Ramifications of shooting a shooter like the AZ shooter...?

[crispy]

I didn't know where to post this, sorry if not in the right forum.

What would be the legal ramifications if you were carrying and someone like the shooter in AZ opened up here in Indiana?

Say I'm carrying and at an event of a local congressperson and an idiot opens up right in front of me, he's turned the other direction, so I have a perfect opportunity to draw and take him down with low risk to myself.

Can I? Would you?

What would become of it? Hailed as hero? Or off to the slammer since MY life wasn't in immediate danger and I had opportunity to flee?

And would the public response be different if the event was for Dan Burton vs. Andre Carson?

Just curious? I put this in General, but if it belongs somewhere else, please move it.

 

[jbombelli]

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.


You would be legally in the clear. Just be careful where your bullets ultimately go.

As far as public response? Who the hell knows?

 

[Steeler]

Head shot, and I`m a hero. In reality, I`m saving the asses of my family and myself while running for the exit like a little girl.

 

[theweakerbrother]

Looks like J covered the legalities.

These are the ramifications I would give to someone who stopped an active shooter:

 

[shibumiseeker]

Legally you are clear to use deadly force to end the threat. I guarantee you'll be going to be held for a while until the authorities get things sorted out.

A REALLY good idea is once the threat is ended is to make yourself as nonthreatening as possible, because in the chaos of that kind of situation anyone seen holding a gun will garner immediate attention from the authorities.

 

[jbombelli]

Looks like J covered the legalities.

These are the ramifications I would give to someone who stopped an active shooter:

And I'll add one of these:

 

[pudly]

I agree with jbombelli that there will likely be no criminal prosecution assuming that you hit only the shooter. However, there are two other risks that you should consider.

Any stray bullets that hit an innocent bystander would likely be considered as your negligence. The same reason that police normally don't fire into crowds. Also, you should consider that you will likely have to defend in a civil suit even in an entirely righteous shoot, which can cost 10s of thousands. Taking a life is serious business even in the most justified of circumstances.

Disclaimer: IANAL and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

 

[jbombelli]

I agree with jbombelli that there will likely be no criminal prosecution assuming that you hit only the shooter. However, there are two other risks that you should consider.

Any stray bullets that hit an innocent bystander would likely be considered as your negligence. The same reason that police normally don't fire into crowds. Also, you should consider that you will likely have to defend in a civil suit even in an entirely righteous shoot, which can cost 10s of thousands. Taking a life is serious business even in the most justified of circumstances.

Disclaimer: IANAL and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

Let me re-quote part of the law I posted:

"No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

This was specifically written in to protect us from being sued by a criminal or his family in the event of a righteous self-defense shooting. At least that's what my attorney (an actual criminal defense attorney) had to say about it.

 

[pudly]

Sorry, but despite the language, I doubt that would provide immunity from civil suits. All the lawyer has to do is claim that it wasn't a "reasonable means", that you could have simply tackled the shooter or taken some other action. Doesn't mean that I agree with it, but lawyers aren't paid to get to the truth. They are paid to get the best possible result for their side.

 

[jbombelli]

Sorry, but despite the language, I doubt that would provide immunity from civil suits. All the lawyer has to do is claim that it wasn't a "reasonable means", that you could have simply tackled the shooter or taken some other action. Doesn't mean that I agree with it, but lawyers aren't paid to get to the truth. They are paid to get the best possible result for their side.

Again, that was per my attorney, who actually graduated from law school, passed the bar, and has nearly 10 years experience trying criminal cases. Other attorneys have also posted that interpretation on INGO previously, if I remember correctly.

As opposed to:

Disclaimer: IANAL and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

But he could be wrong, since he's never had to do a civil case in this regard, and said as such. That's what happens when you're just sitting around having discussions like this with no books handy.

But be that as it may. And this I guess is the main point.

Whatever happens later, happens later. It won't change what happens at that moment. IF/when it ever happens, the last thing in the world I'm going to concern myself with is what happens after I win. I'm going to concern myself with winning. Also, I can't remember the last time I saw somebody face a civil suit after a righteous shooting in Indiana.


If you know of any cases in Indiana wherein the police and prosecutors agreed that a shooting was justified, and the shooter got sued anyway, please post a citation.

 

[pudly]

jbombelli: I hope you are correct about the civil suits. I still have my doubts.

 

[VERT]

jbombelli: I hope you are correct about the civil suits. I still have my doubts.

Hmm, interesting. I would have thought that a person would be protected from legal action, such as being charged with a crime. Did not know there would be protections against civil suits. Maybe from the criminal or the criminals family. But what if in the course of protecting oneself a stray bullet hit an innocent person? I would think that would be a different matter entirely. But as J pointed out I am in no way a lawyer.

 

[CampingJosh]

I don't think that public opinion would vary based on the Congress-critter hosting the event. It wouldn't make a difference in my mind, and I really can't think of a reason it would in anyone else's either.

 

[jbombelli]

Hmm, interesting. I would have thought that a person would be protected from legal action, such as being charged with a crime. Did not know there would be protections against civil suits. Maybe from the criminal or the criminals family. But what if in the course of protecting oneself a stray bullet hit an innocent person? I would think that would be a different matter entirely. But as J pointed out I am in no way a lawyer.

I edited my post a bit from what I first wrote. I hope I'm right; I may not be. He may have been wrong, too. He is a criminal lawyer, not a civil litigator, after all, and that's what he's used to dealing with. On top of that, it's been a long time since I had that conversation, and I may just be remembering it how I want to remember it. I'll try to remember to mention this to him next weekend when I see him.

But I'm also sure I've read that here on INGO before. I have also read the other way.

But regardless... my plan is to do what I *have* to do. Whatever happens later, happens later. I'm not going to worry about it at that moment.

As far as stray bullets... yeah, those would be totally different than some guy suing you for paralyzing him when he pulled a knife on you. That's why I posted originally "be careful where your bullets go."


edited: it's a real shame when the law is so convoluted that a bunch of people sitting around trying to figure it out, can't.

 

[Cemetery-man]

Remember this is an already panicked crowd. I would be afraid the bodyguards, SPD, LPD, CHP, LTCH holders, etc. would only see another "man with a gun" firing it into the crowd and turn you into a sieve before the truth be known. I think I would take my chances and try to take him to the ground physically and hope for a little help from the crowd.

 

[EvilKidsMeal]

ask about his ramifications. i believe it included a nice plaque with his name on it and recognition by the entire community..... LA Tan hero

 

[squirrelhntr]

Remember this is an already panicked crowd. I would be afraid the bodyguards, SPD, LPD, CHP, LTCH holders, etc. would only see another "man with a gun" firing it into the crowd and turn you into a sieve before the truth be known. I think I would take my chances and try to take him to the ground physically and hope for a little help from the crowd.

very good point. did'nt think of being shot for shooting the shooter.... when i think about it you would probably be shot by a bodygaurd, leo, ect. best thing to do is don't go to an event where the speaker has a D- grade by the N.R.A. the chances r somebody in the crowd does'nt like that anti-gun speaker .......

 

[VERT]

best thing to do is don't go to an event where the speaker has a D- grade by the N.R.A. the chances r somebody in the crowd does'nt like that anti-gun speaker .......

Actually not sure this is true either. There may be somebody in any crowd that does not like what a politician stands for, regardless of their NRA rating. A person could just as easily have strong feelings about abortion, same sex marriage, immigration, health care, national debt, the war on terror, ect. ect.. Lot of strong emotions out there right now.

Now if a person wants to avoid events where other citizens may not be armed then I would agree. (I still think that an armed society is a civilized society.) A politician that with a D- rating from the NRA may not be one to attract a lot of people who carry defensive arms on a regular basis.

 

[Comp]

I would make sure they are not thinking you are the shooter in the heat of the moment.

 

[long coat]

I didn't read any of the storys about this, but my wife said people there did return fire. Is it true?