Will You be Convicted of a Crime?

[GuyRelford]

I've received some requests for the next "legal scenario," so here we go:

You have a valid Indiana LTCH. You and your wife have just finished attending a movie at the Circle Center movie theater in downtown Indianapolis. You're walking to your car - which is in a parking garage about 4 blocks from the mall. As you're walking past a particularly dark alley, you hear the words, "give me your money or you're gonna ****'ing die." You look down the alley and can't see much - it's just too dark.

Then you see three dark shapes running toward you - just shadows, really. But you realize that two of those shapes appear to have pistols in their hands. You draw your handgun from a holster and fire four shots - two at each of the shapes. They both go down. The third individual is no longer visible.

You call 911 from your cell phone and report that you were just the victim of an attempted robbery and you defended yourself, out of necessity. You wait for law enforcement to arrive.

While you're waiting, a terrified teenager appears near you, screaming that you just shot his friends - who were just having fun in the alley with squirt guns, "pretending to be gangsters." The cops and EMTs arrive and confirm that two 15 year-olds are dead, holding plastic squirt guns in their hands.

Will you be convicted of a crime?

Guy

 

[Sylvain]

I am not stupid enough to fire at shadows and shapes in the first place.
Always make sure of your target, even more true in the dark.
I would not shoot at people running AWAY from me either.

I would say you have done something stupid and it's probably a crime.

 

[PistolBob]

Was this during an "Expo" event?

 

[ryknoll3]

No, I don't think you would be guilty of a crime. Pretty easy to articulate fear of death or SBI here. You were threatened verbally with death and you were immediately and rapidly approached from the same direction by multiple persons carrying what clearly appear to be firearms. It does not fall to you to determine if they function or not.

ETA: Police "regularly" shoot people for threatening them with firearms that later prove to be fakes. I've never heard of ONE officer being punished for doing so.

 

[Plinkuh]

Was this during an "Expo" event?

 

[Frankingun]

I am not stupid enough to fire at shadows and shapes in the first place.
Always make sure of your target, even more true in the dark.
I would not shoot at people running AWAY from me either.

I would say you have done something stupid and it's probably a crime.

Rule 4: Be aware of your target and what is behind it. Shooting in this scenario is negligent. I'd probably just run if I wasn't even sure of who was trying to rob me.

 

[chefnick7]

If they are far enough away all you can see is shapes why fire it may be one of them is being held up and you shoot the wrong person. I would not be confident in taking the shot.

 

[Hammerhead]

You may find that you've done something you'll be very unhappy about later if the story the kid is saying is true. However, they've both carried "weapons" and threatened you. No duty to retreat. It might not be fair, but their actions have caused this.

No crime, it was self defense.

 

[jbombelli]

Will you be convicted of a crime? Not if I'm on your jury. If they even charge you, which looking back would be dumb. The ones who got shot were the ones who appeared to have guns, and were rushing you right after you were told you were gonna die.

I can't see how a reasonable person could conclude anything other than the shooting was justified.

 

[LPMan59]

i say no. given the way you worded it, it was reasonable to believe you were in danger.

 

[Quad]

No, I don't think you would be guilty of a crime. Pretty easy to articulate fear of death or SBI here. You were threatened verbally with death and you were immediately and rapidly approached from the same direction by multiple persons carrying what clearly appear to be firearms. It does not fall to you to determine if they function or not.

I agree with this.

But the real question is if they will find 12 potential jurors who will be as open minded as you and I. Plus you just know the prosecutor will make you look like a careless POS.

 

[Mr. Habib]

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.
You have verbal threats, multiple attackers, and what appear to be weapons. With what you knew or reasonably believed when you pulled the trigger, IMO this meets the legal standard for self defense. You should not be convicted. The key will be convincing the jury.

 

[sj kahr k40]

Unrealistic scenario, everyone knows it's against the rules to carry at Circle Centre!

 

[ryknoll3]

Rule 4: Be aware of your target and what is behind it. Shooting in this scenario is negligent. I'd probably just run if I wasn't even sure of who was trying to rob me.

Thing is, Rule 4 isn't a law, it's just a rule for safe shooting. Do you really think it's wise to turn your back on fast approaching figures who are carrying weapons as far as you can tell? How close do they have to be before you would pull the trigger? Remember, you are walking on what is probably a lit sidewalk looking into a dark alley.

 

[kludge]

A reasonable person in the same situation would be fearful of serious bodily injury.

"... 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."

Civil suit will probably be a given, but given the timing of events it would be resonable in my mind that the kids were using squirt guns and the advantage of darkness to mug people. In this case there are corroborating witnesses to the events. There is no distinction in my mind, as the story was presented, to people pretending to be gangsters with fake and guns having fun mugging/pretending to mug people, and real gangsters using real guns really mugging people.

Actions have consequences. In this case two kids dies as a result of their actions. Given the same circumstances a pair of police officers would have acted the same way... except that there would probably be three dead teenagers.

 

[Sylvain]

Thing is, Rule 4 isn't a law, it's just a rule for safe shooting. Do you really think it's wise to turn your back on fast approaching figures who are carrying weapons as far as you can tell? How close do they have to be before you would pull the trigger? Remember, you are walking on what is probably a lit sidewalk looking into a dark alley.

In that situation I might draw (both gun and flashlight) but I would not shoot until im sure of my target.

 

[TriggerWork]

The only information not supplied is the assumed distance. IMO not matter the distance (within 200 ft) this is a "no charges" incident. As long as a when giving your statement you don't mention "shooting toward shadowy figures" and state "stopping the perceived threat".

 

[Hammerhead]

A reasonable person in the same situation would be fearful of serious bodily injury.

"... 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."

Civil suit will probably be a given, but given the timing of events it would be resonable in my mind that the kids were using squirt guns and the advantage of darkness to mug people. In this case there are corroborating witnesses to the events. There is no distinction in my mind, as the story was presented, to people pretending to be gangsters with fake and guns having fun mugging/pretending to mug people, and real gangsters using real guns really mugging people.

Actions have consequences. In this case two kids dies as a result of their actions. Given the same circumstances a pair of police officers would have acted the same way... except that there would probably be three dead teenagers.

IN law says that no one found using deadly force will be put in any legal jeopardy. That includes civil.

 

[lovemachine]

I dont think you'd be convicted.

But, I may rethink carrying a gun knowing I shot and killed 2 innocent people, even if I thought my life was in danger.

 

[LEaSH]

I'm going to say that there's a good chance that the shooter would be convicted of a crime. A lower level manslaughter probably.

I'm not familiar with all of the levels of voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. I think that a prosecutor would pick a sure bet and make sure his teams could convince a jury that the shooter was not as sure as he could've been.

Every round that comes out of my firearm I am responsible for.