Can you shoot him through the window?

[OrangeCrate]

<snip>

You're the first car at the intersection and the light turns green, but you pull your handgun from your center console and shoot him through the closed window, killing him instantly.

Do you have any legal problems?

Not only will you have legal problems, you'll probably be deaf for the rest of your life.

 

[rich8483]

Not only will you have legal problems, you'll probably be deaf for the rest of your life.

dont the rest of you wear ear plugs all the time along with your carry gun, knife and flashlight?

 

[Disposable Heart]

I think you would have legal issues with this situation. As others have said, if you were blocked in and couldnt drive away or he broke your window out.......maybe, but not as described in the OP.


I have only read pages 1 and 2 so not sure on the majority of responses, but even if you were LEGALLY justified does not mean you were MORALLY justified.......there is a difference. If I had shot all the people I could have legally shot, you could probably stack them up like cordwood. Doing something just becase you legally can is often not the right reason to do it, and before anyone says anything I am not talking about OC here.

I agree with this 100%. The idea of "morally" and "legally" are two HUGELY separete issues. Got a time machine? You could MORALLY go back in time to kill Hitler to prevent him from coming to power. Legally? I dont think so, the 1920s German Police would arrest you before you got back to your Delorean.

On a recent job application process, they asked a few questions regarding "for the PRINCIPLE of it", applying to several questions regarding revenge activities and similar. Too many folks let their anger get a hold of them then they use "morality" as a shield to make up for the action they just caused. Two wrong certainly dont make a right in that situation.

As for the shooting: Bad shoot. While it may or may not be legal to shoot, its the inconvienience of being involved directly in the situation. Yeah, maybe you could shoot him. But they could come at you with a twisted "morality" such as you could have fled, then called the police from a safe distance from the lunatic. Not shoot? You could drive off, get a safe distance, call the police, let them handle it. No court, no muss no fuss.

 

[Disposable Heart]

Not only will you have legal problems, you'll probably be deaf for the rest of your life.

I agree fully, not to mention, depending on what ammo used, you may be picking jacketing out of your face too shooting through a hardened piece of autoglass so close. Shot a TV once, left jacketing imbedded everywhere.

 

[rich8483]

I agree fully, not to mention, depending on what ammo used, you may be picking jacketing out of your face too shooting through a hardened piece of autoglass so close. Shot a TV once, left jacketing imbedded everywhere.

what did the tv do to you? only get PBS?

 

[Disposable Heart]

what did the tv do to you? only get PBS?

Naw, old TV barely worked. Put it out of it's misery at a farm.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Paging GunLawyer : Have you forgot about this thread ? We need an answer .

 

[Beau]

Paging GunLawyer : Have you forgot about this thread ? We need an answer .

Really.
It's like one of those pay booths where the curtain closes before she actually takes anything off, and your out of money. At least that's what I've heard happens. From a friend of a friend who had a cousin.....

 

[finity]

I did not read anything that would have me believe he attempted to enter the vehicle...grab the handle and pull, etc. Pounding on a window and demanding you to get out is not the same.

By the law he does not have to be attempting to enter into your vehicle. He just has to be unlawfully attacking your occupied vehicle. “Pounding on a window and demanding you to get out” is an unlawful attack.

Good lord that happens all the time in road rages.

Then I guess we’re lucky that more people don’t get shot more often.

I cannot fire on a person for merely holding a tire iron, baseball bat, etc until he does something to further the threat, by raises it or charging me.

True you cannot fire on a person for “merely holding” a weapon, but in the OP he isn’t just holding a weapon, he is unlawfully attacking your occupied vehicle in an obviously threatening manner.

I'm not going to shoot anyone who doesn't have a gun, when driving away is an option. Get out of the truck and kick his butt, perhaps.

If you do that you potentially have two bad outcomes:

1. he kills/injures you

2. you kill/injure him

If you exit your vehicle I would say that you have now possibly entered into mutual combat because reasonable people who are in fear of their lives won’t get out of their car. If you do injure him you have then lost the justification of “self-defense”.

and give him a good nudge when infront of my vehicle

Don't need to shoot him, I already drove him over the minute he hit my truck. Ha!

You might as well shoot him as running into someone with a 2000 lb vehicle is using deadly force as much as shooting him with a gun.

And if he's outside the truck, legally it's probably the same as threatening you from the front lawn. He's close, but not close enough to kill him legally.

Actually, if he’s threatening you from your front lawn then deadly force is justified as that is considered “curtilage”.

Can I at least smack him with the car door as I drive off?

Sure, but why even open the door at all? Just drive off if that is what you ultimately intend to do. No reason to put yourself in any more risk to attack from the BG than necessary.

He hadn't inflicted any harm to you or your property at that time. Like Denny said, plenty of time to do something when he attacks.

You don’t have to wait for someone to ACTUALLY attack you before you use force (deadly or otherwise) to thwart the attack. You don’t have to wait till you're shot to shoot someone threatening you with a gun. The law only requires that the attack be imminent.

There was no threat to life

In this case (unlawful attack on an occupied vehicle) there doesn’t need to be, by law, a specific verbalized threat to life. The law presumes a threat to your life by someone attacking your vehicle with you in it.

Did the deceased ever verbally or by his actions threaten your's or anyone else's life ?

Yes, he did.

“He never produces a gun or a knife, but at one point he shows you the tire iron through the window, and says, "How'd you like some of this? Now get out of the damn truck."”

I’m not sure what your definition of verbally or physically threatening you is but to me, that meets the requirements.

Did the deceased ever make a move for your door handle or in some other way try to enter your vehicle ?

As stated before he doesn’t need to try to enter your vehicle. He is engaged in an unlawful attack on your vehicle.

Has anyone mentioned the fact that this individual is in the commission of a forcible felony which allows for you to use deadly force?

Exactly.

How about drawing with the intent that he escalates it further, then out come the deadly force. You draw and give him verbal commands. I do that all the time. I draw and give verbal commands with every intent that if that person continues or escalates then I will be FORCED to fire.

As a normal civilian I think that those actions WOULD get you in a lot of trouble.

Lets review:

(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.

If you’re drawing, as you say, with the intent that he escalates it for the sole reason of then using his actions to justify lethal force I would say you are in violation of the above.

I get the feeling that some here would have dropped him where he stood without warning.

As normal non-LEO’s that is exactly what should happen. We are under no obligation to give verbal warnings to an assailant. That would also be tactically unsound, as well.

MAYBE that would pass the Grand Jury but I know I was in a great position because everyone in the area could hear me give him commands so if it ended in a shooting, it would be on him not me.

I agree that if you felt it was safe (as a non-LEO) to give a verbal warning it would probably help you by making it PERFECTLY CLEAR to any witnesses that you were not the aggressor or involved in mutual combat. Not required, but possibly helpful in the aftermath.

Lets say things played out a bit differently. He continued to be loud and boisterous, and you were concerned that without intervention, he could cause you harm. You raise your hand gun, yell at him to back off (which he does), then pull away when the light turns.

No shots fired in this case. Would you have trouble then?

You shouldn’t because you are justified in using deadly force in this case. Even if you weren’t justified in using DEADLY force, you can still use REASONABLE force to prevent an “imminent use of unlawful force”. Just pointing a gun is NOT using deadly force, just force. Firing it is deadly force.

IC 35-47-4-3
Pointing firearm at another person
Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.

My first reaction is to completely agree with Fargo on this but…

The problem with the way the law is written is that even though we have no duty to retreat & we have the Castle Doctrine there’s that pesky word “reasonable” thrown in.

I can understand why the law was written in that way to some degree (we don’t want people just shooting others willy-nilly based on the flimsiest “I was scared for my life” claims) but that now puts us in a quandary. Do we REALLY have ‘no duty to retreat’? Is deadly force justified for ANY attack on our occupied vehicles? I don’t know if there has been case law to clear this up. If not I think that the entire case would hinge on the DA’s & then the judge and juries definition of “reasonable”.

I think with the way most SD cases are going you wouldn’t have legal problems. The reasonableness standard (unless modified by some state case) was set by the USSC in “Brown vs. US”. Justice Holmes stated that “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him.”

In this case I don’t think that it would be reasonable to require that, with a potential threat to your life, a person would recognize that the light was green & that they could get away while also concentrating on the threat at hand.

BTW, this is all my unprofessional opinion. YMMV.

 

[IndyGunSafety]

Even though you are in an occupied vehicle (duh!) and he has a weapon, and you have no duty to retreat, the question becomes "was your use of force REASONABLE?" Don't convince me. Convince a jury. Deadly force should be a last resort, and if you have a way to escape safely you should try. If it's clear, I may not even wait for the green light.

 

[Fargo]

Is deadly force justified for ANY attack on our occupied vehicles? I don’t know if there has been case law to clear this up. If not I think that the entire case would hinge on the DA’s & then the judge and juries definition of “reasonable”.

I did a bit of research yesterday and cannot find a post-2006 case which addresses the issue. The only case I found on the "no duty to retreat" dealt with the court erroneously failing to include it in the jury instructions and the prosecutor mis-arguing the law in his closing by claiming that a person would be required to lock the door of their house rather than use force. While the court did appear to find this to be error, it was not reversed because of the facts of the case made it harmless error. I'll see if I can dig the cite back up.

Joe

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

HEY GUNLAWYER ! We've got ten pages of opinions , can we get an answer ?

 

[Dashman010]

Even though you are in an occupied vehicle (duh!) and he has a weapon, and you have no duty to retreat, the question becomes "was your use of force REASONABLE?" Don't convince me. Convince a jury. Deadly force should be a last resort, and if you have a way to escape safely you should try. If it's clear, I may not even wait for the green light.

I don't think this is an accurate representation of the law. You have phrased the question for the jury as "was your use of force reasonable" while I think the actual question is "was your belief that the force was necessary reasonable?" Your question is an objective one: given all the surrounding circumstances, would a normal person just drive away or shoot? My question is a subjective one: given all the circumstances the person is thinking about, did the person being attacked reasonably believe that force was necessary to terminate the attack.

If an attacker is banging on your hood and window with a tire iron yelling obscenities and telling you to get out of the vehicle, it is going to be very hard to prove that a victim could not have reasonably thought "dear god, this guy is gonna break into my car right now." That is the threshold. Once a person thinks that, and the jury finds that thought reasonable (which, I think, it clearly is), the deadly force is authorized by statute.

I think the primary question this problem presents is whether the force is "necessary" to prevent the unlawful entry and the commission of the forcible felony. Something is necessary when it is required, needed, etc. So, on one side's argument, if the light turned green, and the person in the car knew it, was it necessary for them to shoot? Probably not, IF there was a duty to retreat. However, by statute in Indiana, you have no duty to retreat or leave the scene. If you are in some place lawfully, you are not required to leave, and can "stand your ground" because you have a right to be there. With no duty to retreat, the ultimate question is "sitting in a car, it is reasonable for a person to think that force is necessary to prevent this guy from unlawfully entering the vehicle." I vote yes.

 

[Dashman010]

Further, here is the caselaw on the subject:

"When a defendant raises a claim of self-defense, he is required to show three facts: (1) he was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) he acted without fault; and (3) he had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 837, 840 (Ind.2000). Once a defendant claims self-defense, the State bears the burden of disproving at least one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt for the defendant's claim to fail. Miller, 720 N.E.2d at 700. The State may meet this burden by rebutting the defense directly, by affirmatively showing the defendant did not act in self-defense, or by simply relying upon the sufficiency of its evidence in chief. Id. Whether the State has met its burden is a question of fact for the factfinder. Id. The trier of fact is not precluded from finding that a defendant used unreasonable force simply because the victim was the initial aggressor. Birdsong, 685 N.E.2d at 45." Hood v. State, 877 N.E.2d 492 (Ind. App. 2007)

The 3 prong test here, to me, is clearly met. The driver is in a place (s)he has a right to be, the incident occured via no fault of his/her own, and based on the threats, I think it clear that the person in the car would fear death or serious bodily harm.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Keep in mind that the only weapons used in this scenario was his mouth and hand .

He didn't actually use the tire iron or try to get into your vehicle .

 

[IndyGunSafety]

and the jury finds that thought reasonable

If I’m a juror you are not getting away with this shooting. (Based on the facts as we know them at this moment) If you were a juror perhaps the defendant would go free. Therein lies the problem: You don’t know what you are going to get! Why go through that?

MY POINT IS: Why kill somebody, risk your entire future, and have zillions in legal fees when you just could have driven away? DEADLY FORCE IS A LAST RESORT!

If he swings the thing that’s my threshold. We all have to set boundaries . That’s mine, but I STILL may try to drive off. I respect everyone’s opinion. We would all have to live with the consequences of OUR OWN actions. I’m not saying I’m right, I’m telling you what I would do.

We all talk big about "blowing away the scumbag" until it is time to LIVE with it. Until you see the faces of his family, face the judgement of your family and friends, or find out he was mentally challenged and off his meds. All you had to do was drive away. But you decided to kill him. Now live with it and everything that comes with it! For me, (I'll say it again!) Deadly force is a LAST RESORT.

 

[MeltonLaw]

But he presented it to you in a threatening manner insinuating that he would use it to acquire the car. The logic employed above would cause one to hesitate if a gun was merely pointed at the driver while the perpetrator banged on the hood because he was only using his mouth and hand.

 

[haldir]

The letter of the law may be on your side but there are sufficient factual issues that I don't think a judge is going for a dismissal. I am not sure you can convince a jury that you were reasonable in your use of deadly force at that point.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

but at one point he shows you the tire iron through the window, and says, "How'd you like some of this? Now get out of the damn truck."

You could have showed him your pistol and asked him , "How'd YOU , like some of this ? NOW GET OUT OF MY DAMN FACE !

 

[Cygnus]

HEY GUNLAWYER ! We've got ten pages of opinions , can we get an answer ?