Next question, if someone would have shot/killed him, would they be charged?
No
Next question, if someone would have shot/killed him, would they be charged?
This makes no sense. So your saying if you disarm your attacker and turn around and use his own weapon on him your crossing the line? But yet you think you being an innocent bystander has the right to shoot the guy in the head?
As far as being a third party... you should read the IC if you haven't already. You can use deadly force to protect yourself OR A THIRD PERSON from serious bodily injury or death.
If I walk up on somebody garroting somebody else, I'm shooting him. There's no way in the world any of you are going to convince me that someone is garroting someone else in self defense. Period. And I highly doubt I'll be charged with ANYTHING for shooting someone who made a point of making me think he was murdering a third person with a garrote. And keep in mind, that was the whole point of the video - to make people think the guy was murdering somebody in order to see how they'd react. Well, that's how I'd react to a murder happening right in front of me.
And you'd just stand there and watch? You'd not physically interfere? You remind me of all those people in the video who did nothing.
Good for you.
Another lawyer wanna be. Man, I'm done. The level of stupidity here IS.......can't even find the words to described it.
Lawyer wanna be? You mean to tell me that if you come across this and you believed with everything you have that this one person's life is in danger, you decide to act in self defense for that guys....that a persecutor is going to charge you for murder in which you honestly believe you were acting in self defense? Really?
You seem to know how everything works, mr "wanna be lawyer"...
Explain to me how you're going to shoot someone who had somebody in a deadth choke, in an elevator without witnesses, not knowing who was the initial aggressor? Isn't there a possiblity that the guy that you shot was initially on self defense? Isn't there a possiblity that you could have killed someone who was in the first place not the instigator? Isn't it a possiblity that YOU could have been that person? How would like to be shot since you got that aggressor on choke hold?
Do you really think that it's as simple as that on the IC?? Same thing with self defense, do you really thing it's that simple that you can just shoot someone, even though YOU were the aggressor initially? What you guys are saying is that it's just plain black and white when it's not, ESPECIALLY if you weren't there from the start. Just put yourselves in the shoes of the what if's.
The reason I'm sharing is is that don't wait to find out the hard way that it's not so simple as what the IC says.
http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hayes-SDLaw.pdf
This is very informative. I think most of you have already read this and it makes a lot of sense. Hope it will be useful to you.
First off, I don't take kindly to your "lawyer wanna be" attempted insult...secondly, I see what you are saying and while technically true, it also a true possibility that you can deescalate the situation without taking a shot. Chances are there's a security camera in the elevator, so police can sort out their mess...but what you are simply suggesting is just to stand there and call 911 while somebody dies.
A garrote is NOT a weapon of defense. It's a weapon of assassination.
Ok, I apologize for that impression that I projects, I just couldn't fathom on how one can just plainly say, "Yeah, go ahead and shoot. It's that simple." basing on the castle doctrine.
You don't have to watch someone die, you can intervene (while also on alert to draw your weapon) by shouting. "Ok you can stop now until police arrives." And from there, you can judge if the person WAS really the aggressor. That guy with the fire extinguisher, in my book, did the right thing. If that door didn't close, the extinguisher could have suppressed both persons.
You can use deadly force IF you we're there and WITNESSED how the situation escalated. IF you weren't there from the start, you'll have a hard time defending your actions.
Obviously you're either blind like the ANTI-GUNS or just plain stupid.
Let's say I'm getting attacked, I overpower him and got him in that position, and YES, the muther ****er was trying to kill me so I'm gonna ****ing kill him. Then, you the idiot, came in. And you're going to shoot me??? If I live, I'm gonna make sure you're gonna get butt ****ed in jail.
You can use deadly force IF you we're there and WITNESSED how the situation escalated. IF you weren't there from the start, you'll have a hard time defending your actions.
Obviously you're either blind like the ANTI-GUNS or just plain stupid.
Let's say I'm getting attacked, I overpower him and got him in that position, and YES, the muther ****er was trying to kill me so I'm gonna ****ing kill him. Then, you the idiot, came in. And you're going to shoot me??? If I live, I'm gonna make sure you're gonna get butt ****ed in jail.
Another lawyer wanna be. Man, I'm done. The level of stupidity here IS.......can't even find the words to described it.
You don't have to watch someone die, you can intervene (while also on alert to draw your weapon) by shouting. "Ok you can stop now until police arrives." And from there, you can judge if the person WAS really the aggressor. That guy with the fire extinguisher, in my book, did the right thing. If that door didn't close, the extinguisher could have suppressed both persons.
So it's okay for you to use deadly force to stop an attack. But it's not okay for the person being attacked to use the same deadly force that he was being attacked with around you because you in turn would use deadly force to save the life of the bad guy who started the attack to begin with.
Interesting
It's not the same application of deadly force. It's strangling the life out of somebody vs. stopping someone from strangling the life out of somebody. If you're defending yourself, once you've bested the other guy you have to stop. Once you are able to withdraw you have to withdraw.
But how do you withdraw instantly in a moving elevator? Or any other confined space where fleeing isn't an option? I agree with your basic principle but it doesn't work for every situation. IMO it is still defense if you are taking action that would stop the other person from killing you. In such a case you could already articulate ability, opportunity, and intent, as well as the inability to flee.
I agree. And you could always stop choking him once he passed out.
The moral of this story is don't pull this kind of stunt anywhere in Indiana.Or once the elevator stopped and the doors opened. (assuming there wasn't an INGOer outside the door )
But how do you withdraw instantly in a moving elevator? Or any other confined space where fleeing isn't an option? I agree with your basic principle but it doesn't work for every situation. IMO it is still defense if you are taking action that would stop the other person from killing you. In such a case you could already articulate ability, opportunity, and intent, as well as the inability to flee.