It amazes me when thinking about it how many different ways this scenario could have deviated from what happened. I had been awake for almost 24 hours straight and was definately NOT at 100%.
This is the part I get stuck on , so far the BG hasn't done anything but close the distance , are we to ASSUME that he's said something to make you feel threatened . ?
Common sense dictates that if an attacker is knowingly closing distance on an armed victim that they fully intend to take control of the victims weapon.
Common sense dictates that if an attacker is knowingly closing distance on an armed victim that they fully intend to take control of the victims weapon.
I've tried searching, but haven't run into anything. I know there is no duty to retreat in IN, however there is a situation that comes to mind, that does play out in movies a lot, though if you run into the right crazy, it could be real life.
Enemy has assaulted you, whether verbally, getting in your face in a threatening way, whatever. Not battery, but assault. For the sake of the question, let's say that the threat was not immediate but imminent, standing 5+ feet away and you draw, not to fire but to diffuse. Please don't respond with 'you should only draw to shoot' responses either.
You draw your weapon and tell them not to move and give them a warning. They say, "chill out, I'm not going to hurt you. I'm unarmed, I'm not going anything" and continue slowly advancing toward you. They have their arms extended, no weapon in sight.
My initial response would be, SHOOT. My question is, would there be any legal repercussions? Would an LEO say that he even verbally backed down and did not pose a threat when I fired?. Could a defense attorney for him argue that I used the gun unlawfully because he had already backed down and was moving in to shake hands?
The ultimate question is:
If a man is held at gunpoint and continues to advance though warned, in a 'slow, non threatening manner', is this means to fire? It's either that or run imo. thoughts?
Let's hear answers for both on my property vs. in public (ally, mall, wherever)
So what exactly is the "threat"?
You say there was one but you also say that he is not known by you to be armed & he has broken off his verbal "assault" but is walking toward you in a "slow, non-threatening manner".
There is no distinction in the law authorizing deadly force between 'your property' & 'public property' unless 'your property' is your dwelling, curtilage or occupied vehicle.
The point is, an unarmed assailant can still be very deadly, and you never know what they're capable of doing.
Prehaps you didn't notice but there are 13 pages of discussion that followed the OP's original scenario description.
So?
I didn't see where the "threat" was actually defined by the OP. If he did I apologize & maybe you could point me to it.
Thanks!
You have no way of knowing that the person has had martial arts training & was more dangerous than the average person.
What part of "the attacker knowingly continued his advance on an armed victim" did you not understand?
Thats precisely my point...you have no way of knowing what that person is capable of....the very fact that they continue to advance, despite the fact that they are facing serious bodily injury or death, is enough to determine them to be a serious threat.
I've pondered this myself, and can only conclude that an unarmed person advancing on me while I have a weapon drawn does so with the intention of attempting to wrest that weapon from my possession and kill me with it. Based on my prior experiences, it is entirely possible that they can do so, and so I will shoot.
I guess the part that said:
"They say, "chill out, I'm not going to hurt you. I'm unarmed, I'm not going anything" and knowingly continue slowly advancing toward an armed victim. They have their arms extended, no weapon in sight." & "in a 'slow, non threatening manner'".
There is a difference in the legal response to the use of unlawful force compared to the threat of severe bodily injury.
You're right. They are facing SBI or death.
At what point in the OP scenario could the 'attacker' (in this case it's more like the 'yell-er at-er') have become the victim because they "withdraw(s) 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."?
After he states that "I'm not going to hurt you. I'm unarmed, I'm not going anything" or walks toward you in a "non-threatening manner"?
It may be a ruse but if you can't articulate a reasonable threat to yourself of SBI then you're going down, not the other guy. If you continue the fight (& I think shooting him would count there) after he withdraws from combat, you are now the aggressor. It looks like that's the way the law is written.
So you'll shoot someone who is unarmed at 10 to 15 feet away? Based on the idea that "well, I had a buddy who was a 5th degree black belt & he could take my gun from me from that distance so I was scared this guy could do it, too"? Does that really sound reasonable? If not then it fails the test.
I guess now that we've read about it happening on the internet then that now becomes the baseline for all of our responses to a vaguely threatening situation? "I was scared he would take my gun because I read about it happening on the internet."
In the scenario we're going by, no one has withdrawn. A guy has continued to approach you after you've drawn your weapon and told him he will be shot if he comes forward. It doesn't matter what sounds are coming out of his mouth, his actions indicate that you are in a life and death fight. You don't know if he's armed or not. Are you suggesting that you shouldn't take action against someone who continues to advance upon you after you've told him you're going to shoot him if he does?