Holy cow I am afraid there are some people on here that are one fender bender away from a prison sentence and or financial ruin.
Leave window rolled up. Stay inside. Call police. Make sure draw is clear in case it is needed.
(see post #9)
Don't much wanna be wrasslin' a feller in a thong neither...
Every situation is different. You never know what's the right way to handle it until it happens.
IF somebody is set on causing "serious bodily injury" to me, and I think he's capable of it, I have no duty to retreat and I WILL shoot him.
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.
IC 35-41-1-25
"Serious bodily injury" defined
Sec. 25. "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes:
(1) serious permanent disfigurement;
(2) unconsciousness;
(3) extreme pain;
(4) permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ; or
(5) loss of a fetus.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.26. Amended by P.L.261-1997, SEC.1.
Many, many times I have seen ONE PUNCH result in "serious bodily injury" as defined above. ONE PUNCH.
Most people are well aware of the state statute and it is a good common sense law but the key word here is "Reasonable". That is the part that can make things go either way. Just something to consider.
Legal Dictionary
Main Entry: rea·son·able
Function: adjective
1 a : being in accordance with reason, fairness, duty, or prudence b : of an appropriate degree or kind c : supported or justified by fact or circumstance reasonable belief that force was necessary for self-defense> d : [SIZE=-1]COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE[/SIZE]
2 : applying reason or logic; broadly : [SIZE=-1]RATIONAL [/SIZE]1 reasonable mind> —rea·son·able·ness noun —rea·son·ably adverb
(see post #9)
Don't much wanna be wrasslin' a feller in a thong neither...
Look at post 26. T-rev is ready to wrestle.
That should send em runningDarn spell check never catches that cause it is spelled right, I wouldnt have to shoot I would just step out of my truck
Amen to that my friend. You definately know the flip flop bully kind. Your always wrong no matter what. The best thing to do is walk away from em. Those type people can delibrately irritate a person. They feed off of drama. I wouldn't want to associate and trust them outside of work. I'm not a cliquer and rarely associate outside work with co-workers for that reason.I'd rep you 100X if I could.
This, to me, is the very heart of what drives the anti-gun/libtard d-bag crowd. They are the bullies of the world, plain and simple. They know, deep in their black hearts that *they* have an insatiable underlying need to prove to the world that they are always right all the time, to dominate, and thus they cannot be trusted to act reasonably with a firearm. They know deep down that their fragile but insatiable ego will get the better of them even in the mildest of disputes, and they will not be able to resist "the power of the gun" if they had one. Their meglomania makes them think that their personal character flaws are shared by everyone else, so they project this onto others and come up with the knee-jerk reaction to stop other people from acting like the a-holes they know they are by banning everyone from owning guns.
It does not surprise me one bit that the armed OP, whom his libtard acquaintance would likely say is "looking for trouble/wants to be a vigilante", would be the one to seek a peaceful solution if at all possible, while the anti-gun idiot would be the first one to resort to violence. Typical anti-gun idiot.
I fart in his *specific* direction...
This is good hahaI'm 63 years old. Almost any threat to me is serious and I may respond with deadly force. If a raging 10 year old is attacking me, I may hold him until his parents show up, but if a 6'3" SEIU thug lays his hands on me, I'll pump his chest with as many shots as I can get off.
The implication of your liberal friend's question seems to be, that he'd rather be gravely injured or dead than to use lethal force against someone else to prevent grave bodily injury to himself, or even his own death. You might ask if that's really what he's trying to say.
Real life scenario would of course be different but I just have the issue of an unarmed person. I didn't think about this before but a person could carry a bottle of mace in their car for a situation like that or a tazer. But if they were fataly injured with a gun or tazer and they were unarmed, that may not play out so well for the defender.
Yeah, it doesn't make sense does it. I mean being all anti gun and all then shoot an unarmed man. Typical. Then again he never did make much sense.
I'd rep you 100X if I could.
This, to me, is the very heart of what drives the anti-gun/libtard d-bag crowd. They are the bullies of the world, plain and simple. They know, deep in their black hearts that *they* have an insatiable underlying need to prove to the world that they are always right all the time, to dominate, and thus they cannot be trusted to act reasonably with a firearm. They know deep down that their fragile but insatiable ego will get the better of them even in the mildest of disputes, and they will not be able to resist "the power of the gun" if they had one. Their meglomania makes them think that their personal character flaws are shared by everyone else, so they project this onto others and come up with the knee-jerk reaction to stop other people from acting like the a-holes they know they are by banning everyone from owning guns.
It does not surprise me one bit that the armed OP, whom his libtard acquaintance would likely say is "looking for trouble/wants to be a vigilante", would be the one to seek a peaceful solution if at all possible, while the anti-gun idiot would be the first one to resort to violence. Typical anti-gun idiot.
I fart in his *specific* direction...
From what I have learned you can take the level someone has attacked you with or go one step above. For example if someone for no reason just punches you, you can punch back OR use less than deadly force.
I would never use deadly force until I was in fear of my own life.
If hes just wanting to throw hands ill oblige him. If he has a weapon
Lastly, not all "liberals" are anti-gun. By most of your standards, I might be considered a liberal (or a very lukewarm conservative :P). Im extremely pro-gun though. Political opinions are just that, opinions. They do define you, and therefore radically judging someone because of their opinions is a good way to be called ignorant.
Lastly, I don't think most people are actually aware of that statute. I can point to a hundred instances right here on INGO where people have said things in direct contradiction to it.
Having spoken to a lawyer who is an avid gun guy (jmb79 here on the board), he says there IS case law AGAINST the disparity of size arguement. He did not cite the specifics (hoping someone here would), but you cannot, unless enfeebled or something similar, use "he was bigger than I was" as a shooting defense.
Anyone have actual law to dispute or support this? Would this be for criminal or civil court, or both?