Third Party Protection?

[Unfettered Might]

I'm a sheepdog, no doubt about it.

But I do have the benefit of Kentucky law giving me the same protections under Justifiable Homicide that I have for myself, when defending another.

[HootmonSccy]

I agree, distract or acknowledge your presences/witnessing the crime, after calling 911. The 2nd part to this question is... if your target is threatening to do harm with a knife, would your weapon be at the ready when you give your acknowledgment...

Depends on your definition of "ready" - Does that mean already pulled (Brandished).. OR.. Ready to pull?
I would not have it already pulled, he is not a threat to me yet.. ( I think it may be legal to be pulled, but that is in terms of being arrested vs. being sued.) but I would be ready to pull..

[HK4U]

After my last post I got to thinking that I need to post a disclaimer. I in no way intended the post to infer that if someone says that they would not intervene on behalf of a third party that it was an indication of cowardliness. I think it is more likely a case of just not realizing what a horrible thing it would be to watch someone killed or injured without trying to do something to help. I feel that most of us when push comes to shove will be compelled to act even if we don't think so now.

[Ringo]

OK.. Let's try this one..

coming to the the Original Posters main concern "Financial Burden" Do you draw the attackers attention (by yelling at him, shoving him, etc), something to break off the tunnel vision of his attack and thus stopping the crime. It is unlikely he is going to continue knowing that you are standing there watching, especially since you already have your phone in your hand calling 911 right?? So, he is likely to do one of two things..
One, run away
Two, turn aggressively toward you - Now.. IF YOU should need to stop the threat, you are NOT protecting a third party, you are protecting yourself. You will run through your usual list of rules you have in your head before you pull the trigger to insure your life was threatened, you have 911 on the phone, they will know the guy was in the middle of a crime & hear you telling the guy to stop before the shots are fired. You have at least the woman that was being attacked as a witness..

The important thing in these rare situations IMO is to break off the threat to the 3rd party and if the threat is then drawn towards you, IF YOU MUST, then you eliminate the threat. You are no longer protecting a 3rd party, but protecting yourself..

That would be my answer.

People can create all of the emotional tear jerking scenarios their imagination can dream up, even take Bible verses out of context to justify "THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE" to defend a third party, that's okay, just keep it "personal', those are your convictions. HootmonSccy presented the situation, and the course of action, that I would agree with,for those who are seeking my reply. I'm not a coward, Dirty Harry, Rambo,a Hero,and most of all, NOT A SHEEPDOG. I carry for personal defense, not defense of the public or my next door neighbor. Everyone has the same right as I do to own or carry a gun for protection, if they choose not to then their safety and their life is on their conscience, not mine. I do not allow their lack of personal responsibility and common sense to influence my actions and choices to come to their defense. How would I feel if my wife and children we're being threatened and someone didn't jump in to protect them with a gun? I wouldn't be troubled, because my wife is responsible and has the common sense God gave her to carry concealed to protect the children and defend herself. All the while not encouraging nor imposing that burden of responsibility on a total stranger, if one even happened to be around. And I do not have a "brother", and the "world" is not my "brother", therefor I am not my "Brothers Keeper".

[JJFlash]

[/B]

That would be my answer.

People can create all of the emotional tear jerking scenarios their imagination can dream up, even take Bible verses out of context to justify "THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE" to defend a third party, that's okay, just keep it "personal', those are your convictions. HootmonSccy presented the situation, and the course of action, that I would agree with,for those who are seeking my reply. I'm not a coward, Dirty Harry, Rambo,a Hero,and most of all, NOT A SHEEPDOG. I carry for personal defense, not defense of the public or my next door neighbor. Everyone has the same right as I do to own or carry a gun for protection, if they choose not to then their safety and their life is on their conscience, not mine. I do not allow their lack of personal responsibility and common sense to influence my actions and choices to come to their defense. How would I feel if my wife and children we're being threatened and someone didn't jump in to protect them with a gun? I wouldn't be troubled, because my wife is responsible and has the common sense God gave her to carry concealed to protect the children and defend herself. All the while not encouraging nor imposing that burden of responsibility on a total stranger, if one even happened to be around. And I do not have a "brother", and the "world" is not my "brother", therefor I am not my "Brothers Keeper".

I appreciate that it's your decision. No problem. Just curious to see where the line really is, tho: You've stated you intend to defend yourself, your wife, your kids and no others. How about neices and nephews? How about your very close friend's kids? How about your close friend? What about your neighbor's kid who's always playing in your backyard with your kids? How would you explain to your kids that yeah, you could've helped little Janie when she was being cut up and raped but you chose not to? (yeah, I know, emotional tear-jerker...)

I'm not being a smart-ass, here. But, my point is that if you expand your circle to include extended family and close friends, then where's the line? Whether you know them or not? Whether you like them or not?

I really do agree with your basic premise - that it is every individual's responsibility to provide for their own protection, and I have argued that point many times to the extent that I believe we should have a minimal police force, since they provide no real protection and usually only serve as "mop up". Everybody takes care of business when necessary, and we'll eventually have a nice, polite society, with minimal LE presence.

But, even believing that, as I do, I don't think I could coldly just walk away, singing "What will be, will be..."

[father-of-three]

There was another thread recently about helping police in a shootout and how that can led arriving officers to shoot at you, as well as have multiple gunman turn on you after they have shot the officer. It is difficult to think through these scenarios, which it why it is good to hear all the feedback. I know I am here to learn and to understand. "With great power comes great responsibility."
The third party issue is just as difficult in Pennsylvania. I believe the language of the law states that lethal force can be used if the third party wants it almost implying that you need to ask first. This may sound dumb, but Joe third party can say he'd rather have his wallet stolen with the threat of lethal force than have you shoot the aggressor!
As HootmanSccy put it, if the bad guy attacks you instead of the third party, the third party scanario goes out the window. However, some states, including Pennsylvania, will put the "defender" at fault for using lethal force if it can be shown that the defender provoked the aggressor. I guess it depends on how everyone, including lawyers, defines provocation.

[festus]

OK.. Let's try this one..
You come across a woman being attacked at knife point, and it's obvious that she is about to be raped.. (let's say in a park or something, not inside a house). SO, you know he is not defending himself, but about to perform a terrible crime.
Do you just walk away?
Walk away and call 911, knowing that the deed will be done prior to the police arriving?
Shoot the bastard?
OR.. coming to the the Original Posters main concern "Financial Burden" Do you draw the attackers attention (by yelling at him, shoving him, etc), something to break off the tunnel vision of his attack and thus stopping the crime. It is unlikely he is going to continue knowing that you are standing there watching, especially since you already have your phone in your hand calling 911 right?? So, he is likely to do one of two things..
One, run away
Two, turn aggressively toward you - Now.. IF YOU should need to stop the threat, you are NOT protecting a third party, you are protecting yourself. You will run through your usual list of rules you have in your head before you pull the trigger to insure your life was threatened, you have 911 on the phone, they will know the guy was in the middle of a crime & hear you telling the guy to stop before the shots are fired. You have at least the woman that was being attacked as a witness..

So, I agree with the original poster in general; However, there are circumstances that morally you should intervene... The important thing in these rare situations IMO is to break off the threat to the 3rd party and if the threat is then drawn towards you, IF YOU MUST, then you eliminate the threat. You are no longer protecting a 3rd party, but protecting yourself..

If a violent felony is about to be committed...The perp goes down. He is beyond a shadow of the doubt the aggressor. He is wielding a deadly weapon and brandishing it so as to do harm...He is going down. Better to be judged by twelve than carried by 6. In Florida if you take the actions required to stop a violent felony in progress you are pretty much covered because for all you know you could be victim number two. You may use a weapon in defense of life of yourself or other innocent person and be covered by law. Florida is a great place to live!

[HK4U]

I appreciate that it's your decision. No problem. Just curious to see where the line really is, tho: You've stated you intend to defend yourself, your wife, your kids and no others. How about neices and nephews? How about your very close friend's kids? How about your close friend? What about your neighbor's kid who's always playing in your backyard with your kids? How would you explain to your kids that yeah, you could've helped little Janie when she was being cut up and raped but you chose not to? (yeah, I know, emotional tear-jerker...)

I'm not being a smart-ass, here. But, my point is that if you expand your circle to include extended family and close friends, then where's the line? Whether you know them or not? Whether you like them or not?

I really do agree with your basic premise - that it is every individual's responsibility to provide for their own protection, and I have argued that point many times to the extent that I believe we should have a minimal police force, since they provide no real protection and usually only serve as "mop up". Everybody takes care of business when necessary, and we'll eventually have a nice, polite society, with minimal LE presence.

But, even believing that, as I do, I don't think I could coldly just walk away, singing "What will be, will be..."

JJ I agree with you. In a perfect world it would be great if we all carried and were ready to protect our loved ones. Like you I know that is not reality and like you I can not walk away while some one kills a child telling myself " Oh well the parent should have been there to protect them".

[HK4U]

[/B]

That would be my answer.

People can create all of the emotional tear jerking scenarios their imagination can dream up, even take Bible verses out of context to justify "THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE" to defend a third party, that's okay, just keep it "personal', those are your convictions. HootmonSccy presented the situation, and the course of action, that I would agree with,for those who are seeking my reply. I'm not a coward, Dirty Harry, Rambo,a Hero,and most of all, NOT A SHEEPDOG. I carry for personal defense, not defense of the public or my next door neighbor. Everyone has the same right as I do to own or carry a gun for protection, if they choose not to then their safety and their life is on their conscience, not mine. I do not allow their lack of personal responsibility and common sense to influence my actions and choices to come to their defense. How would I feel if my wife and children we're being threatened and someone didn't jump in to protect them with a gun? I wouldn't be troubled, because my wife is responsible and has the common sense God gave her to carry concealed to protect the children and defend herself. All the while not encouraging nor imposing that burden of responsibility on a total stranger, if one even happened to be around. And I do not have a "brother", and the "world" is not my "brother", therefor I am not my "Brothers Keeper".

People can create all of the emotional tear jerking scenarios their imagination can dream up

o.k. so explain to me how your dreaming up some off the wall scenario to justify not getting involved is any different because that is all it is.

even take Bible verses out of context to justify "THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE" to defend a third party

Now why is the scripture so out of context. I find that quite often someone will claim a scripture is out of context if it is a scripture they want to ignore. Kind of pick the ones they want to believe.

One thing we do agree on is that it is my personal choice. I will never walk away from the slaughter of the innocent.

[AvidshooterTX]

It's kind of academic to try to decide what you're going to do in a situation like this. You probably won't know until it actually happens. How often have you decided how you will react when your boss gives you crap or a neighbor lets his dog poop on your lawn only to completely wimp out? Or just the opposite - decide you're going to maintain your cool when you visit the parent of the bully who's picking on your kid only to lose it. We rarely react the way we have decided to in the heat of a particular incident. You just better hope that 12 people decide your actions were justified - make that 13 because you have to live with yourself.