Can You Shoot Him?

[Tireburner Turner]

wouldnt "deadly force" be considered a deadly placed shot (i.e. in the middle of the back,chest, or head)? Since the shot was placed in the calf i would think you could possibly win this trial. Unless they could prove you to just be a terrible shot from 10 Feet away! Hehe

 

[Shay]

There seems to be a growing "shoot (at) the tire on a fleeing vehicle" group. Does anyone NOT think tire shooting is a good idea?

Maybe this merits its own thread?

 

[Arm America]

Another perfect example of why I spend far to much time on this site.

The question the OP brought up does require a significant amount of thought.

It could be wheels, a lawn mower, a burglary in progress,

Making the wrong decision in the heat of the moment spells disaster,

Having thought out your response, your reaction,
before it happens can and will make all the difference.

Good question, thanks for making us think.

P.S. I would suspect even drawing the weapon on the perp. would cause trouble with the law.

 

[NDhunter]

This is why you carry a back-up tazer cross-draw he he

 

[mike4sigs]

unarmed and not in danger ! itthink you would go to jail!

 

[moozak]

don't get me wrong... this stuff is good to know and i enjoyed reading it and learning... but the cynical side of my says:

we have reached a place where we have enabled a "smart criminal" to stand right in front of you and take your property knowing full well that you most likely can't, therefore won't, do anything about it. he gets your property... you have to go through the aggravation of filing a police report and later, PAY to retrieve a copy of that report so you can turn it in to your insurance for replacement... your vehicle gets towed to the place where it has to be put back together so you're without a vehicle for a period of time... you, the responsible party, now have to find temporary transportation back and forth to work... meanwhile, your insurance rates go up... and all the while you're left standing there holding a $2,000 pistol that you cannot use.

 

[Shay]

don't get me wrong... this stuff is good to know and i enjoyed reading it and learning... but the cynical side of my says:

we have reached a place where we have enabled a "smart criminal" to stand right in front of you and take your property knowing full well that you most likely can't, therefore won't, do anything about it. he gets your property... you have to go through the aggravation of filing a police report and later, PAY to retrieve a copy of that report so you can turn it in to your insurance for replacement... your vehicle gets towed to the place where it has to be put back together so you're without a vehicle for a period of time... you, the responsible party, now have to find temporary transportation back and forth to work... meanwhile, your insurance rates go up... and all the while you're left standing there holding a $2,000 pistol that you cannot use.

You could always shoot him and find out how "inconvenient" your life gets. The prospect of jail and civil suit are enough to make me only want to shoot people who NEED to be shot.

 

[wbjenks]

I wanted to reply to this important discussion but was blocked for some reason. That is now resolved. No, you can not shoot him/her. If you do you will find out how very inconvenient life can really get! Court, lawyers and probably a lifetime without your license. Serious stuff, that!

 

[aikidoka]

Here's the next scenario in our "Legal Quandaries" series, which has generated a positive response so far:

You park your beloved '69 GTO "Judge" convertible at a local shopping mall, just before closing, in order to run in and shop for a last-minute birthday gift for your wife.

When you return to your car, you notice three men around your car, and you realize they've just removed two of your rims and are in the process of loading them into the back of a nearby SUV. When you yell out, two of the men run away, but the third continues to carry your expensive refurbished wheels toward the back of the waiting truck.

Having an Indiana LTCH, you are armed. You draw your .45 cal. handgun from your IWB holster and clearly warn the thief: "Drop my property or I will shoot you."

He ignores you. He is about to load your wheels into the back of the truck.

He has his hands full with your wheels, and you can't see any weapons on his person. Being concerned about using "deadly force" under the circumstances, you decide to shoot him in the calf in order to prevent him from stealing your property.

You deliver a perfectly-placed shot to the back of his lower leg. He screams out in pain, and drops your wheels. The SUV takes off.

IMPD arrives almost immediately, and you tell the responding officers the entire story, exactly as it transpired. They arrest him.

Do you have any legal problems?

I would say you definitely have legal problems. There was no indication that he had a weapon and he was not advancing towards you. Even worse if you have a cell phone and didn't call the police about the robbery before taking the unnecessary shot.

 

[Sailor]

I am not going to shoot anyone for taking property.

Take the car, its covered by insurance. You will pay attorneys more than the car is worth, and will save yourself a lot of grief.

 

[Sailor]

There seems to be a growing "shoot (at) the tire on a fleeing vehicle" group. Does anyone NOT think tire shooting is a good idea?

Maybe this merits its own thread?

A gun is for one thing only. Killing people. Every bullet that comes out is a possible lawsuit. The wheels and engine are the few things on the car that are cover. Slinging lead at steel is not a good idea. Where that bullet goes after it ricochets could land you in trouble.

 

[ocsdor]

Ok, two points I want to make since it seems to keep coming up.

One -- people who think shooting someone in the leg (must be a great shot) is not deadly force. WRONG. It still creates a possibility of death or serious bodily injury. If you hit a major artery or vein, the burglar can bleed-out.

Two -- since you can't shoot the guy, this scenario is yet another reason to carry Pepper Spray in addition to your firearm. You may not get your wheels back, but the burglar is going to suffer for a while. And, if your pepper spray has the dye in it, and it gets all over the van, then the police (and you) have something to look for.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You could always shoot him and find out how "inconvenient" your life gets. The prospect of jail and civil suit are enough to make me only want to shoot people who NEED to be shot.

Shay I don't think the poster was advocating shooting the person, just mentioning how far changed the situation is, back in the old days if you seen someone trying to saddle your horse or russel you cattle you were legal to shoot, now it is a bit different for better or worse.

A gun is for one thing only. Killing people. Every bullet that comes out is a possible lawsuit. The wheels and engine are the few things on the car that are cover. Slinging lead at steel is not a good idea. Where that bullet goes after it ricochets could land you in trouble.

I disagree, guns are meant for many things, killing animals for food, target shooting for fun or competition and yes killing people. Just because a item can do something does not mean it was meant to be used as such. But yes every bullet that comes out is a possible lawsuit.

But to state that guns are only for killing people is something I would expect to hear from the Brady group. I carry a handgun to protect myself and my family, that may be a person or a vicious dog, or even a raccoon or snake. It was not designed to kill people, it was designed to fire a chunk of metal at high speed out the barrel.

 

[Beau]

don't get me wrong... this stuff is good to know and i enjoyed reading it and learning... but the cynical side of my says:

we have reached a place where we have enabled a "smart criminal" to stand right in front of you and take your property knowing full well that you most likely can't, therefore won't, do anything about it. he gets your property... you have to go through the aggravation of filing a police report and later, PAY to retrieve a copy of that report so you can turn it in to your insurance for replacement... your vehicle gets towed to the place where it has to be put back together so you're without a vehicle for a period of time... you, the responsible party, now have to find temporary transportation back and forth to work... meanwhile, your insurance rates go up... and all the while you're left standing there holding a $2,000 pistol that you cannot use.

I agree. We are enabling the smart criminal. I think we should be able to defend personal property with deadly force. Especially when it comes to vehicles. A lot of peoples livelihood depends on having transportation.

A gun is for one thing only. Killing people. Every bullet that comes out is a possible lawsuit. The wheels and engine are the few things on the car that are cover. Slinging lead at steel is not a good idea. Where that bullet goes after it ricochets could land you in trouble.

That first sentence sounds like something straight from the Brady Campaign

 

[finity]

Would it be legal to simply walk up on the guy with your hand on your holstered weapon and demand that he put your property down, or could this be called brandishing a weapon?

There is no "brandishing" in IN. Only "pointing a firearm". If you don't point it at anyone then you can carry your gun however you want.

As an "arm chair" calmly analyzing computer viewer, I offer the following, with questions.

Anyway, I did suspect that the OP is in trouble here.

I hope that I'm not taking this thread too far, if so then please disregard. I'm just looking for a solution. Here goes...

What I could offer up as a solution is to "pistol whip" the snot out of the BG and act accordingly after such action(s).

As long as a prosecutor or jury would find your actions "reasonable" & not rising to the level of "deadly force" then I think you would be OK.

GL, if a person did this would he be inviting more trouble? I gather from your explanation that we were to simply watch the crime in progress and then most likely get a plate number and description of the vehicle and call the police, right?

No, he was saying only that "deadly force" was not legally justified in the OP. Pointing a gun at someone (even if loaded) is NOT THE SAME AS deadly force.

It it completely legal to point a loaded gun at someone in ANY SITUATION where "REASONABLE FORCE" is legally justified, like in protection of your/your families' personal belongings. Pulling the trigger is deadly force, not pointing the gun.

If they don't attack you (or someone else) you can't shoot them (or AT THEM) but you can still let them think you might.

Like someone else said, shoot out a tire. I would offer up to shoot out at least two tires and ready for the BG's response(s). Am I inviting more legal trouble?

You might get away with it, but you might not, either.

What if you "miss" the tire & hit the BG (or even an innocent bystander). Deadly force is not justified & you could have just potentially shot an innocent person. Now how do you feel?

wouldnt "deadly force" be considered a deadly placed shot (i.e. in the middle of the back,chest, or head)? Since the shot was placed in the calf i would think you could possibly win this trial. Unless they could prove you to just be a terrible shot from 10 Feet away! Hehe

I've never been involved in anything like this but I've read enough to know that when the shooting starts you're NOT going to be able to place pinpoint shots, especially on a small moving target like a leg or arm (or a fast moving target, like a car tire.

Besides, wouldn't it go the other way, too. Say a BG shot YOU in the leg & you just happened to die from it. Would you want him not to be charged with murder for killing you by "just shooting you in the leg". I mean it wasn't an intentionally deadly shot placement.

There seems to be a growing "shoot (at) the tire on a fleeing vehicle" group. Does anyone NOT think tire shooting is a good idea?

Yes, I don't think its a good idea.

 

[mrman740]

Sorry, I'd come out shooting.......with my cellphone camera! This is after I called the police and gave them the plate # and description of the BG's. And I'd be making a HUGE scene going about it too!

 

[IndyGunSafety]

Bad shoot. My thinking: This is not a last resort to a forcible felony. While there is no brandishing law a battery charge could be a possibility. (According to a lawyer in my class last week) Then you assault the guy with a deadly weapon (at least!) protecting PROPERTY. The poor scumbag is the breadwinner for his family and now they sue you for excessive force or some other BS. Castle won't protect you. I don't buy into the "shooting in the leg is not deadly force" thing.

I'd have called the cops and taken video and pics with my phone. If I draw, it's not to shoot somebody in the leg. If he's not going to die momentarily I'm not going to draw.

I love these types of conversations!

 

[moozak]

You could always shoot him and find out how "inconvenient" your life gets. The prospect of jail and civil suit are enough to make me only want to shoot people who NEED to be shot.

i wasn't saying that we should all just shoot everyone... and God forbid that anyone "NEEDS" to be shot. however i was pointing out that our society has seemingly enabled criminals to do their job(s) much more efficiently. of course, that is just my opinion.

 

[Hornett]

I have one word here.

"Pepper Spray"

OK two words

 

[moozak]

Pepperspray...

there you go... now it's one word!