" that would be discrimination and make the establishment open to a law suit.

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.

my emphasis added...

I don't have to prove my life was in jeopardy, only that I reasonably believed my life was in jeopardy. Granted, a single shove or a single punch won't lend too much weight to my feeling. It's been discussed in many other threads. Where do you (or I) draw the line?

Your line and mine may be different, maybe not. Do you wand, pat down, or otherwise ensure that nobody has a weapon in your bars? How do you define a weapon? Horror image of bottle attack on teenager | Metro.co.uk

 

[alwalker84]

Like the Monkey said, better to be judged than buried...

It is not illegal to carry in bars in Indiana, I see know reason why it should be either. As for worrying if the report might state alcohol was involved who really cares as long as you are the one not getting a dirt nap. Just make sure that the shoot is a righteous shoot...

This...

 

[alwalker84]

on the subject of self defense, you can only shoot someone if you can prove your life is in jeopardy..meaning if someone shoves you, you cant put a .40 in their face. If someone punches you, you can't double tap them in the chest with a .45. But back to my original statement, bars are privately held business and can tell people to leave whenever and for whatever reason. I institute a no weapons rule at the bars i manage to cover every single person walking in, gang banger, recreational shooter, someone who carries everyday, sword weilding ninja. If I were to say "dudes who look like gang bangers cant carry guns in this bar" that would be discrimination and make the establishment open to a law suit.

Change that to "come in this bar" and you would be refering to Broadripple...

 

[IndyMonkey]

my emphasis added...

I don't have to prove my life was in jeopardy, only that I reasonably believed my life was in jeopardy. Granted, a single shove or a single punch won't lend too much weight to my feeling. It's been discussed in many other threads. Where do you (or I) draw the line?

Your line and mine may be different, maybe not. Do you wand, pat down, or otherwise ensure that nobody has a weapon in your bars? How do you define a weapon? Horror image of bottle attack on teenager | Metro.co.uk

Anyone who wants to have a physical interaction with me makes me feel like my life is in danger. Trying to figure out if he wants to kick my @ss or beat me to death is a fine line that may be too late when I figure it out.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

In regard to the NEGATIVE rep I received for my earlier post,I will attempt to explain a little common sense. SHOOTING and alcohol don't mix, CARRYING is a completely different act from SHOOTING. While I would certainly never get drunk and go shooting, I see ABSOLUTELY no problem with having my concealed weapon while drinking or even being drunk(remember drunk means less than 1 beer per hour or .08BAC).

 

[spartan933]

It's not illegal to carry in bars in Indiana.

That being said, if I plan on having more than two beers, I am not going to carry. Guns and alcohol don't mix. And, God forbid some douche bag frat boy that is solely out to get as drunk as he can wants to start a fight with me, I would rather take a beating than have to draw my handgun. And, being that most bar fights involve rolling around on the ground at some point, I know that although I would still not draw my handgun, the idiot who starts a fight with me might feel it under my shirt and try to grab it, then the situation comes to a level that is way to dangerous.

Besides, I would rather look like a wuss and have them talking trash to me than get in a fight. I will pay my tab and walk away.

And, is it just me, or as you get older, you just don't drink to get obliterated anymore? I can't deal with the horrific hangovers I used to get when I would go out every night looking for a morally flexible babe.

 

[rtrouten]

your good judgment goes down hill when drinking, believe me, I have taken some home that if I had not been drinking I would have never even talked to, not that I am some stud but I have my limits....any way with that being said, I don't think it is smart for you to mix gun and drink in public, but then again some folks don't think it is a good idea for us 2nd amendment supports to carry at all and we tell them all to go to hell..right? It really needs to be your own comfort level with that decision because it is not against the law to mix the two, just like it is not for me oc or cc is not against the law and I don't want some *** telling me not to. side note: not calling you an ***!!!

 

[CountryBoy19]

You know it seems pretty simple to me.

If you carry DON'T drink alcohol, it's that simple. If you FEEL it's OK to drink alcohol while carrying you have a much bigger problem and are probably not really mature enough to be carrying in the first place. It's not really worth the chance you are taking. These two materials just plainly DO NOT go together. One of the first things I was taught about firearms. Also before you go off on my post STOP for a moment and give some thought to what I have just said.

Have you ever drank before? If so, you should know that (as previously stated) alcohol does not change your beliefs. It gives you courage to say and do the stupid things that you don't have the courage to do while sober. So if your mentality isn't strong enough to handle alcohol and reasonably judge a shoot/no-shoot situation then I agree, but if your mentality is that "weak" you likely also couldn't handle an angering situation and judging a shoot/no-shoot situation. I think I can honestly say that if you can't mentally handle a little bit of alcohol and still making a sane judgment of when your life is in danger, then you likely won't be able to handle a road rage incident where you're also aggitated. Alcohol changes NOTHING other than your judgement and your motor skills. As already stated, the addition of alcohol doesn't automatically change a "shoot" situation to a "no-shoot" sistuation, its still justified, the shooter just has to be certain he is making the correct judgement call. With the proper mindset, alcohol WILL NOT effect that judgement call. There are different types of "drunks". Some people, when filled with "liquid courage" turn in to the ultimate bad*** and get aggressive etc, IMHO if thats you, you shouldn't be carrying. But others actually don't change much at all; when I drink I don't get violent, I get "silly" or "funny". I don't think alcohol negatively effects my judgement to make the call. But then again, when I drink, I'm always extra cautious to keep an eye out for trouble so I can high-tail it out of there before it starts because I don't want to take the risk of needing to use my weapon (like any time). That leaves me with my closing remark. It should be up to each individual to make that judgement call on whether they're mentally mature enough to handle such a thing. Calling somebody immature for protecting themselves when they are fully capable is a bit immature itself isn't it?

 

[Glock32j]

Carrying in the bar ' Is frowned upon, like masterbating on a plane.....thanks Bin Laden' Alan The Hangover.

 

[peterock]

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.

Applies to your property.. Not in public. Make sure you make note of the word reasonable, which is reasonable in the eyes of the law, not reasonable to a trigger happy person wanting to shoot someone because they feel threatened. There are alot of amatuer paralegals on this board, I would suggest not taking anything you read on here as the absolute truth. Feel free to consult a lawyer or leo before trusting what you read here. Before someone gets butt hurt about my last statement, sure if someone tells you la hacienda has 2.75 dos equis, believe that. If someone tells you that you are within the law to shoot someone because you felt threatened, don't believe it.

 

[ATM]

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.

Applies to your property.. Not in public...

Where do you read that from the code you cited?

 

[Roadie]

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.

Applies to your property.. Not in public. Make sure you make note of the word reasonable, which is reasonable in the eyes of the law, not reasonable to a trigger happy person wanting to shoot someone because they feel threatened. There are alot of amatuer paralegals on this board, I would suggest not taking anything you read on here as the absolute truth. Feel free to consult a lawyer or leo before trusting what you read here. Before someone gets butt hurt about my last statement, sure if someone tells you la hacienda has 2.75 dos equis, believe that. If someone tells you that you are within the law to shoot someone because you felt threatened, don't believe it.

Wrong.

Read it again

...now read the rest of it:

(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a)

The reason things get misunderstood, is because of cases like YOUR post, that left out the rest of the IC that was pertinent to the discussion.

 

[peterock]

The information is coming from a lawyer, sitting next to me. And trust me nothing in my post could be misunderstood. Nice tone though, you'd be fun to argue with.... Lots of yelling and pouting I'd imagine.

 

[ATM]

The information is coming from a lawyer, sitting next to me. And trust me nothing in my post could be misunderstood. Nice tone though, you'd be fun to argue with.... Lots of yelling and pouting I'd imagine.

No tone here, but I think I am fun to argue with.

Please allow me to rephrase:

Where does your lawyer read that from the code you cited?

...or case law.

 

[peterock]

Not your tone, roadies. He said if you are interested, google "self defense" shooting and see for yourself or google self defense and case law.

 

[Roadie]

The information is coming from a lawyer, sitting next to me. And trust me nothing in my post could be misunderstood. Nice tone though, you'd be fun to argue with.... Lots of yelling and pouting I'd imagine.

If you are referring to me with this post..

I merely disagree with you and you see that as a negative tone?

Have your lawyer friend read this part of the Code:

(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a)

...and tell us how "property other than a dwelling" in the IC, actually only "Applies to your property.. Not in public. " as you stated.

After reading it YOURSELF, you really still believe that it only applies to "your property"?

 

[ATM]

Not your tone, roadies. He said if you are interested, google "self defense" shooting and see for yourself or google self defense and case law.

No thanks. I didn't make the statement and have no intention of working to support it contrary to what the law clearly states.

 

[Roadie]

Not your tone, roadies. He said if you are interested, google "self defense" shooting and see for yourself or google self defense and case law.

Ah, so in other words, he has nothing, lol

BTW, newbie, we have several attorneys on here that specialize in gun law. One even teaches a class on it. We have been over this before, so we aren't just talking out our a$$es here. Quite simply, you and your "attorney" are wrong.