Need help with legitimate scenerio
- Thread starter chris in va
- Start date
onthejon55
Moderator
Maybe if more BGs got shot there wudnt be as many robberies?
BuckHammer
New member
I have a right to my property. If and when someone tries to deprive me of my property, i will protect it by any means necessary. If it comes to killing the BG, I will do so unflinchingly. However, this will not be my first response, unless, of course, I feel that my life or well-being is being threatened (such as being robbed at gunpoint).
David Armstrong
Moderator
Or maybe if more BGs got shot, instead of just robbing someone they would start shooting first and then robbing them.
How about protecting it by any legal means? Like it or not, protecting your property by any means necessary is pretty silly if you spend the next 20 years in prison for doing so.
If someone has gun pointing at you or anyone else, then it would be extremely foolish to think that they don't intend to use it.
Having said that, you certainly don't want to make a bad situation even worse.
There are too many variables to say that there is only one correct answer.
Having said that, you certainly don't want to make a bad situation even worse.
There are too many variables to say that there is only one correct answer.
Stevie-Ray
New member
But I don't think you quite understood Hokie.
Flipping off the safety; that's great!
chris in va
New member
Perhaps I'm making this too complicated.
I'm in a convenience store, getting my usual 'Dew out of the cooler in the back. In walks a perp, flashes a gun and demands money. No other accomplice is apparent, at least not *in* the store.
Do I unholster, conceal and sit ready for what comes next? Or keep it holstered/hidden and hide.
I agree, when/if the time comes my instincts will kick in and monday quarterbacking will all be moot. But at least I can have some idea of what to do.
I'm in a convenience store, getting my usual 'Dew out of the cooler in the back. In walks a perp, flashes a gun and demands money. No other accomplice is apparent, at least not *in* the store.
Do I unholster, conceal and sit ready for what comes next? Or keep it holstered/hidden and hide.
I agree, when/if the time comes my instincts will kick in and monday quarterbacking will all be moot. But at least I can have some idea of what to do.
OldMarksman
Staff
From BuckHammer:
BuckHammer, I strongly suggest that you become familiar with the laws involving the use of deadly force in Indiana.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.html
The gist is that you may use deadly force to protect yourself or someone else, and you may use deadly force to prevent or terminate the unlawful entry of your dwelling or automobile if you are in it.
Using deadly force to protect property under other circumstances is not permitted under the Indiana Code would get you in a world of trouble.
BuckHammer, I strongly suggest that you become familiar with the laws involving the use of deadly force in Indiana.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.html
The gist is that you may use deadly force to protect yourself or someone else, and you may use deadly force to prevent or terminate the unlawful entry of your dwelling or automobile if you are in it.
Using deadly force to protect property under other circumstances is not permitted under the Indiana Code would get you in a world of trouble.
David Armstrong
Moderator
My advice? Stay back, sit tight, be a good witness, stay out of the way. If BG leaves without further problem, great. BG notices you? I won't give up a position where I think I'm better off for one that increases my danger, but I'm not going to start a shootout unless I can see no other viable option. BG notices you and wants your money, toss him your throwaway pack (you do have one, right??). Remember, you can always increase the violence, but once you start shooting there isn't any going back.
BuckHammer
New member
OldMarksman said:
BuckHammer said:
Armed robberies would seem to create a situation in which I would need to defend myself or someone else. Also, the quote was about ARMED ROBBERIES, which it would seem, based on your take of Indiana law, to justify the use of deadly force. My take is almost identical to yours. That is why I made my post about the use of that "deadly force". Also, the second half of my post (which I quoted in this post) justified the first half, so please don't take the first half out of context. I stated that deadly force would not be my first response, which I hoped (without merit, apparently) would indicate my reluctance to use it or advocate it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is don't automatically assume the worst about me and my post. Also, don't demonize me based on what you perceive my opinion to be.
OldMarksman
Staff
From BuckHammer:
I apparently misunderstood you to say that while deadly force would "not be your first response", you were in fact willing to use deadly force to protect property. The intent of my response was to point you to the fact that you cannot do so. If you were saying that you would use deadly force only for protecting yourself, that's another matter.
I assure you that I haven't done that.
Nor that.
I have seen a lot of posts on this and another net forum from people who say that they would not hesitate to use deadly force to protect or retrieve their trucks, wallets, or other unspecified property. I see two risks here: (1) that those who post such things or others influenced by them may actually do that and become felons and (2), antigun people will react either to such tragedies or to the posts themselves and limit the rights of people to keep, carry, and use firearms.
When I read your post I interpreted it to be along such lines, and evidently, so did David Armstrong. If I missed the point, that's great.
Now, if you are the victim of an armed robbery, and under the circumstances at hand you reasonably fear for yourself, you have to decide what to do, taking into account that later, when your fate is not in your hands, you will likely have to convince others that your fear was in fact justified.
If you merely happen to be present at an armed robbery, it might be a lot harder to convince people afterwards that you had reason to fear for yourself. The fact that the police are advised against intervention during the event would probably work against you.
In any event, you are not permitted to protect your property by "any means necessary," and if your take is almost identical to mine, wonderful.
I hope you find this helpful.
I apparently misunderstood you to say that while deadly force would "not be your first response", you were in fact willing to use deadly force to protect property. The intent of my response was to point you to the fact that you cannot do so. If you were saying that you would use deadly force only for protecting yourself, that's another matter.
I assure you that I haven't done that.
Nor that.
I have seen a lot of posts on this and another net forum from people who say that they would not hesitate to use deadly force to protect or retrieve their trucks, wallets, or other unspecified property. I see two risks here: (1) that those who post such things or others influenced by them may actually do that and become felons and (2), antigun people will react either to such tragedies or to the posts themselves and limit the rights of people to keep, carry, and use firearms.
When I read your post I interpreted it to be along such lines, and evidently, so did David Armstrong. If I missed the point, that's great.
Now, if you are the victim of an armed robbery, and under the circumstances at hand you reasonably fear for yourself, you have to decide what to do, taking into account that later, when your fate is not in your hands, you will likely have to convince others that your fear was in fact justified.
If you merely happen to be present at an armed robbery, it might be a lot harder to convince people afterwards that you had reason to fear for yourself. The fact that the police are advised against intervention during the event would probably work against you.
In any event, you are not permitted to protect your property by "any means necessary," and if your take is almost identical to mine, wonderful.
I hope you find this helpful.
BuckHammer
New member
OldMarksman said:
In the case of an ARMED robbery (which is the scenario that is relevant in this thread), it is true that I might use deadly force. Also, the law, as interpreted by you:
assures me that I CAN, in fact, do so, since the fact that the robber in question is ARMED (which is the relevant case) would lead me, like I believe it would lead most people, to fear for my life. The fear of my life makes the property irrelevant really, which makes me realize that my original post was very deceiving.OldMarksman said:
A little case for clarification, I would NOT kill someone who I know pickpocketed me or was pickpocketing me just because I would be defending my right to property. However, if the guy was mugging me with a deadly weapon, that might be another story.
David Armstrong said:
I'm in 100% agreement with Dave on this one.
If you can "ride it out" without firing a shot, that's probably the best course of action. It causes you the least grief legally and in liability. Be a good witness.
You might be able to use the "Employees only" door, but the two places I most frequent, doing so would put me right in the line of sight of the BG. So that's out. On the other hand, in one location I might be able to enter the cooler to keep out of sight. (Brrr)
If the BG(s) start shaking down and/or assaulting the customers, I've ideally positioned myself away from the register with some concealment. In which case I may slide the gun behind my thigh and toss my decoy wallet. If he bypasses the wallet or comes past that point for any reason, the fight's on.
Remember, no law requires you to take action or to risk your life and limb. Morality and ethics are another matter, but legally you're not required to engage.
OldMarksman
Staff
From BuckHammer:
Too bad I oversimplified. The law starts out with the phrase "imminent danger". I wouldn't want to be the person trying to convince a jury that someone robbing an establishment in which I happened to be posed an imminent danger to me unless he had actually raised his gun and pointed his gun at me as if to fire, and I would then be relying on the hope that there are witnesses who could testify to that effect.
Now, that's my thought, but it's worth nothing to you. You really ought to invest in an hour's consultation time with a good, experienced criminal trial attorney before deciding for yourself what the law allows. An alternative is to avoid any course of action that would put you at legal risk.
The other factor to consider is the danger that your firing would pose to others. Should you kill or maim one or two others in the store the authorities would have to consider charges for that also, and there would be the civil exposure.
Do not take this post as argumentative. I worked directly for the general counsel of a major corporate enterprise for about two years, and closely with the company lawyers for another dozen, and if there are three things I learned that are worth sharing here, they were (1) do not try to interpret the law without competent legal advice of attorneys familiar with the specific area of the law, (2) avoid legal risks like the plague, and (3) always remember (1) and (2).
Fiddletown does have a backgound in the law, and I refer you back to two things he posted on this:
I think that's pretty consistent with my lay discussion above.
Too bad I oversimplified. The law starts out with the phrase "imminent danger". I wouldn't want to be the person trying to convince a jury that someone robbing an establishment in which I happened to be posed an imminent danger to me unless he had actually raised his gun and pointed his gun at me as if to fire, and I would then be relying on the hope that there are witnesses who could testify to that effect.
Now, that's my thought, but it's worth nothing to you. You really ought to invest in an hour's consultation time with a good, experienced criminal trial attorney before deciding for yourself what the law allows. An alternative is to avoid any course of action that would put you at legal risk.
The other factor to consider is the danger that your firing would pose to others. Should you kill or maim one or two others in the store the authorities would have to consider charges for that also, and there would be the civil exposure.
Do not take this post as argumentative. I worked directly for the general counsel of a major corporate enterprise for about two years, and closely with the company lawyers for another dozen, and if there are three things I learned that are worth sharing here, they were (1) do not try to interpret the law without competent legal advice of attorneys familiar with the specific area of the law, (2) avoid legal risks like the plague, and (3) always remember (1) and (2).
Fiddletown does have a backgound in the law, and I refer you back to two things he posted on this:
I think that's pretty consistent with my lay discussion above.
BuckHammer
New member
Relevant Indiana Law:
Okay, this is not an argument, but a legitimate question:
If the armed robbery situation arises, and I do feel that the store clerk or whoever is the subject of the armed robbery is in danger of "serious bodily injury", am I allowed to respond with deadly force? Let me just say that I would hate to kill another person, especially when I am not the actual subject of the robbery. I have consulted a few retired officers about this issue, but I wanted to get feedback from someone here who has a background in law (as many here have said that they do).
Okay, this is not an argument, but a legitimate question:
If the armed robbery situation arises, and I do feel that the store clerk or whoever is the subject of the armed robbery is in danger of "serious bodily injury", am I allowed to respond with deadly force? Let me just say that I would hate to kill another person, especially when I am not the actual subject of the robbery. I have consulted a few retired officers about this issue, but I wanted to get feedback from someone here who has a background in law (as many here have said that they do).
OldMarksman
Staff
BuckHammer, if you do not receive a useful response from your quite reasonable query, please consider this: I have learned in my experience that attorneys are usually quite reluctant to put specific advice in writing. This was often extremely frustrating to management, who wanted something to define the boundaries of what they could do and remain compliant.
There are, I believe, two main reasons for that reluctance. The first is that, as both easyG and Fiddletown have mentioned regarding the case at hand, there are always far too many variables to be able to lay out a useful hypothetical example. The second, which I think derives from the first, is that they do not want to create something that may be used against their clients in a real situation later. A face to face consultation is always more fruitful. Both you and I would, I think, benefit from one.
One other thing: you use the phrase, "I feel." Realize that, as has been said before, you will have to later convince others that your "feeling" was reasonable. Your conclusion will be judged against the "reasonable person" standard, and you will have to convince others later that a reasonable person would have come to the same conclusion, based on what you knew at the time.
The related experience that I have has to do with persons making informed judgments with which they were quite comfortable, and having auditors, regulators, and investigators look back at a later time at the facts and competing judgments that existed at the time and come to different conclusions. Sometimes this led to allegations, findings, and so forth that became very unpleasant indeed.
I do hope you find this constructive and helpful.
Your question is good one, but it is difficult to address in the abstract.
One other thing. In my CCW class, I was told that it is permissible in Missouri to protect a third party, but that one was only required to do so if the third party were a policeman. I was also told that attorneys recommend against intervention in a situation involving a third party. That's second hand information.
Good luck!
David Armstrong
Moderator
+1 over and over! Way too many folks way to concerned about if they CAN shoot. That's almost irrelevant, IMO. Do you NEED to shoot is far more important. If you don't need to shoot, don't shoot even if you can. See #2 above.