Who's right and wrong here?

[Bill B]

I'll take C) which consists of both A) and B).
In my mind you're righteous, but are gonna have to prove it in court.
What Cvictor said is also very true.

 

[Expat]

I am too old, fat and a partly crippled wing. I am not going to try to rassle this guy. I will shoot and depend on Denny, Frank or one of the other guys to treat me fair.

 

[yotewacker]

If you carry a gun, be prepared to take a beating. Unless the bad guy shows a deadly weapon, you cannot use yours. Unless he has you by weight or your out numbered.
The correct answer would be "B"

 

[Tapout75]

He was also saying that basically, if once you have the upper hand in a situation, you are to stop the use of deadly force. example:

For some reason or another your involved in a shootout with a bad guy, he runs out of bullets and throws his gun at you, the moment you know he is unarmed you must stop shooting at him.

 

[eldirector]

If you carry a gun, be prepared to take a beating. Unless the bad guy shows a deadly weapon, you cannot use yours. Unless he has you by weight or your out numbered.
The correct answer would be "B"

You and I must interpret this differently.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

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.

IC 35-41-1-11
"Forcible felony" defined
Sec. 11. "Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a human being.

 

[rich8483]

i keep trying to repeat this appearently to def ears. the assailant does NOT need to have a physical weapon to be in a legitimate fear for of "serious bodily injury"
no, im not blood thirsty but

what makes this any different that some one who runs at you with a gun which you later find out is onlya pellet gun. we discussed this before and generally agree that it is justified.

 

[Gareth]

I'm 54 and average in build and height. I know darn well I'm not the toughest kid on the block.

My wife suffers from health problems.

If we were suddenly confronted by the hypothetical scenario presented by the OP, I would use deadly force to stop the assailant. If my actions resulted in my being prosecuted for doing this I would renounce my citizenship, and emigrate to North Korea. ( I hate despotism.)

When responsible adults have to fear being prosecuted for defending their lives with deadly force, it's time to make some sensible alterations in the legal codes.

 

[A5guy]

I've had two back operations in the past six years. The surgeon said if I do it again, we're talking steel pins, bone grafts, etc. I've also had extensive orthapedic surgery on my feet and have neuromas (permanently pinched nerves) in a couple toes. Needless to say, I couldn't 'run' from an old lady with a walker, much less some psycho. The other bad side is I'm only 46, and 270lbs/6ft, and don't 'appear fragile' at all.
I've got some 3.5 million CPU pepper spray that I 'suppose' I'd deploy first if I didn't see a weapon, but that enables an assailant to close to within a lot less than ten feet, plus windspeed/direction (maybe blinding myself), perhaps disarming me and shooting me with my own gun....
I don't know. Where's the line?

 

[youngda9]

Two words: Tueller drill <--Wikepedia Link.


The Tueller Drill is a self-defense training exercise to prepare against a short-range knife attack when armed only with a holsteredhandgun.

Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, UtahPolice Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover 21 feet (6.4 m). So he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. These results were first published as an article in SWAT magazine in 1983 and in a police training video by the same title, "How Close is Too Close?"[1]

A defender with a gun has a dilemma. If he shoots too early, he risks being charged with murder. If he waits until the attacker is definitely within striking range so there is no question about motives, he risks injury and even death. The Tueller experiments quantified a "danger zone" where an attacker presented a clear threat.[2]


The Tueller Drill combines both parts of the original experiments by Tueller. There are several ways it can be conducted:[3]

1. The "attacker and shooter are positioned back-to-back. At the signal, the attacker sprints away from the shooter, and the shooter unholsters his gun and shoots at the target 21 feet (6.4 m) in front of him. The attacker stops as soon as the shot is fired. The shooter is successful only if his shot is good and if the runner did not cover 21 feet (6.4 m).
2. A more stressful arrangement is to have the attacker begin 21 feet (6.4 m) behind the shooter and run towards the shooter. The shooter is successful only if he was able take a good shot before he is tapped on the back by the attacker.
3. If the shooter is armed with only a training replica gun, a full-contact drill may be done with the attacker running towards the shooter. In this variation, the shooter should practice side-stepping the attacker while he is drawing the gun.

But we all know that gunshots don't instantly stop the attacker, unless hit in the spine or brain...so even then you may get carved up pretty bad before the gunfire subdues the attacker.

 

[dross]

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.

I don't know the practical legal considerations, but let's get into the philosophical and logical for a moment.

I'm 6'2", and I weigh 300 pounds. To put that in perspective, when I'm in really, really good shape I weigh 250. I ran my first and only marathon a few years ago at 290.

I've never understood why I should have a different standard of defense because I'm big and scary. In fact, if you think about it, it should lower the threshold.

Let's say the scenario described happens to me. The guy weighs a buck fifty and has pencil arms.

What do I know about him? He's threatening a guy who looks like me and continuing to advance. Why must I assume I can beat him in a fight? This guy might be like Bruce Lee, who weighed 120 pounds. Also, I'm carrying a weapon, not in a retention holster. What if we're rolling around on the ground and he gets my weapon? I don't have a baton, or pepper spray, or a taser.

Let's take it up a notch. Let's say I pull my pistol and tell him not to come closer and he still advances. Are you saying I shouldn't shoot him then?

To paraphrase Ayoob, I don't know anything about this guy except that he is threatening to kill me and is advancing on me with apparently the intent to do so. What does he know about me? He knows I'm bigger than he, he knows I'm stronger than he, and he knows I've got a weapon and I've said I'll shoot him. If he continues to advance isn't it reasonable for me to believe that he has every intention of winning this fight? He knows it's a fight to the death, he set that standard and I have a deadly weapon. Is it prudent of me to assume that he can't win the fight, and leave me dead?

Again, I understand some of the legal difficulties, but do you see my philosophical point?

 

[esrice]

In a perfect world, you would need to show that the attacker had opportunity, ability, and intent.

In your simple scenario, the attacker obviously had opportunity and intent, but his ability is less clear.

At what point did you know he was not armed? Did he have a knife? Where was it on his person? How big was he? How big are you? Is he male? Are you female? Disabled? What other options did you have? Did you attempt evasion?

More info is needed.

 

[sbcman]

This is a good one with a lot of angles to consider. One that comes to my mind is the "Catch 22" this scenario faces with disparity of force. A prosecutor could argue that the perp faced disparity of force with you and your wife. The defense could say that your wife faced a disparity of force from the perp, since she was targeted in the threat. Maybe I've been watching too much Matlock

A friend at church had this scenario somewhat played out against his son in MO. Three guys were threatening him at a distance and when they hustled a bit and came closer, he drew his carry weapon and told them to back off. They did, of course threatening his death, etc., as they retreated. The guy goes to the police to the report the incident but is constantly berated with questions over why he was carrying, why he thought he needed a gun, so on and so forth. And, wait for it, yes they said he should feel lucky they weren't charging him for drawing his weapon. Nice.

 

[sbcman]

I don't know the practical legal considerations, but let's get into the philosophical and logical for a moment.

I'm 6'2", and I weigh 300 pounds. To put that in perspective, when I'm in really, really good shape I weigh 250. I ran my first and only marathon a few years ago at 290.

I've never understood why I should have a different standard of defense because I'm big and scary. In fact, if you think about it, it should lower the threshold.

Let's say the scenario described happens to me. The guy weighs a buck fifty and has pencil arms.

What do I know about him? He's threatening a guy who looks like me and continuing to advance. Why must I assume I can beat him in a fight? This guy might be like Bruce Lee, who weighed 120 pounds. Also, I'm carrying a weapon, not in a retention holster. What if we're rolling around on the ground and he gets my weapon? I don't have a baton, or pepper spray, or a taser.

Let's take it up a notch. Let's say I pull my pistol and tell him not to come closer and he still advances. Are you saying I shouldn't shoot him then?

To paraphrase Ayoob, I don't know anything about this guy except that he is threatening to kill me and is advancing on me with apparently the intent to do so. What does he know about me? He knows I'm bigger than he, he knows I'm stronger than he, and he knows I've got a weapon and I've said I'll shoot him. If he continues to advance isn't it reasonable for me to believe that he has every intention of winning this fight? He knows it's a fight to the death, he set that standard and I have a deadly weapon. Is it prudent of me to assume that he can't win the fight, and leave me dead?

Again, I understand some of the legal difficulties, but do you see my philosophical point?

I do see it and I agree. Also, regarding size, most of us learned in school not to underestimate the small guys. They may not pack much of a punch, but they can get about five in on a big guy before he can land one.

 

[JSeroka]

See in a situation like this, being if the person was not so much larger than you and didn't have a weapon and still kept coming at you after you drew your firearm, a clean shot to the leg might be sufficient...non-lethal (mostly) and keeps that whole worry of man-slaughter off the table ;-)

 

[kevinj110]

I think something interesting would be to hear how a police officer would respond and be treated after his or her response. I just can't see some one doing this to a police officer and them not firing.

 

[kevinj110]

See in a situation like this, being if the person was not so much larger than you and didn't have a weapon and still kept coming at you after you drew your firearm, a clean shot to the leg might be sufficient...non-lethal (mostly) and keeps that whole worry of man-slaughter off the table ;-)

But opens up civil suit and possibly assult with a deadly weapon and a liust of other things they will try to get you for.

 

[dross]

See in a situation like this, being if the person was not so much larger than you and didn't have a weapon and still kept coming at you after you drew your firearm, a clean shot to the leg might be sufficient...non-lethal (mostly) and keeps that whole worry of man-slaughter off the table ;-)

And, what I've been taught and read is that if you aren't in fear of your life, then you can't shoot, and must not be in fear for your life if you shoot to wound.

 

[lovemachine]

I was just looking for this!

BUT, in this scenario, it's 50 feet, and he has no weapon. Why couldnt you and your wife run away? Just run away, and if he continues to get even closer, then there's no doubt what you should do.

Two words: Tueller drill <--Wikepedia Link.


The Tueller Drill is a self-defense training exercise to prepare against a short-range knife attack when armed only with a holsteredhandgun.

Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, UtahPolice Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover 21 feet (6.4 m). So he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. These results were first published as an article in SWAT magazine in 1983 and in a police training video by the same title, "How Close is Too Close?"[1]

A defender with a gun has a dilemma. If he shoots too early, he risks being charged with murder. If he waits until the attacker is definitely within striking range so there is no question about motives, he risks injury and even death. The Tueller experiments quantified a "danger zone" where an attacker presented a clear threat.[2]


The Tueller Drill combines both parts of the original experiments by Tueller. There are several ways it can be conducted:[3]

1. The "attacker and shooter are positioned back-to-back. At the signal, the attacker sprints away from the shooter, and the shooter unholsters his gun and shoots at the target 21 feet (6.4 m) in front of him. The attacker stops as soon as the shot is fired. The shooter is successful only if his shot is good and if the runner did not cover 21 feet (6.4 m).
2. A more stressful arrangement is to have the attacker begin 21 feet (6.4 m) behind the shooter and run towards the shooter. The shooter is successful only if he was able take a good shot before he is tapped on the back by the attacker.
3. If the shooter is armed with only a training replica gun, a full-contact drill may be done with the attacker running towards the shooter. In this variation, the shooter should practice side-stepping the attacker while he is drawing the gun.

But we all know that gunshots don't instantly stop the attacker, unless hit in the spine or brain...so even then you may get carved up pretty bad before the gunfire subdues the attacker.

 

[eldirector]

I think something interesting would be to hear how a police officer would respond and be treated after his or her response. I just can't see some one doing this to a police officer and them not firing.

And there you go. We already have a standard that has been upheld in many courts.

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

 

[esrice]

a clean shot to the leg might be sufficient...non-lethal (mostly) and keeps that whole worry of man-slaughter off the table ;-)

This is NOT recommended. Your firearm is a deadly force option-- not "non-leathal" or "less-lethal". You only use it if you are in fear of death or grave bodily harm.

If you aren't in fear for your life, such that you would "shoot to maim", then you should NOT be using the firearm.

Not to mention, the practicality of shooting a moving leg or arm is VERY difficult and next to impossible. You'd most likely end up with an errant round, which is a whole 'nother can of worms.