Who's right and wrong here?

[Tapout75]

So myself and a co-worker were talking this morning about carrying a pistol. Here is the scenario we came up with:

You and your wife are walking down the street, a guy who is about 50ft away screams at you he is going to kill you. he starts walking fast towards you in great anger, you pull your pistol and yell stop several times. he doesnt stop. when he is 10ft away you shoot him. When the police come they find he had no weapons of any kind.


A. You were within your rights, as you feared for your life.

B. You were NOT within your rights, and will be tried on manslaughter/murder etc

 

[redneckmedic]

I was afraid for my life. I was afraid for my life. I was afraid for my life. I was afraid for my life. I was afraid for my life. I was afraid for my life. I want a lawyer.

Say nothing else.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe if you truly feared your life, if your life was truly threatened, you were well within your rights to use deadly force.

 

[Denny347]

Well, it is NOT as cut and dry as legal/illegal in this scenario. It could be a clean shoot if there are more facts present but they will HAVE to be articulated. If there are no other facts present, probably going to have problems. Either way, based on the given story, it will be an ugly affair.

 

[CVictor]

No clue what's legal or not, but if I were in that situation (assuming I didn't know the guy), I'd tell the wife to get behind me and step back a few feet. I'd then wait for what was coming, gun drawn. If I did not see a weapon of any kind, I wouldn't fire. Bottom line

That being said, I couldn't imagine someone would threaten your life from a distance of 50 feet, run at you, and continue running once your gun is drawn, all the while knowing they have no weapon on them.

 

[Tripp11]

^ So how long would you wait until you did fire, if he kept approaching you? At some point you're either going to have to retreat or shoot the threat. Allowing him to get close enough to go hands on and perhaps take your weapon would be a fatal mistake.

 

[Denny347]

I was afraid for my life. I was afraid for my life. I was afraid for my life. I was afraid for my life. I was afraid for my life. I was afraid for my life. I want a lawyer.

Say nothing else.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe if you truly feared your life, if your life was truly threatened, you were well within your rights to use deadly force.

Yes but that is based on the "reasonable person" test. If the OP is 6'3" 270lbs and the threat is a 5'3" 110lbs and does NOTHING else other than yell and walk toward him...most likely NOT going to pass the test. There are so many factors in this "simple" scenario that could lean it either way.

 

[eldirector]

I'd like an "A", please.

IC requires threat of serious bodily injury. You don't (technically) have to "be afraid". If he threatens to kill you and your wife, makes a move to kill you and your wife (closes the gap), and fails to stop when warned (multiple times), then I'd say (opinion here) that it is a justified use of force.

Either way, you will be chatting with your lawyer.

 

[redneckmedic]

Yes but that is based on the "reasonable person" test. If the OP is 6'3" 270lbs and the threat is a 5'3" 110lbs and does NOTHING else other than yell and walk toward him...most likely NOT going to pass the test. There are so many factors in this "simple" scenario that could lean it either way.

I don't disagree with you, but in my mind.... "I'm going to kill you" with the body language to back it up is enough to take me to the next step. He doesn't have to say how, or why... just one man's opinion.

Either way, you said it best "it will be an ugly affair."

 

[Denny347]

So, is it either all or nothing here? No weapon seen or implied. Verbal threat and angry, fast walking. I could not shoot, too high a use of force. It is time for hands-on, Taser, baton, or OC. The reason we have these tools now is from similar situations. Officer presented with a similar situation but ONLY had a handgun to turn to, so they did and shot the suspect. Just because the only tool you posses is deadly force, does not legitimize the use of it when a lower is warranted.

 

[CVictor]

^ So how long would you wait until you did fire, if he kept approaching you? At some point you're either going to have to retreat or shoot the threat. Allowing him to get close enough to go hands on and perhaps take your weapon would be a fatal mistake.

I would probably wait until he was just inches from me and reaching for the weapon before I pulled the trigger, even then it would be a tough call. If I could retreat, I would. As others have said, there are too many variables missing.

So, is it either all or nothing here? No weapon seen or implied. Verbal threat and angry, fast walking. I could not shoot, too high a use of force. It is time for hands-on, Taser, baton, or OC.

Also agree, but I never have those weapons on me, so I'm not sure.

 

[redneckmedic]

So, is it either all or nothing here? No weapon seen or implied. Verbal threat and angry, fast walking. I could not shoot, too high a use of force. It is time for hands-on, Taser, baton, or OC.

Batteries dead on the taser (had too much fun making the cat chase the red dot), baton cracked (pool ball baseball) I don't OC, but this is the reason I have body guards (well and my smart mouth)

 

[Bunnykid68]

Perfectly legal shoot, but if you don't have tape it is going to be a nightmare probably

 

[Quad]

Wow, what a terrible scenario!

How about handing my gun to my wife, then enter into some hand to hand combat? If I start to get my butt kicked then tell her to shoot him. But then again, she may shoot me in the process.

I don't know. Just thinking out loud here...

 

[TopDog]

No clue what's legal or not, but if I were in that situation (assuming I didn't know the guy), I'd tell the wife to get behind me and step back a few feet. I'd then wait for what was coming, gun drawn. If I did not see a weapon of any kind, I wouldn't fire. Bottom lineAmerican Tactical Imports High Capacity Magazine american tactical imports magazine, - www.MidwestHuntersOutlet.com

That being said, I couldn't imagine someone would threaten your life from a distance of 50 feet, run at you, and continue running once your gun is drawn, all the while knowing they have no weapon on them.

Believe it. I have seen crack heads use the payday scam on cops here in my own neighborhood.

 

[CVictor]

If we knew more about the setting, it would be easier to determine my actions. If I was in Gary with a broken down car and the guy was wearing pants and a sweater big enough to conceal a samurai sword and AR15, I probably wouldn't hesitate to fire once he reached 10 feet.

If I was on the square in Crown point and the guy was some drunk in an abercrombie shirt, I'd probably pop him in the jaw and move on.

 

[mrjarrell]

I was afraid for my life. I was afraid for my life. I was afraid for my life. I was afraid for my life. I was afraid for my life. I was afraid for my life. I want a lawyer.

Say nothing else.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe if you truly feared your life, if your life was truly threatened, you were well within your rights to use deadly force.

A is the correct answer. And in Indiana it will work.

 

[Denny347]

Good example to illustrate that self defense is more than carrying a sidearm. Knowing how to handle yourself without it is just as important because threats of bodily harm are not all created equal. Some will clearly require deadly force and others will not...the rest will be in the middle.

 

[Que]

I would HOPE this this what i would do:

Fifty feet is not that far. I tell my wife to run to a safe location and call the police while I defend her retreat. If he is my size and not seeing a weapon, I do not pull my gun, but have my ESEE 3 or Spyderco prepared. If he appears to be much bigger and stronger, then I would probably follow Redneckmedic's plan.

 

[Denny347]

A is the correct answer. And in Indiana it will work.

But with JUST the given information, it could very well be left up to a Jury to decide and there is not much "win" in that.

 

[redneckmedic]

Good example to illustrate that self defense is more than carrying a sidearm. Knowing how to handle yourself without it is just as important because threats of bodily harm are not all created equal. Some will clearly require deadly force and others will not...the rest will be in the middle.

John Madden Couldn't have said it any better