Would i have been in the wrong...?

[Dr.Midnight]

Best to de-escalate. If you can get in your car you can drive away? Useing your firearm should be the very last resort.

+1. I've never had to pull a firearm before, and I pray to God that I never do. I'll do everything I can to avoid or leave a situation before pulling a gun ever becomes necessary.

What I would be concerned with is leaving your gun in the car. If there are that many thugs in the area, and they know what you drive, what are the chances of them messing with your car? If they break into your car, you have just provided a bunch of hoodlums with a gun.

Walk to and from your car with a buddy, or better yet, a group of buddies, and if you can't carry a gun, get some pepper spray or a taser.

 

[jmartin72]

I wouldn't count on them letting you get to your car.

You do not have the duty to retreat in Indiana. I think you would be okay. Your manager would have to testify for you in court though.

 

[finity]

You're probably going to prison for shooting a bunch of unarmed guys when you could have driven away.

Umm...

You really don't think it's self-defense if you are being attacked by a "BUNCH" of guys, even unarmed?



I didn't think we had a duty to retreat in this state. The reason I say this is because, well, it says so right in the IC in EXACTLY those words.

Blasting 4 people who have not laid a hand on you and have only threatened violence toward you? Careful, there are people that worry about you having a gun for defense against a physical attack like that.

Yes, you are in the wrong, you must be in your car and they must try to gain entry, they are going to have to get the door open or smash the window.

That is utterly not true.

You do not need to be in your car to defend yourself. As long as you are in a place that you have a right to be & aren't involved in a crime it vdoesn't matter where you are. If you get attacked you can defend yourself.

I skipped the above for the most part. Look, the rule of thumb is they need to be armed, or already attacking you. You can not just go shooting people that are threatening you.

No.

While I agree that you can't shoot people for JUST threatening you, you don't have to wat until you are already behind the eight ball & injured before you defend youself. As long as you reasonably feel that they are a real threat to you then you can defend yourself.

Also as to being armed, 4 against one is an obvious disparity of force. the law says nothing about requiring a weapon be involved. It just says that you have to be in imminent threat of serious bodily injury. I think 4 guys could inflict some SERIOUS BI.

Using your gun should be your last resort. Trust me dude, you don't want to have to kill anybody.

This I can agree with.

My .02. Indiana just passed a law saying that as long you feel your life is in danger, you can use deadly force. You do not need to be attacked to justify deadly force. I don't know what the law number is. Maybe someelse can help me out on that.

That law wasn't JUST passed. It's been around for a long time now.

The law is IC 35-41-3-2.

 

[jsharmon7]

I just wanted to let the OP know that he's gotten some really good advice here on a wide range of topics related to this situation. Also, he's showing some responsibility here by coming to ask for advice on how to handle this situation, and I applaud that. I just want to point something out that has been mentioned here a few times it looks like: you can call the police BEFORE a crime has been committed. If you're heading out after work and see these guys, call the police and explain the situation and have them stand-by while you leave. The officer can also probably have a nice chat with these boys about harassment, intimidation, trespassing, etc. Bottom line: you don't want to have to deal with the aftermath of a self defense shooting or live with the deaths of four people on your conscience for the rest of your life simply on account of these idiots. Resist the urge to "teach them a lesson" for acting like bullies and just let the police take the headache of getting rid of them for you. I'm glad you came here for advice rather than getting yourself into a headache by reaching for the gun.

 

[spec4]

You really need tio go to the police and get this on record. IANAL but once heard that if someone says they will harm you, its assault. If they actually touch you, its assault and battery. Chances are the police already know about these clowns. You also should have them permanently banned from the pool. If management doesn't concur, you may have cause for a lawsuit against whoever owns the pool, again, IANAL. Good luck to you, this crap makes my blood boil.

 

[jsheets1]

Look at the case law for People v Goetz. This guy shot some thugs on a New York subway. He was from out of state and fled. He turned himself in and was slapped with charges. He was later acquitted of everything but possession by New York supreme court Justice Cole. He was nicknamed the subway vigilante. It amazes me the amount of carriers on here who do not know what is legal and illegal. People if your gonna carry you are undertaking a large responsibility, know what your doing. You could try to retreat if possible, although legally you do not have to. As soon as bodily harm is threatened, especially by a gang, and you fear for your life, whether they are armed or not you can use deadly force. Also look at the doctrine of harms. You should also carry with a round racked, always. There is proof that you are already at a time disadvantage when in a shootout, why make that disparity worse. Also expect to only hit 25% of your shots, remember the range is not a good example of what you will do in a life or death situation. Good luck with these scumbag bullies.

 

[Rookie]

Because everything you described in the paragraph I quoted sounds word-for-word what being a moderator is like.

Do moderators wear speedos?

 

[Flyguy]

Do moderators wear speedos?

And... sooooo... What's wrong with speedos? They are compfy.

 

[prowland]

And... sooooo... What's wrong with speedos? They are compfy.

Are you cc in that speedo or are you just happy to see me?

Sorry, I had too!

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Umm...

You really don't think it's self-defense if you are being attacked by a "BUNCH" of guys, even unarmed?



I didn't think we had a duty to retreat in this state. The reason I say this is because, well, it says so right in the IC in EXACTLY those words.



.

I do not trust the justice system to function perfectly in the described scenario.

 

[Flyguy]

Are you cc in that speedo or are you just happy to see me?

Sorry, I had too!

Naaa... It's just BACON.

YEECH... I just grossed myself out.

Sorry... It won't happen again.

 

[jsunjones]

Personally I would have surveyed the parking lot from within the complex before leaving, ready your keys and anything you have to protect yourself (I would have a knife). Walk directly to your car and watch your surroundings for anybody approaching you. Get into your car, lock it, and ready your gun. Start the car and leave, use the car to your advantage and only fire if you have to. In short, have a plan. Don't stop and let them approach you, get to your weapon and attempt to evade. It's not worth going to jail over. After all, I have a family who depends on me

Whenever I have confrontations I remember faces, cars, and anything else in case I encounter them in the future. I even write it down. That way if I see them again I'll be on guard.

 

[turnerdye1]

All of you guys are full of great information! But i dont get to wear a speedo. I tried one day and the manage said it wasnt "family friendly". True story...

Look at the case law for People v Goetz. This guy shot some thugs on a New York subway. He was from out of state and fled. He turned himself in and was slapped with charges. He was later acquitted of everything but possession by New York supreme court Justice Cole. He was nicknamed the subway vigilante. It amazes me the amount of carriers on here who do not know what is legal and illegal. People if your gonna carry you are undertaking a large responsibility, know what your doing. You could try to retreat if possible, although legally you do not have to. As soon as bodily harm is threatened, especially by a gang, and you fear for your life, whether they are armed or not you can use deadly force. Also look at the doctrine of harms. You should also carry with a round racked, always. There is proof that you are already at a time disadvantage when in a shootout, why make that disparity worse. Also expect to only hit 25% of your shots, remember the range is not a good example of what you will do in a life or death situation. Good luck with these scumbag bullies.

I might end up looking up that case and reading into it. It sounds interesting! 25%? Thats a lot lower then i thought but then again stress comes into factor. I usually dont shoot at the range... I go to Wards Tactical Challenge every week and its mostly run and gun with handgun rifle and shotgun. Mostly handgun though. Its a great place. It focuses on fundamentals, reloading, and getting your heart pumping to simulate stress. I feel i have been getting alot better shooting since ive been going there.

 

[sidewinder27]

I have a question. By posting this "what if I do" secnerio does that open the door to a premeditated murder charge. Not saying he was in the wrong or would be in the wrong for defending himself. But with what happened before then comming on here with his plan. I do think that if you are able to get into your car to get your gun then your able to get in your car even if you cant drive off you can call the police. Then if they start breaking your windows or whatever then you would be justified in shooting.

I hadnt read jsheets1 post. I forgot that bodily harm was threatned and it is multiple guys against one. Fire at will

 

[moischmoe]

Hmm... What would David Hasselhoff do?

 

[Muddy_Ford]

Hmm... What would David Hasselhoff do?

Have KIT come get him?

 

[GuyRelford]

Look at the case law for People v Goetz. This guy shot some thugs on a New York subway. He was from out of state and fled. He turned himself in and was slapped with charges. He was later acquitted of everything but possession by New York supreme court Justice Cole. He was nicknamed the subway vigilante. It amazes me the amount of carriers on here who do not know what is legal and illegal. People if your gonna carry you are undertaking a large responsibility, know what your doing. You could try to retreat if possible, although legally you do not have to. As soon as bodily harm is threatened, especially by a gang, and you fear for your life, whether they are armed or not you can use deadly force.

Caveat: You should never rely on precedent from another state in defining what is legal or illegal in Indiana. The law of self defense varies dramatically from state to state.

Also, simply fearing for your life is not enough. Your belief must be "reasonable" (under an objective standard) in light of "the totality of the circumstances."

 

[finity]

Caveat: You should never rely on precedent from another state in defining what is legal or illegal in Indiana. The law of self defense varies dramatically from state to state.

Also, simply fearing for your life is not enough. Your belief must be "reasonable" (under an objective standard) in light of "the totality of the circumstances."

Very true but the question (basically) was "can you use deadly force to defend yourself from 4 guys who have already threatened you to 'smash [your] f ing head in when [you] got off work', in the absence of police response, if they attempt to make good on their threat and ACTUALLY attack you"?

I say (to ME) that is a very reasonable case of self-defense. While a rogue prosecutor & jury MIGHT not agree, you can't base your response to that VERY REAL threat on what MIGHT happen in a courtroom.

Absolutely, by all means, try to call the police. Absolutely, by all means, take the best actions you can to NOT put yourself in that situation in the first place (IF YOU CAN) but if you find yourself there anyway, do what you have to do to defend yourself.

Otherwise your choice becomes spending lots of money to defend yourself in a (PROBABLY UNLIKELY) trial or spending lots of money (MORE LIKELY) fighting for your life in a hospital bed from having your head smashed in.

In the first case you're protected by the letter of the law. In the second case, well, you don't have any protection OTHER THAN YOUR OWN ACTIONS.

I know which I would choose.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that's not what YOU said but there are others here who seem to think that protecting yourself from some miminal chance at being prosecuted overrides protecting youself from a potentially higher chance of you being dead. To me, that is a very dangerous way of thinking & suggesting that to people can cause them to get seriously injured UNECESSARILY.

Sometimes, misinformation kills you.

 

[Jack Burton]

Safety in numbers.

Cowards who attack one person are often very hesitant to attack multiple people. Make arrangements with your manager to have several people walk out to your car with you for a week. Thugs often have short term memory and attention span problems also. After a few days they'll wander off somewhere else to find another person to harass.

 

[GuyRelford]

Very true but the question (basically) was "can you use deadly force to defend yourself from 4 guys who have already threatened you to 'smash [your] f ing head in when [you] got off work', in the absence of police response, if they attempt to make good on their threat and ACTUALLY attack you"?

I say (to ME) that is a very reasonable case of self-defense. While a rogue prosecutor & jury MIGHT not agree, you can't base your response to that VERY REAL threat on what MIGHT happen in a courtroom.

Absolutely, by all means, try to call the police. Absolutely, by all means, take the best actions you can to NOT put yourself in that situation in the first place (IF YOU CAN) but if you find yourself there anyway, do what you have to do to defend yourself.

Otherwise your choice becomes spending lots of money to defend yourself in a (PROBABLY UNLIKELY) trial or spending lots of money (MORE LIKELY) fighting for your life in a hospital bed from having your head smashed in.

In the first case you're protected by the letter of the law. In the second case, well, you don't have any protection OTHER THAN YOUR OWN ACTIONS.

I know which I would choose.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that's not what YOU said but there are others here who seem to think that protecting yourself from some miminal chance at being prosecuted overrides protecting youself from a potentially higher chance of you being dead. To me, that is a very dangerous way of thinking & suggesting that to people can cause them to get seriously injured UNECESSARILY.

Sometimes, misinformation kills you.

I'm trying to figure out if there's some part of my post with which you disagree. I was only trying to correct a couple of incorrect statements: that you can rely on what a court rules in another state to determine what the law in Indiana is, and that you only have to "fear for your life" for deadly force to be justified under Indiana law.

I didn't attempt to answer the OP's question, because my answer would have to be a very lawyer-like "it depends." Depending on several additional "what-ifs," I think it would be very likely that you would be prosecuted and convicted of at least one crime if you opened fire on four unarmed individuals.

For example, what if they weren't all threatening you to the same degree - what if one or more of them were just "tagging along" with the leader - who was doing most or all of the threatening? You might be justified in killing one or more, but guilty of murder or manslaughter for killing all four.

What if two or more of them ceased the "attack" after your first shot and began to run - so that they were no longer a threat? Can you shoot them too? No.

What if a jury found that they were just "puffing," and you were not reasonable in perceiving their comments to "kick your ass" (one of the most common not-acted-upon threats in the world) to actually be a threat to cause you serious bodily injury or commit a forcible felony (which is the actual legal jutification for the use of deadly force, in addition to an unlawful "attack" upon your "occupied motor vehicle" if you remained in your car).

Ultimately, to be legally justified, you must have a "reasonable belief" that your use of deadly force is "necessary" to prevent serious bodily injury, a forcible felony, and/or an attack upon your occupied motor vehicle. In my mind, this is a very close call.

I'm not advising anyone else what to do if they're confronted with this situation, because I agree with you that we're all responsible for our own safety. I also teach in my courses that people shouldn't suffer "paralysis by analysis" because they're trying to remember the specifics of Indiana law in a life-or-death situation.

However, personally, I would go a very long way to avoid using deadly force in this situation.

In fact, I have confronted a situation in which I had three unarmed (as far as I know) guys tell me they were going to "kick my ass." Only one of them was doing most of the talking, and he even attempted to touch me (just the ol' finger-poke-in-the-chest move). I was carrying concealed and I never even thought about introducing my gun into the situation, because I knew they were just drunken idiots who posed no real threat to me, and I had several other options that did not involve a firearm.

I think the OP's hypothetical scenario is a much closer call, specifically because these goons staked out the parking lot waiting for him. Their threats were also more extreme than just "I'm gonna kick your ass." But to me, it's still too close a call to say that I would use deadly force, or that I wouldn't expect to be convicted of a crime if I did.

Just my $.02

Guy