simonov jr
New member
I'm a ccw holder in IN, and carry regularly. This is a hypothetical but one I think I should have worked out in advance. I know officers shoot people all the time for "pointing a gun at them", or even "going for a gun". Seems to me if i'm driving and someone in the course of a road-rage harrassment of me, either brandishes a gun or POINTS it at me , I have a couple of tough choices to make. If I'm likely going to be in a fight, esp. against an armed opponent, common sense says getting in the first round can save my ass. What it comes down to is, do either actions by an aggresor justify me firing the first shot? at brandish, he has shown a capacity to kill me but arguably no "intent" to kill me. Yet the fact remains that he can put a round through my door in a blink. remember Tueller? Does this apply to a pistol round less than a knife-wielding psycho? At "point", seems like he's demonstrating all the requisites of means, motive and intent, BUT, can I LEGALLY take "pre-emptive action" because I'm staring down the barrel of his gun? A cop surely could and no doubt would. Any expertise?