Who's right and wrong here?

[Kutnupe14]

Bernhard Goetz... I'm surprised his name hasn't come up yet.

Bernhard Goetz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[beararms1776]

"clearly defigned" is a matter of opinion. Here in Indy, the Prosecutor requires surgery to file a charge with SBI. Broken bones DO NOT meet their criteria of SBI, it is simple assault. Unless the broken bone causes another injury...brain injury, femorial injury...etc. "Vanilla" broken bones are not included. Being knocked dizzy or briefly unconscious does not seem to work for them either. Just saying. You may be in the right in the end but the criminal court process could be draining (emotionally and financially) and if you catch criminal charges, you will see the "victims" family get a lawyer, they will feel free to sue you for wrongful death and civil procedures are so much worse than criminal, they can go on for years and years.

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.

In this case it seems that an attacker would actually have to hit you before you can use force. You can't just shoot em over words while they're running at you. If they attack you and you can't get to your gun, put your fist in their mouth as deep as you can and pull their heart out.

 

[Roadie]

In this case it seems that an attacker would actually have to hit you before you can use force. You can't just shoot em over words while they're running at you. If they attack you and you can't get to your gun, put your fist in their mouth as deep as you can and pull their heart out.

Wrong. IC 35-41-1-25 cannot be taken alone, for our discussion it has to be contrasted with:

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

Key words highlighted..

 

[finity]

Bernhard Goetz... I'm surprised his name hasn't come up yet.

Bernhard Goetz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrong state...

This is Indiana, not New York.

We could have different laws on self-defense.

Could you elaborate a little on your point?

From reading the link I think he was fully justified in his initial response EXCEPT for shooting the last shot.

If the accounts are correct that he gave him "another" then that was over the line IMHO. He's lucky that attempted murder charge didn't stick if that was true.

 

[finity]

Wrong. IC 35-41-1-25 cannot be taken alone,

Exactly.

It's just giving the definition of an action that can be PREVENTED against by using deadly force as allowed by the self-defense statute.

IOW, reading the statute properly:

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 [STRIKE]serious bodily injury[/STRIKE] bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes serious permanent disfigurement, unconsciousness, extreme pain, permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ or loss of a fetus to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Wrong state...

This is Indiana, not New York.

We could have different laws on self-defense.

Could you elaborate a little on your point?

From reading the link I think he was fully justified in his initial response EXCEPT for shooting the last shot.

If the accounts are correct that he gave him "another" then that was over the line IMHO. He's lucky that attempted murder charge didn't stick if that was true.

Exactly, it's New York not Indiana. I'm sure you're clear on which state is significantly more anti-gun (especially in the city). Though I certainly DO NOT condone shooting an unarmed man running towards you, I am of the belief that self-defense could be easily articulated.

 

[finity]

Exactly, it's New York not Indiana. I'm sure you're clear on which state is significantly more anti-gun (especially in the city). Though I certainly DO NOT condone shooting an unarmed man running towards you, I am of the belief that self-defense could be easily articulated.

Ah, Ok.

Got it...I think.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ah, Ok.

Got it...I think.

lol right. I should have added this (the language Goat's defense used):

NY's Code:
Sec. 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

It's pretty much IC 35-41-3-2, and this guy shot 4 guys who didnt "technically" threaten him. Kinda crazy IMO.

 

[HobbyGuy]

One thing that I thought of from the OP. The BG in the scenario is 50ft away. According to the timing drill posted earlier, 21ft is closed in 1.5 seconds. If the BG is 50 ft away and we do the math....50 ft is covered in 3.57 seconds. This still isn't much time.

 

[nate1865]

It's gonna come down to what the prosecutor believes happened based on the information he is provided. Then, the same for a jury if it doesn't initially go your way.

 

[Roadie]

It's gonna come down to what the prosecutor believes happened based on the information he is provided. Then, the same for a jury if it doesn't initially go your way.

See below..

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

 

[JoshuaW]

I would not hesitate to pull the trigger in that instance, and I would do so every single time. If someone frightens me enough that I need to draw my pistol, and they continue, I am going to assume they have the intent and means to do myself or someone around me severe harm.

Would a prosecutor see it the same way? Probably. Would a jury? Most certainly.

 

[Barbecue]

kneecap first?

 

[Roadie]

kneecap first?

Been addressed in the rest of the thread that you havent read

 

[protias]

kneecap first?

Been addressed in the rest of the thread that you havent read

I'll play it.

kneecap first?

Good luck hitting a small, moving object.