Robbed at gun point in East Chicago, IN

[bradkilburn]

Leeches that they may be, what kind of threat does a leech that is running away pose to you? The answer: NONE
And that's what matters in court if by some chance you did hit them or god forbid someone else.

It may not pose any threat for him running away but if he robbed them im sure it wasnt the first time he had done it an damn sure it wouldnt be the last time so i say to bad he didnt hit him so he couldnt do it to anyone else

 

[bwframe]

...lay in on a table in a safe place.

In the same neighborhood where you were robbed at gunpoint?

I'm thinking your mindset of "safe" falls into the same category of shooting "at" the bad guys.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

big +1 for the cops.

 

[SW.Ecks]

In the same neighborhood where you were robbed at gunpoint?

I'm thinking your mindset of "safe" falls into the same category of shooting "at" the bad guys.

And I'm thinking you didn't read my earlier posts saying that we were in the basement of a locked house. We could hear everything upstairs, so had someone kicked in the door we'd have heard them and had a much better vantage point had they even found us in the basement before we could have the cops that were circling the blocks looking for the BG's in there.

 

[bwframe]

And I'm thinking you didn't read my earlier posts saying that we were in the basement of a locked house. We could hear everything upstairs, so had someone kicked in the door we'd have heard them and had a much better vantage point had they even found us in the basement before we could have the cops that were circling the blocks looking for the BG's in there.

OK, OK, just take it easy there.
Just playing devil's advocate, making sure you are covering your bases. We all have a lot of room for improvement. Didn't you originally post this looking for critique?

I'm on your side. However, throwing rounds downrange without a real clue as to where they are landing is terribly irresponsible. It makes one question whether the rest of your plan is solid?

 

[grunt soldier]

man i am glad you guys are ok for sure. the one thing i just have to ask is how did you not know your sights were off. i saw it posted back a couple pages with no answers. did you buy the gun and just start carrying with out testing and checking it. (you should always immediately shoot any gun you plan on carrying so you know where the bullets are going to go and that it functions as it should) just curious?

i am glad you fired when they started coming back. they were either coming for more stuff or to make sure you couldn't call the police and there is no other reason they would have returned. i also have to point out damn folks need to read what others are typing.

even though you sights were off it was good you stayed calm that is where a lot of folks mess up. and don't worry about all the folks that would have done this and that because most of them have never been in your situation. i use to be amazed all the time when i would get new soldiers over in country and some would say this and that and then just freeze and never live up to their claims. others would start shooting and not stop until they were dry. others puked right after it was done. some didn't talk for weeks after the first tic (granted all these ended w/ dead terrorists)

so you got it under you belt now and hopefully if nothing else you learned to never carry a gun that you don't 100 percent know. know it will function and know its sighted in for sure.

other than that you handled yourself well and hopefully the pieces of **** get what they deserve in the future

 

[96firephoenix]

AE, no flame here.

Bradkilburn here's a hypothetical for you: he just robbed you at gunpoint. he starts running towards a house.

IN law (IANAL, need citation) allows you to use DF to prevent unlawful forced entry to a dwelling that you have reason to believe is occupied.

you have the shot, but you don't take it, because he's running away from you and no longer a threat to you.

he gets in the house.

you hear a baby's cry and a woman's scream. then two gunshots. then silence.

as soon as someone has made it clear to me that my life is worth less in their eyes than the contents of my wallet, my sense of Christian charity goes out the window and my other cheek does not turn. If I don't kill them in the process of ending their threat to me or someone else, I think thats wonderful, but if not, its not on my conscious.

 

[SW.Ecks]

I got my LTCH a week before I came out here to work, and I live in the middle of La Porte. Kinda hard for me to get out there and sight my handgun in, but I'll be taking it to the range as soon as the temperature is at least 45 and there's absolutely NO snow on the ground (I hate winter lol). Now just to be sure; if my handgun's shooting to the left, I move the rear sight to the right, correct?

 

[LEaSH]

...if my handgun's shooting to the left, I move the rear sight to the right, correct?

Yes. Move it in small increments.

If possible, build a rest of some sort you can clamp down on the shooting bench. just something that you can rest the frame of your 1911 on.

I bet with some google someone has the sketches or plans online.

good job and good luck with the sighting in.

 

[Marc]

sounds like the bg's are disappointed obama supporters due to they had to go out and work to rob someone when the money that the gvt stole from us wasnt put in their mailbox..

 

[grunt soldier]

I got my LTCH a week before I came out here to work, and I live in the middle of La Porte. Kinda hard for me to get out there and sight my handgun in, but I'll be taking it to the range as soon as the temperature is at least 45 and there's absolutely NO snow on the ground (I hate winter lol). Now just to be sure; if my handgun's shooting to the left, I move the rear sight to the right, correct?

wow. i understand you hate the winter and don't want to go out there in the cold but thats nothing more than a sorry excuse to me. i will let it go because we could what if this all day ( what if your shot had hit a innocent bystander cause your sights were off) but just a heads up there are indoor ranges and if you going to carry a gun and depend on it to possibly save your life or someone else you should know your gun functions properly and that it will hit what you aim at.

again i think your actions were very justified and you handled the situation well IMO, but as a responsible gun owner and citizen with your LTCH you are responsible for your gun and knowing where the bullets will go when you pull the trigger even if that means getting out in the snow and shooting 50 rounds at a paper target just to verify its hitting where it should and if it isn't make the adjustments. just my .002 and i am not knocking you i just want you to think about it.

 

[bwframe]

I got my LTCH a week before I came out here to work, and I live in the middle of La Porte. Kinda hard for me to get out there and sight my handgun in, but I'll be taking it to the range as soon as the temperature is at least 45 and there's absolutely NO snow on the ground (I hate winter lol). Now just to be sure; if my handgun's shooting to the left, I move the rear sight to the right, correct?

 

[55spartan]

I always like how members here can't wait to jump on someone and criticize their actions when they have been in a life threatening situation. NONE of us know how we would act staring down the barrel of a Glock. OP I am glad you are safe and I hope your grandpa stays safe.

 

[SMiller]

Dont think I am judging you, I enjoy weapons have come a long way from where I began. Do yourself a HUGE favor and take a weapons course, you will have a blast and learn a ton, it will give you a chance to work the bugs out of yourself and your weapon.

Good shoot btw!

 

[finity]

That brings up a question -- what does Indiana law say about fleeing felons when leaving the scene of a forcible felony where a deadly weapon was involved? I suspect it's covered in the affirmative, and I suspect in East Chicago, another dead recidivist or two wouldn't cause a whole lot of concern. Anybody know for sure? I just bought the IN gun laws book, but haven't cracked it open yet, so this will be a good reason for me to dig into it.

Specialized

As non-LEO’s our legal authority to use deadly force during an encounter with a BG ends when the imminent threat ends.

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 grab the guy or tackle the guy or maybe even punch the guy depending on the situation but you can’t use deadly force unless you or someone else is under imminent threat of serious bodily injury or a forcible felony.

You'll get no flames from me. I certainly can empathize with your sentiment. I'm not about to get jacked just because I'm white, or new to the neighborhood, or because these people had a bad upbringing, or any other "problem" they might care to cite, and then just put up with it. I think there should be some legal means of shooting a retreating felon on moral grounds, whether a situation like this or driving away after a carjacking, etc. Fleeing the scene of your crime shouldn't mean home free. And calling the cops to do whatever they're going to do may result in apprehension of the dirtbag, but it doesn't stop the problem. As the saying goes, they're back out on the street before the poor cops can finish the paperwork.

From a moral standpoint, I really don't have a problem with fighting lawlessness with lawlessness in certain contexts. Get the drop on me and rob me? Okay, but watch your six as you leave, because I plan to fill it full of little metal pills. Is it legal? Probably not, but why should I have to play by the rules right after they've just broken them themselves? If somebody does something to me, gets away, and I see them by happenstance later, as far as I'm concerned it's still on, and this time *I* have the element of surprise. That's one @sshole that's going to wind up in Hell asking, "what just happened?!"

There is, in reality, a basis for this concept already on the books. When a criminal participates in a felony that results in a homicide, everybody who played a part, no matter how small, can be charged with that homicide whether they pulled the trigger or not. It's a good tool for the police, but I believe it should be expanded for everyone's use, and should relate to all felonies, not just murder. Without it, it's just a game. Anyone that's watched the farce that is Chicago's "war on crime" can see it played every day. The criminals have no boundaries once they've decided to break the law, but the cops and courts have to play by a set of rules. That's a game that's unfair and skewed towards the criminal, and they use it to their advantage every time. I don't believe in rules in times of war either, for the same reason.

I'm not a fan of proportional response, either. Rob me at gunpoint, and I've just decided that I don't have the time or inclination to worry about another criminal running loose on the streets, doing such things to hard-working citizens. Once someone has shown their true colors to be nefarious, I'm not a very forgiving person.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are:

1 - Those rules & restrictions are what separate us from the BG’s. How can we claim the moral high road if, in the end, we become JUST LIKE THEM? The ends don’t always justify the means. This is just as true for non-LEO’s in dealing with BG’s as it is for cops dealing with “criminals” – you know, the guy that gets killed or sent away to prison who is later to be found to be completely innocent. All in the name of making society safer.

2 - I don’t see how people have this HUGE misconception that criminals are “getting away with it”? We have one of the highest prison populations for any industrialized country. Our crime rate is the lowest it’s been since the 50’s & seems to be continuing to fall.

BUT…

We still shriek at length about how society is becoming more dangerous & criminals rule the roost.

3 – How would you define by law what you’re allowed to do to someone later to get your stuff back? Do you only allow that later response if they had physically attacked you earlier? Eye for an eye? You seem to be OK with using deadly force against a thief so I assume that biblical tenet isn’t even adequate for your satisfaction. Who gets to decide? The individual?


You could define “something” (as in your statement above “If somebody does something to me”) as simply as using harsh words against you (or “dissing” you). Do you think you should be able to respond in a violent way to that? Many gang members (the kind of people that we as a society fight against) think that would be A-OK.

How long “later” would you allow a person to take revenge on the prior acts? A week? A month? A year? 100 years? Do you think it would be OK for children of slaves to take revenge on the children of their masters for acts perpetrated on them 150 years ago? You know, “just because [your] white”? After all, if your grandfathers stole their slaves’ freedoms & property, by inheritance wouldn’t they also have stolen it from future generations?

How do you really know that it’s THAT guy that really did it? Could you be mistaking his identity? Eyewitnesses are notoriously wrong in ID’s. Innocent people get convicted even now with the careful examination & investigation put into those cases & with all the protections of the persons Constitutional rights. Acts of retaliation aren’t limited by the Constitution because it is only a limitation on acts of government. How do we ensure the “perpetrator’s” rights are maintained intact?

What do we do if we later find out that the person killed the wrong guy for stealing his hubcaps? Should the family of the (now found to be innocent) “BG” get to take retribution on YOU for your illegal act?

You see, there are reasons vigilantism is looked down upon & outlawed in a civilized society.

4 – If you’re “getting jacked” you already have the law on your side to act in self-defense in response to the immediate threat to your person.

AE, no flame here.

Bradkilburn here's a hypothetical for you: he just robbed you at gunpoint. he starts running towards a house.

IN law (IANAL, need citation) allows you to use DF to prevent unlawful forced entry to a dwelling that you have reason to believe is occupied.

you have the shot, but you don't take it, because he's running away from you and no longer a threat to you.

he gets in the house.

you hear a baby's cry and a woman's scream. then two gunshots. then silence.

as soon as someone has made it clear to me that my life is worth less in their eyes than the contents of my wallet, my sense of Christian charity goes out the window and my other cheek does not turn. If I don't kill them in the process of ending their threat to me or someone else, I think thats wonderful, but if not, its not on my conscious.

How do you know beforehand that the house he’s running toward is occupied? How do you know he doesn’t live there? How do you know he’s actually going toward the house or just to the sidewalk in front of it? How do you know he’s actually even thinking of breaking into the house?

We could throw out emotion laden hypothetical situations all day to justify our actions.

Do we torture 100 individuals to death because we heard one of them might know the whereabouts of a bomb that might kill 1000 people? All women & children? All children? All babies holding cute little puppies & kittens?



There has to be reasonable limitations on citizens actions if society is going to prosper & honestly be called “civilized” at all.

I guess if you don’t like those minimal restrictions you can always move to some middle-eastern or African countries. I hear that their sense of justice may fall more closely in line with what you guys are suggesting.
ting.