Fearing For Your Life Does Not Justify Deadly Force

[Selfpreservation]

Out of respect for you, I will simply point out that the legitimacy of the threat is not part of the legal analysis in Indiana. That is, whether the person threatening could carry through on the threat doesn't really matter.
[/QUOTE

I agree my friend and stated as much. It only matters if the other person(s) believe it to be true, and can articulate why.

 

[EPeter213]

Perhaps it should read- 'perceived and describable reason to fear imminent injury or harm to self or another'

 

[T.Lex]

This guy gets it!

 

[HoughMade]

Perhaps it should read- 'perceived and describable reason to fear imminent injury or harm to self or another'

...or "reasonable fear", "reasonable belief"...

Hey T.Lex, and people accuse us of being wordy.

 

[T.Lex]

...or "reasonable".

Hey T.Lex, and people accuse us of being wordy.

hahaha

I was just thinking to myself, "There are many areas of the law that are confusing. This really isn't one of them."

All that matters is if, at the time of trial, there has been a properly filed notice of intent to present self-defense and if evidence can be presented that would give a reasonable person the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury at the hands of the threatener.

The factors of intent (of the threatener), ability (of the threatener), or opportunity (of the threatener) to carry it out are all components of "reasonable." Whatever hypothetical we want to use will still come down to reasonable.

There can be no intent, and the belief can still be reasonable.

There can be no actual ability, and the belief can still be reasonable.

There can be no actual opportunity, and the belief can still be reasonable. (I'm not sure how that's different than ability, but I'm on a roll.)

But, there are other factors, too, such as prior interactions or the self-defender's familiarity with the propensity for violence of the threatener.

Ultimately, it comes back to the better-judged-by-12-than-carried-by-6 idea.

 

[Coach]

Out of respect for you, I will simply point out that the legitimacy of the threat is not part of the legal analysis in Indiana. That is, whether the person threatening could carry through on the threat doesn't really matter.

The last portion of your statement is absolutely true. The person claiming self defense must have reasonably believed in imminent death or serious bodily injury.

If it is concluded by the judge or jury that the threat was not legitimate or reasonable it will be a problem.

I hear plenty of people say that if I have to shot I will just say I was afraid for my life. That fear has to be reasonable was what I was trying to communicate.

There is plenty of confusion on this topic in the general public. I hate dealing with it. But it comes up regularly.

I had a prosecuting attorney in class one time and did not know it. She informed me after class that I got it correct. Which is good. I hate dealing with it.

 

[cbhausen]

I think Guy Relford summed it up best in his Indiana Gun Law class:

Ask yourself before pulling the trigger: Do I really need to do this?

 

[HoughMade]

I think Guy Relford summed it up best in his Indiana Gun Law class:

Ask yourself before pulling the trigger: Do I really need to do this?

i think that's a good rule of thumb. There may be some incidents that fit the legal definition of when self-defense is allowed that you may npt feel that you "need to do this", if not and you live through it, you will have saved yourself quite a hassle.

 

[printcraft]

The more time you have to ask yourself that question the lower the probability that the answer is going to be yes.
This rule does not cover every instance.

 

[T.Lex]

In a stressful, potential-shooting situation, it is probably best to avoid a paralysis-by-analysis scenario trying to figure out if it would be justified.

If you feel like there's no choice but to shoot, then shoot.

If you feel like you don't have to shoot, probably best not to shoot.

 

[Selfpreservation]

I think Guy Relford summed it up best in his Indiana Gun Law class:

Ask yourself before pulling the trigger: Do I really need to do this?

A very good point. Just because you can legally do it doesn't always mean you should. If possible, avoidance is best for many reasons.

 

[Dead Duck]

"Deadly fear of women who wear blue"
Sounds like someone with irrational fears and/or phobias that probably fits under some mental illness category that if left untreated, shouldn't have a firearm let alone carry one.

There is however a group of people that some might label over-sensitive with their fears.
Certain handicaps limit some on physically fighting back or running away. Most here would think a simple fistfight wouldn't be anything to pull a weapon for but a person with hip or back injuries, avoiding getting knocked down could be a fight for life with good reason.

Just being old is bad enough. I remember taking a few tumbles down a set of stairs when I was younger. Bones used to bend back then, now? Not so much.

Only the individual can tell when that line has been drawn. Legally, at the time it's happening, if you actually have that time to think about it, then it probably isn't going to be reasonable. As an INGO member, I have come to realize that everyone has a different reading on their CRAZY METERS.



I do recall a story of a cop in the 60s that had a fear of spiders and during a call in AZ ended up emptying his 38 into a tarantula at the front of a house.

 

[Fargo]

Geez, would you people please define your terms? Contrary to the OP, “Fear” is not limited by definition to an emotion.

In a ton of contexts, it simply means a belief. “I fear the Rams will not be able to best the Patriots.” is not an emotional statement.

That is why the courts have used the word “fear” in the context of self-defense going way back to the common law. It just means you believe that someone is going to kill or hurt you. The reasonableness of that belief is a different question.

 

[HoughMade]

Geez, would you people please define your terms? Contrary to the OP, “Fear” is not limited by definition to an emotion.

In a ton of contexts, it simply means a belief. “I fear the Rams will not be able to best the Patriots.” is not an emotional statement.

That is why the courts have used the word “fear” in the context of self-defense going way back to the common law. It just means you believe that someone is going to kill or hurt you. The reasonableness of that belief is a different question.

 

[Fargo]

I know, I know...

 

[Denny347]

In the end, people (LEO and non-LEO alike) need to explain the specific details, facts, and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person (LEO and/or non-LEO) to believe that deadly force was necessary. Keywords...SPECIFIC DETAILS, FACTS, and CIRCUMSTANCES... You are not going to get away with "I feared for my life" and leave it at that. It bothers me that people think that is all LEO's have to say to make a shoot justified. Their ignorance of basic legal concepts is astonishing.

 

[HoughMade]

...Their ignorance of basic legal concepts is astonishing.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

A lot of people in both private sector and law enforcement have a misconception that being in fear for their life is all they need to justify using deadly force. Fear is an emotion and does not legally justify using deadly force.

Well, assuming arguendo that your fear (aka belief) is reasonable then, yes, that is all you need to justify self-defense, including deadly force.

Fear is not an emotion, it is the term of art for belief since before my family was kicked out of England after the War of Devolution.

For example, I could have a deadly fear of women who wear blue. A fear that in my mind is as real as her shooting me. Without any other contributing factors giving her the ability, opportunity & intent to cause serious bodily injury or harm myself or a third party, I cannot use deadly force.

Ability, opportunity, intent? What is this? LFI? And it was AOJ, nothing to do with intent.

Geez, no, AOJ is not controlling. It is the subjective-objective test of reasonableness of the defendant who is purporting self-defense that is controlling.

On the other hand, I may have zero fear but if she possesses the ability, opportunity & intent to cause serious bodily injury or death, then I can use deadly force.

So everyone on the range with me be advised you have the ability, opportunity and intent to cause sbi or death. I shall act accordingly.

 

[MarkC]

In the end, people (LEO and non-LEO alike) need to explain the specific details, facts, and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person (LEO and/or non-LEO) to believe that deadly force was necessary. Keywords...SPECIFIC DETAILS, FACTS, and CIRCUMSTANCES... You are not going to get away with "I feared for my life" and leave it at that. It bothers me that people think that is all LEO's have to say to make a shoot justified. Their ignorance of basic legal concepts is astonishing.

When I was still in that line of work, I would occasionally have to deal with the fallout of officers making conclusory statements, believing that merely saying the right "magic words" would justify whatever action they had taken. "Officer safety!" would, in their minds, be sufficient. Fortunately, most of the time this involved questionable searches and detentions. I think Denny articulates this well with his observations.

Also, another observation about the "fear" that would justify the use of force, including deadly force: This fear must be something that society is willing to accept as objectively reasonable. Or, in other words, what the hypothetical "reasonable person" would agree is, well, reasonable.

Fargo, T.Lex, and Mr. Hough have explained this well, IMHO.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

"Officer safety!" would, in their minds, be sufficient.

Well, in their defense, it works for prosecutors.