The Right to Use Deadly Force in Self Defense

[GuyRelford]

I haven't offered a "legal scenario" in a while, so here's the next one:

One of your good friends confides in you that he can't legally possess a firearm due to a felony aggravated battery conviction approximately eight years ago. But he is still your friend and you spend a lot of time together.

You have a valid LTCH and you carry often. You also carry a Glock M30 in the console of your car, on a FastHolster magnetic mount. Your friend knows about the Glock and often asks about the gun and how accurate and/or reliable it is. Whenever he gets into your car, he checks to see if the Glock is in the console.

One evening, you stop at a local liquor store for a 12-pack of Bud Light. Your friend stays in the car while you go into the store. When you walk back out of the store, you see three suspicious-looking teenagers standing behind your car in the parking lot. They are obviously checking out your car and talking in whispers. One of them then approaches the driver's side door and reaches for the door handle. As he does so, he pulls what looks like a long screwdriver out of his pocket. Two of the others then approach the passenger side, and they both draw objects out of their pockets, but you can't see clearly what those objects are because it's dark and they're on the other side of the car.

You scream a warning to your friend, and yell "Use the Glock, use the Glock!!"

Your friend hears your warning, grabs your Glock, and shoots the guy with the screwdriver just as he opens the driver's side door. He dies on the spot. The other two teenagers immediately run away, but are quickly rounded up by police after you call 911.

The surviving teenagers tell police that they were having car trouble and were just looking for an unlocked car to use for a jumpstart. They say they didn't realize there was even anyone in your car, and claim they have no clue as to why your friend started shooting.

The entire episode is captured on the liquor store's video surveillance system, which is already in the hands of the police and the prosecutor.

Based on these facts, will you or your friend be convicted of any crime(s)?

Guy

 

[recon]

the only one im sure of is the friend. if you are a felon you can NOT handle a firearm at all as far as i know.

 

[CtWest]

Oh this is interesting. Subscribing to see where it goes. But I believe both would be at legal fault. Especially with the driver knowingly leaving a loaded handgun in the proximity of a convicted felon.

 

[1911 DeadHead]

The friend I would think is gonna be in deep, but I would be an accomplice especially for giving him the order to use the glock. If anything I would have verbally warned them myself and drawn.

 

[1911 DeadHead]

Leaving the felon friend out of it, that is.

 

[Bill B]

I usually get pretty close to the right answer on these, but on this one I have no clear idea. the "use the glock" command was dumb, but probably not criminal. Leaving the handgun in the car with a known criminal,

 

[youngda9]

Can't leave your felon friend in posession of a firearm...surely it would be frowned upon for you to suggest that he use it(admission of guilt on the driver's part).

Felon in trouble for having a handgun under his control.

The shoot was good....punks.

 

[eldirector]

Yes, your friend is in deep do-do.

He had "constructive possession" of your glove-boxed Glock while you were in the liquor store. That violates 35-47-4-5, and is a B felony.

The self-defense case may need to be decided by a jury. No where does it say a convicted felon cannot use deadly force to prevent/terminate an "attack" on an occupied motor vehicle. You'll have to convince a jury that it was necessary, though. With any luck, there is more to the "I needed a jump start" story.

You may have some trouble, also, for providing a firearm to a known felon. Don't know the IC for that one, though.

 

[2A_Tom]

Clarification Please:
During this investigation did the teens produce the car with the dead battery? Did the video show that the other teens withdrew from their pockets.

Both leaving the glock in the car with a known felon and, telling him to use are illegal. The felon shooting is also illegal.

As far as the legality of use of deadly force, since the car occupied the crime was carjacking DF is justified.

 

[GuyRelford]

Clarification Please:
During this investigation did the teens produce the car with the dead battery? Did the video show that the other teens withdrew from their pockets.

No - they were not able to point the police to a car with a dead battery, but the video was too murky to tell what was in the other teens' hands.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

the only one im sure of is the friend. if you are a felon you can NOT handle a firearm at all as far as i know.

The felon shooting is also illegal.

Yes, your friend is in deep do-do.

Wwweeellllll, it depends. Not necessarily so.

The law does allow a duress/necessity defense, even to SVF.

Sorry, I saw someone accused of a crime and I had a Pavlovian response.

*knee jerks*

 

[T.Lex]

Breaking the big problem down to smaller problems:

1) Was the felon's shoot "good"? I think that decision is made regardless of his felon status by virtue of the doctrine of necessity. If he was in reasonable fear for his life (or serious bodily injury) - then it is a good shoot. On these facts, I'm not sure he would be in such reasonable fear. Kinda reminds me of the guy shooting at the car pulling away from the abandoned building. So, he's on the hook at least for reckless something. He may also be on the hook for felon in possession (federal) or serious violent felon in possession (state). But, that really depends on whether the self-defense holds up. Even then, it is only for the time he held the gun. Before that, it sounds like he had no intent to possess the gun.

2) Gun owner's responsibility is limited. It is hard to make a case for an accomplice to a reckless act. There really wasn't a conspiracy to do anything. There may be some sort of negligent entrustment in a civil suit, though. (There was an article on this in the last year in one of the legal magazines by Kevin Farrell, IIRC.)

Tough one. Alot will depend on circumstances beyond the control of the 2 guys, like local politics.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Subscribing to follow.
Based on the evidence provided, it is unclear that anybody was in enough danger to warrant using deadly force. Producing a "screw driver" by the one person and unknown instruments by the others with no evidence to cause bodily harm---I'm thinking my friend and I over-reacted. My friend, the felon, would be in trouble for possessing a firearm and I'm afraid I would be considered an accompliss (sp?)--at the very least, and probably much worse.

 

[MTC]

Sorry, I saw someone accused of a crime and I had a Pavlovian response.

Komme ich jemals vors Gericht, werde ich Ihnen anrufen. Erste Name in Verteidigung.
<commercial jingle>
"Who ya gonna call? [STRIKE]Ghostbusters[/STRIKE] Kirk Freeman!"

 

[kludge]

Since the G30 owner believed that deadly force was necessary to terminate the attack on an occupied motor vehicle, his testimony, upon examination/cross examination will go a long way to show that the defendant acted in a reasonable manner. He was the "witness" and the only other person "in the moment" so to speak.

No information is given as to whether the occupant of the vehicle perceived or was even aware of the threat. If unaware, there could have been VERY little time to react, and goes, IMO toward the defendant being not-guilty, since he was surrounded and probably himself had no chance to immediately ascertain the level of force that would be "reasonable".

The fact that the other two ran at the gunshots also indicates that they were up to no good. A person looking for a jump would have, hid, maybe initially, but then come out to help their friend who just got shot. If they were looking for a jump, why didn't they wait for the owner to come back and ask him? Why didn't they walk into the liquor store and ask around?

It kind of all adds up to being a "reasonable" case of self defense.

But since you 1) owns a Glock and 2) you own a Glock 30, which is extra deadly, you, the witness, will be dismissed as being an unreasonable person. Your friend is sunk.

The CWOL charge could go either way... I'm not aware of any case history. BUT with a motor vehicle being so similar to a DWELLING in the matter of self defense (the IC makes specific mention of ONLY those two places where you have a special expectation to feel safe and defend), the defense attorney could probably make a case for the jury to look the other way on that charge.

In my mind the prosecutor would have to show that the friend had "intent" versus the "carry" being merely incidental and something that would not have happened in normal circumstances... kind of like "entrapment"... as in, "hey mr. felon... there's a loaded gun in that glove box," and then pull a knife on him to see if he'll pick up the gun. It's a stretch, and a good defense attorney would have the jury seeing him as non-culpable.

 

[Jack Burton]

Is AOJ there?

Yes it is. That takes care of the self defense part.

Felon handling a firearm? The necessity defense takes care of that.

Constructive possession? That is a problem that I noted to Jim Toomes back in December of 2010. When the person with the LTC steps out of the car that has a firearm stored in it he seems to no longer be in possession of the firearm. If he is no longer in possession of it, then who is. If you and your friend keep your mouth shut about what he knew and when he knew it then you might be able to skate on that one. The claim that it was a "lucky guess" that the friend knew just what you were screaming about can go a long way in the face of other silence.

Remember... the prosecutor has to "prove" stuff happened. He just can't "state" it. Let your lawyer do your talking for you.

 

[mrjarrell]

I think your friend is going to jail and so are you, (for letting him have access to your firearm). How far it goes will be up to the prosecutor, but charges could certainly be filed and I think the locals are going to take your buddy to jail for felon in possession of a firearm. That's their job. They'll let the prosecutor figure things out.

 

[GuyRelford]

But the question was, "will you or your friend be convicted"?

 

[lovemachine]

I'm gonna guess, no.

The firearm was in the gunowners car/property. The felon was a passenger, a guest of the gunowner/car owner.

And I'm guessing even though he's a felon, he can still be in your car even if there is a firearm inside. (The sameway a felon can be inside of your home, even if guns are present)

The firearm was in the console, not in the felons hands, at first.

I'm going to ass-u-me that even though the felon grabbed the owners gun, to defend his life, the law won't go after him. Just make an exception, this time.

I'm probably totally wrong on this. But it's what I'm going with...

 

[eldirector]

But the question was, "will you or your friend be convicted"?

How much money do they have, and how good of an attorney are you?

If I can make some other assumptions, then there is a good chance "I" would not be convicted. As the LTCH-holder and owner of the car, "I" didn't really do anything wrong. I doubt the DA here in Hendricks Co. would pursue charges for "providing a firearm" to a felon.

As for my felon friend, I don't really know. Our DA's office is pretty tough on previously convicted criminals. Even if she agreed with the use of lethal force, she could very well go with the possession charge. No real defense for that in this case. Maybe the friend gets lucky, and can plead it down from a B felony to an A misdemeanor?

That's the down-side of wearing the Scarlet Letter. Hard to get one with your life once branded as a felon.