When do you draw your weapon?

[finity]

That doesn't change the objective: remain un-injured and prevent further lethal action by a criminal offender(s).

That’s OUR sole objective. That is why we are limited in when & how we can respond in self-defense.

That’s not necessarily the cops’ sole objective. They have other objectives, too. And different limitations.

That’s why their rules of engagement are different than ours.

What case law are you referring to?

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/previous/archive/01110103.par.html

"‘Deadly force’ means force that creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.” Ind. Code § 35-41-1-7. …

…Thus, within the context of a charge of criminal recklessness, pointing a loaded firearm is considered an action that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person….

…Our supreme court has also held that brandishing an unloaded firearm can create a substantial risk of bodily injury. …

…We find that these concerns equally apply to the case before the court. By pointing a loaded gun at Petro’s head, Nantz created a variety of risks that could have lead to serious bodily injury…

… We concluded that even assuming that Upp was not attempting to shoot the trespasser, his behavior still created a substantial risk of bodily injury because Upp could have missed his aim or a bullet could have struck a stone, ricocheted and injured the trespasser…

…Although Nantz did not fire his handgun as the defendant did in Upp, by pointing the gun at Petro’s head, the gun could have accidentally discharged or Petro could have grabbed the gun causing serious injury or death to one or both of these men…

The court equated pointing a firearm to the use of deadly force (not the “threat of deadly force” as you suggested it was).

Since the USE OF deadly force was not justified in that case then pointing a firearm at them was UNREASONABLE.

He didn’t pull the trigger. He was convicted. He went to prison. He is now a felon.

I never said to point when deadly force wasn't justified. I said you can point when shooting wasn't quite justified; yet.

No. No, No, No.

If you can’t actually shoot because it’s not justified then you can’t point the gun at them either since, according to the appeals court decision above, POINTING A FIREARM = DEADLY FORCE.

Are you trying to say that there is somehow some kind of difference between the definition of “deadly force” & the act of shooting someone?

I hate to break it to you but shooting at someone IS deadly force. If you can’t shoot them then that means you can’t use “deadly force” then that means you can’t point your gun at them.

I don’t get what you don’t get about that.

Once again, full particulars are in Farnam's writings. IIRC, Ayoob also covered the same exact subject several times.

I don’t care who says it.

It’s not (from the sound of it) in line with the state of the law in IN so it’s not valid.

I will state again that there are times when pointing is justified, but shooting is not quite justified; yet. Just as there are instances when police do it, there are instances when non-LEOs' can, and should, and have.

& I will state again that you 100% completely wrong.

There is NEVER a time when you can legally point your gun at someone without ALSO being legally justified in pulling the trigger.

Just because LEO’s can do it doesn’t mean we can.

Just because someone got away with it doesn’t mean it’s legal. There are people who get away with murder but it doesn’t make it legal.

The “should” part is at least debatable. I agree that it “should” be the law & at one time without knowing about the above court case I argued for the other side. The letter of the law says that pointing a firearm can be considered reasonable (not deadly) force. That court case changed everything.

 

[Sticky]

That’s OUR sole objective. That is why we are limited in when & how we can respond in self-defense.

That’s not necessarily the cops’ sole objective. They have other objectives, too. And different limitations.

I can guarantee that remaining un-injured is right at the top of the list. As is preventing any further lethal acts.

That’s why their rules of engagement are different than ours.



http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/previous/archive/01110103.par.html



The court equated pointing a firearm to the use of deadly force (not the “threat of deadly force” as you suggested it was).

Since the USE OF deadly force was not justified in that case then pointing a firearm at them was UNREASONABLE.

He didn’t pull the trigger. He was convicted. He went to prison. He is now a felon.

That particular case law doesn't seem to deal with my statement. Or to be a ruling on it.

No. No, No, No.

Yes, Yes, Yes.

If you can’t actually shoot because it’s not justified then you can’t point the gun at them either since, according to the appeals court decision above, POINTING A FIREARM = DEADLY FORCE.

Are you trying to say that there is somehow some kind of difference between the definition of “deadly force” & the act of shooting someone?

Depends on which definition you are referring to.

I hate to break it to you but shooting at someone IS deadly force. If you can’t shoot them then that means you can’t use “deadly force” then that means you can’t point your gun at them.

I don’t get what you don’t get about that.



I don’t care who says it.

It’s not (from the sound of it) in line with the state of the law in IN so it’s not valid.

Notice the disclaimer, "(from the sound of it)".

& I will state again that you 100% completely wrong.

There is NEVER a time when you can legally point your gun at someone without ALSO being legally justified in pulling the trigger.

Actually, there is. If I could quote the one sentence that is Farnam's guideline, you would immediately "get it"; probably. Too bad that this isn't a critical review, which would allow a quote; thereby preventing a copyright violation. Police have many restrictions on their use of "deadly force". What exemptions, from that use, do they possess?

Just because LEO’s can do it doesn’t mean we can.

Just because someone got away with it doesn’t mean it’s legal. There are people who get away with murder but it doesn’t make it legal.

The “should” part is at least debatable. I agree that it “should” be the law & at one time without knowing about the above court case I argued for the other side. The letter of the law says that pointing a firearm can be considered reasonable (not deadly) force. That court case changed everything.

See above.

I just noticed that we have apparently hijacked the OP's original subject. Apologies for that.

If you'd like to start a new thread on something like "When do you point your weapon?" vs "When do you shoot your weapon?"; I'm game. Of course, since I'm not comfortable with quoting copyrighted material in a non-critical forum post; I'll mostly just be repeating what I've already said. It should be really easy to find Farnam's or Ayoob's thoughts on the matter. They are, after all, court appointed experts in these areas; in many states. I am not. Which is why I have always followed their opinions on the subject.

For those who don't know the "when" of drawing, pointing, and firing; research on that escalation of force might be both useful and interesting. It certainly was useful when I had my own defensive incident. Which was successful, operationally and legally, in part, due to the writings and training materials of those two fine gentlemen.

 

[bwframe]

Life?

I read. A lot.

Thanks. That explains it.

 

[finity]

That particular case law doesn't seem to deal with my statement. Or to be a ruling on it.

Your statement was that (paraphrasing here): "It is OK to point a gun at someone when it's not legally justified in using deadly force (i.e. ACTUALLY shooting them)".

I'm saying that the case SPECIFICALLY stated that pointing a firearm at someone was using deadly force so unless using deadly force it statutorily justified then pointing a fiream is illegal.

That case may not have dealt with the SPECIFIC set of circumstances that you are talking about (but I guess I'm not sure of that either since you haven't given one concrete example or scenario to backup your assertion) but I'd be willing to bet that the next trial involving pointing a firearm in a situation where deadly force wasn't statutorily justified that the court will look to that PRECEDENT in order to make it's ruling.

Depends on which definition you are referring to.

Well, I always think it's best to look to the legal definition in the state that the event/trial would be occuring.

To wit:

IC 35-41-1-7
"Deadly force" defined
Sec. 7. "Deadly force" means force that creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.8.

Interestingly, that is the EXACT SAME definition the court in the posted case used to determine that "pointing a firearm" was equivalent to using "deadly force" as defined by the above statute.

If you start using your OWN definition (or Farnham's or Ayoob's or whoever) then you immediately start out on legally shaky ground IN THE JURISDICTION WHERE THE EVENT OCCURED.

Notice the disclaimer, "(from the sound of it)".

Well, since you haven't even given any even minor details of what Farnham said then I'm simply allowing for the POSSIBILITY that what he said was in line with IN law & you are simply mistating his position.

Actually, there is. If I could quote the one sentence that is Farnam's guideline, you would immediately "get it"; probably. Too bad that this isn't a critical review, which would allow a quote; thereby preventing a copyright violation.

You couldn't even come up with a reasonable paraphrasing of his position so that we could discuss this intelligently as opposed to you just saying "he said it. TRUST ME."?

Well, aside from just restating that (you think) there are times when it is legal to point a gun at somewhen it's not legal to shoot them?

I just noticed that we have apparently hijacked the OP's original subject. Apologies for that.

No we haven't. This is perfectly germane to the topic & discussion at hand since pointing your weapon is the next LOGICAL step when your weapon is drawn.

It should be really easy to find Farnam's or Ayoob's thoughts on the matter.

If it's so easy then please feel free to post a link to that information. Posting a link is in no way a violation of "copyright" rules.

They are, after all, court appointed experts in these areas; in many states.

Actually, I think that Ayoob is typically hired by the defense in those kinds of trials.

I have no idea about Farnham.

Are they "court appointed experts" in IN?

It certainly was useful when I had my own defensive incident. Which was successful, operationally and legally, in part, due to the writings and training materials of those two fine gentlemen.

Maybe you can give YOUR example & what kind of information was useful since YOUR information isn't "copyrighted".

At least that would be a real world example to continue this discussion without referring to some vague "he said so, you just have to believe me" crap.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

If I'm in any way in fear of my life, or the life of my loved ones, I'm going to draw. I'll deal with the aftermath later. As they say "It's better to be tried by twelve, then carried by six".

 

[finity]

Thanks. That explains it.

And let me guess, your information is aquired through 'a lifetime of professional training".

Please feel free to prove me wrong by posting a SIGNIFICANT sampling of cases where the facts would seem as if the person acted reasonably but was nonetheless convicted for using a gun in self-defense.

If it happened as much as many seem to think then that should be a very easy thing to do.

 

[bwframe]

Please feel free to prove me wrong ...

When it comes to training, it appears that you have already done that. The rest, I'll just take it with a grain of salt.

 

[finity]

When it comes to training, it appears that you have already done that. The rest, I'll just take it with a grain of salt.

OOHHH...snap!

I didn't think you could...

 

[bwframe]

But most likely, on the street, I am going to be in the middle of trouble before I have time to draw. Would-be muggers and others wishing me (or my lady) harm are not going to announce it from 50ft away. If I sense trouble, or feel I may need to protect myself, when does the gun come out?

If two suspicious guys are coming my way on the same sidewalk, they will be in my face before I recognize trouble, unholster, and draw. On the other hand, if I draw and they were just going to try and give me a flyer to some band playing in the area, I look like a crazy person.

Left hand high near face, preferably with a retina frying light/kubaton in it for lighting up, blocking and blunt force. Very, very strong chance that no one will advance into your high lumen light. They will be totally blinded.

Right hand poised on front pocket folder. You can deploy as they are on you, WITHOUT BRANDISHING, as compared to in advance. It comes out faster in CQ, not near as likely to be blocked and very easy to shift draw to pistol if events go that way.

Of course you could always take your chances with...

...respond in a reasonable manner they will be OK...whether they've had "a lifetime of training" or not.

Up to you I guess...

 

[finity]

Left hand high near face, preferably with a retina frying light/kubaton in it for lighting up, blocking and blunt force.
Right hand poised on front pocket folder. You can deploy as they are on you as compared to in advance. It comes out faster in CQ, not near as likely to be blocked and very easy to shift draw to pistol if events go that way.

Of course you could always...

Up to you I guess...

Yawn...

Am I supposed to be impressed...?

I never said training wasn't valuable. Please point me to where I said that. (I didn't think you could...)

I just said it wasn't absolutely necessary for you to come out on top, physically & legally, in a self-defense situation, as you training snobs seem to imply. People do it ALL THE TIME.

 

[bwframe]

...as you training snobs seem to imply.

Says it all...

 

[bwframe]

...Am I supposed to be impressed...?

Wouldn't expect that. Your "training" comes from the keyboard.
Besides that, the OP was addressed, not you. Strange "ME" complex?

I never said training wasn't valuable. Please point me to where I said that. (I didn't think you could...)

I'm not trying to discount training in any way. I'm just saying that for the majority of people if they just respond in a reasonable manner they will be OK...whether they've had "a lifetime of training" or not.

Right, kind of like saying;
"I don't want to be an a-hole, but you are a (fill in the blank.)

 

[finity]

Besides that, the OP was addressed, not you. Strange "ME" complex?

You quoted "ME" in your post. Obviously it was directed toward "ME" in some way.

Right, kind of like saying;
"I don't want to be an a-hole, but you are a (fill in the blank.)

Obviously you missed the first part where I said "I'm not trying to discount training in any way."

That statement is not stating training isn't valuable. Try again.

I'm just saying it isn't required. To say otherwise & to imply that just because one doesn't have "a lifetime of training" then they will have no way of knowing how to physically & legally defend themselves from a threat is...well...snobbish.

It's the same mentality that some LEO's have about how they are "the only one's" trained properly to be able to carry safely.

Or the people who try to get training mandated because they don't want to be out in public with "idiots running around with guns that could kill anybody at any second because they haven't been "trained" like them".

Or the gun-grabbers who say that ordinary people will get into gun-fights over parking spaces because they are irrational & untrained.

Then you put the icing on the snobbiness cake by throwing out some "tacti-cool" lingo from your super-high-speed, ultra-low-drag stealth ninja operators class. Lingo that can be gleaned from any tacti-cool website by any 15 year old kid. It certainly doesn't prove anything as to anyone's level of training.

I asked you to show me the stats (any stats) that show the stated premise that those who are untrained get prosecuted as often as you imply or that they more often than not unsuccessfully defend themselves from a deadly threat.

You didn't. I don't think you can because it's not true.

I will say it again:

Training can be valuable.

MOST OF THE TIME if a person simply acts reasonably when faced with a deadly threat then they will likely not face any charges. They will likely not even get arrested.

It has been proven (by Kleck I think) that just fighting back saves lives. Fighting back with a weapon saves more lives. His study didn't say that those lives were only saved if the person doing the fighting had "a lifetime of training" because MOST PEOPLE DON'T & guess what? They commonly do OK in the kinds of self-defense situations that the average law-abiding person will be involved with.

 

[WETSU]

I'm afraid I may have started the "snobbish" thing with my post. It was not intended that way. Its merely the way I feel, based on my experiences and what I expect of myself.

Every year people defend themselves handily with Grandpa's Luger or that Rossi .38 in the sock drawer. That is outstanding. It works. They won their fight. Most of them turn out that way, and that is certainly great news for the good guys.

That is not good enough for me however. My luck would have it that I get jumped by 3 guys, in the dark, on a rainy night when I have a raging headache and a stomach bug. They hit me first, it goes to the ground and I am fighting for my life. THATs what I train for. Worst case. Not the mostly likely case.

I think my original comment holds true, that this is a thinking man's game. Evidenced by the thoughtful and spirited debate taking place in 8 pages of posts in this thread. That is awesome! Aside from the personal attacks or sniping, you guys have done a great job of developing the discussion, giving others something to chew on perhaps.

 

[Sticky]

Apologies again for my off-topic reply.

Your statement was that (paraphrasing here): "It is OK to point a gun at someone when it's not legally justified in using deadly force (i.e. ACTUALLY shooting them)".

Your "paraphrasing" is not what I said; you've changed what I said into what you want to hear. Re-read it. On second thought; I do, in fact, agree with your paraphrasing as long as the term "(i.e. ACTUALLY shooting them)" is included.

I'm saying that the case SPECIFICALLY stated that pointing a firearm at someone was using deadly force so unless using deadly force it statutorily justified then pointing a fiream is illegal.

That case may not have dealt with the SPECIFIC set of circumstances that you are talking about (but I guess I'm not sure of that either since you haven't given one concrete example or scenario to backup your assertion) but I'd be willing to bet that the next trial involving pointing a firearm in a situation where deadly force wasn't statutorily justified that the court will look to that PRECEDENT in order to make it's ruling.

I'd bet that the circumstances are far too incident-specific to make it past the defense.

Well, I always think it's best to look to the legal definition in the state that the event/trial would be occuring.

To wit:

[/I]


Interestingly, that is the EXACT SAME definition the court in the posted case used to determine that "pointing a firearm" was equivalent to using "deadly force" as defined by the above statute.

If you start using your OWN definition (or Farnham's or Ayoob's or whoever) then you immediately start out on legally shaky ground IN THE JURISDICTION WHERE THE EVENT OCCURED.

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Well, since you haven't even given any even minor details of what Farnham said then I'm simply allowing for the POSSIBILITY that what he said was in line with IN law & you are simply mistating his position.



You couldn't even come up with a reasonable paraphrasing of his position so that we could discuss this intelligently as opposed to you just saying "he said it. TRUST ME."?

And I won't. This forum has rules against copyrighted material that is not contained in a, for instance, critical book review. I'm saying, get the training or train yourself through some excellent instructors, or their books. Problem solved.

Well, aside from just restating that (you think) there are times when it is legal to point a gun at somewhen it's not legal to shoot them?

Sure, there are many instances of that. Ask any LEO or non-LEO who has done it and not been charged... Are you saying that there is a special statute that allows (or exempts) police to threaten deadly force, or it's use, when it is illegal for any other legally armed citizen? Interesting.

No we haven't. This is perfectly germane to the topic & discussion at hand since pointing your weapon is the next LOGICAL step when your weapon is drawn.



If it's so easy then please feel free to post a link to that information. Posting a link is in no way a violation of "copyright" rules.

Buy Farnam's and/or Ayoob's book or, if lucky, Amazon has a preview of the relevant pages. I'd give you a hint-phrase to search for, but that would probably be a copyright violation, too.

Actually, I think that Ayoob is typically hired by the defense in those kinds of trials.

I have no idea about Farnham.

Are they "court appointed experts" in IN?

I'd bet they have been or easily could be. They've only been doing it for... 30-40 years? Call it a total of forty to eighty man-years.

Maybe you can give YOUR example & what kind of information was useful since YOUR information isn't "copyrighted".

At least that would be a real world example to continue this discussion without referring to some vague "he said so, you just have to believe me" crap.

My example of his principle and/or guideline/information is copyrighted. There is no way to repeat it without violating copyright. Fair use would let me repeat it in a critical book review. This post doesn't qualify as a book review.

Makes one wonder why you want to argue/debate about a sentence or principle that you admittedly don't know, let alone understand? Look it up...

 

[rugertoter]

You are asking a question that is practically impossible to answer. One would have to have to be able to tell the future to be able to give you the right answer. There will be so many variables involved that one time may justify you to draw and the other will not. That is why CC or OC is a personal choice that should not be taken lightly. Even if you are in the right and did not have to shoot anybody, you will probably go thru some form of a hastle after you draw your weapon and the event is over. Be prepaired for that. I don't agree with it, but we all know how some of the public would react to MWAG. Chicken Little comes to mind here for me. Earlier someone posted when you feel your life or the lives of your loved ones are in danger, I tend to agree with that and would probably follow that protocol, but I could end up being wrong even if I am right. Just hope and pray you don't have to draw and be ready for when you decide to draw your weapon. I had to once, about four years ago outside a Mike's Carwash. I won't go into details, and it did turn out ok for me, but the cops were really ticked off and did not have any problems telling me so. They eventually said that I did nothing wrong and let me have my gun back and sent me on my way. Like I said, be ready to have yourself talked to like you are a child, and being a former Marine did not mean crap to them either. (One of them was a former Marine too, but I got no slack from him)

 

[finity]

On second thought; I do, in fact, agree with your paraphrasing as long as the term "(i.e. ACTUALLY shooting them)" is included.

Umm...

It was...

And I won't. This forum has rules against copyrighted material that is not contained in a, for instance, critical book review. I'm saying, get the training or train yourself through some excellent instructors, or their books. Problem solved.

But a link isn't a violation. I'm sure you could find SOME link to information that relates to the "sentence" you are saying supports your position.

ETA:

How about at least coming up with some hypothetical examples of situations that illustrate your position? I'm sure you could come with at least a couple, right?

THAT wouldn't be a violation...

Sure, there are many instances of that. Ask any LEO or non-LEO who has done it and not been charged... Are you saying that there is a special statute that allows (or exempts) police to threaten deadly force, or it's use, when it is illegal for any other legally armed citizen? Interesting.

Why, yes. Yes I am...

Here is the part of an IN law that deals with a non-LEO making a "citizen's arrest":

IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.

You can ONLY use "reasonable force" to arrest someone under very limited circumstances (unless "deadly force" is otherwise justified by the previous section). Pointing your gun at them is not "reasonable force". It is "deadly force" as decided by the IN court of appeals. We have to blieve that the threat has to be IMMINENT - meaning it's going to happen RIGHT NOW!

By contrast, here is the part of that same law that regulates LEO's.

(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily
injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.

The officer only has to have PC that the person poses a threat to him or someone else. It doesn't have to be IMMINENT. He only has to have some evidence to believe that it MAY happen or PROBABLY happen at some point in the future. There IS a difference.

Also, notice that he is required to give a warning before using deadly force if possible. We aren't.

That requirement ACTUALLY builds into the law the legality of pointing their gun WITHOUT shooting.

I would find it HIGHLY inlikely that a cop would be convicted for pointing his gun at someone & not shooting them to arrest them. It has already been shown by the case I posted that a non-LEO in that same situation would likely be.

As an example of this, let me point you to the MANY, MANY instances where police enter a suspect's home during a no knock warrant service (which I disagree with, BTW, but my personal feelings on that is immaterial) with guns drawn & POINTING THEM at the occupants without the threat being "IMMINENT". It is justified because they believe they MIGHT be in danger from those inside. Those cases have been repeatedly ruled completely legal.

Unless YOU are justified in using deadly force (the threat of serious bodily injury is imminent) YOU can't use "deadly force", therefore YOU can't point your gun at them, either.

My example of his principle and/or guideline/information is copyrighted. There is no way to repeat it without violating copyright. Fair use would let me repeat it in a critical book review. This post doesn't qualify as a book review.

So now YOUR story is copyrighted?

Really?

You can't tell YOUR story without violating the copyright on Farnham's book?

Really?

The cop-out is now complete...

Makes one wonder why you want to argue/debate about a sentence or principle that you admittedly don't know, let alone understand?

Because I don't want some other person reading this thread to think that what you are saying is legal.

There is so much misinformation out here that letting this (very important) point stand is doing no one any good.

I'm giving "the rest of the story"... (man, I hope that's not a "copyright infringement" since I'm not critically reviewing any of Paul Harvey's work here. )

I'm not saying that you WILL be convicted. I'm saying that I believe that there is a good possibility that you CAN (likely?) be convicted for doing what you are suggesting & I gave supporting documentation to back up that belief.

You, OTOH, are just saying "trust me".

To the "peanut gallery":

Do what you want.

Just be ready to pay the price if what Sticky is saying isn't correct & I am.

I know what I'll do (or won't do) & it won't be what Sticky is saying...

 

[Sticky]

Apologies again for an off-topic reply.

I shall redirect my off-topic material to it's own thread.

 

[crowhunter]

I've been thinking lately about when it is appropriate to draw my weapon without getting myself into legal trouble.

Someone breaks into the restaurant where I'm eating and starts shooting it's a clear scenario. Same thing if someone makes it through my front door in the middle of the night.

But most likely, on the street, I am going to be in the middle of trouble before I have time to draw. Would-be muggers and others wishing me (or my lady) harm are not going to announce it from 50ft away. If I sense trouble, or feel I may need to protect myself, when does the gun come out?

If two suspicious guys are coming my way on the same sidewalk, they will be in my face before I recognize trouble, unholster, and draw. On the other hand, if I draw and they were just going to try and give me a flyer to some band playing in the area, I look like a crazy person.

So WHEN do you bring out the firepower? How do you weigh the situation, make the right decision, AND protect yourself all at the same time?

One day i was driving in a bad part of town where i live and was at a light making a left turn when 3 thugs in a small SUV ran the light almost hitting me.
We both had our windows down and i yelled way to go dumb a** and he slammed the brakes and backed up and both doors opened and the driver reached by the seat which i see as a .380 Beretta his buddie was getting out of the passenger side i got my belt off and drew my G22 and aimed it out my window and the line in my head was if he raises the gun I'm shooting while he was fumbling with his gun the magazine fell out.
To my relief they both jumped in and took off a lady at the bus stop had been screaming when this was going on and i was not aware of it and she had already call the police.
I kicked the .380 mag out of the road for the police to see five units rolled up fast i exited my truck with my G22 on the seat.
They looked at my CCW permit and had units looking for them they caught them an hour later.
I was told that the passenger had a warrant for murder in the next county
so what was said on here your line or lines are yours to make and yours alone.
By the way one officer said i should have taken the shot regardless of the magazine falling out because that model can fire with out the mag in.

 

[Pinchaser]

I highly reccomend taking some defensive/combat handgun courses and study up on the Indiana code regarding such situations also. There is a thread here on INGO about an Indiana gun law class,you may want to sign up for that too if you can. Force on force training helps alot too!

Your questions suggest you aren't yet ready to carry a gun. Do as was suggested above.