Shooting a third party? (scenario inside)

[esrice]

While down at lovemywoods' house last weekend our conversation turned to guns and defense (surprise, surprise ).

We started out talking about longer-range pistol engagements and then lovemywoods posed a scenario that neither of us could definitively answer. So we thought we'd pose it to our INGO brethren.

Here's the scenario:

You, your wife, and 5-year-old son are taking a walk in your neighborhood in the early evening time. Your son is further down the sidewalk from you, and his lead increases to about 80 yards ahead.

A large car rumbles past you and your wife and then slows near your son. Suddenly a woman emerges from the passenger side and grabs your son. She begins to drag him back toward her open car door.

You can attempt to close the distance on foot but she will have him in the car before you can get there. You are armed with your EDC pistol.

Now this is where the questions come in:

Can you legally engage the driver of the vehicle to impede the woman's means of departure? Assume that engaging the woman is impractical due to her proximity to your son.

Does that change if there are multiple vehicle occupants? Does that change if the windows are darkly tinted and you cannot ID any occupants?

Thanks in advance for your input!

 

[sailinon]

Gosh, I hate to say it, but legals be damned. If someone is trying to take my child, I'm drawing and firing as fast and accurately as possible towards the vehicle. That may be an unpopular decision here, but the reason I have a LTCH is to protect me and mine from this sort of stuff.

 

[eirish2001]

I think you would be good shooting the driver. They are just as involved in the kidnapping.

 

[mmills50]

Gosh, I hate to say it, but legals be damned. If someone is trying to take my child, I'm drawing and firing as fast and accurately as possible towards the vehicle. That may be an unpopular decision here, but the reason I have a LTCH is to protect me and mine from this sort of stuff.

Amen to that +1

 

[jbombelli]

Kidnapping is a forcible felony, yes? The driver is helping, so if you can't hit the woman, hit the driver. As far as I'm concerned, any other passengers in the car are helping, too, and I won't cry for them if I hit them by accident. And I wouldn't have a problem with someone doing that, and would vote to acquit IF they were charged for it.

That said, I'm always wary of these scenarios. Is this a gotcha, and you're going to say it's a plainclothes police detective grabbing my kid because he was accused of arson or something by the a-hole neighbor that hates me and my family?

 

[Mr. Habib]

The safety of my family supersedes the law. Having said that, Kidnapping is a forcible felony. The driver and woman in this scenario are valid target IMO.

 

[esrice]

That said, I'm always wary of these scenarios. Is this a gotcha, and you're going to say it's a plainclothes police detective grabbing my kid because he was accused of arson or something by the a-hole neighbor that hates me and my family?

lol

No, honest question looking for some honest input.

My personal answer was somewhere along the line of yours, but was curious how others would interpret it legally. Its an odd scenario that brings up some more rare legal issues.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

1st question: How liable are you for your 5-year old son's safety if you allow him to get EIGHTY YARDS away from you?

That's a long damned way... at which point he's not under your control...which he'd need to be if he's only 5 years old. ;-)

Negligence upon the parents' part, perhaps?

-J-

 

[INMIline]

By the time they make it to the car with the kid I would hope you could close that 80 yards to 20. When taking aim the driver would be an easier target while keeping the bullet away from your child. Imagine the rush and nerves, smarter shot could mean a safer shot. Interesting topic. If it were me and my kid. The fastest way to stop that car and see my kid again would be to stop the driver.

 

[Hammer]

Can you legally engage the driver of the vehicle to impede the woman's means of departure?

I guess if put in that situation I will find out soon enough, because I am going to try my best to eliminate the threat at all costs. Be it hitting the driver or other means.

 

[esrice]

1st question: How liable are you for your 5-year old son's safety if you allow him to get EIGHTY YARDS away from you?

Know how I can tell you don't yet have a 5-year-old?

Eighty yards is just what I used to give you a frame of reference. It could be 20 yards, could be 50-- however far away is too far to respond instantly on foot, but still close enough to have a visual line of sight and would be reasonable.

 

[esrice]

Rep to the person who enjoys digging up ICs and can provide the applicable one in this case.

 

[Rob377]

Kidnapping is a forcible felony, and engaging the driver or car is certainly a reasonable measure to prevent it. IC 35-41-3-2 Under Indiana law, the driver in aiding the kidnapping is just as culpable as the woman snatching the kid. IC 35-41-2-4.

It's the only measure you can take, given the assumptions presented.

Both legally and morally, I'd probably take the shot.

 

[MrSmitty]

I have actually thought about such a scenario, I have a 9 year old, and it bothers me to think someone could do that. I've always thought, If I can't hit them at least put a few rounds in the car and windows, so that it could be identified (a cop's going to wonder why a car with bullet holes is driving fast!) I actully shoot my P-11 out to 50 yards sometimes to see where it hits, I believe I can hit a car at that distance. Not advised for everyone, kids don't try this at home!

 

[Quad]

Gosh, I hate to say it, but legals be damned. If someone is trying to take my child, I'm drawing and firing as fast and accurately as possible towards the vehicle. That may be an unpopular decision here, but the reason I have a LTCH is to protect me and mine from this sort of stuff.

^^^ This!

Legal ramifications be damned. The safety of my family is paramount at this point!

 

[Double T]

Better buy a junked out car and get some ballistic gel to make sure you can even hit them through the glass/backseat.

If it's a minivan...it might have to go through 3 seats and anyone sitting in the vehicle.

I would work on keeping the 5 y.o. In arms reach. He'll, our 3 year old is never let go of walking from the van to a store. I either hold his hand or his hoodie hood.

I say light it up if you are sure your son won't be hit.

 

[goinggreyfast]

My first thought was to shoot out the back tires before throwing rounds into the vehicle. I could be wrong though.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Shooting tires with a handgun doesn't reliably puncture them, especially through the tread. All those steel belts and all. Don't want to shoot the woman holding my child, so I'd be at the driver. Don't know how well .45 JHPs go through glass, but as mentioned, it will mark the car, at least. They'd be getting a mag dump. If I got my child back I wouldn't care if I did it right. We'll worry about that later. Mine's 15 now, and almost as big as me; anybody trying to drag him anywhere is liable to get hurt, but he used to be little like that, so I'm not out of my territory here.

 

[Hayseed_40]

Not sure how to answer the question but I would be tucking my kids in bed that night...

 

[IndyGunSafety]

Well, lots of possibilities here, but my answer is my choice, which may or may not be legal: BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! And If I have my EMP, 2 more BANGS!

Like the gentleman above, legal be damned.

But, wait for it.... wait for it... WHAT IF It was a concerned citizen worried about your son darting into traffic and, seeing nobody around swept him up for his safety with the intent of calling the police?

What if....?

What if....?

This could go on forever.

My own gut tells me "protect family and face consequences later". Seems like a forcible felony, and I may be mistaken, but couldn't anyone in the vehicle be charged? Then there's "target and beyond" liability etc. etc.

What a horrible situation to be in. But a decision any one of us could face. Interesting question. Thanks for posting.