Justified self-defense? Or not?

[trinitrotoluene85]

I was presented with a situation earlier this week and was thinking of how the situation could've been handled differently. Upon speaking about this with some others, some agreed with me that the following hypothetical would've been self-defense. Others disagreed and thought it could go as far as pre-meditated, so I wanted to run this past my INGO friends and see what you all thought. I would love to hear from LEO's and/or lawyers.

A co-worker of mine (we'll call M) was texting with her ex-husband (we'll call K) and apparently got in some kind of argument. She was out with her boyfriend (we'll call L) at the time and K texted that when M got home, he was going to beat her up. L and M do currently live together and K lives elsewhere. M, fearing for her safety called the police. (Keep in mind, I haven't heard this story first hand... all the info I got has been 2nd and 3rd hand) M claims that the police told her that unless K was at her house, there wasn't anything they could do. Since she wasn't at her home, she couldn't confirm whether or not K was there, so the police did nothing. Of course when M and L got home, K was there with two others and did in fact beat them up. So bad in fact that L was in critical care for 2 days.

This is an abbreviated version of what I understand happened. I suggested to others (not to M) that if the police said there was nothing they could do, why didn't she call someone who could've come as back up, like myself. Of course, if she had called me, I would've brought my gun(s) to defend myself and M and L from the likely chance that K would've been there. I also suggested that if she then called the police back to say she called a friend who was bringing a gun, the police would've been more likely to come, probably diffusing the entire situation.

That being the circumstance, would the use of my gun been justified as defense of a forcible felony of aggravated battery on my friends/co-workers? Or would knowingly bringing a gun to a likely fight be considered something else? One person I talked to suggested that may go so far as pre-meditated.

Thoughts?

 

[Bunnykid68]

I think you would be good, unless you were waving the gun around like an idiot.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

When they were beat up, were they surprised/ambushed? We're they not able to extricate themselves from the scene once the thugs were found to be present?

 

[Beau]

I think you would have been okay if you were forced to defend yourself or your friend in that situation. Being prepared to handle the threat of an attack is different than going on the offensive.

Then again. It could be argued that unless you were ambushed you could have left the scene and called the cops before they had the chance to attack. I would like to hear from a lawyer on this one too.

Now if this guy had made threats and you went to his house to confront him about it that would be a different story.

 

[trinitrotoluene85]

When they were beat up, were they surprised/ambushed? We're they not able to extricate themselves from the scene once the thugs were found to be present?

I would argue there weren't surprised because they were threatened via text before they arrived. And they obviously believed he would be there because they called the police. As far as an ability to extricate themselves... I'm sure they could've gotten back in their car and left, but 1 detail I forgot to mention was that I know the beating happened in front of their kids. M and K have children from their marriage. I don't know where the children were before the beatings started. And I don't know where exactly the beating occurred. Did it occur outside the house/apartment? Did the thugs break in once everyone was inside and that's where it happened? I don't know. Unfortunately, this wasn't a random attack, this was a personal attack. If they managed to escape, I'm sure it would've happened in the future, assuming they weren't pursued.

 

[hopper68]

Just my armchair quarterback suggestion. Should have made a stink and had an officer meet them at their residence. If no one would meet them, a drive around the neighborhood a few times to look for unfamiliar vehicles BEFORE going home. More suggestions from INGO to follow.

 

[trinitrotoluene85]

I didn't think about it until now, but does Indiana have any duty or requirement to retreat? I know we have castle doctrine and are not required to flee our homes, but I don't think Indiana has any form of a stand-your-ground law (outside the home). If we did have a stand-your-ground law, I'm still not sure it would apply in this situation.

 

[hopper68]

If this were true, K and friends should be in jail on assault charges. Unless L was foolish enough to swing first.

 

[KW730]

I didn't think about it until now, but does Indiana have any duty or requirement to retreat? I know we have castle doctrine and are not required to flee our homes, but I don't think Indiana has any form of a stand-your-ground law (outside the home). If we did have a stand-your-ground law, I'm still not sure it would apply in this situation.

There is no duty to retreat. The way I understand the law you would have been justified legally. Morally, knowing you were going into a volatile situation with the likelihood of violence, I don't think so, but maybe you do.

IANAL

 

[ShootinIron]

LEO view....

I am sure I will get flamed for being a LEO…. But 1stThe LEO is right that nothing can be done just because some one says they are going to beat you up… Something about freedom of speech! 2nd If they requested a LEO to meet her at her home they must (in most cases) respond to the call, we can not just disregard the call. 3rd This would be a good time to remind M and L why the rest of us “carry”. My wife carries pepper spray, a LEO Taser,and at least one gun, with the knowledge of when she is justified to using each. Which leads me to #4 When “you” as a civilian goes else where with the knowledge and intent to possibly confront some one, the police and or prosecutor may not look at this as self-defense. Also ask yourself. … what were you going to do when you get there and K and his two friends are unarmed? Were you going to shoot three unarmed men, or become another person that got beet up? Existing Indiana laws allow residents of the state to use a firearm or other deadly weapon to protect themselves or someone else from death or serious bodily injury. Indiana has now added "those residents do not have a duty to retreat prior to using deadly force" (in matters of self-defense). Remember if you pull your gun.... there "will be" an investigation! You will be judged by what an average person would have done in your place. Not understanding the full meaning of this term can put you in prison for murder. At the very least it will endanger every thing you own to litigation....and, odds are, you will lose if you pulled the trigger at the wrong time. What you will go through after a shooting even in self-defense is a long story! “M”should have called the police… and related the seriousness of having an officer meet her at her home. She should not be playing the texting game, if it is over finalize the relationship. She most likely had some clue of what “K” is possible of doing. This works like road rage… a person can escalate the situation by what they say or text! I am not suggesting you turn your back on a friend in need, but she could have done things different, rather than possibly have you standing with a smoking gun!

 

[griffin]

Thoughts?

M is an idiot.

 

[griffin]

Something about freedom of speech!

Yeah, it's perfectly legal to threaten to kill someone because, after all, it is freedom of speech.

You're not really a LEO, are you?

I'm hosting a Bill of Rights dinner this Saturday. (I'm sure you get the connection). I'm going to bring up your position as representing all law enforcement. You don't mind, do you?

 

[45calibre]

I am sure I will get flamed for being a LEO…. But 1stThe LEO is right that nothing can be done just because some one says they are going to beat you up… Something about freedom of speech! 2nd If they requested a LEO to meet her at her home they must (in most cases) respond to the call, we can not just disregard the call. 3rd This would be a good time to remind M and L why the rest of us “carry”. My wife carries pepper spray, a LEO Taser,and at least one gun, with the knowledge of when she is justified to using each. Which leads me to #4 When “you” as a civilian goes else where with the knowledge and intent to possibly confront some one, the police and or prosecutor may not look at this as self-defense. Also ask yourself. … what were you going to do when you get there and K and his two friends are unarmed? Were you going to shoot three unarmed men, or become another person that got beet up? Existing Indiana laws allow residents of the state to use a firearm or other deadly weapon to protect themselves or someone else from death or serious bodily injury. Indiana has now added "those residents do not have a duty to retreat prior to using deadly force" (in matters of self-defense). Remember if you pull your gun.... there "will be" an investigation! You will be judged by what an average person would have done in your place. Not understanding the full meaning of this term can put you in prison for murder. At the very least it will endanger every thing you own to litigation....and, odds are, you will lose if you pulled the trigger at the wrong time. What you will go through after a shooting even in self-defense is a long story! “M”should have called the police… and related the seriousness of having an officer meet her at her home. She should not be playing the texting game, if it is over finalize the relationship. She most likely had some clue of what “K” is possible of doing. This works like road rage… a person can escalate the situation by what they say or text! I am not suggesting you turn your back on a friend in need, but she could have done things different, rather than possibly have you standing with a smoking gun!

your home is supposed to be a safe place because its your home i dont see how a prosecuter or a cop can even think that going home where there might be people waiting to harm you be in any way considered instigation. so are you just supposed to be afraid to go home because someone says they are there waiting for you?

 

[88GT]

I am sure I will get flamed for being a LEO…. But 1stThe LEO is right that nothing can be done just because some one says they are going to beat you up… Something about freedom of speech! 2nd If they requested a LEO to meet her at her home they must (in most cases) respond to the call, we can not just disregard the call. 3rd This would be a good time to remind M and L why the rest of us “carry”. My wife carries pepper spray, a LEO Taser,and at least one gun, with the knowledge of when she is justified to using each. Which leads me to #4 When “you” as a civilian goes else where with the knowledge and intent to possibly confront some one, the police and or prosecutor may not look at this as self-defense.

Only an ass would think that taking a threat seriously and being prepared to meet when it comes it is anything BUT self defense. It's one thing to ride up to the bad guy's crib and instigate a confrontation while waving the gat around to make your point known. It's something else entirely to be going about your business in your home and have to deal with the bad guy coming to you. Who the hell thinks calling for back-up is instigation? Really? I'll have to remember that the next time I see 3 or 4 cruisers rolling up on the scene of a traffic stop.

Also ask yourself. … what were you going to do when you get there and K and his two friends are unarmed? Were you going to shoot three unarmed men, or become another person that got beet up?

What would I do? Apparently what the cops wouldn't.

All sarcasm aside, I would be prepared to meet the threat with greater force to protect the innocent. Is this a trick question?

(Side note: OP isn't specific, but it seems we have a 50/50 shot of being safe in our assumption that they were, in fact, unarmed. Yet we still have two very damaged people. Why is it that people think the other guy has to be armed to justify the use of a firearm for self defense?)

Existing Indiana laws allow residents of the state to use a firearm or other deadly weapon to protect themselves or someone else from death or serious bodily injury. Indiana has now added "those residents do not have a duty to retreat prior to using deadly force" (in matters of self-defense). Remember if you pull your gun.... there "will be" an investigation! You will be judged by what an average person would have done in your place.

Okay. So what? Is being prepared to meet the threat now illegal?

Not understanding the full meaning of this term can put you in prison for murder. At the very least it will endanger every thing you own to litigation....and, odds are, you will lose if you pulled the trigger at the wrong time. What you will go through after a shooting even in self-defense is a long story!

much?

“M”should have called the police… and related the seriousness of having an officer meet her at her home. She should not be playing the texting game, if it is over finalize the relationship. She most likely had some clue of what “K” is possible of doing. This works like road rage… a person can escalate the situation by what they say or text! I am not suggesting you turn your back on a friend in need, but she could have done things different, rather than possibly have you standing with a smoking gun!

M should have done a lot of things differently. But if we're going to be playing that game, why stop at the events immediately preceding the beat down? Let's go farther. She should have procured her LTCH and carried so she could have blown the MFers away when they attacked. She should have avoided entering a relationship, let alone a marriage, with the jackwagon. She should have remember to pick up her dry cleaning before going home...maybe the bad guys would have tired of waiting and left before she returned. When are we going to stop making excuses for wrong behavior by pointing the fingers at others? Yeah, it would have helped things immensely if she had made different choices. But since we don't know what the texting was about, it's kind of difficult to say whether or not she should have been doing it, isn't it? Joint custody and visitation arrangements usually require communication between the two parents. Maybe she was trying to coordinate meet times/location. You wouldn't want her violating the terms of visitation/custody, would you?

The bottom line is this, and I think a lot of people in the LE profession tend to forget it: nobody, NOBODY, should ever have to alter his/her normal behavior/routine to avoid a confrontation in order to justify whatever methods had to be carried out to defend themselves from the confrontation.

 

[45calibre]

Only an ass would think that taking a threat seriously and being prepared to meet when it comes it is anything BUT self defense. It's one thing to ride up to the bad guy's crib and instigate a confrontation while waving the gat around to make your point known. It's something else entirely to be going about your business in your home and have to deal with the bad guy coming to you. Who the hell thinks calling for back-up is instigation? Really? I'll have to remember that the next time I see 3 or 4 cruisers rolling up on the scene of a traffic stop.



What would I do? Apparently what the cops wouldn't.

All sarcasm aside, I would be prepared to meet the threat with greater force to protect the innocent. Is this a trick question?

(Side note: OP isn't specific, but it seems we have a 50/50 shot of being safe in our assumption that they were, in fact, unarmed. Yet we still have two very damaged people. Why is it that people think the other guy has to be armed to justify the use of a firearm for self defense?)



Okay. So what? Is being prepared to meet the threat now illegal?




much?



M should have done a lot of things differently. But if we're going to be playing that game, why stop at the events immediately preceding the beat down? Let's go farther. She should have procured her LTCH and carried so she could have blown the MFers away when they attacked. She should have avoided entering a relationship, let alone a marriage, with the jackwagon. She should have remember to pick up her dry cleaning before going home...maybe the bad guys would have tired of waiting and left before she returned. When are we going to stop making excuses for wrong behavior by pointing the fingers at others? Yeah, it would have helped things immensely if she had made different choices. But since we don't know what the texting was about, it's kind of difficult to say whether or not she should have been doing it, isn't it? Joint custody and visitation arrangements usually require communication between the two parents. Maybe she was trying to coordinate meet times/location. You wouldn't want her violating the terms of visitation/custody, would you?

The bottom line is this, and I think a lot of people in the LE profession tend to forget it: nobody, NOBODY, should ever have to alter his/her normal behavior/routine to avoid a confrontation in order to justify whatever methods had to be carried out to defend themselves from the confrontation.

^^

 

[trinitrotoluene85]

If this were true, K and friends should be in jail on assault charges. Unless L was foolish enough to swing first.

K was arrested on a class C felony of aggravated battery. I'm not sure about the other two.

I am sure I will get flamed for being a LEO…. But 1stThe LEO is right that nothing can be done just because some one says they are going to beat you up… Something about freedom of speech! 2nd If they requested a LEO to meet her at her home they must (in most cases) respond to the call, we can not just disregard the call. 3rd This would be a good time to remind M and L why the rest of us “carry”. My wife carries pepper spray, a LEO Taser,and at least one gun, with the knowledge of when she is justified to using each. Which leads me to #4 When “you” as a civilian goes else where with the knowledge and intent to possibly confront some one, the police and or prosecutor may not look at this as self-defense. Also ask yourself. … what were you going to do when you get there and K and his two friends are unarmed? Were you going to shoot three unarmed men, or become another person that got beet up? Existing Indiana laws allow residents of the state to use a firearm or other deadly weapon to protect themselves or someone else from death or serious bodily injury. Indiana has now added "those residents do not have a duty to retreat prior to using deadly force" (in matters of self-defense). Remember if you pull your gun.... there "will be" an investigation! You will be judged by what an average person would have done in your place. Not understanding the full meaning of this term can put you in prison for murder. At the very least it will endanger every thing you own to litigation....and, odds are, you will lose if you pulled the trigger at the wrong time. What you will go through after a shooting even in self-defense is a long story! “M”should have called the police… and related the seriousness of having an officer meet her at her home. She should not be playing the texting game, if it is over finalize the relationship. She most likely had some clue of what “K” is possible of doing. This works like road rage… a person can escalate the situation by what they say or text! I am not suggesting you turn your back on a friend in need, but she could have done things different, rather than possibly have you standing with a smoking gun!

Thank you for your reply. I did fail to mention that K was armed with a baseball bat. I don't know if either of the other two assailants were armed, or what they may have been armed with. I also thought that threats of harm or violence were not protected under freedom of speech and is often considered intimidation which is a crime most places. Am I wrong? Does someone know the IC regarding this?

I think we all agree there were 100 different things that M and L could've done differently, but that wasn't the real question I was asking. And someone made a note about she should be done with that relationship. Remember she has at least 2 kids with K and he's paying child support and has visitation. Probably not after this weekend, but it's not quite as simple as never-see-him-again.

 

[Mark 1911]

I would not think there would be a problem with simply "carrying" or "bringing" the gun, how would that be any different than carrying anywhere else? I understand the question is more about bringing to a situation where you know that there would be a greater risk of something happening. But still, wouldn't the criteria for what would justify drawing the weapon be the same as any other situation? I would think that once the ex and his friend had committed assault and/or battery, that you would be justified in drawing the weapon to stop it. If the ex had a baseball bat, then that only strengthens the case for drawing a weapon, and might indeed justify use of deadly force depending on what he was doing with the bat.

 

[PaxRomana]

Calling the police first helps their case in that they tried to head off a confrontation. Does driving to ones home, knowing there may be a confrontation constitute a problem? I don't believe it would. The police said they could do nothing. Are these people expected to just not return home? As far as the use of deadly force, a baseball bat would most definitely remove any doubt about disparity of force although I would argue that 3 men against a man and woman is a very clear disparity in and of itself, such that a reasonable person could easily fear for their life. (and should) God forbid, if my wife and I and or/kids were ever assaulted by three grown men, armed or not....I would not hesitate to draw and shoot.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

The bottom line is this, and I think a lot of people in the LE profession tend to forget it: nobody, NOBODY, should ever have to alter his/her normal behavior/routine to avoid a confrontation in order to justify whatever methods had to be carried out to defend themselves from the confrontation.

^This

If I were in a similar situation & the local PD/Sheriff refused to help, I'd document it (record my call to them), head to a buddy's house, borrow a long gun, then call the local PD/Sheriff back & let them know what I'm armed with & approximately when I'll arrive home. If they still refused to help, I'd have my wife/gf drop me off a few blocks away, shoulder the long gun, and walk onto my property from the rear. I'd then proceed to verify that my property is secure, then tell her to come on home. If it's not secure, I'd do what it takes to make it so. A borrowed long gun goes a long way toward de-escalating most potential battery situations.

 

[LCSOSgt11]

For what little it may be worth, and please excuse if this has already been postulated, but if they arrived at their abode and the ex-husband and his homies were there, on the property, the ex and his buddies are tresspassing.

Now, this is not to say they were or were not taken by surprise. However, if upon arrival at their abode and the ex and his homies were there, by all means call the police THEN. Not after the fight has commenced and after injuries are sustained.

Of course, there are probably some facts missing from the account as stated. Not intentionally left out, but left out all the same.