draw vs. point. vs. shoot

[Sticky]

-or- escalation of force...

1. Draw: When you reasonably believe that a potentially violent criminal offender is in the area. (you might want to add the word "immediate" right before the word "area". Your call.)
2. Point: When you have articulable belief that nothing less than the threat of deadly force is required or likely to prevent further lethal action by a criminal offender. (Meaning that threat will prevent the need for the use of deadly force. i. e. firing a gun.)
3. Shoot: When in immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm, to yourself or an innocent third party. (Realistically, it can sometimes be very difficult to know which is the "innocent" party. Proceed carefully.)

Example: you are a LEO or a non-LEO. Man with a knife in hand has convinced you that he wishes to slice you to death and you know he means it. (Say you know that he just got out of prison after serving 6 years for murder. Insert whatever articulable reasons you wish for that belief here) Ability is satisfied. Opportunity and Jeopardy, not quite yet. Because he is on the other side of your car. As he moves toward my side of the car, I would point the gun and give the command to drop the knife. I am pointing the weapon because it fits into the "decision-point", stated above, for pointing. The decision-point to shoot will not fit until the offender reaches my side of the car. Stated another way, I am not in "immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm.", until he reaches my side of the car. Hopefully, pointing the weapon before I had justification to actually shoot has precluded his movement to my side of the car.

For those guidelines to be more useful, one might make up different scenarios that they see as somewhat possible considering their lifestyle; and consider how they may or may not fit in the doctrine of "escalation of force". Mental rehearsal can be just as valuable as actual range-time.

Note that Farnam's guidelines are a bit easier to use under stress (for me), but copyright precludes me from copying them here. The doctrine above was something I learned about three to four decades ago in the school at Plainfield, IN. At the time, someone told me it was derived from Farnam's stuff...

 

[Sticky]

my reply to this post: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...en_do_you_draw_your_weapon-8.html#post1838722

Umm...

It was...



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.

A link to their publications isn't hard to find.

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...

I came up with at least 6 hypothetical examples in less than 30 seconds. Since you can't come up with one; see the first post in this thread.

Why, yes. Yes I am...

I should have been more specific. My meaning was "when can they use lethal force to defend themselves from attack,when a non-LEO cannot". I am well aware that they have an additional duty to prevent the escape of a criminal offender whom they believe to be a continuing threat to the public at large. Oops.

Another "special circumstance" exception: If you witness a particularly vicious attack against, say, a police officer, fireman, or teacher. Then you may point and/or shoot that fleeing criminal offender if you believe the attack was vicious and wanton enough to make the offender a clear threat to the next person he runs into. You better be darn sure the public will see the attack as an especially heinous act.

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



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!

The threat of lethal force is not the same thing as the use of lethal force, although the result can be. Your precedent won't make it past even a slightly competent defense, because of special circumstances. Of course, you'll likely have to go to a superior court for an acquittal if indicted. It shouldn't be too difficult to show that threatening to use a gun is not the same as using a gun. One very rarely results in physical trauma, the other does; assuming a hit.

One example of identical result would be pointing a gun at a heart patient who then dies from fear. Then the result is the same and you are about as culpable as you would be by actually firing. Once again, special circumstances.

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



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.

Of course it's legal. And the reasoning fits into the guideline that calls for pointing, without shooting (yet); very neatly.

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.

I'll repeat; stating that the threat of using lethal force is the same as using lethal force won't make it past the defense, except under special circumstance. Such as an induced heart attack, as just one example. The action won't be determined as the same thing; the result likely will be.

So now YOUR story is copyrighted?

Really?

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

Farnam's example/guideline/principle isn't my story. It isn't a story at all. It's his copyrighted material.

Really?

Really.

The cop-out is now complete...



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

Sure it can be.

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.

I'm saying you likely won't be. If you follow the standard guideline for "escalation of force". Or Farnam's guidelines. Which are basically the same.

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...

I know what I have actually done. I did exactly what I am saying. More than once. Worked out fine. As long as you stick to a reasonable "escalation of force", you'll be fine too.

 

[jayhawk]

Yes, I think it's certainly a good idea to mentally prepare for the possibility of having to draw or use your weapon.

I think it is also important to consider your environment when deciding to pull or fire the weapon. The presences of innocent bystanders (a crowded store for instance) or your own ability to flee or otherwise gain an upper hand in the situation may play a large role in the decision making process. Scenario based training can only take you so far, imho. If you're training to go from step A to step B to step C under certain scenarios, it is possible that you may miss certain unexpected opportunities or dangers. I feel that the important thing is to develop the ability to read a scene quickly and adapt intelligently under stress. If you can focus on processing information and reacting to it, your body should be under less stress and your actions more effective.

 

[finity]

Draw: When you reasonably believe that a potentially violent criminal offender is in the area. (you might want to add the word "immediate" right before the word "area". Your call.)

I agree.

Heck, you can draw anytime you feel like it.

OC is legal in IN. Even if you carry it around in your hand all the time. Unless you point it at someone or you threaten someone (intimidation).

Point: When you have articulable belief that nothing less than the threat of deadly force is required or likely to prevent further lethal action by a criminal offender. (Meaning that threat will prevent the need for the use of deadly force. i. e. firing a gun.)

Sort of but not quite...

You were mostly OK until the last part in parentheses...

Only when the USE of force to prevent lethal action is justified. The threat doesn't even have to be lethal. If you are afraid of being knocked out or put in extreme pain that is also justification.

Shoot: When in immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm, to yourself or an innocent third party. (Realistically, it can sometimes be very difficult to know which is the "innocent" party. Proceed carefully.)

Agreed mostly. The situation doesn't HAVE to be unavoidable. In IN there is no duty to retreat.

Example: you are a LEO or a non-LEO. Man with a knife in hand has convinced you that he wishes to slice you to death and you know he means it. (Say you know that he just got out of prison after serving 6 years for murder. Insert whatever articulable reasons you wish for that belief here) Ability is satisfied. Opportunity and Jeopardy, not quite yet. Because he is on the other side of your car.

Go ahead. Draw away. Perfectly legal.

Just don't point it at him yet.

You don't even have to "know" that he just got out of prison or has a violent past. Just the fact that he has threatened you with death is good enough.

As he moves toward my side of the car, I would point the gun and give the command to drop the knife.

Again perfectly legal because "as he moves toward my side of the car" HE IS NOW AN IMMINENT THREAT. Deadly force is then justified & legal.

Fire away. Or not. That is entirely up to you. You're legal either way since he IS an IMMINENT threat.

Just because you DIDN'T shoot doesn't mean it wasn't legal to do it. If you don't shoot, though, you may have placed yourself more at risk since he is obviously a REAL threat. If you wait to see if he is going to stop when you tell him to then you've given him the upper hand. You then have to watch his actions to see what he does then you have to decide again whether you want to shoot. Action almost always beats reaction.

See any explanation you wish on the "OODA loop". I'll let you find it on your own since there are many links available.

I am pointing the weapon because it fits into the "decision-point", stated above, for pointing. The decision-point to shoot will not fit until the offender reaches my side of the car. Stated another way, I am not in "immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm.", until he reaches my side of the car.

Then you better not point your gun at him until he does.

In my view as soon as he makes it clear he is going to harm you (verbal threat) & he makes a move toward doing that HE IS A THREAT & that is my articulable reason why I am justified in USING deadly force.

For those guidelines to be more useful, one might make up different scenarios that they see as somewhat possible considering their lifestyle; and consider how they may or may not fit in the doctrine of "escalation of force".

We are not bound by any "escalation of force" doctrine. That's for the police.

You really are confused by the whole "LEO/non-LEO" difference, aren't you?

Note that Farnam's guidelines are a bit easier to use under stress (for me), but copyright precludes me from copying them here. The doctrine above was something I learned about three to four decades ago in the school at Plainfield, IN. At the time, someone told me it was derived from Farnam's stuff...

I don't care who's stuff it's based on unless it is in the IN code or a court decision by the appeals court or above.

Farnham is not a lawyer. Or a judge.

What he teaches sets no legal precedent at all in IN, or anywhere else for that matter.

The IC is VERY plain:

We can't use deadly force unless we are in IMMINENT threat of SBI.

The appeals court decision was pretty plain, too. They find that the pointing of a firearm is equivalent to the USE of deadly force. I'm fairly certain that they would continue to base their future decisions on that ruling. I think it's called "stare decisis". Look it up.

I guess the IN supreme court could overule that decision but until then it's established law & lower IN courts are bound by that decision.


I'll answer your next post in a few...

 

[finity]

I came up with at least 6 hypothetical examples in less than 30 seconds. Since you can't come up with one; see the first post in this thread.

I couldn't come up with any because none exist that satisfy the scenario that you stated (i.e. that it is legal to point a gun at them when it isn't otherwise legal to use deadly force).

If the rest of your hypotheticals are like the one in your first post then see my last post for my response.

I should have been more specific. My meaning was "when can they use lethal force to defend themselves from attack,when a non-LEO cannot".

Well, since you completely changed your question then I'll completely change my answer:

Never.

If they are being attacked then they can USE deadly force. So can we.

I don't see how the new quesion is relevent to the present debate.

Another "special circumstance" exception: If you witness a particularly vicious attack against, say, a police officer, fireman, or teacher. Then you may point and/or shoot that fleeing criminal offender if you believe the attack was vicious and wanton enough to make the offender a clear threat to the next person he runs into.

No YOU can't (but a cop can as I already stated). YOU aren't a cop (are you? )

The law says that the threat to you or A THIRD PARTY has to be IMMINENT. You can't kill someone just because you THINK they might hurt someone at a later time. Even PC of some future POSSIBLE threat doesn't satisfy the requirements to use deadly force for a non-LEO.

If the attack is occuring or about to occur (you know, IMMINENTLY occuring) then deadly force is justified.

Also, what difference does it make who the attack occured against? Is a "police officer, fireman or teacher" more deserving of protection than someone who isn't? I don't get the distinction.

You better be darn sure the public will see the attack as an especially heinous act.

If the public can see the attack then it is more than likely IMMINENT & your use of deadly force will be justified.

What you are suggesting otherwise is vigilante justice. I can't see how anyone in the justice system would OK with THAT.

The threat of lethal force is not the same thing as the use of lethal force, although the result can be.

In the case of pointing a firearm at someone the IN court of appeals says differently.

Your precedent won't make it past even a slightly competent defense,

It's not MY precedent. It's the precedent of the IN court of appeals. If you don't like it then you have to take it up with them.

Of course, you'll likely have to go to a superior court for an acquittal if indicted.

It will be the "superior court" that will convict you (based on the precedent of the court of appeals).

It shouldn't be too difficult to show that threatening to use a gun is not the same as using a gun.

That's what the guy in the case I posted tried to say but he got convicted & the decision was upheld by the IN COURT OF APPEALS.

One very rarely results in physical trauma

Ah, but you see, that's the gist of what the appeals court decision was. That it was LIKELY to cause death or SBI to another person, therefore "pointing a firearm" WAS deadly force. They gave a very long & protracted explanation of why they made that determination. You should really read it sometime. It's quite informative.

Should I post the link again?

Of course it's legal. And the reasoning fits into the guideline that calls for pointing, without shooting (yet); very neatly.

Oh, you think so?

Why don't you try entering into someones house & point a firearm at them & then try to use the defense that you thought they MIGHT harm you. Let me know how that works out for you.

"But", you say, "we can't enter someone's house to serve a warrant like the police". Exactly. That's why it's legal for them to point a fiream when they aren't under IMMINENT threat but it's not for you.

They are under different rules than we are. They do overlap at times but they aren't EXACTLY the same.

I'll repeat; stating that the threat of using lethal force is the same as using lethal force won't make it past the defense,

It did in the case I posted before. It even made it past the court of appeals.

The action won't be determined as the same thing

It was in that case.

the result likely will be.

So are you now saying that to be charged with a crime that employed "deadly force" that the person has to actually suffer "serious bodily injury" first?

If a person tries to shoot you & misses then they aren't using "deadly force" because they are a poor shot?

I don't think you reaaly believe that or you need to read some more laws & court cases.

Wait!

I think I finally realized your confusion (at least one of them). You think that "deadly force" means ACTUALLY harming someone. That's not correct. The legal defintion is that the act "creates a substantial RISK of causing SBI" not that it actually DOES result in SBI.

THAT is the definition that the appeals court used in determining that pointing a firearm is deadly force because they said it "creates a substantial risk of causing SBI".

Boy, I'm sure glad we finally got that cleared up.

 

[Sticky]

I agree.

Heck, you can draw anytime you feel like it.

OC is legal in IN. Even if you carry it around in your hand all the time. Unless you point it at someone or you threaten someone (intimidation).



Sort of but not quite...

You were mostly OK until the last part in parentheses...

Only when the USE of force to prevent lethal action is justified. The threat doesn't even have to be lethal. If you are afraid of being knocked out or put in extreme pain that is also justification.



Agreed mostly. The situation doesn't HAVE to be unavoidable. In IN there is no duty to retreat.

True. Attempting to avoid is just a way to show how reasonable you are.

Go ahead. Draw away. Perfectly legal.

Just don't point it at him yet.

You don't even have to "know" that he just got out of prison or has a violent past. Just the fact that he has threatened you with death is good enough.



Again perfectly legal because "as he moves toward my side of the car" HE IS NOW AN IMMINENT THREAT. Deadly force is then justified & legal.

He's not an imminent threat as long as an obstacle is between you. Like a car. Distance or obstacles are both a factor.

Fire away. Or not. That is entirely up to you. You're legal either way since he IS an IMMINENT threat.

Just because you DIDN'T shoot doesn't mean it wasn't legal to do it. If you don't shoot, though, you may have placed yourself more at risk since he is obviously a REAL threat. If you wait to see if he is going to stop when you tell him to then you've given him the upper hand. You then have to watch his actions to see what he does then you have to decide again whether you want to shoot. Action almost always beats reaction.

See any explanation you wish on the "OODA loop". I'll let you find it on your own since there are many links available.

I heard about OODA almost as soon as it came out. Too much for me to keep track of under stress.

Then you better not point your gun at him until he does.

In my view as soon as he makes it clear he is going to harm you (verbal threat) & he makes a move toward doing that HE IS A THREAT & that is my articulable reason why I am justified in USING deadly force.

Nope; AOJ doesn't exist, not all of them, until the obstacle is removed and he is within about 7 yards.

We are not bound by any "escalation of force" doctrine. That's for the police.

You really are confused by the whole "LEO/non-LEO" difference, aren't you?

The escalation of force doctrine isn't binding on anyone; nor is it "only for police". It's just a very useful thing to know how to use. Not confused at all. Used to work in the law enforcement arena.

I don't care who's stuff it's based on unless it is in the IN code or a court decision by the appeals court or above.

Farnham is not a lawyer. Or a judge.

Just an expert witness and trainer at many PD's.

What he teaches sets no legal precedent at all in IN, or anywhere else for that matter.

The IC is VERY plain:

We can't use deadly force unless we are in IMMINENT threat of SBI.

The appeals court decision was pretty plain, too. They find that the pointing of a firearm is equivalent to the USE of deadly force. I'm fairly certain that they would continue to base their future decisions on that ruling. I think it's called "stare decisis". Look it up.

Opinions differ. IMO, that precedent is way too specific to hold up. No need to look it up, I know what it means.

Justices have different levels of commitment to stare decisis. Stare decisis is not, like the rule of res judicata, a universal inexorable. Not by any means.

I guess the IN supreme court could overule that decision but until then it's established law & lower IN courts are bound by that decision.

Precedents are not a law until it's written into statute.

I'll answer your next post in a few...

Now you have the guidelines, use them or not.

 

[finity]

True. Attempting to avoid is just a way to show how reasonable you are.

Wow, I agree with that.

It can be a usful tool...but it's not required.

He's not an imminent threat as long as an obstacle is between you. Like a car. Distance or obstacles are both a factor.

Then you better not point your gun at him then...yet.

I heard about OODA almost as soon as it came out. Too much for me to keep track of under stress.

There's nothing to keep track of. It's just a theory to help you understand the dynamics of a combat situation. It has been transferred very effectively to self-defense situations, as well.

Nope; AOJ doesn't exist, not all of them, until the obstacle is removed and he is within about 7 yards.

I don't where you get this stuff. No where in IN law (or case law) does it state anything about 7 yards being some magical number. If a guy is running at me with a knife screaming "I'm going to kill you" I'm using deadly force to stop him whether he's at 10 yards or 5. It's not like I'm getting out my range finder to see how far away he is before I defend myself.

And yes, I know about the Tueller drill. I don't think it was intended to be used like you think it does.

The escalation of force doctrine isn't binding on anyone; nor is it "only for police".

I know I'm not bound by it.

I know there are many police agencies that teach it for their officers & it is LIKELY a doctrine to protect them from lawsuits.

Not confused at all. Used to work in the law enforcement arena.

I knew it!

I almost said that but I didn't want to seem to be "bashing". Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

Precedents are not a law until it's written into statute.

Then I don't think you understand it as much as you think you do.

Now you have the guidelines, use them or not.

No, thanks.

I'll use MY guidelines instead.

 

[Sticky]

I couldn't come up with any because none exist that satisfy the scenario that you stated (i.e. that it is legal to point a gun at them when it isn't otherwise legal to use deadly force).

As long as the car (obstacle) remains between you and the knife wielder, AOJ isn't satisfied yet; unless he has arms over about 12 to 15 feet long.

...

I think I finally realized your confusion (at least one of them). You think that "deadly force" means ACTUALLY harming someone. That's not correct. The legal defintion is that the act "creates a substantial RISK of causing SBI" not that it actually DOES result in SBI.

THAT is the definition that the appeals court used in determining that pointing a firearm is deadly force because they said it "creates a substantial risk of causing SBI".

Boy, I'm sure glad we finally got that cleared up.

Depending on the judge, precedents are used or not.

Deadly force definition: "Deadly or lethal force is that degree of force that a reasonable person would consider capable of causing death or grave bodily harm (i.e., crippling injury)."

Simply pointing any weapon, without firing it, doesn't fit the definition. You can't cause injury by threatening to use a stick in my eye (pointing it). You can cause injury by actually using the stick.

Edit:
In summation:
In the previous thread, you wanted to know about the guidelines/decision-points. The ones I gave you are close enough to Farnam's to be equally useful. They are not exactly the same, but they are close enough.

 

[finity]

As long as the car (obstacle) remains between you and the knife wielder, AOJ isn't satisfied yet; unless he has arms over about 12 to 15 feet long.

Then you better not point your gun at him then...yet.

Deadly force definition: "Deadly or lethal force is that degree of force that a reasonable person would consider capable of causing death or grave bodily harm (i.e., crippling injury)."

Now you're just simply making stuff up out of thin air.

I gave you the LEGAL definition per INDIANA LAW.

NOTHING ELSE IS RELEVENT.

Simply pointing any weapon, without firing it, doesn't fit the definition.

Maybe not YOUR defintion. But that's not a LEGAL defintion in any way.

You can't cause injury by threatening to use a stick in my eye (pointing it). You can cause injury by actually using the stick.

You really think not?

Then you need to look at the defintion of "serious bodily injury" per the IN statute.

That meets the definition quite nicely.

IC 35-41-1-25
"Serious bodily injury" defined
Sec. 25. "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes:
(1) serious permanent disfigurement;
(2) unconsciousness;
(3) extreme pain;
(4) permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ; or
(5) loss of a fetus.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.26. Amended by P.L.261-1997, SEC.1.

If someone points a stick at my eye & I reasonably believed that they would stick it in I am justified in using deadly force to protect my eye. They don't ACTUALLY hav to stick it in my eye first.

 

[Sticky]

If someone points a stick at my eye & I reasonably believed that they would stick it in I am justified in using deadly force to protect my eye. They don't ACTUALLY hav to stick it in my eye first.

Don't shoot yet. You have only established Ability. Depends on the remaining circumstances. As in distance and obstacles present.

 

[finity]

oops, never mind...

 

[Hooker]

I think this scenario is unrealistic. Maybe not for a horror movie where there is a completely psychotic killer on the loose, but in real life you'd have about as good a chance of winning the powerball as facing this kind of attack.

Let's make it more reasonable...

You and your wife come out of a restaurant. It's dark and around 10PM. You parked on the street two blocks away. You start for your car. The street is not deserted. There is an occassional car that passes by. Blocks away you can see people as they are heading to and from wherever, but they are two far away to lend any help.

Two men are walking on the same sidewalk toward you. They are talking, laughing, not paying you any attention. You are aware of them. You are watching them. Your wife is talking about the meal and how she really loves what an incredible and awesome man you are, and when you get home she is going to bathe you and feed you grapes and fan you with a palm leaf....

As the men pass you, one nods and you nod back. A nanosecond after you feel your guard relax, you hear from behind you, "Excuse me, sir!" and when you turn around, one of them has a knife a foot from your ribs and the other is moving behind you.

Obviously, you are perfectly justified in plugging these guys now, but the problem is that it's too late.

1. When should you have had your weapon drawn?

I understand that you are not supposed to point your weapon until you feel like your life is in danger, but my scenario is much more likely than some drooling psychotic murderer talking about slicing me up from the other side of my car.

2. Where did you go wrong in my scenario?
3. How can it be avoided?

 

[Sticky]

Excellent scenario. You can't always avoid them all.

Sometimes you might cross the street if your "radar" was working early enough. Maybe have your hand on the gun in your jacket pocket; if the weather is cool enough to wear one. Otherwise I hope the wife already has her hand on her gun.

I've had a guy with a knife threaten me from the other side of a car before; another did the same with a screwdriver once, in a non-committal sort of way. Never had a knife team attack me yet, and hope they don't. Good food for thought.

 

[finity]

1. When should you have had your weapon drawn?

Since OC is legal in IN & there is no law that says you can't carry it in your hand, you can TECHNICALLY draw any time you want.

You just can't threaten anyone (implied or otherwise) at least uintil they give you a reason. I mean a real reason not an "oh my gosh, I've never been in the big city before & those mean looking men scare me" type of reason.

A knife pointed at your ribs meets that criteria.

Walking past you does not.

2. Where did you go wrong in my scenario?

Nowhere. You acted as any reasonable person would have in the same situation.

3. How can it be avoided?

Stay home? Move to a deserted island? Have no contact with the outside world at all...ever?

No matter what many people on this & many other gun-forums try to say it's impossible to have 100% situational awareness. Not even troops in combat zones are 100% aware ALL THE TIME.

Because of that I agree that...

You can't always avoid them all

...unless you have the means to hire a round-the-clock security detail.

Otherwise, you just have to accept that sometimes bad things happen, even to good people, & there's nothing you can do about it.