Would you be justified in using deadly force?

[patton487]

Lets say this victim had pulled a gun and shot and killed one of these punks, maybe a 15 year old. I think in a liberal ****hole like Cleaveland he would be screwed since none of the attackers appeare to have any weapons.

YouTube - Mob Of Teens Attack 73 Year Old Man - Raw Video

 

[XMil]

He probably would get his second victimization by the State of Ohio, but it would have been satisfying to see a couple of heads explode in the video.

 

[MrsGungho]

In Indiana you have to show a fear of life or severe bodily injury. I would say in Indiana they would be good to go firing on said perps.
I was fearing for the mans life as he was being drug out of the car and beaten.

 

[Deadly Z Driver]

They are lucky it wasn't me! I would not have hesitated to fire at every one of them that where not running away from me! Its sad that this happened and if I had been walking by when this happened they would be dodging lead in that situation too.

 

[Cwood]

I believe Ohio also has a form of the castle law. With the rate of crime in Cleveland these days I can see these two men not facing charges for defending themselves with deadly force.


Cleveland is only a figment of its former self. I was born and raised there and can not stand what that city has become!

 

[Beau]

They are lucky it wasn't me! I would not have hesitated to fire at every one of them that where not running away from me! Its sad that this happened and if I had been walking by when this happened they would be dodging lead in that situation too.

+1. It's unfortunate that no one was able to put a stop it before the guys ended up in the hospital.

 

[Rizzo]

How can we allow this?!?

Those boys need publicly flogged.

Our nations is so messed up!

Without Justice there will be no civilization.

 

[E5RANGER375]

i dont care what the law says!! if your hurting my family like that, you will end up in a box!

but yes in INDIANA, you would be LEGALY allowed to end the threat by deadly force.

 

[buffalo-springfield40]

about a few year ago,,i have a buddy who lives near Hebron, while he was at the neighborhood gas station he was confronted by a young man who he had a confrontation with that morning at his house....after a few choice words exchanged between them ,the young man got into his car, and then proceeded try to run my buddy over..my buddy drew his weapon and when he made another pass he shot him thru the windshield....didnt kill him..but shot him in the neck...after all was said and done...not even a ticket.....my buddy was upset because he was aiming for his head..but he was cleared..

 

[Jon Craig]

i dont care what the law says!! if your hurting my family like that, you will end up in a box!

but yes in INDIANA, you would be LEGALY allowed to end the threat by deadly force.

And that is just one reason I'm glad I moved here from Cali.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

What was with the guy calling them juveniles and young adults. Call it like it is they are scum. Although that is an insult to scum.

 

[tskin]

In Indiana that would have been a "good kill" on the part of the victims. I think even a passerby would've been justified in whacking the ones doing the hitting & kicking. In Indiana a 3rd party (if I'm not mistaken) can use a firearm to stop a forcible felony. I believe the beat down they were getting would fall into that category.

 

[E5RANGER375]

In Indiana that would have been a "good kill" on the part of the victims. I think even a passerby would've been justified in whacking the ones doing the hitting & kicking. In Indiana a 3rd party (if I'm not mistaken) can use a firearm to stop a forcible felony. I believe the beat down they were getting would fall into that category.

yep as a third party if you think another person is about ready to do severe physical harm to the person in front of you at the grocery store, then you can shoot that person that is the agressor. better hope that others will verify the threat to the police though, or you might be screwed.

 

[PatriotPride]

Good opportunity to test out the 33 round Glock mag IMO. Cuts down on the reload time. It's all about efficiency

 

[finity]

Holy crap!!

Absolutely, without a doubt, shoot 'em all to the ground...at least the ones that don't run like scared little boys when the tables are turned & the playing field leveled.

Yeah they sure were pretty tough when it was 4 young punks on 1 73YO. I would call them animals but even animals don't try to kill each other for sport.

I can't find the words to describe how p***ed I am at seeing that.

 

[Vince49]

You betcha!!

I am only 61 years old a few years younger than this guy but I have already had two MI's (heart attacks) and would no way other than by superior fire power be able to handle even one of these low lifes. " I'm too young to die and to old to take an asswhoop'n"!!

 

[rich8483]

about a few year ago,,i have a buddy who lives near Hebron, while he was at the neighborhood gas station he was confronted by a young man who he had a confrontation with that morning at his house....after a few choice words exchanged between them ,the young man got into his car, and then proceeded try to run my buddy over..my buddy drew his weapon and when he made another pass he shot him thru the windshield....didnt kill him..but shot him in the neck...after all was said and done...not even a ticket.....my buddy was upset because he was aiming for his head..but he was cleared..

from what im told, shooting through an angled piece of glass (especially double pane laminated like a windshield) can change the trajectory of the bullet quite a bit following the angle of the glass which in this case would be downward. so given that information, i think he was spot on for shooting at a moving target.

edit; it would be a good shoot. threat of "serious bodily injury" which of course includes but not limited to death "in the eyes of the defendent" there is no mention in the IC that the assailant has to be specifically armed with something.. 6 well abled bodied teens beating on a 73 year old is definatly a threat of serious bodily injury.

it would be a bad shoot only if it was one teen beeting on a bus full of seniors on there way to bingo night which then had a reasonable means to defend themselves without deadly force.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

Shooting these punks would have been very justified and a community service.

 

[jbombelli]

In my opinion, deadly force would have been 100% justified. No question. And if it was me? I would pull the trigger.

 

[E5RANGER375]

from what im told, shooting through an angled piece of glass (especially double pane laminated like a windshield) can change the trajectory of the bullet quite a bit following the angle of the glass which in this case would be downward. so given that information, i think he was spot on for shooting at a moving target.

edit; it would be a good shoot. threat of "serious bodily injury" which of course includes but not limited to death "in the eyes of the defendent" there is no mention in the IC that the assailant has to be specifically armed with something.. 6 well abled bodied teens beating on a 73 year old is definatly a threat of serious bodily injury.

it would be a bad shoot only if it was one teen beeting on a bus full of seniors on there way to bingo night which then had a reasonable means to defend themselves without deadly force.

you are right. its depending on the round used in a lot of cases. when firing from outside into the vehicle some tend to deflect into the dash. once you make a hole your good to go. you just need to know what your ammo will do in all circumstances. your home defense round might not be the ideal round to carry on the street. research and test.