Using Deadly Force
- Thread starter onthejon55
- Start date
- Status
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Who decides if it's justified. The DA doesn't have to take your word for it. When it's clearly justified and everyone agrees, there's no problem; and you get to go home. But real life isn't always so neat and clean, and sometimes there's disagreement about whether or not the shooting was justified. And then there's a trial.Japle said:
David Armstrong
Moderator
Yes, I did. Let's look at what was said:
"However, if he has a gun and he's getting into my car but hasn't driven off yet, and I'm able to access my gun, I might shoot him before he starts driving. "
Looks pretty over to me. The BG is done with you, he is getting in the car, and he is going to drive off.
I'm going to suggest that using tthat reasoning, if the BG is driving the car down the freeway 2 hours after leaving you behind, he is still doing it.
I would consider a guy who is trying to get in a car and drive off not much of a threat. Further, I think you'd have a hard time justifying the use of deadly force at this point in any jurisdiction that uses the reasonableness standard for response or the imminent danger restriction. It is no different than the BG who has robbed your store and is now running away.
onthejon55
Moderator
i love you guys! so much useful info thank you very much!
Interestingly, in Indiana, the justification to use deadly force doesn't even require the BG to have a weapon in the case of an "occupied motor vehicle" (or house or property around your house). If they won't stop, you do what you have to do. The statute doesn't even require the standard "in fear of great bodily harm"; The act of the carjacking (or home invasion) itself is presumed to involve that threat at a minimum.
I guess you could argue when to call the situation "over" but the statute doesn't just say "prevent" it also says "terminate".
Going back to the rape scenario:
No one is going to argue that a rape-in-progress doesn't deserve action. OTOH, if the guy is already long gone then most understand you can't run them down & kill them.
But what about the instant the guy finishes the deed & implies he is leaving? Do you advocate that he should be just let go? (The rape is over.) The woman &/or her defender should just cower in the corner hoping he really does leave? What if he just stands in the room without a weapon in hand....then you should just do nothing? (No threat there.) What if there never was a weapon other that his superior strength? (Ahh, just do what he says & let him go. The cops will find him. :barf
You say that the chance of a carjacking turning deadly is pretty slim. What are the comparable statistics on a rape when the woman fully complies?
If the BG has gotten to the point that he has driven a reasonable distance away & there is no other implied threat then, yeah, a reasonable person could conclude you are not in further danger & a SD claim probably wouldn't fly.
But if you are on the ground & the BG is "preparing to make off with" your vehicle, you could reasonably believe the crime is still in progress & can still be legally terminated (just like the man who hasn't left yet but has finished actively raping your wife). You really don't know what the BG is going to do at that point.
If I had the chance i'd shoot him to the ground. I don't want to be a statistic.
Yes I know that sometimes the GG loses but so does the BG. It's really difficult to respond to an unexpected attack (or in this case a counter-attack) so your odds of success go up if you are stealthy & determined to do them in. If you don't know yet what the "OODA loop" is, you might want to look it up.
OldMarksman
Staff
From finity:
It reads "[terminate] the other person's unlawful entry ...of the person's ... occupied motor vehicle."
If you are on the ground the vehicle is not occupied. Don't shoot.
Read under Defense of Property:http://www.useofforce.us/4details/
I think you would be a statistic.
It reads "[terminate] the other person's unlawful entry ...of the person's ... occupied motor vehicle."
If you are on the ground the vehicle is not occupied. Don't shoot.
Read under Defense of Property:http://www.useofforce.us/4details/
I think you would be a statistic.
OldMarksman
Staff
From GPossenti:
"May well hurt someone else"? Do you seriously think you could even begin to present a case of defense of justifiability? Not even a policemen would try that.
The requirement is reasonable fear of imminent danger. Not potential danger, either to yourself or to someone else.
"May well hurt someone else"? Do you seriously think you could even begin to present a case of defense of justifiability? Not even a policemen would try that.
The requirement is reasonable fear of imminent danger. Not potential danger, either to yourself or to someone else.
If you read the entire thread, you will see that it was a response and amendment to another statement and other circumstances. I certainly wouldn't shoot if the guy was actually driving. The situation that I outlined was that he was still getting in the car (as in door or window still open, car in park, not in drive, BG gun out and ready to use.)
So taken by itself, it reads that I am willing to shoot a BG driving away. In context with the rest of my messages, that is not at all the case.
So taken by itself, it reads that I am willing to shoot a BG driving away. In context with the rest of my messages, that is not at all the case.
David Armstrong
Moderator
No. I also don't advocate shooting him in violation of the law.
Don't see why they would do that, or where anyone has suggested anybody cower and hope for anything.
You sure shouldn't try to kill him in violation of the law. Lots of things you can do. FWIW, in my state if he fails to leave he is considered a threat. But again, if no threat why shoot him, other than for revenge?
They are still pretty slim. For example, in 2002 total there were around 95,000 rapes and 43 of them resulted in death according to the UCR.
What makes you think that starting a gunfight will lessen your chances of being a statistic?
OldMarksman
Staff
I read the entire thread.
From GPossenti:
I'm afraid you have missed the point. If you are no longer in the car ("on the ground", you said), the castle doctrine law does not apply, because you are no longer in a position to terminate the person's unlawful entry into your occupied motor vehicle, as you are no longer occupying it. (Lay opinion)
And if he is getting into the car ("preparing to make off with your vehicle"), what he is now doing is stealing your car, and I think you would very unlikely to successfully make a convincing case that at the time you were in imminent danger. The OP said "they are no longer threatening me."
I believe it likely (lay opinion, again) that one who did choose to "shoot him to the ground" would likely add to several statistics: persons charged with murder, persons tried, persons convicted, and persons incarcerated.
Now, in Texas, I understand that you would be allowed to use deadly force if necessary to prevent the theft of your car within the period from thirty minutes after sunset to thirty minutes before sundown (lay opinion). However, the OP is in Indiana.
But even in Texas, I wouldn't shoot unless I would otherwise be put at serous personal risk because the incident occurred in the middle of nowhere and I couldn't use a cell phone. First, I don't think it would be the right thing to do, and second, it would just not be worth it.
From GPossenti:
I'm afraid you have missed the point. If you are no longer in the car ("on the ground", you said), the castle doctrine law does not apply, because you are no longer in a position to terminate the person's unlawful entry into your occupied motor vehicle, as you are no longer occupying it. (Lay opinion)
And if he is getting into the car ("preparing to make off with your vehicle"), what he is now doing is stealing your car, and I think you would very unlikely to successfully make a convincing case that at the time you were in imminent danger. The OP said "they are no longer threatening me."
I believe it likely (lay opinion, again) that one who did choose to "shoot him to the ground" would likely add to several statistics: persons charged with murder, persons tried, persons convicted, and persons incarcerated.
Now, in Texas, I understand that you would be allowed to use deadly force if necessary to prevent the theft of your car within the period from thirty minutes after sunset to thirty minutes before sundown (lay opinion). However, the OP is in Indiana.
But even in Texas, I wouldn't shoot unless I would otherwise be put at serous personal risk because the incident occurred in the middle of nowhere and I couldn't use a cell phone. First, I don't think it would be the right thing to do, and second, it would just not be worth it.
Most of the 'castle doctrine' laws do NOT allow for "defending ones property", but protection of LIFE.
They allow the use of deadly force in the 'castle' when threatened.
Many go on to define when someone has entered that there is a presumption of deadly force, allowing you to respond with deadly force.
OldMarksman
Staff
GPossenti, I really appreciate your note, and I'm glad you have found my comments helpful.
Often, it seems, people simply seem to want to prevail in arguments. Your reply says a lot about you.
There are some great people on the is forum, staff and members.
By the way, I don't know it all, and I know it. One thing I do know is that I should not read the law and believe I understand the full meaning. I've worked with attorneys a lot over the years, and one thing I learned was my limitations. Another is that I do not want to get involved in a trial!
Often, it seems, people simply seem to want to prevail in arguments. Your reply says a lot about you.
There are some great people on the is forum, staff and members.
By the way, I don't know it all, and I know it. One thing I do know is that I should not read the law and believe I understand the full meaning. I've worked with attorneys a lot over the years, and one thing I learned was my limitations. Another is that I do not want to get involved in a trial!
That question was in the context of "you just walk in & find a man is just finishing raping your wife or you have just been raped & the BG indicates he may be leaving" & you say don't shoot in violation of the law! What law is that exactly?
Well what exactly do you suggest in that situation? Take a stand & make a statement about something you would do instead of telling others what they shouldn't do. Compliance is "cowering & hoping".
So your wife (or yourself) was just raped, the guy is still in the room & you say there are lots of things you can do besides using deadly force against him? Invite him to stay for tea & crumpets maybe? I, in no way (unless you aren't really a human) can believe you could be in that situation (castle doctrine or not) & calmly ask the guy to sit & wait for the cops to arrive or ask him to leave.
Also what do you think the purpose of the death penalty is if not revenge by society & a possible deterrence to others (not that it really does much in that regard)? The death row inmate is not an imminent threat to anybody, why kill him?
OK women, you heard the man. Just let the rapist have his way with you & you will probably be OK. Nevermind the aftermath of dealing with the rape for the rest of your life. If the guy doesn't get caught, you are always in fear that he will come back for some more. He already knows you won't resist (oh & don't fight back the next time either, you'll be OK). The pregnancy that could result is not a problem either. It's you who will have to decide whether to have an abortion or carry your rapists baby for 9 months. I also hear they can do amazing things with AIDS now days. Yeah, just comply. Statistically, you'll be fine.
I didn't start it.
Why do you bother to even own any weapons if the pat answer for everything is to "just give them what they want"? If they are a threat but not yet shooting & you fight back, "you started it"
. To you, you lose. If they are a threat & they shoot first, you're probably dead or seriously injured. You lose. If they aren't a threat, there is no crime & it is moot. If, in any encounter, you lose, what's the point of any self-defense at all?Unless of course you only advocate compliance for the rest of us.
David Armstrong
Moderator
A fairly standard legal requirement is that you must be in imminent fear of loss of life or great bodily harm. By your own scenario ( he is leaving) you are not in imminent fear of loss of life or great bodily harm.
I might suggest calling LE and an ambulance.
Obviously your vocabulary needs a little work.
Yes, very good. That is what I say. In fact, that is what I said.
Umm, no, why would I do that? I do enjoy a good crumpet, but why would I want to invite a stranger who is obviously a bad person to stay around and share mine? Let him get his own crumpets.
Because he has been tried in a court of law and been found guilty by a jury of his peers who have determined that, among many alternatives, that penalty is the one he should suffer. Not sure what any of that has to do with this, however.
Nonsense. I did not say that, and for you to claim I did is dishonest. I have never said to let the rapist have his way with you, and I have never said you would probably be OK if you did. One of the surest signs that a person is unable to come up with a rational argument is when they start claiming others have said things that have not been said.
Let's see now... BG is not shooting. BG is getting in car trying to drive away. You shoot at him. Yep, you started the gunfight.
I don't know, as that is not my position. My position is to do whatever is needed to minimize your loss of resources. Sometimes that is compliance. Sometimes that is fight as hard and as long as you can. Sometimes it is something in between. Why do you bother to make up things rather than discuss what is actually said?
Again, you might want to try dealing with what is actually said instead of making up these little fictions.
Your lack of knowledge about gunfight dynamics is showing rather badly.
I don't advocate compliance for anybody. I support the idea of doing whatever is needed to get through the encounter with the least amount of danger and loss of resources to yourself and others.
OldMarksman
Staff
From finity:
The law against homicide, of course.
You can use deadly force to defend yourself or family against (that means prevent) imminent death or serious injury (the latter includes rape), or in many places, to stop someone from unlawfully entering your occupied dwelling or vehicle (that is, you do not have to retreat in many places), but after the threat dissipates you are not justified in using deadly force. If a guy is getting into your car (and you are not in it), and if you shoot, you are in violation of the law in Indiana and in most other places, and in Texas in the daytime.
Another purpose is to keep the perp from committing another serous crime. But: that penalty is administered via justice served by the legal system, with due process. Neither a policeman nor a civilian is permitted to shoot someone in revenge, if that's where you are coming from.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I know of no one who doesn't advocate resisting a rape.
If you do own a gun, you may want to brush up on the law in your state. Perhaps these may help you also:
http://www.useofforce.us/
http://www.corneredcat.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine
There are a lot of links within the second one, and I particularly recommend that you study the ones under Legal Concerns. I should think that the words on the opening page would correct any misconception that you might have that the recommended course is to comply in a rape situation.
If you still have questions you may want to invest in an hour of a good criminal lawyer's time. That could be money well spent, if it prevents having to pay for hundreds of hours and possibly end up convicted of a crime.
I hope you find this helpful.
The law against homicide, of course.
You can use deadly force to defend yourself or family against (that means prevent) imminent death or serious injury (the latter includes rape), or in many places, to stop someone from unlawfully entering your occupied dwelling or vehicle (that is, you do not have to retreat in many places), but after the threat dissipates you are not justified in using deadly force. If a guy is getting into your car (and you are not in it), and if you shoot, you are in violation of the law in Indiana and in most other places, and in Texas in the daytime.
Another purpose is to keep the perp from committing another serous crime. But: that penalty is administered via justice served by the legal system, with due process. Neither a policeman nor a civilian is permitted to shoot someone in revenge, if that's where you are coming from.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I know of no one who doesn't advocate resisting a rape.
If you do own a gun, you may want to brush up on the law in your state. Perhaps these may help you also:
http://www.useofforce.us/
http://www.corneredcat.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine
There are a lot of links within the second one, and I particularly recommend that you study the ones under Legal Concerns. I should think that the words on the opening page would correct any misconception that you might have that the recommended course is to comply in a rape situation.
If you still have questions you may want to invest in an hour of a good criminal lawyer's time. That could be money well spent, if it prevents having to pay for hundreds of hours and possibly end up convicted of a crime.
I hope you find this helpful.
Last edited:
Frank Ettin
Administrator
finity, OldMarksman makes some excellent points. It looks like you need to brush up on the law of self defense and the use of lethal force.
- Status