Using Deadly Force

[Hondo11]

MMMmmm, maybe. In most places you'd have to show that you considered yourself to be in imminent danger of death or grievous injury. The guy with the gun committing Aggravated Robbery is a good indication that you are just that. The "type" of crime doesn't matter per say, so much as were you in immediate danger of death or life-threatening injury. Yes, it does. Crimes Against Persons are more closely tied to Self Defense and Use of Force. Some Property Crimes are also related, but Theft and Robbery are not the same thing at all. Sure, with some crimes risk of death or injury is implied in the event The guy with the gun sort of implies it in this case but I don't think you'd win a case saying a car jacker was going to kill you You don't have to know what he was going to do, only what he was doing that placed you in fear of...and again, the gun and his commission of Aggravated Robbery with you as the victim kind of makes the case... simply because stealing your car is an indication your about to be killed. As I said above, gun pointed in your direction, your probably clear to shoot, otherwise it's going to be a tough case. So, I could just walk up to you with my gun pointed at the ground and say "I'm going to kill you", but unless it's pointed 'in your direction', then you can't defend yourself?

You should better inform yourself. Here are some definitions from the Texas Penal Code (most states are similar)...I'll highlight the parts you might focus on.

(17) "Deadly weapon" means:
(A) a firearm or anything manifestly designed,
made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious
bodily injury; or
(B) anything that in the manner of its use or
intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or
known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended
use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief
that the force was immediately necessary as described by this
subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or
discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences
with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section
46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in
violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use
or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an
offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, § 5, eff.
Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept.
1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, § 3, eff. September 1,
2007.

§ 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if,
in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with
intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places
another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second
degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an
offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
(3) causes bodily injury to another person or
threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily
injury or death, if the other person is:
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first
degree.
(c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual
with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is
substantially unable to protect himself from harm.

[Brian Pfleuger]

1) I'm not in Texas

2) I know my states law.

3) If they are in the act of X and pointing a gun at you SHOOT THEM. If they are driving away and you shoot them, YOU go to jail -- in NY state. Texas is, no offense, irrelevant to me -- especially since the OP is in Indiana.

4) It's about more than "the law" it's about basic moral code. I'm not telling you what your code should be, I'm telling you what mine IS. IF a crime is OVER, any crime, I will not kill the perp unless they: have killed someone in my sight (or I know beyond ANY doubt that they have) or are attempting to commit further crime that warrants shooting.


You MUST have reason to believe you are about to die or be harmed to near death or that someone else is. You shoot for any other reason YOU go to jail. Even the castle doctrine doesn't negate that simple fact, it simply states that you can ASSUME grave danger. There is no implication that the grave danger does not exist.

So, I could just walk up to you with my gun pointed at the ground and say "I'm going to kill you", but unless it's pointed 'in your direction', then you can't defend yourself?

That's just silly. My meaning in context is clear.

[Hondo11]

Sorry, Hondo, but your example is entirely unrelated. You didn't comprehend what you read. Read the comment that I was addressing, then read my response in that context.

Yes, if someone is pointing a gun at me, whether he wants my wallet, car, or to kill me, I am in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. I am fully within my rights to resist using lethal force. Once that threat is over, in most states I can no longer use deadly force. The comment I was addressing suggested that the badguy was still in the commission of the Aggravated Robbery, not fleeing...so the threat was not over.

From a practical standpoint, if the guy is still getting into my car, but his gun is no longer pointed at me, I'm running for cover. If the guy is getting into my car but his gun is still pointed at me, I have the choice of doing nothing (and hoping he doesn't kill me), drawing against an already drawn gun (and hoping I beat his shot), or running away. I didn't say anything about the practical standpoint. The comment I addressed questioned why you'd defend yourself...and not after the guy was driving away, but while he was still in the act of robbing you at gunpoint.

Btw, many states consider rape to be grave bodily injury, and the use of deadly force is justified to stop it. Besides, rape is generally done with the expressed or implied threat of death or grave bodily injury.

Aggravated Robbery (or whatever your state titles it) is also done with the expressed or implied threat of death or serious bodily injury (the display of a deadly weapon.

The actual offense committed (the title of it) isn't relevant to the logic that was used. If you are (or a third party) in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, you can defend yourself (or them). It doesn't matter whether it's your wife's virtue or it a guy pointing a gun at you and ordering you to get out of your car. They are both justification for the use of Deadly Force and the fact that the written law gives you justification takes care of the actual or threat of danger. For instance, the statute I posted previously gives justification for the use of Deadly Force to prevent the imminent commission of several things. That implies that if one of those things is happening to you, then you are in danger. You just have to articulate YOUR specific situation.

[Hondo11]

1) I'm not in Texas

2) I know my states law.

3) If they are in the act of X and pointing a gun at you SHOOT THEM. If they are driving away and you shoot them, YOU go to jail -- in NY state. Texas is, no offense, irrelevant to me -- especially since the OP is in Indiana.

You didn't read all of my post then. I specifically said that I wasn't advocating shooting if the guy's driving away. In fact, I never advocated taking any specific course of action. What I did was answer the question that was asked re: why you would shoot someone who's still in the act of committing Aggravated Robbery against you... I didn't say you should, ought to, etc. The question was asked "Why would you?" and I offered a reason why one might. And the scenario that prompted the "why" question stated that the guy was still getting into the car...NOT driving away. Your arguing something that wasn't said.

4) It's about more than "the law" it's about basic moral code. I'm not telling you what your code should be, I'm telling you what mine IS. IF a crime is OVER, any crime, I will not kill the perp unless they: have killed someone in my sight (or I know beyond ANY doubt that they have) or are attempting to commit further crime that warrants shooting.


You MUST have reason to believe you are about to die or be harmed to near death or that someone else is. You shoot for any other reason YOU go to jail. Even the castle doctrine doesn't negate that simple fact, it simply states that you can ASSUME grave danger. There is no implication that the grave danger does not exist.


Quote:
So, I could just walk up to you with my gun pointed at the ground and say "I'm going to kill you", but unless it's pointed 'in your direction', then you can't defend yourself?

That's just silly. My meaning in context is clear.

Here's the part of my post you missed:

Disclaimer- ***I am not saying if he's already taken your car and is driving away, then you should start shooting. GP said if the guy had a gun and was still getting into his car, then he MIGHT shoot.

[David Armstrong]

I am inclined to shoot because an armed and dangerous person is on the loose who very well may hurt someone else.

I note that you are in Louisiana. In LA, that is not a valid reason or approved justification for shooting someone.

but if an attacker has a gun out, you can only assume he's means to hurt you.

Actually, that is a rather poor assumption.

Just because he's now in the car doesn't mean you are out of danger. What if he intends to shoot the witness?

It's a pretty good bet that if he wantged to shoot the witnesses he would have done it long before this point.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Disclaimer- ***I am not saying if he's already taken your car and is driving away, then you should start shooting. GP said if the guy had a gun and was still getting into his car, then he MIGHT shoot.

I did read that part but, since it didn't conflict with my statements at all, I was confused as to why the entire rest of your post seemed to indicate that I was in error.

If you feel you are in danger of death or grievous bodily harm you may pull the trigger. That was and is my only point. One you seem to agree with but at the same time seem to take exception to my explanation of said point. So you'll have to:
1) Excuse my confusion
2) Excuse me from this discussion.

[David Armstrong]

Because he is still in the commission of a violent felony against you, a person, and some people believe in using Deadly Force to prevent that from happening to them.

It's already happened to you. That is the situation given by the OP: "...do i have the right to gun them down even if they are no longer threatening me?" Do you try to make it better or worse? If you start shooting you place yourself in danger, create a greater chance of losing the car in a non-insurable situation, cost yourself additional legal fees, and so on.

You come home and a man is raping your wife. I guess you could not use Deadly Force because, hey, he's already raped her and she can't be unraped.

I have never seen that as a condition for using deadly force or not, nor does it make much sense.

You have nothing to gain other than getting even, right?

Huh??? There is no getting even consideration at all. The BG is in the commission of a violent personal felony. Letting him continue has a high probability of further danger to the wife, not less.

And if you shoot him instead of letting him finish raping her, then you'll just have attorney's fees, time lost due to court, etc.

Which is probably a fairly good use of resources. I will assume your wife is worth more than the deductible your car has.

You should not interfere and just let him finish, then shoo him away and let the police catch him later.

Again, why? How does letting him finish and then shooing him away provide the greatest chance for you minimize loss of resources? You seem to be equating a rape in progress with a carjacking that pretty much concluded. I see quite a difference there. In one instance, there is still a grave danger to the person. In the other, there isn't. Let's remember the original question: "...do i have the right to gun them down even if they are no longer threatening me?" If they are no longer threatening is quite a bit different than they are in the process of an attack.

[Hondo11]

Peetzakilla,

I guess your inital reply threw me off. You mentioned that one would have to show they were in danger of serious injury or death. I think the danger is pretty clear, considering the scenario was that a guy was committing Aggravated Robbery (display and/or use of a deadly weapon during the commission of Robbery). So...I guess we actually agree???


I only made the Crime Against a Person vs. Property Crime to distuingish the difference between someone stealing your car and someone robbing you of your car at gunpoint...which are two different things altogether. You'd be more apt to use Deadly Force to prevent the Aggravated Robbery than you would the "Car Theft" (which is a property crime...although in some states you can use deadly force to prevent just that.) Some people get "car theft" and "carjacking" confused.

Maybe I am completely missing your point (entirely possible) and it is not my intent to be argumentative. Feel free to call me on it if I ever come across that way.

[Hondo11]

It's already happened to you. Do you try to make it better or worse? If you start shooting you place yourself in danger, create a greater chance of losing the car in a non-insurable situation, cost yourself additional legal fees, and so on.

The post that you replied to with the "why?" question specifically stated that it was NOT over. He stated that the guy was STILL getting into your car. I don't see that as being over by any stretch.

I have never seen that as a condition for using deadly force or not, nor does it make much sense.

It was addressing your logic of "why would you?". You stated that hey, the guy's pretty much going to get your car...you're already going to be out the vehicle, so why cost yourself attorney's fees, time lost for court, etc? So... Your wife's already been violated, so why add to it with a dead guy to clean up, attorney costs, time lost for court, etc?

The answer is the same in both cases. Because the guy is committing a violent felony, RIGHT THEN, to you (or in the other case, your wife)...so you use whatever force you need to use to prevent/stop it. (Or not...personal choice. I NEVER advocated one course of action over another. I simply addressed your implication that a person shouldn't use force to stop it...which is what you implied with your "why would you" post and all the other threads where you've advocated compliance.)

Huh??? There is no getting even consideration at all. The BG is in the commission of a violent personal felony. Letting him continue has a high probability of further danger to the wife, not less.

In the carjacking case, the badguy is in the commission of a violent personal felony as well. Agg Robbery (the carjacking) is NOT a property crime...it's a Crime Against a Person. In your words, letting him continue has a high probability of further danger to you, not less. Stopping something sooner is better than stopping it later. Of course, nobody knows whether the continuation of EITHER case would result in a higher probability of further danger because nobody but the badguy (and sometimes not even he/she) knows what the ultimate goal is, what the next step is, what's going to happen next, etc.

Which is probably a fairly good use of resources. I will assume your wife is worth more than the deductible your car has.

Stopping someone from committing a "violent personal felony" against ME is a good use of resources too. The car doesn't play into it at all. It's not about the car, it's about the fact that you are being robbed at gunpoint. The car isn't in danger, YOU are.

Again, why? How does letting him finish and then shooing him away provide the greatest chance for you minimize loss of resources? You seem to be equating a rape in progress with a carjacking that pretty much concluded. I see quite a difference there. In one instance, there is still a grave danger to the person. In the other, there isn't.

Given that the post we're talking about specifies that the carjacking is NOT over, no I am not comparing an "in progress" anything to a carjacking that's "pretty much over". I'm comparing two things:

1. A violent act against a person by another, which places the victim in danger of serious bodily injury or death

and

2. A violent act against a person by another, which places the victim in danger of serious bodily injury or death


Letting them go wasn't my idea. It was what YOU implied in your "why would you" post. I referred to it in the rape scenario to show how simple the answer to your "why would you" question really is. The answer is "to stop them from committing a violent act against me...an act which places me in fear of injury or death."

[David Armstrong]

The post that you replied to with the "why?" question specifically stated that it was NOT over. He stated that the guy was STILL getting into your car. I don't see that as being over by any stretch.

"However, if he has a gun and he's getting into my car but hasn't driven off yet, and I'm able to access my gun, I might shoot him before he starts driving. "
Sure sounds over to me. The BG is getting into the car, he's no longer messing with you. No apparent threat, we're just shooting him so he can't drive off.

You stated that hey, the guy's pretty much going to get your car...you're already going to be out the vehicle, so why cost yourself attorney's fees, time lost for court, etc? So... Your wife's already been violated, so why add to it with a dead guy to clean up, attorney costs, time lost for court, etc?

As mentioned, you seem unable to understand the difference in potential loss of resources limited to your car insurance deductible and an attack in progress that threatens grave injury. That may be why you seem to be having trouble with this idea.

In the carjacking case, the badguy is in the commission of a violent personal felony as well.

But he has completed his act and is leaving the scene and is no longer a threat to you. Quite different from being actually engaged in a life-threatening action, as pointed out earlier.

In your words, letting him continue has a high probability of further danger to you, not less.

Sorry, but letting the BG drive away in your car does not give a high probability of danger to you. In fact, as he drives off, the danger goes down significantly. While certainly a violent personal crime, carjacking rarely results in serious injury.

Stopping someone from committing a "violent personal felony" against ME is a good use of resources too. The car doesn't play into it at all. It's not about the car, it's about the fact that you are being robbed at gunpoint. The car isn't in danger, YOU are.

Of course the car plays into it, it is a carjacking. And you are no longer in danger: ""...do i have the right to gun them down even if they are no longer threatening me?" The scenario itself indicates no threat. If you want to do a different scenario please post it and we can discuss it, but this situation is based on a crime that is pretty much over with and there is no longer a threat to you.

Given that the post we're talking about specifies that the carjacking is NOT over

But the threat to you is over. That is the scenario.

I'm comparing two things:

But the two are not the same, although you claim they are. One is an almost completed carjacking, with the goal being to get in the car and leave. The other is a rape in progress, a violent personal attack with a high danger of grave injury. They are very different.

Letting them go wasn't my idea.

Letting them finish and then shooing them away certainly was your idea. In the original scenario they are already finished with you and are in the process of leaving. In the rape scenario they are in the process of putting someone's life in immediate danger during the commission of the crime. In one instance, violent force minimizes your probable loss, in the other is maximizes it.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Now you'll have to let me back in...

So...I guess we actually agree???

I think so.

...and it is not my intent to be argumentative. Feel free to call me on it if I ever come across that way.

Forgive me if my response seemed overly aggressive. I find myself expecting people to post things just to create arguments...

There are those around.

[Hondo11]

David,

You actually quoted the post that I referred to, which said "...getting into your car..." and used that to argue that it's "over". Getting means he is still doing it. I don't see how that's not obvious to a PhD. Yet, you still refer to it as over. I can only assume that you'd argue with a fence post until it saw things your way, so I'll pass on being the fence post.

Until he has already driven off, I would consider a guy with a gun who's in the commission of Aggravated Robbery (with a deadly weapon) a threat. You might not, but that's certainly your prerogative.

The original post contained the following:

"...do i have the right to gun them down even if they are no longer threatening me?"

In this case, I don't disagree with you. Once they are no longer directly threatening you with the deadly weapon, then your course of action will probably change. No argument here. (Although, in some states, you can still use Deadly Force in the defense of the property...if you choose to...not that I'm saying that's the proper option...just that it still might be one, legally speaking.)

As for the rest, I'm finished discussing it with you. It's obvious we come from two different worlds and see things from two different perspectives. We'll just leave it at that.

[Nnobby45]

caveat: Each state's law is different - check for YOUR state.

Let us not forget that a county DA will likely determine whether you violated the law and his/her decision may be influenced by politics. I live in a county with a DA that strongly supports citizens right to SD. He despises criminals as much as I do.

You may live in a county where the DA is the opposite and the rights of the criminal are sacred.

[Nnobby45]

Say, Hondo. Bold red type isn't necessary.

Aside from being a touch on the rude side, it's not so easy on the eyes for some of us old geezers. Perhaps you'll reconsider and make your point like the rest of us. Thanks, Nolan

[computerguysd]

If you shoot somebody, particularly if you shoot and kill them, you're going to go to trial. Even DAs that support gun owners rights will charge you as CYA. 12 people will ultimately determine if the shooting was justified and the odds are that if they feel you shot someone who was NO LONGER a threat to you, you'll be going to jail. Maybe they won't, but it's not a risk I'd be willing to take.

FWIW, the local NRA Instructor uses this example in his self defense course and is very explicit that if the BG is no longer a direct threat, expect to be prosecuted and probably convicted.

In the scenario where an innocent passenger is still in the car and the BG is driving away with them, you're justified in shooting because the passenger is still directly threatened by an armed criminal who is kidnapping them.

[roach4047]

Make sure you put your bullets through the front wind shield so that you're able to convince the jury that your life was in jeapordy as the thug was attempting to run over you. If that doesn't convince them nothing will.

Roach

[Hondo11]

Say, Hondo. Bold red type isn't necessary.

Aside from being a touch on the rude side, it's not so easy on the eyes for some of us old geezers. Perhaps you'll reconsider and make your point like the rest of us. Thanks, Nolan

I used red type to differentiate my text from the black text, so I could insert my reply directly under the comment. My apologies if it was hard to read.

[Japle]

If you shoot somebody, particularly if you shoot and kill them, you're going to go to trial.

Not in Florida.
Justified self-defense shootings usually don't even get to the charges-filed stage.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Japle

...Justified self-defense shootings usually don't even get to the charges-filed stage.

Who decides if it's justified. The DA doesn't have to take your word for it. When it's clearly justified and everyone agrees, there's no problem; and you get to go home. But real life isn't always so neat and clean, and sometimes there's disagreement about whether or not the shooting was justified. And then there's a trial.

[David Armstrong]

You actually quoted the post that I referred to, which said "...getting into your car..." and used that to argue that it's "over".

Yes, I did. Let's look at what was said:
"However, if he has a gun and he's getting into my car but hasn't driven off yet, and I'm able to access my gun, I might shoot him before he starts driving. "
Looks pretty over to me. The BG is done with you, he is getting in the car, and he is going to drive off.

Getting means he is still doing it

I'm going to suggest that using tthat reasoning, if the BG is driving the car down the freeway 2 hours after leaving you behind, he is still doing it.

Until he has already driven off, I would consider a guy with a gun who's in the commission of Aggravated Robbery (with a deadly weapon) a threat.

I would consider a guy who is trying to get in a car and drive off not much of a threat. Further, I think you'd have a hard time justifying the use of deadly force at this point in any jurisdiction that uses the reasonableness standard for response or the imminent danger restriction. It is no different than the BG who has robbed your store and is now running away.

[onthejon55]

i love you guys! so much useful info thank you very much!

[vytoland]

once the BG has taken your car and drives off, the danger to you as ended. use of deadly force is not warrented. put your gun away and call your insurance company

[finity]

(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
[i]if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

Interestingly, in Indiana, the justification to use deadly force doesn't even require the BG to have a weapon in the case of an "occupied motor vehicle" (or house or property around your house). If they won't stop, you do what you have to do. The statute doesn't even require the standard "in fear of great bodily harm"; The act of the carjacking (or home invasion) itself is presumed to involve that threat at a minimum.

I guess you could argue when to call the situation "over" but the statute doesn't just say "prevent" it also says "terminate".

Going back to the rape scenario:

No one is going to argue that a rape-in-progress doesn't deserve action. OTOH, if the guy is already long gone then most understand you can't run them down & kill them.

But what about the instant the guy finishes the deed & implies he is leaving? Do you advocate that he should be just let go? (The rape is over.) The woman &/or her defender should just cower in the corner hoping he really does leave? What if he just stands in the room without a weapon in hand....then you should just do nothing? (No threat there.) What if there never was a weapon other that his superior strength? (Ahh, just do what he says & let him go. The cops will find him. :barf

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?

since their gun is pointed at my head the entire time i don't have a chance to draw on them during the first part of the confrontation. but then after i get out and they prepare to make off with my vehicle do i have the right to gun them down even if they are no longer threatening me?

If the BG has gotten to the point that he has driven a reasonable distance away & there is no other implied threat then, yeah, a reasonable person could conclude you are not in further danger & a SD claim probably wouldn't fly.

But if you are on the ground & the BG is "preparing to make off with" your vehicle, you could reasonably believe the crime is still in progress & can still be legally terminated (just like the man who hasn't left yet but has finished actively raping your wife). You really don't know what the BG is going to do at that point.

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

Yes I know that sometimes the GG loses but so does the BG. It's really difficult to respond to an unexpected attack (or in this case a counter-attack) so your odds of success go up if you are stealthy & determined to do them in. If you don't know yet what the "OODA loop" is, you might want to look it up.

[OldMarksman]

From finity:

I guess you could argue when to call the situation "over" but the statute doesn't just say "prevent" it also says "terminate".

It reads "[terminate] the other person's unlawful entry ...of the person's ... occupied motor vehicle."

if you are on the ground & the BG is "preparing to make off with" your vehicle

If you are on the ground the vehicle is not occupied. Don't shoot.

Read under Defense of Property:http://www.useofforce.us/4details/

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

I think you would be a statistic.

[OldMarksman]

From GPossenti:

I am inclined to shoot because an armed and dangerous person is on the loose who very well may hurt someone else.

"May well hurt someone else"? Do you seriously think you could even begin to present a case of defense of justifiability? Not even a policemen would try that.

The requirement is reasonable fear of imminent danger. Not potential danger, either to yourself or to someone else.