|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 30, 2008, 10:32 AM | #26 |
Junior member
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
|
If someone has gun pointing at you or anyone else, then it would be extremely foolish to think that they don't intend to use it.
Having said that, you certainly don't want to make a bad situation even worse. There are too many variables to say that there is only one correct answer. |
October 30, 2008, 09:32 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: The shores of Lake Huron
Posts: 4,783
|
Quote:
Flipping off the safety; that's great!
__________________
Stevie-Ray Join the NRA/ILA I am the weapon; my gun is a tool. It's regrettable that with some people those descriptors are reversed. |
|
October 31, 2008, 03:47 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 26, 2004
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 13,805
|
Perhaps I'm making this too complicated.
I'm in a convenience store, getting my usual 'Dew out of the cooler in the back. In walks a perp, flashes a gun and demands money. No other accomplice is apparent, at least not *in* the store. Do I unholster, conceal and sit ready for what comes next? Or keep it holstered/hidden and hide. I agree, when/if the time comes my instincts will kick in and monday quarterbacking will all be moot. But at least I can have some idea of what to do. |
October 31, 2008, 04:02 PM | #29 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
From BuckHammer:
Quote:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod.../ar41/ch3.html The gist is that you may use deadly force to protect yourself or someone else, and you may use deadly force to prevent or terminate the unlawful entry of your dwelling or automobile if you are in it. Using deadly force to protect property under other circumstances is not permitted under the Indiana Code would get you in a world of trouble. |
|
October 31, 2008, 04:50 PM | #30 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
|
|
October 31, 2008, 05:06 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 28, 2002
Location: Oregon-The wet side.
Posts: 949
|
Feets don't fail me now!
Why participate in any crime if there is an exit available? And yes, you may ignore the "Employees Only" sign on the door to the storeroom and the back door.
__________________
Gee, I'd love to see your data! |
November 1, 2008, 07:44 AM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 2000
Location: Tarheel
Posts: 199
|
Quote:
Flame away, however I've noticed that some who CC think of themselves as some sort of "police force" empowered by carrying. Why, I don't know.
__________________
slow is fast |
|
November 1, 2008, 02:47 PM | #33 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 286
|
Quote:
Quote:
I guess what I'm trying to say is don't automatically assume the worst about me and my post. Also, don't demonize me based on what you perceive my opinion to be.
__________________
Luck runs out. Boiler Up! |
||
November 1, 2008, 06:22 PM | #34 | |||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
From BuckHammer:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I have seen a lot of posts on this and another net forum from people who say that they would not hesitate to use deadly force to protect or retrieve their trucks, wallets, or other unspecified property. I see two risks here: (1) that those who post such things or others influenced by them may actually do that and become felons and (2), antigun people will react either to such tragedies or to the posts themselves and limit the rights of people to keep, carry, and use firearms. When I read your post I interpreted it to be along such lines, and evidently, so did David Armstrong. If I missed the point, that's great. Now, if you are the victim of an armed robbery, and under the circumstances at hand you reasonably fear for yourself, you have to decide what to do, taking into account that later, when your fate is not in your hands, you will likely have to convince others that your fear was in fact justified. If you merely happen to be present at an armed robbery, it might be a lot harder to convince people afterwards that you had reason to fear for yourself. The fact that the police are advised against intervention during the event would probably work against you. In any event, you are not permitted to protect your property by "any means necessary," and if your take is almost identical to mine, wonderful. I hope you find this helpful. |
|||
November 1, 2008, 07:17 PM | #35 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 286
|
Quote:
Quote:
A little case for clarification, I would NOT kill someone who I know pickpocketed me or was pickpocketing me just because I would be defending my right to property. However, if the guy was mugging me with a deadly weapon, that might be another story.
__________________
Luck runs out. Boiler Up! |
||
November 2, 2008, 12:04 AM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
Quote:
If you can "ride it out" without firing a shot, that's probably the best course of action. It causes you the least grief legally and in liability. Be a good witness. You might be able to use the "Employees only" door, but the two places I most frequent, doing so would put me right in the line of sight of the BG. So that's out. On the other hand, in one location I might be able to enter the cooler to keep out of sight. (Brrr) If the BG(s) start shaking down and/or assaulting the customers, I've ideally positioned myself away from the register with some concealment. In which case I may slide the gun behind my thigh and toss my decoy wallet. If he bypasses the wallet or comes past that point for any reason, the fight's on. Remember, no law requires you to take action or to risk your life and limb. Morality and ethics are another matter, but legally you're not required to engage.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) |
|
November 2, 2008, 09:04 AM | #37 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
From BuckHammer:
Quote:
Now, that's my thought, but it's worth nothing to you. You really ought to invest in an hour's consultation time with a good, experienced criminal trial attorney before deciding for yourself what the law allows. An alternative is to avoid any course of action that would put you at legal risk. The other factor to consider is the danger that your firing would pose to others. Should you kill or maim one or two others in the store the authorities would have to consider charges for that also, and there would be the civil exposure. Do not take this post as argumentative. I worked directly for the general counsel of a major corporate enterprise for about two years, and closely with the company lawyers for another dozen, and if there are three things I learned that are worth sharing here, they were (1) do not try to interpret the law without competent legal advice of attorneys familiar with the specific area of the law, (2) avoid legal risks like the plague, and (3) always remember (1) and (2). Fiddletown does have a backgound in the law, and I refer you back to two things he posted on this: Quote:
|
||
November 2, 2008, 09:20 AM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 286
|
Relevant Indiana Law:
Quote:
If the armed robbery situation arises, and I do feel that the store clerk or whoever is the subject of the armed robbery is in danger of "serious bodily injury", am I allowed to respond with deadly force? Let me just say that I would hate to kill another person, especially when I am not the actual subject of the robbery. I have consulted a few retired officers about this issue, but I wanted to get feedback from someone here who has a background in law (as many here have said that they do).
__________________
Luck runs out. Boiler Up! |
|
November 2, 2008, 10:41 AM | #39 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
There are, I believe, two main reasons for that reluctance. The first is that, as both easyG and Fiddletown have mentioned regarding the case at hand, there are always far too many variables to be able to lay out a useful hypothetical example. The second, which I think derives from the first, is that they do not want to create something that may be used against their clients in a real situation later. A face to face consultation is always more fruitful. Both you and I would, I think, benefit from one. One other thing: you use the phrase, "I feel." Realize that, as has been said before, you will have to later convince others that your "feeling" was reasonable. Your conclusion will be judged against the "reasonable person" standard, and you will have to convince others later that a reasonable person would have come to the same conclusion, based on what you knew at the time. The related experience that I have has to do with persons making informed judgments with which they were quite comfortable, and having auditors, regulators, and investigators look back at a later time at the facts and competing judgments that existed at the time and come to different conclusions. Sometimes this led to allegations, findings, and so forth that became very unpleasant indeed. I do hope you find this constructive and helpful. Your question is good one, but it is difficult to address in the abstract. One other thing. In my CCW class, I was told that it is permissible in Missouri to protect a third party, but that one was only required to do so if the third party were a policeman. I was also told that attorneys recommend against intervention in a situation involving a third party. That's second hand information. Good luck! |
|
November 2, 2008, 11:43 AM | #40 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
|
|
November 2, 2008, 11:54 AM | #41 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
The problem is that the legal standard is not a subjective one, i. e., you feel something. It's an objective standard. This is sometimes stated as : A reasonable and prudent person, in the same situation and knowing what you know, would conclude that the use of lethal force was necessary to prevent immediate and otherwise unavoidable death or grave bodily harm to an innocent. Whether the the test is satisfied will be determined from the totality fo the circumstances. For example, did the gunman look crazed and unstable? Was he waiving the gun around wildly and in an overtly threatening manner? Or did he seem to be a cool, professional criminal.
In any case, it would be very helpful, if you decide that you must shoot, to be able to articulate the reasons you concluded that lethal force was necessary in that particular situation. Why did you conclude that you had no choice but to shoot? That's one reason I think that training and practice are important. One wants to have decent mastery of the mechanics of using his weapon and confidence in his marksmanship and ability to use his weapon. That way he can focus on the decision. And this is also why you can only take a hypothetical so far. There is no one magic characteristic that can give you the "green light." You have to be there and make a reasonable judgment, based on the whole picture, that lethal force is necessary to save innocent life. |
November 2, 2008, 03:18 PM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
|
Quote:
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun." Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08 |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|