Defense of a third party - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: Defense of a third party

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by JCliff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    Maybe it's just me out there but if I saw some being raped, or physically assaulted, screw the liabilities, I'm helping that person. Whether that involves use of a firearm or not, the situation will dictate. Sorry, but it's the right thing to do and F anybody who tries to tell me otherwise. I have no desire to be superman (aside from the flying bit) but I'm also not about to stand there and watch an innocent person get attacked doing nothing other than calling police. Everybody on here knows 90% of the time police are too late to stop anything.
    .
    There are so many ways for you to get it wrong, catastrophically wrong, that they can’t all possibly be discussed on this forum. You come upon two guys in a fistfight. One is losing, badly, even bloodied up a bit. Are you witnessing a felony? Do you have any idea what happened before? Are you fully trained, tested, and certified on what legally constitutes a felony in your state? Let’s muddy it up a bit. You come upon a little old lady, screeching, and little old man on the ground wrestling with a “thug” and clearly getting the worst of it. You draw your firearm and begin barking commands. Enter armed citizen #2 (or how about a cop?), who comes upon the scene 10 seconds after you. He “sees” “thug” and old man on the ground with another “thug” drawing down on them with a firearm. He elects to draw down on YOU. Now what? How about this: The “thug” is actually the old lady’s son, wrestling away a gun you couldn’t see that had somehow found its way into the old man’s hand (he suffers from dementia)……you just shot her son. Stranger things happen every single day. Even if you watch the entire scenario unfold from the beginning you can still get it completely wrong.
    .
    Unless you are a trained, sworn, credentialed LEO with jurisdiction to act, you, as a responsible armed citizen, have no duty, warrant, or commission to act. If you inject yourself, with a DEADLY WEAPON, into a situation in which you were not threatened or involved you are taking enormous risks. If you have family responsibilities you are placing them at risk also. You could by your actions be making the situation much, much worse. Since society has given you no authority to act, and you are under no obligation to do so, there will be absolutely no forgiveness if you are wrong. Your good citizen’s good intentions will mean nothing.
    .
    Am I saying you should never act unless you or your loved ones are directly threatened? No. What I am saying is you need to approach that idea with your eyes and mind wide open as to what the possible (likely) consequences are going to be. You need to understand that it is very, very easy for you to make a LETHAL mistake. You need to understand that, in the end, if everything turns out that you made a righteous decision/action, your life (and your family’s) will be turned upside down for at least a couple of years, and you may be bankrupt financially. If you were wrong, you are the FELON now.
    Like I said situation dictates. If I see two guys in a fist fight even if one is bloodied up a bit, unless one is getting his skull crushed on the sidewalk I see no reason to bring a weapon into the situation. That said if one is clearly losing or knocked out and still getting beat I'm going to try and stop it. If a cop draws down on me and identifies himself as a cop as is required by law in all 50 states obviously, you comply with his commands and let him handle the situation. Sorry but just because the state hasn't bestowed legal authority on me doesn't mean I'm going to not do the right thing out of fear of repercussion. You can come up with all the hypotheticals you want but if you use common sense, trust you judgement, and aren't a trigger happy fool chances are you're not going to shoot an old lady's son...

    All your arguments could be used exactly the same way if you drew your weapon out of self-defense or defense of your family. I understand that family comes first, but the fact that's you'd be willing to take the legal risk for yourself and family but just stand there and watch as it happens to somebody else comes off as selfish to me. My personal morals wouldn't allow me to do that.

  2.   
  3. #22

    Defense of a third party

    And JCliff, no disrespect but of all people I'm surprised a Marine would take that perspective. We run towards the gunfire all our life but as soon as we're out we're suppose to turn cheek? I'm just not that guy.

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    Maybe it's just me out there but if I saw some being raped, or physically assaulted, screw the liabilities, I'm helping that person. Whether that involves use of a firearm or not, the situation will dictate. Sorry, but it's the right thing to do and F anybody who tries to tell me otherwise. I have no desire to be superman (aside from the flying bit) but I'm also not about to stand there and watch an innocent person get attacked doing nothing other than calling police. Everybody on here knows 90% of the time police are too late to stop anything.
    Methinks the operative problem here is when you cannot be sure of what is really going on--who is who and what is what. Rape etal and just using the term is self-evident. Alter Ego is truly the responsibility of a citizen but it must be used responsibly.
    Same can be said for first aid--if you know what you are doing you can provide first aid according to an acceptable protocol, but just stepping in and not knowing what your doing and cause further damage is not responsible behavior no matter how noble your intentions.

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,348
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    In my state, the use of deadly force applies to you or anyone in your presence as long as there is a reasonable belief of death or great bodily harm. If I were to stumble on a mugging in progress and the victim was someone other than Chuck Lidell, I would be justified in using deadly force if I believed the assault could result in death or injury to the victim. That being said, I'm not comfortable when people tell me things like "I wish you were when that guy robbed our store". Why? I'm not a cop. Just because I have a gun doesn't mean I'm automatically gonna jump in and save your ass. 'm going to assess the situation. Some guy beating up his wife, I might say something, but I'm not going to draw unless the guy becomes a direct threat to me. I'd call the cops, but I'm not so sure I'd draw. If I'm standing in front of the Slurpee machine and some guy comes in and sticks up the 7/11, I've got a tough decision to make. If I shoot the robber, 7/11 will probably sue me for making a mess all over their wall. But given that 7/11 only sells Citgo gas, directly lining the pockets of Hugo Chavez, I wouldn't be caught dead in one of their stores anyway.

    I believe there's merit to the concept of the strong protecting the weak. To that end, I probably would do something. Whether it rises to the level of me shooting someone to protect someone I don't know, I can't say what I'd do for sure.
    Hugo Chavez died 5 weeks before your post. We had a party on March 6th, day after.

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,348
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by apvbguy View Post
    please tell us how you decide whom the innocent party is
    The innocent party is me (because I had nothing to do with it.). However, the one yelling for help is probably innocent.
    Bad guys rarely yell for help because they'll get found out.

    Battery is a misdemeanor in WI, so if I see two dudes fighting and it gets out of hand and I decide to intervene and one keeps going after I pull him off the other, he's probably the guilty party. Now, if the other one runs away after I pull him off, then voila, I've identified the guilty party. Gun stays holstered unless it's needed.

    Unless there's physical limitations, disabilities, etc, you shouldn't solely rely on your gun. Martial arts training isn't too expensive considering all the ammo and guns you guys buy...even a two hour seminar on self defense could benefit you. (Which btw, runs at $20 with Neil Stolsmark, google him). I think some of you guys are a bit too reliant on the hardware on your belt and forget about the software in your head.

  7. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by tricolordad View Post
    However, the one yelling for help is probably innocent.
    Bad guys rarely yell for help because they'll get found out.
    it is obvious that you have never trained with scenarios like this and because of that your advice is a fail, the only correct answer is that unless you were a witness to the issue from it's inception it would next to impossible to determine bg from gg.
    now if you want to interject yourself into a situation and use deadly force to stop it go right ahead, but I will only use deadly force in the protection of myself and loved ones from imminent danger

  8. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    And JCliff, no disrespect but of all people I'm surprised a Marine would take that perspective. We run towards the gunfire all our life but as soon as we're out we're suppose to turn cheek? I'm just not that guy.
    .
    What perspective was that? Reread my post. I did not say I would never intervene in defense of third parties. I did not say that no one else should ever intervene in defense of third parties. What I did say is that you need to be extremely careful if you choose to inject yourself, with deadly force (or threat thereof), into a scenario that otherwise did not involve you. I also said you need to approach that idea with yours eyes and brain wide open. The probability for error, even among people with good common sense is high. As a civilian, you do not have any of the legal protections extended to LEOs (or armed forces personnel), who make a mistake in the line of duty but were otherwise acting in good faith and iaw their agency's SOP. Even in Texas. The fact that the law allows you to act will not let you off the hook, one iota, if you subsequently kill or injure an innocent, or cause the killing/injury of an innocent when you put yourself into something you didn't have to. What that means is you start bearing responsibilities for outcomes when you intervene. You just need to understand that, and THAT was my point.

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    Quote Originally Posted by tricolordad View Post
    Hugo Chavez died 5 weeks before your post. We had a party on March 6th, day after.
    Cannot wait to have the party for the rest of the bastards.

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    You've entered into a nice "grey" area here. In most places in order to justify your shooting there needs to be a means for the perpetrator doing the lethal thing he is doing, there needs to be opportunity, and there needs to be jeopardy of you or someone else. A quick over view of means... does he have a way to perform a lethal act....... opportunity, is he in a position where he could do this act....... jeopardy, is he in a position that someone is in imminent danger. If all three are not met, you do NOT have a justifiable use of your firearm.

    If a large man is on the ground beating a small old man, you could possibly convince a jury of those three things. The perpetrator had to have the means to kill the old man (fists), opportunity (he was on him), and the old man was possibly in jeopardy. The questions are... would the large man have stopped on his own? would he have stopped if someone told him to stop? would he have stopped if you pushed him off? would he have actually killed the old man?

    The hard part of using a firearm in that situation is you will be questioned 'ad nauseum' as to whether you could have done, a, b, c, d, e, f, etc. Did you try to push the large man off the old man first? Did you yell for him to stop? Did you ask several people around to help you assist in getting him off the old man? You will be grilled and you will have to justify why you did what you did and that was the right thing to do and the only thing left to do.

    Be very careful in a situation like that and be very prepared to defend the necessary means of using that firearm to protect that old man.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,348
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by apvbguy View Post
    it is obvious that you have never trained with scenarios like this and because of that your advice is a fail, the only correct answer is that unless you were a witness to the issue from it's inception it would next to impossible to determine bg from gg.
    now if you want to interject yourself into a situation and use deadly force to stop it go right ahead, but I will only use deadly force in the protection of myself and loved ones from imminent danger
    here is the rest of my post, which you chose to ignore, where I advised you (as in anyone reading it, but especially apvbguy) to not rely on the gun too much and use your head. btw, in the part you handpicked and responded to, did I say anywhere I would use deadly force? hmmmm? this is why I recommend you exercise your brain.

    Quote Originally Posted by tricolordad
    Battery is a misdemeanor in WI, so if I see two dudes fighting and it gets out of hand and I decide to intervene and one keeps going after I pull him off the other, he's probably the guilty party. Now, if the other one runs away after I pull him off, then voila, I've identified the guilty party. Gun staya holstered unless it's needed.

    Unless there's physical limitations, disabilities, etc, you shouldn't solely rely on your gun. Martial arts training isn't too expensive considering all the ammo and guns you guys buy...even a two hour seminar on self defense could benefit you. (Which btw, runs at $20 with Neil Stolsmark, google him). I think some of you guys are a bit too reliant on the hardware on your belt and forget about the software in your head.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast