I drew my weapon, was it the right thing to do

[henktermaat]

So let me get this right, You exit a store and three males approach you and/or your vehicle and you draw a weapon and point it? WOW!! Yes you did wrong. Matter of fact you broke the law and committed a crime based on the way you described the incident. Unbelievable!! In fear of serious bodily injury or death by a group of guys walking towards you is a stretch IMO. You might want to brush up on state law before you find yourself is some legal jeopardy.

Wrong, You

 

[Jubbie]

I can't believe this has gone on 30 pages. lol. Man this discussion is needed in a different context. Maybe an open dialog between LEO and those that carry weapons.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a lawyer & those that carry weapons. LEO's are trained in how to react in situations in accordance to what they are legally able to do. Citizens have a different set of regulations.

 

[ocsdor]

I can't believe this has gone on 30 pages. lol.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

gives my lawyer a much better chance of convincing 7/12ths of my peers that I acted reasonably than "he gave me the willies so I shot him."

Just a slight correction, your attorney only has to convince 1/12 of the jury that you acted reasonably. If that one person has enough backbone to follow through and not cave under pressure. A jury has to be unanimous to bring forth a guilty verdict.

 

[finity]

Well all I can say is do what you think it right. Unlike what you must be saying-Do what you can get away with? No witnesses? Hmmmm. Out of all of the posts on this thread yours is IMO the most asinine of all. Pardon the bluntness but some people will read yours and have yet another misguided view of justifiable force. Yet another example of someone reading through IC codes and finding a few phrases that fits their thinking.

You must have been reading a different post than mine.

I never said anywhere to "do what you can get away with". I said that you would be justified (by law) to shoot the other guy if the situation is as the OP said it was, you drew in anticipation of unlawful use of force by 3 guys surrounding you at night in a deserted parking lot who you repeatedly tell to back away then one of the guys draws on you.

If you stop him first, you will probably win in court, especially if there are witnesses to corroborate your story. Especially if he had a gun.

If you are the one killed, he will probably win in court, especially if there were no other witnesses (other than his 2 buds) to contradict his story.

I never said you would win if there were "no witnesses". I said he would win if there were no witnesses.

Most normal people will back away when they see a gun, especially if they are not bad guys but realize you might think they are (you know, by the fact that you kept telling them to get back & then pulling a gun when they didn't stop).

If we can't go by the IC then show me case law that directly disputes what I am (& the majority of others it seems) saying the IC says.

No, it doesn't count to use the old "there are prisons filled with fools..." line. That's not the law.

You, IMO, are putting your opinion above the written law & as you're a LEO I find that alarming.

I was going to be done with this thread but I am fresh off yet another arrest with a young guy with a permit. As we were dealing with the incident I was thinking about this very thread. Unable to revile all the details out of respect and privacy for the arrested and victim. Briefly though a young guy with a permit fresh off the printer sees a vehicle, that in his mind, has driven by his house to many times. He decides to play police officer (with gun in hand) and confront the driver as he drives by yet again. Of course the driver was not too interested in stopping. Our misguided youth decides he is justified in pointing as the driver accelerates by him. Driver of course does not stop (Who would?) Misguided youth then actually fires shots. Hmmmm!! Bad part? No amount of talking could get this youth to understand that he was WAY wrong on ALL counts. Our driver? Just arrived from out of state to visit a relative whom had just moved into the area and was attempting to find his home.

Amazing...simply amazing!!

This is a completely different scenario.

Just because there was one guy (or even several guys) who was wrong about the interpretation of the law & was unable to use common sense doesn't mean that everybody else is the same.

Read the laws.

There are some LEO's who have used excessive force & killed people or have done other illegal things while thinking they were completely justified in doing it. Does that mean that all LEOs are wrong about what they think the law means. No.

Some people are just idiots.

Read the laws.

The guy in the story above needs to be in jail. The OP doesn't.

Something I've noticed is people say they want more people to get their LTCH. I've also noticed that people complain about people that carry guns not being properly educated to do so. Now I'm not saying I'm for it or against it, but IMO, with out mandatory training to get you LTCH we will continue to get permit holders that have no business handling firearms. Just my .

That's true, but even with a mandatory test for getting a drivers license, we still get people with DL's with no business handling automobiles.

Driving a car is not an enumerated Constitutional right, self-defense is.

I do not have the answer to your questions. I was not the arresting officer. I did speak to the guy however and he did not seem to me to be impaired. He did mention things he had read in gun magazines and on the net that justified(In his mind) what he did.

Read the laws, not internet message boards.

But would I draw on one person who was physically attacking me?

You would be legally allowed to:

IC 35-47-4-3
Pointing firearm at another person
Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.


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.
(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;
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.
.
.
.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.

Imminent means going to happen momentarily (i.e. really soon). imminent - definition of imminent by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

If he's attacking you he's already way past the 'imminent' stage.

I'm not talking about drawing if I get into a argument with some guy and yelling leads to pushing leads to fist swinging, I'll hopefully be long gone by the time it gets to that whether I'm carrying or not.

Good because that wouldn't be legal (see IC 35-41-3-2 section (e)(3) above)

I think I would have to be taking a very bad whipping before I considered using deadly force.

Sorry to hear that. That may be one of the most asinine posts in this entire thread. I'm afraid that someone on here may read that coming from a LEO & end up dying because they thought they had to take a "very bad whipping" before they could defend themselves with their pistol.

A very bad whipping is likely to get you very dead. Real life is not like the movies, when you can just stand up, wipe the blood off your lip & walk away after you get beat in the head & face for 5 minutes straight.

Agent1074 made a correct comment,the force must be "Reasonable". One point I had not even though about during this discussion. Reasonable is a biggy I would think. Reasonable can be a tall order considering that the ones deciding if you were reasonable (Initially)will be doing so sitting behind a desk in an office somewhere.

Or not so tall as you may try to convince us it is:

Here's an opinion from our own Supreme Court:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him. - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

& here is an excellent article from one your own professional LEO publications:

Understanding the Objectively Reasonable Standard-Self Defense

some quotes:

Then there is the well-settled issue of self defense . Every person has an absolute right to self-defense. In the case at hand, the two police officers had not surrendered their individual right to self defense as a consequence of their professional occupation. The rules of self defense are clear:

• One need not be harmed before acting.
• One need not calculate and prioritize a hierarchy of alternatives.
• One need not determine the underlying intent, apparent motivation or potential impairment of the attacker.
• And if you are a law enforcement officer engaged in legitimate police activities, you need not retreat from your duty or endure unreasonable risks to your safety.

The opinions offered by the ex-chief were exclusively 20/20 hindsight, sometimes called the art of afterthought . The ex-chief pointed out alternative means that could have, should have, or might have been employed. Such an "after-action critique" was invalid because it ignored the reality that the involved officers were forced to make split-second judgments in a situation that was tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. It is relatively easy in the comfort of an office to second-guess the acts of others, particularly in police matters since there is no single-best way to handle any particular situation. More importantly, officers faced with an upturned knife do not enjoy the luxury of time or distance that might allow them to seek an independent expert opinion or request a feasibility study by a reputable consulting firm.
Of course, the brilliance of 20/20 hindsight practiced in a safe and secure setting would produce a myriad of alternatives to that which a police officer might perform in a peak stress event such as one in which a crazed and yelling woman charges forward with a BIG KNIFE in a small room.

Hmmm...interesting

Another thing to keep in mind,just because you might be or even if you are justified in using deadly force, that does not necessarily mean you should or have too.

I agree, but if you do you will not (no, you cannot) be held legally liable. I'm not going to argue the point of the rogue prosecutor taking you to trial in defiance of the law. No system is perfect.

Think,do not over react,do not freak out, use your head,use some common sense,do not go looking for a excuse to pull your weapon.

I completely agree but will add one thing (again)...know the law.

Agreed on Parrish, she may have been right to draw (although in her case I would of just ran over the bike and drove away) but as soon as the guy started backing away she had no right to fire. And her words "Its your lucky day, I'm going to kill you" And then her and her son swearing at him and kicking him as he lie there well....

Agreed. She was in the wrong. She was not wrong to pull the gun as she was in fear of what he was going to do as he approached. She was wrong to pull the trigger when it was obvious that he was backing away. If not for that or, indeed, if he reached into the vehicle, she probably would have been found 'not guilty'

And I agree it is serious business. But if I ever have a need to use a firearm or anything else to protect myself and others, I hope that fear doesn't stop me from doing what needs to be done.

That's the problem with these types of threads. People don't state the law. They state opinions that a lot of times don't even come close to being law.

The whole "if you shoot somebody in self-defense your life will be ruined & you will spend the rest of your life in the poor house while your family scrounges for crumbs out of a dumpster, that is, if your wife doesn't just leave you & your kids disown you" crowd is just ridiculous. Could that happen? Rogue prosecutor? Idiot jury? Bad defense lawyer? Sure. Is it a forgone conclusion? Not in IN. I don't have the stats but I would doubt it happens even the majority of the time (over 50%) in real self-defense cases.

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.

j706 is not recommending it; it is the law, and the Judicial system's interpretation of the law, that is recommending it.

That is absulutely not true. You do not have to wait until you are incapacitated, or even almost such, until you defend yourself with deadly force. Show me the IC. Show me the case law.

See above for the real law about self-defense. It says 'imminent', not already happening/happened.

 

[RangerRick]

Indy

16th and Commerce,I had the same issue with about 20 young folks. They ambushed my family car in Indy. I got out of the car under a street light and they say the weapon and ran. I could have opened a shoe store. I guess they did not tie their shoes back then either.
RR

 

[spectrumbf]

I would have done the same thing. I feel you showeda great deal of restraint by not pulling until you got in the car.