Any legal concerns here.

[Sigblitz]

Stephen Willeford was recognized at the NRA convention by President Trump. This was a week ago and I haven't given it any more thought than him stopping the gunman and being recognized for it. Funny how the mind works, I was thinking about him tonight. I'm not trying to cast a shadow on any of that.

So let's seperate it and just use it as an account of events. In Indiana, would I legally be out of line to be safe at home and run to a gun fight. And shoot at the guy through his back window, not being allowed to shoot someone in the back and all. This is just a place for legal thoughts on it without being called out for being unpatriotic. If it was just a fight down at the end of my street, would this fly?

In the link, Willeford talks about his heroic deeds at 1h 23m.

https://youtu.be/m1mf5YDC-p0

 

[Sigblitz]

The church gunman is no longer a threat, and Willeford helped make that happen. I'm good with that. Anyone would be.

 

[GIJEW]

This is the reason for having jury trials. Since he was a mass murderer he was arguably an imminent threat to society; and since there was no doubt about I.D. since they'd just exchanged fire; they jury would probably give him a pass--especially in TX where it's legal to shoot in defense of property

 

[idkfa]

Laws are imperfect, and frequently do not account for edge cases, and this clearly is one.

Since US courts use (and set) precedents, judges not only apply the law, they also make the law -- to account for particular edge cases.

Therefore, while individual aspects of Willeford's actions were clearly in violation of existing laws, they do not necessarily determine (or even affect) the outcome of a potential hypothetical trial.

And that trial is indeed only hypothetical, since a prosecutor would have to determine if they have a case they can win, and simply would not prosecute this one in the first place.
The magnitude of the event in question and the public perception play perhaps even a bigger role than facts in the outcome of a (potential) trial, and, consequently, decision to prosecute (compare to Smollett's case).

 

[actaeon277]

There's nothing that says you can't shoot someone in the back.

If someone is trying to kill someone else, and you are behind them, what are you supposed to do? Ask them to wait for you to get in front?

The deciding factor is if they are a threat.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Is there something you are reading in the Indiana self-defense statutes where you believe this would be a problem under Indiana law?

 

[Ark]

This is the reason for having jury trials. Since he was a mass murderer he was arguably an imminent threat to society; and since there was no doubt about I.D. since they'd just exchanged fire; they jury would probably give him a pass--especially in TX where it's legal to shoot in defense of property

And that's exactly why if I'm in Illinois, and I hear gunfire and screaming coming from the church across the street, I'm gonna close the window and turn up the TV. There are parts of this country that respect heroes, and there are parts of this country that put them in prison.

 

[Sigblitz]

Is there something you are reading in the Indiana self-defense statutes where you believe this would be a problem under Indiana law?

No. I'm hearing him saying the guy was getting away and he shot through the back window.

 

[Sigblitz]

And that's exactly why if I'm in Illinois, and I hear gunfire and screaming coming from the church across the street, I'm gonna close the window and turn up the TV. There are parts of this country that respect heroes, and there are parts of this country that put them in prison.

Well yeah, there's that.

 

[Sigblitz]

And that's exactly why if I'm in Illinois, and I hear gunfire and screaming coming from the church across the street, I'm gonna close the window and turn up the TV. There are parts of this country that respect heroes, and there are parts of this country that put them in prison.

Well yeah, there's that

 

[Sigblitz]

I was watching Live TV body cam. Someone shot at an officer. There's a car chase. Another officer stands on the side of the road and shoots him as he goes by. There must be some deciding criteria when it's ok to shoot someone driving by, or shoot behind someone.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I was watching Live TV body cam. Someone shot at an officer. There's a car chase. Another officer stands on the side of the road and shoots him as he goes by. There must be some deciding criteria when it's ok to shoot someone driving by, or shoot behind someone.

Yes, the continuing threat aspect of the self-defense statute.

 

[Sigblitz]

Just remembered something. The live pd episode, shoots at the oncoming car, as it drives by, and behind it. With a full auto. Cop shot an innocent bystander across the highway. WTF.

 

[Sigblitz]

Full auto on an active highway.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Full auto on an active highway.

Less than optimal.

I would cite Rule #4 but do not want to cause an INGO Safety Fistfight in your thread.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Someone Who had just committed mass murder would be a threat coming or going. I do have concerns about for full auto on the side of a highway. Kirk and I don’t agree on beer, but we do agree on rule 4.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Someone Who had just committed mass murder would be a threat coming or going. I do have concerns about for full auto on the side of a highway. Kirk and I don’t agree on beer, but we do agree on rule 4.

We do not agree, but I am correct on beer.

 

[JettaKnight]

Less than optimal.

I would cite Rule #4 but do not want to cause an INGO Safety Fistfight in your thread.

 

[hpclayto]

Try Tennessee vs. Gardner.

 

[actaeon277]

Someone shoots a mass murderer after he is done.. I'm not convicting.