Legal Use of Deadly Force ... - Ruger Forum

Ruger Forum

Legal Use of Deadly Force ...

This is a discussion on Legal Use of Deadly Force ... within the CCW forums, part of the Firearm Forum category; I'm sure you've seen the news story of the suv driving through the mall in Illinois. Without knowing his intentions, would that be a situation ...


Go Back   Ruger Forum > Firearm Forum > CCW

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes

Old September 21st, 2019, 05:19 AM   #1
 
rmichael63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Brunswick, Ohio (20 miles south of Cleveland)
Posts: 6,990
rmichael63 is a jewel in the roughrmichael63 is a jewel in the roughrmichael63 is a jewel in the roughrmichael63 is a jewel in the rough
Legal Use of Deadly Force ...

I'm sure you've seen the news story of the suv driving through the mall in Illinois. Without knowing his intentions, would that be a situation to use deadly force if you had a CC?



rmichael63 is offline  
Advertisements
Old September 21st, 2019, 07:11 AM   #2
 
Mark204's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,188
Mark204 is a jewel in the roughMark204 is a jewel in the roughMark204 is a jewel in the rough
This sounds like a legal question......better suited for a legal mind not a gun forum. That said, if one avoids legal prosecution I doubt you’ll fair very well in a civil suit.......It’s a road I won’t go down.
Mark204 is offline  
Old September 21st, 2019, 08:12 AM   #3
 
rickclark28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Ohio U.S.A.
Posts: 2,102
rickclark28 will become famous soon enough
I am intrigued by the question and for one feel is worthy of a conversation. If on a gun forum it is a topic suited for a area like the minefield here. That said I too think it is a legal one. Unless my family or myself are in harms way or immediate danger I would wonder what I or anyone else would/should do to stop a attack as this. This type of attack could have had many casualties. Not the first one and not the last. Legal Use of Deadly Force ...interesting question!?
rickclark28 is offline  
 
Old September 21st, 2019, 09:33 AM   #4
 
laidlerj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Unoccupied Oregon
Posts: 6,092
laidlerj has a brilliant futurelaidlerj has a brilliant futurelaidlerj has a brilliant futurelaidlerj has a brilliant futurelaidlerj has a brilliant futurelaidlerj has a brilliant futurelaidlerj has a brilliant futurelaidlerj has a brilliant futurelaidlerj has a brilliant futurelaidlerj has a brilliant futurelaidlerj has a brilliant future
All legal use of deadly force hinges on the “reasonable” belief that you (or other people) are in immediate danger of death or serious injury.

There are probably scenarios where a crazy person driving an SUV in a mall would meet the legal requirements, but the bigger question is whether it wouldn’t make MORE sense to take shelter in a nearby store or behind a solid object. After all, even if you kill the driver as he bears down on you, the momentum of the SUV isn’t going to just disappear....

And shooting the driver as he speeds by is not only challenging, it might also be hard to argue that you were in danger, since the vehicle was going past you at the time. If he was targeting YOU alone, then maybe, but your time might be better spent getting somewhere the SUV can’t follow.


Jim

“To the man whose favorite tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”
laidlerj is offline  
Old September 21st, 2019, 09:37 AM   #5
 
brnwlms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 2,656
brnwlms has a spectacular aura aboutbrnwlms has a spectacular aura aboutbrnwlms has a spectacular aura about
Legal question, definitely, and one who’s legal answer is going to vary widely by state. The other question is how you frame it. In my primitive brain, it is a similar question as if you step in and use deadly force to protect someone else and all the variables that it presents as you see a situation without the context. Think about the “typical” guidance on use of deadly force, direct threat, proportional force, etc. Yes, you see a car driving through a mall. Is it a terrorist, is it a kid who got in over his head on a joy ride and doesn’t know what he is doing in regards to driving and controlling a car, is it a senior citizen who is confused and possibly suffering from Alzheimer’s or dementia who truly has no idea where he is or a thousand other possible scenarios. And at the end of the day, it is also going to come down to the personal choice and how justified you think you can be within the confines of your state laws. And if you are wrong and it turns out to be some 12 year old kid or 98 year old person, are you prepared for the family to come after you in civil court?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
brnwlms is offline  
Old September 21st, 2019, 10:04 AM   #6
 
bubba68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: OHIO
Posts: 378
bubba68 is on a distinguished road
If a SUV is driving through a mall it will eventually stop. Once the SUV stops and the driver gets out in my mind would determine what action to take next. If the driver comes out armed with a gun or other weapon and starts attacking people in the mall then it would be time to take action against the driver including deadly force if necessary.

If as has been mentioned the driver is suffering from a medical issue or a teen with an out of control vehicle that changes things totally.
bubba68 is offline  
Old September 22nd, 2019, 07:09 AM   #7
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: S.E. Iowa
Posts: 481
Major Tom is on a distinguished road
I would only use my sidearm when someone was actually shooting at me.
Major Tom is offline  
Old September 22nd, 2019, 07:19 AM   #8
 
Rangerdeepv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 13,299
Rangerdeepv is a glorious beacon of lightRangerdeepv is a glorious beacon of lightRangerdeepv is a glorious beacon of lightRangerdeepv is a glorious beacon of lightRangerdeepv is a glorious beacon of lightRangerdeepv is a glorious beacon of light
The question is 'did you feel your life was in danger'? This situation would be mulled over by any attorney and questioned until hell freezes over. In this case it would be pretty thin unless the person driving was chasing only one person over a decent distance.
Rangerdeepv is offline  
Old September 22nd, 2019, 10:49 AM   #9
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern Nevada
Posts: 2,183
Loose Noose is on a distinguished road
Regardless of the consequences involved in a shooting such as this, one must be financially prepared to hire the best attorneys available, as always there are those who are looking to fleece the sheep!
Loose Noose is offline  
Old November 6th, 2019, 06:27 PM   #10
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 12
Sfoster0717 is on a distinguished road
We are taught that it has to present imminent danger (direct and immediate danger) to someone prior to us being able to justify shooting. So if the car already drove passed everyone and no one is in the way of the vehicle the it is no longer justifiable to shoot. If someone still is in front of the vehicle and could possibly sustain injuries or death even if you are behind the vehicle and it is driving away from you then you are able to remove the threat.
Sfoster0717 is offline  
Old November 6th, 2019, 07:27 PM   #11
 
Argee1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,455
Argee1950 is a jewel in the roughArgee1950 is a jewel in the roughArgee1950 is a jewel in the roughArgee1950 is a jewel in the rough
Quote:
All legal use of deadly force hinges on the “reasonable” belief that you (or other people) are in immediate danger of death or serious injury..
Spot on! laidlerj nailed it. That's textbook! A concealed weapon carrier one can only apply deadly force if the above criteria is met. Anything else is going to take the long road with the DA and opening the door for civil suits. Better have deep pockets.
Argee1950 is offline  
Old November 6th, 2019, 09:28 PM   #12
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: wayne nj
Posts: 29,320
bwinters is a splendid one to beholdbwinters is a splendid one to beholdbwinters is a splendid one to beholdbwinters is a splendid one to beholdbwinters is a splendid one to beholdbwinters is a splendid one to beholdbwinters is a splendid one to behold
What constitutes deadly force will vary. My father in laww is 85 with a weak heart and he is a small man. An average 20 year old male could probably easily kill him bare handed. My father in law does not own guns any more but he may be justified in killing an unarmed 20 year old. i am 63 over weight way over weight ad have 2 artificilal kneees and an artifivial hip so running away is not in my bag of tricks but I am fairly strong. I can still shoot 300 rounds of 44 mag but 100 round sis bette. I would probably be in trouble is I shot an unarmed home intruder.
bwinters is offline  
Old November 7th, 2019, 02:59 AM   #13
 
Amishman44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Hoosierville, USA
Posts: 5,438
Amishman44 is a glorious beacon of lightAmishman44 is a glorious beacon of lightAmishman44 is a glorious beacon of lightAmishman44 is a glorious beacon of lightAmishman44 is a glorious beacon of lightAmishman44 is a glorious beacon of light
Many of the scenarios / responses that ran though my head are already covered by the above respondents...and everything was very well said!

Indiana law allows me to respond with 'reasonable force' necessary to secure one's home or prevent a felonious crime...or for the protection of another.

That being said, it is also important to keep in mind that one is also responsible for every bullet fired from the time it leaves the barrel of the gun until it stops moving, where ever that is, and for whatever it strikes, in it's path, while moving.

In this scenario, shooting at a moving vehicle, inside of a building, with all the chaos that would go with it...unless they're coming directly at you (in other words, you are being 'targeted' by the vehicle, and in which case you'd better be moving with your feet...like yesterday) waiting until the vehicle comes to a stop and assessing the driver, as well as the driver's actions or perceived intent, at that time, is probably the better or wiser choice!

My basic rules:
1. Protect my family first...myself second.
2. Protect others, after ensuring my family's protection first!
3. Protect who you love...not what you have!

Knowing one's state and local laws matters...

Indiana Code 35-41-3-2 Use of Force to Protect Person or Property

Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen’s home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.

Terms Used In Indiana Code 35-41-3-2
Property: includes personal and real property. See Indiana Code 1-1-4-5
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other 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.
(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

There's more dealing specifically with property, home, the commission of a felonious crime, etc. in protecting loved ones...
Amishman44 is offline  
Old November 7th, 2019, 01:45 PM   #14
 
Steve in PA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 201
Steve in PA is on a distinguished road
Can you determine if the vehicle is being driven with ill intent.....as the driver is trying to run over people.

Or.........the driver had a medical issues (seizure, etc) and the vehicle is being driven basically, out of control with no intent to run over people.
Steve in PA is online now  
Reply

  Ruger Forum > Firearm Forum > CCW

None

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Top Gun Sites Top Sites List
Powered by vBulletin 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright © 2006 - 2020 Ruger Forum. All rights reserved.
Ruger Forum is a Ruger Firearms enthusiast's forum, but it is in no way affiliated with, nor does it represent Sturm Ruger & Company Inc. of Southport, CT.