What do these people want?

[Kennedy 0]

Family seeks change in self-defense law
By MICHAEL W. HOSKINS
Daily Journal staff writer
mhoskins@thejournalnet.com
April 8, 2005

The family of a White River Township man shot and killed a year ago by a neighbor is trying to change Indiana’s self-defense law, which shielded the shooter from criminal prosecution.

Civilians should have to follow rules similar to what police must obey in a shooting and should have to attend classes before getting a permit to own a weapon, the family says.

Family members are working with State Rep. David Frizzell, who represents part of White River Township, to make the changes.

“As citizens, we do have the right to defend ourselves,” said Terry Doty, uncle of the man shot last year. “But I don’t think we need to strap on guns like in the wild West and shoot without calling police. That’s not what our society is wanting to become.”

Doty said discussions about changing the law stem from the death of his nephew, 44-year-old Bruce Mills, last spring. Mills was shot by a neighbor in the Oak Meadows Mobile Home Community on March 29, 2004.

Mills had been smashing windows of an empty trailer with an ax handle, and witnesses said he made an aggressive move toward Daniel Floyd, who had come outside his mobile home to investigate the noise.

Floyd fired at Mills with a 9-mm handgun from 8 to 9 feet away, hitting him in the neck and lower body. Mills stumbled, collapsed against the vacant trailer and died.

Floyd told authorities he was protecting himself and his family, and witnesses corroborated his account. He was not arrested.

In June, Johnson County Prosecutor Lance Hamner asked a grand jury to decide whether Floyd should face charges. They decided no.

“We weren’t happy with (Floyd) being a vigilante and taking the law into his own hands without calling 911,” Doty said. “There’s nothing we can do about our nephew’s situation, but we’d like to do this in memory of him and make sure the next family has some recourse.”

Indiana law gives Hoosiers the right to use deadly force against an attacker if it’s necessary to prevent serious injury or death.

In summary, the law says a person is justified in using reasonable force to protect himself or someone else from what he believes to be illegal force.

Frizzell said he is interested in working with Mills’ family to explore possible changes.

“It’s very difficult to know how you can prevent something like this from happening, but we want to make sure it benefits everyone in the state,” he said.

Doty said the family plans to dub any potential legislation as Mills Bill in honor of his nephew. They want state law to mandate that people call 911 or alert police before shooting in self-defense, he said.

The Johnson County Sheriff’s Office agrees with that idea and encourages people who witness a crime or fear for their safety to call 911.

“The best advice is to call and have us investigate,” Chief Deputy Doug Cox said. “If there’s time, let us make the call about what to do.”

If a person does shoot, the family wants individuals to follow the procedures police are required to obey when firing on someone.

Police are allowed to use deadly force when someone poses a threat of serious physical harm or threatens the officer with a weapon or to prevent a felon from escaping, Cox said.

In training, officers are encouraged to shout, “Please stop,” before firing, Cox said. But he said police are not required to give the warning and sometimes do not have time.

“If given the chance, we want them to,” Cox said. “But it’s often a split-second decision; and if we’re taking fire, we can’t be stopping to think about saying something.”

Doty said civilians should have to follow the same guidelines if put into a situation where they fear for their safety.

The family would also like to require Hoosiers to attend classes on gun use before obtaining a permit, Doty said.

He said that Frizzell has not made any promises to the family and that legislators likely will not discuss the issue until next year.

“That’s fine. We just don’t want the ball dropped,” Doty said. “Things can happen. It just depends on how interested (lawmakers) are and what kind of public backing there is.”

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

I really don't understand what these people want. They say they want the same rules that apply to cops to apply to citizens regarding self defense. Looking at this situation, where the deceased attacked a man with a club, I don't see what needs to be changed.

What rule do they want that would have changed the outcome?
What other possible outcome is there, other than injury to the man who fired in self defense?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[SkiD_PL8 0]

He didn't ask the man to stop or try shooting him somewhere other than the neck and chest. I would try to not take a fatal shot at someone only wielding a club. However if he felt his life was in danger he had every right to do what he did. It seems they want stricter self defense laws that would require the gun owner to think more before acting.

Greenie in training.

[FallRate 0]

Quote

They want state law to mandate that people call 911 or alert police before shooting in self-defense

Joke of the day?

FallRate

[justinb138 0]

Quote

What do these people want?

Attention.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

He didn't ask the man to stop or try shooting him somewhere other than the neck and chest. I would try to not take a fatal shot at someone only wielding a club.

Let me guess. You're not a gun owner and have never studied armed self defense, right? Nothing wrong with that, but the "wounding shot" is one of the most widely held misconceptions concerning self defense. Neither is "shoot to kill" the correct mindset.

The appropriate way to describe legal self-defense with a firearm is "shoot to stop." The most effective way to stop an attacker is firing center mass- the chest. This may kill him, but that is not the intended outcome. Stopping him is. If he dies as a result, that's terrible but he brought it on himself by attacking.

Quote

However if he felt his life was in danger he had every right to do what he did. It seems they want stricter self defense laws that would require the gun owner to think more before acting.

Thinking about it when the attacker is coming at you from 8 to 9 feet away is not a good idea. An atacker can close 21 feet in less that two seconds. This guy was less than half that distance. The only thing you have time to think is "front sight - squeeeeeze."

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[SkiD_PL8 0]

Quote

Quote

He didn't ask the man to stop or try shooting him somewhere other than the neck and chest. I would try to not take a fatal shot at someone only wielding a club.

Let me guess. You're not a gun owner and have never studied armed self defense, right? Nothing wrong with that, but the "wounding shot" is one of the most widely held misconceptions concerning self defense. Neither is "shoot to kill" the correct mindset.

The appropriate way to describe legal self-defense with a firearm is "shoot to stop." The most effective way to stop an attacker is firing center mass- the chest. This may kill him, but that is not the intended outcome. Stopping him is. If he dies as a result, that's terrible but he brought it on himself by attacking.

You would be correct in thinking that I have never been trained in armed self defense. I am not anti-gun however, and grew up shooting guns, both rifles and handguns. The central mass is certainly where I would aim but at that distance I would not be hitting him in the neck or upper chest.

Quote

Quote

However if he felt his life was in danger he had every right to do what he did. It seems they want stricter self defense laws that would require the gun owner to think more before acting.

Thinking about it when the attacker is coming at you from 8 to 9 feet away is not a good idea. An atacker can close 21 feet in less that two seconds. This guy was less than half that distance. The only thing you have time to think is "front sight - squeeeeeze."

That is at a full run however and I doubt this man was moving that fast if he was as intoxicated as the article implied. My reaction would definitely vary depending on his closing speed. If he was moving slowly and gave me the chance to warn him a couple of times before I shoot I certainly would. If he was moving that slow I would also opt for a shot toward his legs/feet first if it would still allow me enough time to get off another round or two at his central mass if that didn't stop him.

Greenie in training.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

If he was moving slowly and gave me the chance to warn him a couple of times before I shoot I certainly would.

Warn him? If he doesn't stop at the sight of a weapon being pointed at him, I doubt anything short of firing it would.

[Kennedy 0]

We can argue hypotheticals and minutae til the cows come home, but the fact remains that it was a righteous shoot, and I still can't figure out what these people want to change that has any bearing on this incident?

Anybody know?


ps -

Quote

The central mass is certainly where I would aim but at that distance I would not be hitting him in the neck or upper chest.

At that distance in that circumstance, a person would be lucky to hit him at all. Shooting at the range, even with added stress, just isn't the same as the real thing. Just ask anyone who's been there.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Skolls081102 0]

Quote

The appropriate way to describe legal self-defense with a firearm is "shoot to stop." The most effective way to stop an attacker is firing center mass- the chest. This may kill him, but that is not the intended outcome. Stopping him is. If he dies as a result, that's terrible but he brought it on himself by attacking.

Ok this sounds good in theory, but there is a slight misconception here. "It may kill him, but that is not the intended outcome." Any firearms instruction begins with a few rules- one being, "Do not point this firearm at something you are not willing to destroy." If you make a decision to shoot, it's to stop someone, and the reality of stopping someone with a gun means death (if you're a good shot).
I will add, I believe in the right to defend my house- I own 2 guns- both loaded and locked up. And I'll tell you this with absolute confidence- someone comes into my house and threatens me or my family- I'm shooting the piece of shit- center mass, head, it doesn't matter. What matters is that he/she doesn't hurt my family. ( And then I'm sending his family the cleaning bills for my carpet).
It's sad that these people believe that the man defending his house was in the wrong. It makes me wonder about some people in this world. It's always the other guys fault isn't it! Take some responsibility, and admit that the guy was wrong, he was attacking someone, and that man defended himself. I say give the guy a medal!!!

The sole intention, is learning to fly.Condition grounded, but determined to try.Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies.Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit.

[Michele 1]

Quote

I still can't figure out what these people want to change that has any bearing on this incident?

Anybody know?

I don't know, but it seems to me that what is wanted is for people to call 9/11 first, and then wait for the cops, or announce the cops have been called...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

They want state law to mandate that people call 911 or alert police before shooting in self-defense

Joke of the day?

FallRate

Wish it was a joke....but that's probably exactly what they want....

*pictures courtesy of Oleg Volk* *fair use applies*

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Ok this sounds good in theory, but there is a slight misconception here. "It may kill him, but that is not the intended outcome." Any firearms instruction begins with a few rules- one being, "Do not point this firearm at something you are not willing to destroy." If you make a decision to shoot, it's to stop someone, and the reality of stopping someone with a gun means death (if you're a good shot).

Actually, it means the possibility of death. I know the four rules of safe gun handling. In shooting in self defense, you are willing to "destroy" your attacker. However, if you ever had to shoot in self defense and then afterwards said "shoot to kill," you'd much more likely to see the inside of a courtroom.

Shoot to kill implies intent to kill. It borders closely on murder. Afterall, whacking some guy in the back of his head while on his knees in a back alley is "shooting to kill." Shooting until the attacker is no longer a threat is shooting to stop. Any shots taken after the attacker is stopped (say, lying on the ground bleeding) would be shooting to kill, and that is murder in must about any jurisdiction.

I fully agree that when it comes to self defense, the attacker has made it a him or me and my family situation. I will win, but that doesn't mean I want him dead.

Shooting to stop is self defense. Shooting to kill may be murder.

Which face do you want to show the cops/lawyers/media?

(yes, we have officially given up on the question and begun arguing minutae and semantics)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

I still can't figure out what these people want to change that has any bearing on this incident?

Anybody know?

I don't know, but it seems to me that what is wanted is for people to call 9/11 first, and then wait for the cops, or announce the cops have been called...

[sarcasm]
Right, because we all know the cops are there for your protection and have to come when ou call 9-1-1 for help.
[/sarcasm]

I'll call the cops and let them handle as much as they will, simply because then the liability/lawsuit is their problem. I don't know of anyone who's ever been sued for calling 9-1-1. (yet)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Skolls081102 0]

Quote

Actually, it means the possibility of death.
Shoot to kill implies intent to kill. It borders closely on murder. that is murder in must about any jurisdiction.
Shooting to stop is self defense. Shooting to kill may be murder.
Which face do you want to show the cops/lawyers/media?

I hate to argue semantics...but ....Here's the scenario- someone breaks into my house, they are threatening the lives of me and my family- if I take out my gun, I have gone past stopping anyone. If I intend on shooting, I have escalated myself to using Deadly Force. When a police officer draws his gun to fire, its nt to use Stopping Force, it is to use Deadly Force. So I would disagree with you. I have no intent on murdering this criminal- I have an intent on defending myself and my family, by means of Deadly Force.
Obvioulsy, when the cops show up, I'm not going to sit there and say "Damn right I shot to kill the fucker." I am going to say, "I was defending my family- I had no choice but to shoot him."
And you're right, it is all semantics- but that's what the jackasses family is arguing. Yeah, let me call 911 instead. Screw that- pull the trigger.

The sole intention, is learning to fly.Condition grounded, but determined to try.Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies.Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit.

[Kennedy 0]

Let's argree to both be right.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=mwlaw&q=force

Quote

deadly force:
- force that is intended to cause or that carries a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury

NOTE: As a general rule, deadly force may be used without incurring criminal or tort liability when one reasonably believes that one's life or safety is in danger. In some cases, a person's unreasonable belief in the need for deadly force has been used to justify reducing a charge of murder to voluntary manslaughter. Additionally, a police officer is generally justified in using deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect who threatens the officer or who the officer has probable cause to believe has committed a violent crime.

one of wikipedia's more lacking articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force
Maybe I'll write up an addition.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Skolls081102 0]

Quote

Let's argree to both be right.


That works for me. Like I said, if I ever have to do it, I'll send the cleaning bill to the criminals family.

The sole intention, is learning to fly.Condition grounded, but determined to try.Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies.Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit.

• Quote

[Balls 0]

Quote

Quote

An atacker can close 21 feet in less that two seconds. This guy was less than half that distance. The only thing you have time to think is "front sight - squeeeeeze."

That is at a full run however and I doubt this man was moving that fast if he was as intoxicated as the article implied.

The 21 feet rule is from a stand still. yes they have to run to cover the distance, but its from a standing start.

----------------------------------------
....so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

[mr2mk1g 10]

Their request is bourn out of ignorance. Police have more powers than citizens - they can shoot to prevent escape.

If their request were honored and the clock turned back their son would have been told to stop, turned to run then shot in an attempt to escape.

As it is, if they had turned to run then shot by a citizen that could have been illegal as there was no longer any danger to life.

(all above assuming certain circumstances of course).

[Guest]

I remember in G. Gordon Liddy's autobiography, "Will" how he handled an axe-wielding GI who was refusing to be taken to stockade.

Arriving on the scene, Lt. Liddy cocked and pointed an M1 Garand at the GI and said, "Now I'm going to say this loud and clear, so that everyone here will remember what they heard me say when they hold an inquiry into your death - I SAID DROP THAT AXE!"

After the GI complied, Liddy had him sit in the front passenger seat of Jeep while he rode in the back, and told the GI to look down behind where Liddy was, to see the rifle pointed at his back.

"If you make the slightest move, I'm going to pull this trigger, and no hospital in the world will be able to help you - you'll be in a wheelchair with a dead cock for the rest of your life."

Needless to say, the trip to the stockade was uneventful.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

At that distance in that circumstance, a person would be lucky to hit him at all. Shooting at the range, even with added stress, just isn't the same as the real thing. Just ask anyone who's been there.

Nuts, he could just have shot through his belt. Then the club-wielders pants would have fallen down. It would have defused the situation until the cops got there and been mildly amusing. See it in the movies all the time.

Next, someone will complain that the cops (or the civilian eventually) didn't disarm and go get an axe handle of their own to 'even the odds'. That's one of my favorites.

The family is pi$$ed becau$e, $ince the defender wa$n't arre$ted, they have even le$$ weight/evidence for a civil ca$e again$t him. Obviously, since the man was killed, they are assuming that the courts will somehow make them rich now.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[waltappel 1]

Quote

I really don't understand what these people want. They say they want the same rules that apply to cops to apply to citizens regarding self defense. Looking at this situation, where the deceased attacked a man with a club, I don't see what needs to be changed.

What rule do they want that would have changed the outcome?
What other possible outcome is there, other than injury to the man who fired in self defense?

I'm sure the article leaves out a lot of detail, but from what is stated in the article, it looks like the shooter escalated an act of vandalism into a situation that led to a lethal confrontation.

Do I think the shooter had the right to defend himself? Absolutely! Do I think the shooter exercised sound judgement by confronting the vandal? Based on the limited information in the article, I'd have to say no. I think a telephone (911 call) and video camera might have been the best tools to use. Call the police, shoot video of the crime (if you have a video camera), and use armed confrontation only as a last resort.

All that being said, I don't feel all that sorry for the dead guy or his family and I don't think any laws need to be changed or anyone needs to be arrested. I think the shooter had the opportunity to handle the situation in a way that would not have resulted in the vandal's death, BUT I wasn't the one in the situation so I can't condemn the guy.

Walt

[justinb138 0]

Quote

I'm sure the article leaves out a lot of detail, but from what is stated in the article, it looks like the shooter escalated an act of vandalism into a situation that led to a lethal confrontation.

What I pictured happening was that the shooter heard something going on outside, then grabbed his handgun and stepped outside to check it out. Upon stepping outside, the attacker saw him and began to come toward him with the weapon, and did not stop when a gun was pointed at him, resulting in him being shot.

Anyone have more details on what actually happened?

[Ron 10]

Quote

He didn't ask the man to stop or try shooting him somewhere other than the neck and chest.

Very few people are good enough to shoot to disarm or injure only...This includes police.

When a person attacks you, and you have a gun, point center of mass (Thats center of the chest) and pull the trigger till the attacker stops attacking.

People who claim they are gonna do a leg shot are as full of shit as those that claim that they will do a head shot.

Quote

I would try to not take a fatal shot at someone only wielding a club.

You could very well end up dead. If you are going to pull a gun you had better plan on using it to stop the person. If you are not going to use it to stop them...Please don't have one.

Quote

It seems they want stricter self defense laws that would require the gun owner to think more before acting.

In this case it seems the shooter was an idiot. If the facts are correct as reported the shooter was not in danger until he tried to stop the moron with the club.

If it is only *property* in harms way call the police and don't show your hand. If it is a *person* in harms way, shoot to stop (That means aim center of mass and pull till he stops).

I think this guy should have called 911 and keep people out of this jackass's way. If thats what he tried to do and the moron attacked him....good for the shooter.

The guy with the axe was a moron.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Quote

What I pictured happening was that the shooter heard something going on outside, then grabbed his handgun and stepped outside to check it out. Upon stepping outside, the attacker saw him and began to come toward him with the weapon, and did not stop when a gun was pointed at him, resulting in him being shot.

You may be right--there's just not enough detail. I pictured the shooter grabbing his gun, going outside and yelling something like, "What the f**k are you doing, a**hole?!!!", and things going downhill from there.

If someone were vandalizing my property, that is probably what I would do. The article didn't make it clear whether the empty trailer belonged to the shooter or not. If it did, I'd say the vandal was practically begging to get shot.

Hopefully, the vandal was a real jerk that society is better off without. It would indeed be a waste if he was an ok guy that died because he was having a bad day and taking out his frustrations on the wrong trailer.

In any case, the vandal apparently did not place a whole lot of value on his own life during those last few moments. That was a dumb way to die.

Walt

• Quote