Using Deadly Force

[GPossenti]

If you read the entire thread, you will see that it was a response and amendment to another statement and other circumstances. I certainly wouldn't shoot if the guy was actually driving. The situation that I outlined was that he was still getting in the car (as in door or window still open, car in park, not in drive, BG gun out and ready to use.)

So taken by itself, it reads that I am willing to shoot a BG driving away. In context with the rest of my messages, that is not at all the case.

[David Armstrong]

Do you advocate that he should be just let go?

No. I also don't advocate shooting him in violation of the law.

The woman &/or her defender should just cower in the corner hoping he really does leave?

Don't see why they would do that, or where anyone has suggested anybody cower and hope for anything.

What if he just stands in the room without a weapon in hand....then you should just do nothing? (No threat there.)

You sure shouldn't try to kill him in violation of the law. Lots of things you can do. FWIW, in my state if he fails to leave he is considered a threat. But again, if no threat why shoot him, other than for revenge?

You say that the chance of a carjacking turning deadly is pretty slim. What are the comparable statistics on a rape when the woman fully complies?

They are still pretty slim. For example, in 2002 total there were around 95,000 rapes and 43 of them resulted in death according to the UCR.

If I had the chance i'd shoot him to the ground. I don't want to be a statistic.

What makes you think that starting a gunfight will lessen your chances of being a statistic?

[OldMarksman]

I read the entire thread.

From GPossenti:

I certainly wouldn't shoot if the guy was actually driving. The situation that I outlined was that he was still getting in the car (as in door or window still open, car in park, not in drive, BG gun out and ready to use.)

I'm afraid you have missed the point. If you are no longer in the car ("on the ground", you said), the castle doctrine law does not apply, because you are no longer in a position to terminate the person's unlawful entry into your occupied motor vehicle, as you are no longer occupying it. (Lay opinion)

And if he is getting into the car ("preparing to make off with your vehicle"), what he is now doing is stealing your car, and I think you would very unlikely to successfully make a convincing case that at the time you were in imminent danger. The OP said "they are no longer threatening me."

I believe it likely (lay opinion, again) that one who did choose to "shoot him to the ground" would likely add to several statistics: persons charged with murder, persons tried, persons convicted, and persons incarcerated.

Now, in Texas, I understand that you would be allowed to use deadly force if necessary to prevent the theft of your car within the period from thirty minutes after sunset to thirty minutes before sundown (lay opinion). However, the OP is in Indiana.

But even in Texas, I wouldn't shoot unless I would otherwise be put at serous personal risk because the incident occurred in the middle of nowhere and I couldn't use a cell phone. First, I don't think it would be the right thing to do, and second, it would just not be worth it.

[brickeyee]

I know that my home state has some variation of the "castle doctrine" as law when it comes to defending ones property.

Most of the 'castle doctrine' laws do NOT allow for "defending ones property", but protection of LIFE.

They allow the use of deadly force in the 'castle' when threatened.
Many go on to define when someone has entered that there is a presumption of deadly force, allowing you to respond with deadly force.

[GPossenti]

Thanks OldMarksman.

As much as I want to think I know it all, your examples have given me a different perspective.

Thank God for TFL

[OldMarksman]

GPossenti, I really appreciate your note, and I'm glad you have found my comments helpful.

Often, it seems, people simply seem to want to prevail in arguments. Your reply says a lot about you.

There are some great people on the is forum, staff and members.

By the way, I don't know it all, and I know it. One thing I do know is that I should not read the law and believe I understand the full meaning. I've worked with attorneys a lot over the years, and one thing I learned was my limitations. Another is that I do not want to get involved in a trial!

[finity]

No. I also don't advocate shooting him in violation of the law.

That question was in the context of "you just walk in & find a man is just finishing raping your wife or you have just been raped & the BG indicates he may be leaving" & you say don't shoot in violation of the law! What law is that exactly?

Don't see why they would do that, or where anyone has suggested anybody cower and hope for anything.

Well what exactly do you suggest in that situation? Take a stand & make a statement about something you would do instead of telling others what they shouldn't do. Compliance is "cowering & hoping".

You sure shouldn't try to kill him in violation of the law. Lots of things you can do. FWIW, in my state if he fails to leave he is considered a threat. But again, if no threat why shoot him, other than for revenge?

So your wife (or yourself) was just raped, the guy is still in the room & you say there are lots of things you can do besides using deadly force against him? Invite him to stay for tea & crumpets maybe? I, in no way (unless you aren't really a human) can believe you could be in that situation (castle doctrine or not) & calmly ask the guy to sit & wait for the cops to arrive or ask him to leave.

Also what do you think the purpose of the death penalty is if not revenge by society & a possible deterrence to others (not that it really does much in that regard)? The death row inmate is not an imminent threat to anybody, why kill him?

They are still pretty slim. For example, in 2002 total there were around 95,000 rapes and 43 of them resulted in death according to the UCR.

OK women, you heard the man. Just let the rapist have his way with you & you will probably be OK. Nevermind the aftermath of dealing with the rape for the rest of your life. If the guy doesn't get caught, you are always in fear that he will come back for some more. He already knows you won't resist (oh & don't fight back the next time either, you'll be OK). The pregnancy that could result is not a problem either. It's you who will have to decide whether to have an abortion or carry your rapists baby for 9 months. I also hear they can do amazing things with AIDS now days. Yeah, just comply. Statistically, you'll be fine.

What makes you think that starting a gunfight will lessen your chances of being a statistic?

I didn't start it.

Why do you bother to even own any weapons if the pat answer for everything is to "just give them what they want"? If they are a threat but not yet shooting & you fight back, "you started it". To you, you lose. If they are a threat & they shoot first, you're probably dead or seriously injured. You lose. If they aren't a threat, there is no crime & it is moot. If, in any encounter, you lose, what's the point of any self-defense at all?

Unless of course you only advocate compliance for the rest of us.

[David Armstrong]

What law is that exactly?

A fairly standard legal requirement is that you must be in imminent fear of loss of life or great bodily harm. By your own scenario ( he is leaving) you are not in imminent fear of loss of life or great bodily harm.

Well what exactly do you suggest in that situation?

I might suggest calling LE and an ambulance.

Compliance is "cowering & hoping".

Obviously your vocabulary needs a little work.

So your wife (or yourself) was just raped, the guy is still in the room & you say there are Lots of things you can do besides using deadly force against him?

Yes, very good. That is what I say. In fact, that is what I said.

Invite him to stay for tea & crumpets maybe?

Umm, no, why would I do that? I do enjoy a good crumpet, but why would I want to invite a stranger who is obviously a bad person to stay around and share mine? Let him get his own crumpets.

Also what do you think the purpose of the death penalty is if not revenge by society & a possible deterrence to others (not that it really does much in that regard)? The death row inmate is not an imminent threat to anybody, why kill him?

Because he has been tried in a court of law and been found guilty by a jury of his peers who have determined that, among many alternatives, that penalty is the one he should suffer. Not sure what any of that has to do with this, however.

Just let the rapist have his way with you & you will probably be OK.

Nonsense. I did not say that, and for you to claim I did is dishonest. I have never said to let the rapist have his way with you, and I have never said you would probably be OK if you did. One of the surest signs that a person is unable to come up with a rational argument is when they start claiming others have said things that have not been said.

I didn't start it.

Let's see now... BG is not shooting. BG is getting in car trying to drive away. You shoot at him. Yep, you started the gunfight.

Why do you bother to even own any weapons if the pat answer for everything is to "just give them what they want"?

I don't know, as that is not my position. My position is to do whatever is needed to minimize your loss of resources. Sometimes that is compliance. Sometimes that is fight as hard and as long as you can. Sometimes it is something in between. Why do you bother to make up things rather than discuss what is actually said?

If they are a threat but not yet shooting & you fight back, "you started it". To you, you lose.

Again, you might want to try dealing with what is actually said instead of making up these little fictions.

If they are a threat & they shoot first, you're probably dead or seriously injured. You lose.

Your lack of knowledge about gunfight dynamics is showing rather badly.

Unless of course you only advocate compliance for the rest of us.

I don't advocate compliance for anybody. I support the idea of doing whatever is needed to get through the encounter with the least amount of danger and loss of resources to yourself and others.

[OldMarksman]

From finity:

don't shoot in violation of the law! What law is that exactly?

The law against homicide, of course.

You can use deadly force to defend yourself or family against (that means prevent) imminent death or serious injury (the latter includes rape), or in many places, to stop someone from unlawfully entering your occupied dwelling or vehicle (that is, you do not have to retreat in many places), but after the threat dissipates you are not justified in using deadly force. If a guy is getting into your car (and you are not in it), and if you shoot, you are in violation of the law in Indiana and in most other places, and in Texas in the daytime.

Also what do you think the purpose of the death penalty is if not revenge by society & a possible deterrence to others ...?

Another purpose is to keep the perp from committing another serous crime. But: that penalty is administered via justice served by the legal system, with due process. Neither a policeman nor a civilian is permitted to shoot someone in revenge, if that's where you are coming from.

OK women, you heard the man. Just let the rapist have his way with you & you will probably be OK.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I know of no one who doesn't advocate resisting a rape.

If you do own a gun, you may want to brush up on the law in your state. Perhaps these may help you also:

http://www.useofforce.us/

http://www.corneredcat.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

There are a lot of links within the second one, and I particularly recommend that you study the ones under Legal Concerns. I should think that the words on the opening page would correct any misconception that you might have that the recommended course is to comply in a rape situation.

If you still have questions you may want to invest in an hour of a good criminal lawyer's time. That could be money well spent, if it prevents having to pay for hundreds of hours and possibly end up convicted of a crime.

I hope you find this helpful.

[Frank Ettin]

finity, OldMarksman makes some excellent points. It looks like you need to brush up on the law of self defense and the use of lethal force.

[BuckHammer]

I have a right to my property, which I guess is natural rights philosophy. I consider my vehicle my property. I will defend my property by any means necessary. Even when the BG is driving my vehicle, it is still my property. Once he is gone, there is no guarantee that I will regain possession of my vehicle and its contents. If I can stop the guy from fleeing the scene (by shooting him), I will most likely do it, being careful about what is behind my target, so as not to cause harm to a bystander. I would certainly hope that I would not have to resort to this horrible, traumatizing scenario, but I must, however, protect my rights, otherwise, what do I have?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by BuckHammer

...but I must, however, protect my rights, otherwise, what do I have?

In the situation as you describe it, you have either aggravated assault or manslaughter (depending on whether the person you shoot survives), a prison sentence and the loss of your guns.

[Recon7]

otherwise, what do I have?

A blood stained vehicle with 1 or 2 windows shot out that is taken by the police as evidence to be used against you

[OldMarksman]

From BuckHammer:

I will defend my property by any means necessary. Even when the BG is driving my vehicle, it is still my property. Once he is gone, there is no guarantee that I will regain possession of my vehicle and its contents. If I can stop the guy from fleeing the scene (by shooting him), I will most likely do it, being careful about what is behind my target, so as not to cause harm to a bystander.

BuckHammer, I don't know where you got the erroneous idea that it is legally permissible to use deadly force in the defense of property, but I suggest that you follow the same advice I gave to finity, and study the same information.

That is, if you are serious.

Should you choose that course to "protect" your rights, you will end up giving them (rights to have firearms, rights to personal freedom, in addition to the right to use your car) up.

[BuckHammer]

First of all, I never said that what I would do would be legal. Also, I'm not talking about a 100 yard shot at him, I'm talking about when he just starts driving away, like still four or five feet away. I just don't think I would have it in me to watch a guy drive off in my truck while I have the means to stop him. No, I'm not saying it's legal, and I'm not advocating that action, I'm just saying what I would probably do in that situation, and why I would do that. Although I might shoot out a tire or something else, but really there's no telling because every carjacking is different, and I've never been carjacked. Also, there is no guarantee that you will regain possession of your vehicle at any point. And no, I do not like the idea of killing someone just to kill someone. If this would happen to me, I would probably not comply with his orders, even at gunpoint, at which point I would draw my weapon because I would rather die defending my property than live and watch the guy take it.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by BuckHammer

...I never said that what I would do would be legal...

Enjoy prison.

[BuckHammer]

I would just be protecting my rights and my freedom. Aren't we glad that the Founders weren't afraid to go to prison by doing the same thing?

[onthejon55]

once again that goes back to the "would you stand there and watch as someone finished raping yr wife" scenario im sure that if i had the means to put an end to an armed carjacking i would use deadly force

[Threefeathers]

I just ran off the 'new' Arizona revised statutes on using force. Arizona specifically recognized a 'vehicle' as home and the Castle Doctrine applies. In speaking to the Cochise County Attorney. (his daughter was on my Mock Trial team, she played a defense attorney) there have been too many innocent people killed because they didn't resist and the Perp drove them away and usually raped the women and killed all in the car anyway. I have a nephew I think I told Fiddletown about who is spending 12 years in the slammer for 52 carjackings. He got violent at least half the times, pulling an elderly woman out of the drivers side window once. This was in front of witnesses who did absolutely nothing.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by BuckHammer

I would just be protecting my rights and my freedom. Aren't we glad that the Founders weren't afraid to go to prison by doing the same thing?

You're not protecting your freedom, because you would be losing your freedom. You would also be abdicating your responsibilities to your family, friends and co-workers -- all those who care for you and who may depend on you for either actual or emotional support. You would be throwing away your freedom and your future over a mere thing, that should be insured and could be replaced.

That's not by any stretch of the imagination what the Founders did and what they risked their futures for. To compare using violence against a mere thief of property to the risks and sacrifices made by the Founders is an insult to their memories.

[onthejon55]

they risked their lives for wat they believed was their property rite? or were they fighting for something else that no one has ever heard of?

[BuckHammer]

Fiddletown, I simply do not agree. I believe that the Founders risked their lives to form a Union in which you're property and rights cannot be taken for no reason. If some thug decides to try to deprive me of my rights, I will, in response, exercise my second amendment right to protect my other rights. I don't see any difference between some thug and a redcoat. But I guess the "Shot Heard 'Round the World" was just an unsolicited shooting upon poor, defenseless redcoats. I hope that guy got jailed for manslaughter.

[Frank Ettin]

Threefeathers, the difference is whether you are in physical danger or only losing property. If you can articulate why a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances and knowing what you know would conclude that the use of lethal force is necessary to prevent immediate and otherwise unavoidable death or grave bodily injury to the innocent, the use of lethal force would of course be appropriate. But in several of the examples outline, the threat has either passed or is otherwise not present. In that event, the use of lethal force would not be appropriate.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by BuckHammer

...If some thug decides to try to deprive me of my rights, I will, in response, exercise my second amendment right to protect my other rights. I don't see any difference between some thug and a redcoat....

If you truly can't see the difference, I pity you.

[BuckHammer]

The revolutionaries were fighting to protect themselves from an unfair legal system in which they had no rights against the British regime and any property could be seized on a whim and troops could be quartered in homes whenever it was deemed necessary. All of this was legal. To oppose this was illegal. When the law didn't protect Americans from these actions, they got together and did something about it. When the law doesn't protect me from my property getting seized by some punk, then I'll do something about it. My action my have questionable legality (even though I would shoot him in the face without exiting my vehicle, which if he had a weapon pointed at me, would be legal), and so did the revolutionaries' actions. Overall, it is what they did scaled down to an individual level.