Kill Someone To Save Another's Life? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Kill Someone To Save Another's Life?


jeremy_283
03-22-2012, 14:39
This may be a an easy to answer/stupid question but can you legally take down a perpetrator threatening another's life in an altercation in a public place as long as you have the right to have a gun in that location?

*by altercation I mean like an event where there is a completely innocent victim involved

OctoberRust
03-22-2012, 14:52
Depends on your state........

Me personally? If it was my family, I don't care what the law says, I'd rather be locked up for life, than to have to witness one of them being killed in front of me.

If it was a stranger, as bad as this sounds, they'll most likely be on their own, unless I felt my life was in immediate danger soon after.

4TS&W
03-22-2012, 14:55
Depends on local and state laws, but in most cases you would be in the clear.

CarryTexas
03-22-2012, 15:00
Me personally? If it was my family, I don't care what the law says, I'd rather be locked up for life, than to have to witness one of them being killed in front of me.

If it was a stranger, as bad as this sounds, they'll most likely be on their own, unless I felt my life was in immediate danger soon after.



:agree:

Unless I was nearly 100% certain that I knew what the situation was I wouldn't use deadly force...

The potential victim would likely have to be a kid or something like that for me to use deadly force to protect them.

If it was two adults or something like that... I have no idea what is going on and I might very well shoot the wrong person.

ithaca_deerslayer
03-22-2012, 15:00
I'm not a lawyer but it seems NYS says you can use lethal force to prevent murder, rape, and arson.

I bet all such cases would be well investigated after the fact to determine whether those things were actually happening, and whether lethal force was actually needed to prevent them.

ATW525
03-22-2012, 15:02
This may be a an easy to answer/stupid question but can you legally take down a perpetrator threatening another's life in an altercation in a public place as long as you have the right to have a gun in that location?

*by altercation I mean like an event where there is a completely innocent victim involved

Most places allow the use of deadly force to protect a third party. However, you need to be careful getting into situations where you don't know all the facts. If you didn't witness the start of the altercation, it's possible that the guy with the gun may just be the "good guy" who is holding their attacker at gun point. Domestic disputes can also be messy and the "victim" often doesn't appreciate being rescued.

TexasGlockster
03-22-2012, 15:03
Texas is cool with it as long as you can absolutely assert that the person is in imminent, life threatening danger. That being said, this an area where a very well intentioned person could get in trouble here if they don't know all the facts. I would like to say that I'd help anyone whose life was being threatened but if they weren't my family or someone close to me...well, I just don't know. Hopefully I'll never have to find out.

paragon1
03-22-2012, 15:03
Depends on local and state laws, but in most cases you would be in the clear.

Correct. It is more clearly stated in some states like Florida.

ballr4lyf
03-22-2012, 15:04
I believe that in most places, the answer is yes. However, there is a lot more to think about that just the legality of the issue.

One example to consider is if you were to witness a domestic violence situation. You may have truly believed that the victim was in iminent danger, however the victim may end up accusing you of assaulting/murdering her husband/boyfriend. If there is a lack of corroborating witnesses who can attest to the fact that it was reasonable to believe that the victim was in iminent danger, you may end up spending the rest of your life in jail.

Another item of concern is who may possibly be in a jury pool if you are charged. If you live in a liberal hippie commune, it is likely the prevailing thought will be "I know he was stabbing the dude, but you didn't have to kill him." So you end up in jail anyways despite the majority of the country believing what you did was a "good shoot."

There are too many moving parts to this question to provide you with a definitive answer. When you start thinking about it, you suddenly understand why it is not recommended to go in guns-a-blazin, and why it may be more prudent to instead be a good witness. My suggestion is to study the self defense cases out there... Especially the ones where the good guy ends up going to jail.

dosei
03-22-2012, 15:10
This may be a an easy to answer/stupid question but can you legally take down a perpetrator threatening another's life in an altercation in a public place as long as you have the right to have a gun in that location?

*by altercation I mean like an event where there is a completely innocent victim involved

Depends...

It very much depends on the laws of the state you are in AND, possibly more importantly, exactly what you mean by "threatening another's life". For instance, you would not be justifed to shoot someone simply because they said "touch my cheesecake and you're dead" in a resturant.

Massad Ayoob - Judicious Use of Force. Part [1] - YouTube

Massad Ayoob - Judicious Use of Force. Part [2] - YouTube

Massad Ayoob - Judicious Use of Force. Part [3] - YouTube

Massad Ayoob - Judicious Use of Force. Part [4] - YouTube

ChicagoZman
03-22-2012, 15:15
Unless I KNOW exactly what is happening I would take cover and observe if possible so as to be a good witness.

This is based on a situation when I was young in which I stepped up for a young woman being beaten by a guy about my age and size. She was clearly abused by this punk with black eye, bruises, etc. and I SAW him hitting her. Didn't expect to have to watch my back as the only person standing behind me was the victim. Guess who jumped me for bothering her boyfriend?

Had to beat a hasty retreat.

G30Mike
03-22-2012, 15:22
My guns are for me and mine. If a stranger becomes a victim, sad to say, but better them than me. If they don't want to take responsibility for their own safety by doing what I do, well, sucks to be them. I'm not responsible for John and Jane Doe and their family, they are. Ill kindly mind my own business,make a phone call, and try to be a good witness.

ballr4lyf
03-22-2012, 15:39
My guns are for me and mine. If a stranger becomes a victim, sad to say, but better them than me. If they don't want to take responsibility for their own safety by doing what I do, well, sucks to be them. I'm not responsible for John and Jane Doe and their family, they are. Ill kindly mind my own business,make a phone call, and try to be a good witness.

Some people don't get to make that choice. A lot of people can't carry based on where they work (universities, public schools, military installations, etc.). Heck, I go without my gun 5 days a week because it would be unlawful for me to carry my weapon where I work. I can't even leave it in my car.

I won't say that I will blanketly just sit back and watch a stranger die, however I will wait until the last damn second before I commit to drawing a weapon.

poodleplumber
03-22-2012, 15:41
The answer often lies in whether the other person could have legally defended himself or herself. (Lawyers use a phrase like "standing in their shoes.") The problem in intervening is that you don't know all the facts leading up to the altercation, so you very often can't know with absolute certainty that you are taking the side of an innocent for whom a shooting could be ruled self defense. If you make a wrong presumption, you can be up a particularly famous creek with no means of propulsion.

robhic
03-22-2012, 16:48
An example Massad Ayoob uses is a grungy, dirty guy laying hands on a young woman screaming "RAPE!!!" at the top of her lungs. What to do?

What about if the guy is an undercover cop and the woman IS a prostitute? He says prostitutes very commonly scream rape so as to cloud the situation for a well-meaning passer-by. Tough call. I'd guess calling 911 and maybe staying (out of the way) to provide witness to the cops when they come if the situation is not resolved by then.

That truly is a tough call!

EAJuggalo
03-22-2012, 17:08
The standard in MN is "imminent threat of death or great bodily injury" I may speak up and be ready in the rape situation mentioned above but it would have to be absolutely clear in my mind what was going on before taking that shot.

Sam Spade
03-22-2012, 17:33
Get yourself right with God, and the law will follow.

Warp
03-22-2012, 17:56
An example Massad Ayoob uses is a grungy, dirty guy laying hands on a young woman screaming "RAPE!!!" at the top of her lungs. What to do?


At most, you verbally challenge the man. If he is a police officer that will quickly come to light. If not, further action may possibly be required.

05DodgeDakota
03-22-2012, 23:13
This may be a an easy to answer/stupid question but can you legally take down a perpetrator threatening another's life in an altercation in a public place as long as you have the right to have a gun in that location?

*by altercation I mean like an event where there is a completely innocent victim involved

In florida at least, yes, you'd be ok. And it's worth saying that you should morally anywhere. I don;t know about you but that would be really hard on me if I knew that I could have saved a life, and didn't because of legality. Just be sure which one is the bad guy ;)

Brian Lee
03-23-2012, 00:15
The danger to the shooter here is from the victim.

Suppose you save a woman from a situation that looks like she faces certain death of you fail to act. It's likely you'll later find that she was the mans wife, that he beats her all the time and she does nothing about it, and now she is the one who will testify against you, and lie as she pleases to make it all even worse for you in court.

count_schemula
03-23-2012, 00:21
Good thread.

A little more complicated than it seemed at first consideration.

xmanhockey7
03-23-2012, 00:31
In the state of MI you can defend yourself or a 3rd party. For me it would all depend on the situation but in most I'd just be a good witness.

High Altitude
03-23-2012, 01:36
All you have to do is look at the number of off duty cops that get shot by other cops to realize that getting involved in a third party incident is very risky.

It is so hard to realize what is exactly going on in a third party situation to make a good decision.

c6601a
03-23-2012, 01:52
Been there, not done that! As other have already pointed out, what the law says comes into play only after you do the right thing.

I can tell you from personal experience that if you find yourself witnessing that type of a situation, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that you will know with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY who the bad guy is. Shooting someone without being absolutely certain of what is happening is both morally and legally indefensible.

Tiro Fijo
03-23-2012, 03:23
Get yourself right with God, and the law will follow.


:rofl::animlol::animlol:

Bren
03-23-2012, 04:49
I can tell you from personal experience that if you find yourself witnessing that type of a situation, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that you will know with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY who the bad guy is. Shooting someone without being absolutely certain of what is happening is both morally and legally indefensible.

That is also pretty much the law in some places. Here in Kentucky, if you use deadly force to defend a third party and it turns out the third party did not have the right to use deadly force in his own defense (he was the bad guy, it was a joke and he knew it, etc.) you have NO legal justification, no matter what you thought was happening.

On the other hand, if we're right, we can use deadly force to stop a purse snatcher - serious danger to the victim isn't necessarily required; just a felony involving force.

jeremy_283
03-23-2012, 06:57
This thread has had a lot more knowledge and input on it than I first thought it would get. I never thought of these different situations. Props to you all.

CarryTexas
03-23-2012, 07:05
This thread has had a lot more knowledge and input on it than I first thought it would get. I never thought of these different situations. Props to you all.

Anyone who carries a firearm should give a lot of thought to what sort of situation they are willing to use deadly force. If you or someone you know isn't the potential victim it is best to not interviene.

At a minimum get that superman mentality out of your head. A CCW doesn't make you a super hero. Don't act like it. (This is general comment not directed at any particular person)

papajohn
03-23-2012, 09:17
ct general statue c.g.s. 53a-19

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/olrdata/jud/rpt/2002-R-0847.htm

PHYSICAL FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
A person is justified in using reasonable physical force on another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force. The defender may use the degree of force he reasonably believes is necessary to defend himself or a third person. But deadly physical force cannot be used unless the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.
Additionally, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force if he knows he can avoid doing so with complete safety by:
1. retreating, except from his home or office in cases where he was not the initial aggressor or except in cases where he is assisting a peace officer at the officer's directions;
2. surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own; or
3. obeying a demand that he not take an action he is not otherwise required to take.
Lastly, a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the person to use physical force, (2) use of such force was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law, or (3) he is the initial aggressor (unless he withdraws from the encounter, effectively communicates this intent to the other person, and the other person continues to or threatens to use physical force) (CGS § 53a-19).

Warp
03-23-2012, 10:23
Been there, not done that! As other have already pointed out, what the law says comes into play only after you do the right thing.

I can tell you from personal experience that if you find yourself witnessing that type of a situation, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that you will know with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY who the bad guy is. Shooting someone without being absolutely certain of what is happening is both morally and legally indefensible.

That is exactly accurate. Some state laws are written such that a reasonable belief is necessary, same as in defense of yourself

Oramac
03-23-2012, 16:17
I don't know what state you're in, but in my state (Missouri) it falls under (among other things) the Good Samaritan law. It's also explicitly stated in the deadly force laws here that you can use deadly force when you feel that you, or someone else would be, in fear for your/their life.

Again, depends on your state. Go to your state legislatures website and look up the applicable laws.

BulldawgGlock
03-23-2012, 18:44
I can only speak for Georgia. You can shoot someone (intent to kill is irrelevant) IF
1.You see someone in the process of a forcible felony.
2.You fear great bodily injury or death to yourself.
3. You fear great bodily injury or death of a third party.

CarryTexas
03-23-2012, 19:04
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Killing another human can have unexpected effects on even the toughest amongst us.

If the debate is whether it is legal or not there are likely many scenarios where it would be legal for you to use deadly force, but unless you or a loved one are at risk it is almost always better to not shoot...

Sure if there is an active shooter or some exceptional situation then you might want to do what you could to stop it.

However, keep in mind that if your goal is to help someone you don't know it is possible that the situation is not what it appears to be.

wrenrj1
03-23-2012, 19:11
I won't say what I'd do, just that I'd avoid confrontation if at all possible. Just remember that every bullet you release comes with a lawyer attached.

Mister_Beefy
03-24-2012, 02:09
Get yourself right with God, and the law will follow.


I hope you're kidding.

MoneyMaker
03-24-2012, 06:45
My guns are for me and mine. If a stranger becomes a victim, sad to say, but better them than me. If they don't want to take responsibility for their own safety by doing what I do, well, sucks to be them. I'm not responsible for John and Jane Doe and their family, they are. Ill kindly mind my own business,make a phone call, and try to be a good witness.


Dont think a child can protect thereselves from abbduction,rape,Or a old lady can protect herself from a raping or beating,,,,You may think different if it was your child getting raped or your Mother,Wife,Sister by some scumbag and then the law abiding neighbor said well i did not wanna do something as i dont wanna go to jail.

itstime
03-24-2012, 07:11
Depends on your state........

Me personally? If it was my family, I don't care what the law says, I'd rather be locked up for life, than to have to witness one of them being killed in front of me.

If it was a stranger, as bad as this sounds, they'll most likely be on their own, unless I felt my life was in immediate danger soon after.

I agree with the first response. In all of the classes I attended I was told is it worth prison for someone you don't know. Sad but if you intervene you will probably get civil suits even if it was a good shoot. OJ for example. I know bad example but he got it on the civil suit even though he did get away with it criminally.


Call 911 and protect yourself. You have no idea what you are walking into. You may think you are shooting the right person but may not be also. Leave it to the LEO

OldSchool64
03-24-2012, 07:16
... if you find yourself witnessing that type of a situation, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that you will know with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY who the bad guy is. Shooting someone without being absolutely certain of what is happening is both morally and legally indefensible.

Something law abiding gun carriers should consider, however this is another "blanket statement" that I don't agree with... Seems to me there could very likely be instances when a witness would know exactly, with a doubt, who the bad guy is.

OldSchool64
03-24-2012, 07:24
Most places allow the use of deadly force to protect a third party. However, you need to be careful getting into situations where you don't know all the facts. If you didn't witness the start of the altercation, it's possible that the guy with the gun may just be the "good guy" who is holding their attacker at gun point. Domestic disputes can also be messy and the "victim" often doesn't appreciate being rescued.

I must say... This is a good point!!

Sam Spade
03-24-2012, 08:01
I hope you're kidding.

Nope, I'm not kidding.

I'll give a go at discussion, but only if you're capable of examining ideas like an adult. Our history is such that I'm not sure you're willing/able to do that.

Misty02
03-24-2012, 09:00
Get yourself right with God, and the law will follow.

I agree, as far as the law goes. If a person, in good faith, intervened to save the life of another it is very likely they’ll be ok “legally”.

A person still has to live with what they’ve done (or not done). Taking in consideration that things aren’t always as they seem, it could be the original victim who we witness as having the upper hand at that moment in time. It is a tough call, neither desirable, but it should be easier to live with the knowledge that one’s inaction resulted in the death of an innocent person, than to live with the knowledge that one’s direct involvement and actions resulted in the death of an innocent person. I pray I never have to find out how either feels.

Other than a loved one, a young child or a frail elderly person, I believe I wouldn’t intervene in a situation involving others. Regardless how much one believes they’ve seen unfold, there is too great a possibility we wouldn’t have the entire story and whether or not the person who is winning is justified or not. I would call 911 and let the authorities handle it. Depending on the situation, I may elect to let them know the police have been called and are on their way.

Whether it’s legal or not falls low in my assessment. What I must first consider is the harm my actions would have to my family and then how it would go for me if I made the wrong choice based on limited information.

.

SCmasterblaster
03-24-2012, 13:07
Well, shooting someone based on an assumption is risky. Perhaps the woman wanted to be beat up. That sounds crazy but not totally out of the question. I would be very careful in intervening in a situation where the surrounding facts are not totally known.

MoneyMaker
03-24-2012, 14:17
Did the women want to be stbbed,gang raped,dragged behind a car,being kicked in the head until about dead?Common sense will go further then a internet forum i hope!!!

c6601a
03-24-2012, 21:27
Something law abiding gun carriers should consider, however this is another "blanket statement" that I don't agree with... Seems to me there could very likely be instances when a witness would know exactly, with a doubt, who the bad guy is.Shooting someone "with a doubt" is exactly what you need to avoid.

As I wrote, it is extremely unlikely. I did not say that it is never possible.

The people that are certain that they would definitely shoot someone abducting a child, how would you feel if the "abductor" was actually the parent preventing their child from becoming a runaway?

The people that are certain that they would definitely shoot someone attacking an "elderly person", how would you feel if the elderly person was trying to rob the younger person at gunpoint, had already shot at the "attacker" and was still armed?

The people that are certain that they would definitely shoot someone attacking an "elderly person", how would you feel if the young person was trying to keep the elderly man from beating up his elderly wife?

I can go on, but the point is that even clear cut situations may actually not be what the very obviously appear to be.

Misty02
03-24-2012, 21:57
Shooting someone "with a doubt" is exactly what you need to avoid.

As I wrote, it is extremely unlikely. I did not say that it is never possible.

The people that are certain that they would definitely shoot someone abducting a child, how would you feel if the "abductor" was actually the parent preventing their child from becoming a runaway?

The people that are certain that they would definitely shoot someone attacking an "elderly person", how would you feel if the elderly person was trying to rob the younger person at gunpoint, had already shot at the "attacker" and was still armed?

The people that are certain that they would definitely shoot someone attacking an "elderly person", how would you feel if the young person was trying to keep the elderly man from beating up his elderly wife?

I can go on, but the point is that even clear cut situations may actually not be what the very obviously appear to be.

All valid points.

Or someone appearing to restrain an elderly person and push them in their vehicle, when it could be their parent suffering from dementia who could be harmed if allowed alone on the streets.

Talking may be a way to determine the intentions of that person, but I can see how someone that has had to deal with that situation over and over again can get tired of answering questions and just tell the person to mind their own business.

.

blueyedmule
03-26-2012, 06:33
A child abduction can also be between estranged spouses. A bad deal yes, but not a good shoot at all. Just because mom and dad hate each other's guts and one is frustrated enough to take the kids doesn't mean there is any physical threat. That's a dangerous deal to go in shooting.

I would have to see clear evidence of a weapon or lethal force being applied, and a good grasp of the situation. I hope I never have to make that call. It's also another reason I carry other non-lethal legally carried weapons. I don't have to simply go from bare hands to guns blazin'.

itstime
03-26-2012, 07:24
A child abduction can also be between estranged spouses. A bad deal yes, but not a good shoot at all. Just because mom and dad hate each other's guts and one is frustrated enough to take the kids doesn't mean there is any physical threat. That's a dangerous deal to go in shooting.

I would have to see clear evidence of a weapon or lethal force being applied, and a good grasp of the situation. I hope I never have to make that call. It's also another reason I carry other non-lethal legally carried weapons. I don't have to simply go from bare hands to guns blazin'.


My thoughts exactly. Whipping a gun out first isn't always the first or only solution.

Mister_Beefy
04-05-2012, 03:20
Nope, I'm not kidding.

I'll give a go at discussion, but only if you're capable of examining ideas like an adult. Our history is such that I'm not sure you're willing/able to do that.

so atheists have no right to self defense?

I just think that the way the government is growing and grabbing power it is becoming more difficult for good, moral people that follow their god's rules to keep from running afoul of the law.

if you employ deadly force to defend yourself, your actions in a possibly chaotic, adrenalin fueled life or death situation will be scrutinized at length in a calm setting with 20/20 hindsight.

deviate just a little from what as been prescribed as "appropriate" and the book will be thrown at you.

and a court deals with the facts of the case, not relationships with God.

Bren
04-05-2012, 04:34
I agree, as far as the law goes. If a person, in good faith, intervened to save the life of another it is very likely they’ll be ok “legally”.
.

Maybe, but not according to the law in various states, so you are relying on the good will of judges and prosecutors.

An example I use in training is a shooting in Orlando, where an on-duty Orlando Police officer at a ball game came through the crowd and saw a guy pointing a gun at an unarmed college student who was on the ground. He shot the guy with the gun, who turned out to be an off-duty university police officer who was trying to make an arrest after being jumped by a group of college students. The result, had it been under Kentucky law, would be a murder charge and no justification defense for acting in defense of a third party.

Here's a version of the story, with some additional facts I may put into my class example:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-01-25/news/os-ucf-officer-shot-killed-lawsuit-20110125_1_officer-dennis-r-smith-valerie-jenkins-wrongful-death

In that case, both the guy who jumped Jenkins in defense of the college student, and got shot, and the officer who then shot Jenkins, would be legally wrong. The "you can make a good faith mistake and have no legal defense" part is always very controversial in class,

Misty02
04-05-2012, 06:08
Maybe, but not according to the law in various states, so you are relying on the good will of judges and prosecutors.

An example I use in training is a shooting in Orlando, where an on-duty Orland Police officer at a ball game came through the crowd and saw a guy pointing a gun at an unarmed college student who was on the ground. He shot the guy wi8th the gun, who turned out to be an off-duty university police officer who was trying to make an arrest after being jumped by a group of college students. The result, had it been under Kentucky law, would be a murder charge and no justification defense for acting in defense of a third party.

Here's a version of the story, with some additional facts I may put into my class example:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-01-25/news/os-ucf-officer-shot-killed-lawsuit-20110125_1_officer-dennis-r-smith-valerie-jenkins-wrongful-death

In that case, both the guy who jumped Jenkins in defense of the college student, and got shot, and the officer who then shot Jenkins, would be legally wrong. The "you cann make a good faith mistake and have no legal defense" part is aleays very controversial in class,

Hence the “likely” in my statement which had a bunch of qualifiers you’ve left out when you quoted only part of it. :) Getting involved when you don’t know what is going, who the characters are and what their history is; is a recipe for disaster. The story you've posted is a perfect example of that. The entire post is as follows:

I agree, as far as the law goes. If a person, in good faith, intervened to save the life of another it is very likely they’ll be ok “legally”.

A person still has to live with what they’ve done (or not done). Taking in consideration that things aren’t always as they seem, it could be the original victim who we witness as having the upper hand at that moment in time. It is a tough call, neither desirable, but it should be easier to live with the knowledge that one’s inaction resulted in the death of an innocent person, than to live with the knowledge that one’s direct involvement and actions resulted in the death of an innocent person. I pray I never have to find out how either feels.

Other than a loved one, a young child or a frail elderly person, I believe I wouldn’t intervene in a situation involving others. Regardless how much one believes they’ve seen unfold, there is too great a possibility we wouldn’t have the entire story and whether or not the person who is winning is justified or not. I would call 911 and let the authorities handle it. Depending on the situation, I may elect to let them know the police have been called and are on their way.

Whether it’s legal or not falls low in my assessment. What I must first consider is the harm my actions would have to my family and then how it would go for me if I made the wrong choice based on limited information.

.

ModGlock17
04-05-2012, 07:03
This may be a an easy to answer/stupid question but can you legally take down a perpetrator threatening another's life in an altercation in a public place as long as you have the right to have a gun in that location?

*by altercation I mean like an event where there is a completely innocent victim involved

First, a sarcastic response: Isn't that our justification to send our military abroad ? I actually agree in many cases. OK. Done with sarcasm.

State law dictates the legality here. The Feds are leaving that to the States, for the time being despite some effort to make it a federal issue.

Even when it is allowed, it is not simple. Your life will be altered in many respects when you pull that trigger even when it is legal. There will be
-civil litigation which is allowed in some states
-social/community relationship issues like "That's the guy who shot your cousin, Bubba!" which may require you to move. And even that may not be enough.
-psychological issue, flash backs, "breakdown" moments.
-records that effect future employments.

All of these can drain your savings and marriages.

You are smart to visit the scenario now and that helps you to decide whether it is worth it for you.

The other option is to watch someone get hurt or killed or children parentless knowing that you could have done something about that. Are you ok with that, too ?

Bren
04-05-2012, 09:18
Hence the “likely” in my statement which had a bunch of qualifiers you’ve left out when you quoted only part of it. :) Getting involved when you don’t know what is going, who the characters are and what their history is; is a recipe for disaster. The story you've posted is a perfect example of that. The entire post is as follows:

I wasn't really responding to you - just to the whole idea, in several posts, about "do what's right and you'll be OK." It's not really true.

HKLovingIT
04-05-2012, 09:43
This may be a an easy to answer/stupid question but can you legally take down a perpetrator threatening another's life in an altercation in a public place as long as you have the right to have a gun in that location?

*by altercation I mean like an event where there is a completely innocent victim involved

Can you? Depends on your state law and what the circumstances are.

Should you get involved? http://www.stoppingpower.net/commentary/comm_dangers_in_intervention.asp

To me, it would have to be something extremely, blatantly, obvious, that I saw unfold from start to finish before I would even think about anything other than using my cell phone.

Like you walk out of the grocery store behind a young woman. As you are walking in the parking lot, a dude runs up and whacks her in the head with a pipe wrench and starts going through her pockets and purse. Maybe she owes him drug money, maybe not, I dunno, but you can't go around hitting chicks in the head with wrenches in parking lots.

That seems pretty obvious. It's implausible where I live now, but obvious. That doesn't mean you draw your gun and start shooting at people. I would likely punch him in the nuts as a first option.

Misty02
04-05-2012, 10:28
I wasn't really responding to you - just to the whole idea, in several posts, about "do what's right and you'll be OK." It's not really true.

Oh, ok. :wavey:

(an issue there, what one believes is the right thing, might actually be the wrong thing)
.

CarryTexas
04-05-2012, 10:47
Can you? Depends on your state law and what the circumstances are.

Should you get involved? http://www.stoppingpower.net/commentary/comm_dangers_in_intervention.asp


Good Read.... I agree with the author's opinions

Sam Spade
04-05-2012, 11:30
You're making the effort, so will I.

so atheists have no right to self defense?
No, that's not what I said and it's not what the thread's about. Since you brought it up, I'll address it: Every living creature fights for its life. That right falls firmly into the category of "natural rights" and exsists totally outside of any society. From the view of a religious man, the right is accorded by God whether or not the individual recognizes Him.

Dealing with intervention, now:

I just think that the way the government is growing and grabbing power it is becoming more difficult for good, moral people that follow their god's rules to keep from running afoul of the law.

if you employ deadly force to defend yourself, your actions in a possibly chaotic, adrenalin fueled life or death situation will be scrutinized at length in a calm setting with 20/20 hindsight.

deviate just a little from what as been prescribed as "appropriate" and the book will be thrown at you.

and a court deals with the facts of the case, not relationships with God.

I actually agree with you as far as the expansion of government goes. The sub-category of statute and common law, though, is pretty well developed and not evolving much at all. If you look on the sources for our statutes and the philosophy that shaped them, you'll find that they're profoundly Judeo-Christian. Those ethics do not value life equally. The innocent life is always more important than the aggressor, and this dates back to Moses. (There are specific exemptions from blood-guilt in the OT for defense of one's home, for example.)

So when the court applies the law to the facts of the case, they're looking at literally thousands of years of thought that gave birth to the current law. Overwhelmingly, if you do the moral thing as codified from Moses through Thomas Aquinas into the Magna Carta and finally our system, the law will back you. The hairs are split on how a given place treats mistakes of fact; we're all in agreement on what righteous intent is.

Misty02
04-05-2012, 11:37
You're making the effort, so will I.


No, that's not what I said and it's not what the thread's about. Since you brought it up, I'll address it: Every living creature fights for its life. That right falls firmly into the category of "natural rights" and exsists totally outside of any society. From the view of a religious man, the right is accorded by God whether or not the individual recognizes Him.

Dealing with intervention, now:


I actually agree with you as far as the expansion of government goes. The sub-category of statute and common law, though, is pretty well developed and not evolving much at all. If you look on the sources for our statutes and the philosophy that shaped them, you'll find that they're profoundly Judeo-Christian. Those ethics do not value life equally. The innocent life is always more important than the aggressor, and this dates back to Moses. (There are specific exemptions from blood-guilt in the OT for defense of one's home, for example.)

So when the court applies the law to the facts of the case, they're looking at literally thousands of years of thought that gave birth to the current law. Overwhelmingly, if you do the moral thing as codified from Moses through Thomas Aquinas into the Magna Carta and finally our system, the law will back you. The hairs are split on how a given place treats mistakes of fact; we're all in agreement on what righteous intent is.

I don’t know if your thoughts are as calm as the tone I apply while reading them, but I truly enjoy your explanations. Thank you. :)

.

Bren
04-05-2012, 12:57
So when the court applies the law to the facts of the case, they're looking at literally thousands of years of thought that gave birth to the current law. Overwhelmingly, if you do the moral thing as codified from Moses through Thomas Aquinas into the Magna Carta and finally our system, the law will back you. The hairs are split on how a given place treats mistakes of fact; we're all in agreement on what righteous intent is.

I agree with that. I think of it as "the zen of law" or something like that. I noticed in law school that you don't really have to learn the law - you can just know it, like being in touch with the force - once you understand what it is. The only thing you really have to learn are the exceptions, where the law has gone off track.

Gunnut 45/454
04-05-2012, 16:07
In Idaho the answer is yes you can! It is legal to use deadly force to stop a felony.:supergrin:

X-Concealment
04-05-2012, 17:53
CCW holders are held by the justice system with the "Higher standard ofcare". While some states' laws allow deadly force to be used to stop afelony; it doesn't mean a permit holder can be a freelance cop. As sad as a situation can be, using deadly force to save a stranger's life is"Not recommended"!

steveksux
04-05-2012, 18:12
That is exactly accurate. Some state laws are written such that a reasonable belief is necessary, same as in defense of yourself
True enough. BUT some states reasonable belief for intervening in third party situations is not good enough. You must be right, not just reasonable. Kentucky sounds like one, and I believe Michigan is another (at least that's what was stated in my cpl class).
That is also pretty much the law in some places. Here in Kentucky, if you use deadly force to defend a third party and it turns out the third party did not have the right to use deadly force in his own defense (he was the bad guy, it was a joke and he knew it, etc.) you have NO legal justification, no matter what you thought was happening.

Everyone needs to know what the law is in the state they are in before going in with guns blazing so to speak...

Randy

ModGlock17
04-05-2012, 19:39
Here's a long look into a real shooting (with video). http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53502&start=0

Give you a sense what went on afterwards.

blkt2
04-05-2012, 20:13
I did when I was 17 (1988) and spent just over 4 months in jail before I was cleared.

Your best bet is to mind your own business unless it is a pure innocent who will be harmed by your inaction.

GKglock324
04-05-2012, 20:18
real life situation was a woman being chased by a guy with a gun..her clothes were ripped, I may have posted this before, but assume nothing. Turned out the woman was a fugitive and was being pursued by under cover officers..jump the gun and shoot the guy would be a bad idea...

Mister_Beefy
04-05-2012, 22:47
You're making the effort, so will I.


No, that's not what I said and it's not what the thread's about. Since you brought it up, I'll address it: Every living creature fights for its life. That right falls firmly into the category of "natural rights" and exsists totally outside of any society. From the view of a religious man, the right is accorded by God whether or not the individual recognizes Him.

Dealing with intervention, now:


I actually agree with you as far as the expansion of government goes. The sub-category of statute and common law, though, is pretty well developed and not evolving much at all. If you look on the sources for our statutes and the philosophy that shaped them, you'll find that they're profoundly Judeo-Christian. Those ethics do not value life equally. The innocent life is always more important than the aggressor, and this dates back to Moses. (There are specific exemptions from blood-guilt in the OT for defense of one's home, for example.)

So when the court applies the law to the facts of the case, they're looking at literally thousands of years of thought that gave birth to the current law. Overwhelmingly, if you do the moral thing as codified from Moses through Thomas Aquinas into the Magna Carta and finally our system, the law will back you. The hairs are split on how a given place treats mistakes of fact; we're all in agreement on what righteous intent is.

ok, I get where you're coming from.

but I also agree with what bren said, sometimes things are more complicated that just "be good and everything will be ok"

and issue that is sometimes simple, but often complicated.

HarleyGuy
04-06-2012, 00:33
CCW holders are held by the justice system with the "Higher standard ofcare". While some states' laws allow deadly force to be used to stop afelony; it doesn't mean a permit holder can be a freelance cop. As sad as a situation can be, using deadly force to save a stranger's life is"Not recommended"!


Not ever being in a situation where I've had to even unholster a gun in a self defense situation I would hope that if I encountered a situation where the loss of innnocent life was at stake that I could help, either by calling 911 or other non-lethal methods before resorting to using my firearm.

I hope that I'm NEVER in a position where I have to use lethal force, for myself or anyone else, but I would hope that if my wife (or any other innocent person) was being attacked and facing great bodily harm, rape, or death that someone would step up and attempt to stop the attack if they could do so safely.

As another poster stated, shooting (or killing) someone is a very serious than can impact your life and future in many negative ways.

fredj338
04-06-2012, 01:01
:agree:

Unless I was nearly 100% certain that I knew what the situation was I wouldn't use deadly force...

The potential victim would likely have to be a kid or something like that for me to use deadly force to protect them.

If it was two adults or something like that... I have no idea what is going on and I might very well shoot the wrong person.
It would have to be more than 100% certain. In many situations, you see something but do you really know what is going on? Say you hear screaming, sprint around the corner & see some big guy pounding the crap out of a smaller guy. You engage, he refuses to stop, maybe even turns on you, so you shoot him. Come to find out, he was the vic & the guy he was pounding was the attacker & there is a knife laying nearby. You just never know. There are probably less than 5 instances where I could be 100% sure at a glance what is going on, everything else is an educated guess. I am not risking everything for an educated guess. In most cases not directly involving you or your family, it's better to do the smart thing instead of the perceived right thing.:dunno:

Bren
04-06-2012, 04:58
Everyone needs to know what the law is in the state they are in before going in with guns blazing so to speak...

Randy

Another point I teach in classes, is that not knowing the law can not only result in you doing something that is illegal, it can also result in you losing the fight because you hesitate to do something that is legal.

OldArcher
04-06-2012, 05:21
This may be a an easy to answer/stupid question but can you legally take down a perpetrator threatening another's life in an altercation in a public place as long as you have the right to have a gun in that location?

*by altercation I mean like an event where there is a completely innocent victim involved

Simply put, yes.

Protect the innocent. Make sure that there's no other alternative, but when sure, take out the trash...

As you may not get the opportunity to yell, "Drop Your Weapon," try to make sure that there are witnesses to the event. There may not be any, so make sure that you have a good lawyer on speed dial.

Regardless, defend and protect the innocent...

OA, out...

steveksux
04-06-2012, 06:45
Another point I teach in classes, is that not knowing the law can not only result in you doing something that is illegal, it can also result in you losing the fight because you hesitate to do something that is legal.Very good point, its a bit of threading the needle. Neither too anxious, nor too hesitant. You need to know the law before going in guns blazing, or guns grazing... ;)

Randy

Misty02
04-06-2012, 06:52
Here's a long look into a real shooting (with video). http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53502&start=0

Give you a sense what went on afterwards.

I followed that one for a while. Needless to say, I learned more than a thing or two from his experience.

.

ModGlock17
04-06-2012, 09:45
Another point I teach in classes, is that not knowing the law can not only result in you doing something that is illegal, it can also result in you losing the fight because you hesitate to do something that is legal.

Bren, you've never failed to say thoughtful things well !

Search
04-06-2012, 21:17
Most people will never act out the actions they previously thought they could. It's easy to sit and tell yourself you would do this if that ever happened. Actually breaking through the mental barriers in a high stress situation and performing isn't an easy task. This being the internet there is no point. So let's go through some possibilities to consider before involving yourself in a situation.

Let's pretend that this being a "public location" there are other people besides yourself, the bad guy, and the innocent victim.

1) Do you know the full story? Do you know why the bad guy is fixing to harm the good guy? Is the bad guy actually the good guy? I hope the answer was obvious.

2) If you attempt to take a life (which most have never done and just been ok with) and fail what will happen when the bad guy turns on you? Better not miss with all of that going through your mind and the stress of the situation bearing down on you.

3) Are you action even legal? Does it even matter? I mean could you live with yourself the rest of your life knowing you could have helped?

4) Are your rounds going to travel past the bad guy and harm another innocent victim?

5) Are there cops around that might mistake you for a bad guy?

6) Is your family there? Could they possibly get involved in a threatening situation?

7) Does the bad guy have friends that are going to turn on you?

8 Could I keep going? Yes.



Learn the laws of your state. Then hope it never happens. If it does, good luck :)

domin8ss
04-06-2012, 22:08
9) Does your state have a stand your ground law? Virginia, no. Florida, yes.

10) Does your state allow citizens arrests? Utah, yes if the crime is committed against the public. (shoplifting, property damage, mass shootings at a mall, etc.)

Deaf Smith
04-07-2012, 16:28
This may be a an easy to answer/stupid question but can you legally take down a perpetrator threatening another's life in an altercation in a public place as long as you have the right to have a gun in that location?

*by altercation I mean like an event where there is a completely innocent victim involved

In Texas it's yes jeremy, you can use force or lethal force if need be.

But talking MORALLY, if the attacker is trying to kill a innocent person, you bet your bippy I'd use lethal force if need be, screw the laws.

Deaf

ScottieG59
04-10-2012, 21:07
Walking into an altercation can be like walking very late into a movie.

In one case, what looks like a woman being attacked was an undercover police officer arresting a prostitute who resisted arrest. Guy with a gun tried to be a hero there.

I hear enough about victims attacking police in order to protect their attacker/lover.

Also, maybe someone called 911 and the police arrive while you have your gun out.

Maybe you put yourself in the middle of a gang fight.

Anyway, you need to assess the situation and whether you really need to be there.

Police get the big bucks and public adulation because this is their playground.

c6601a
04-11-2012, 04:16
One of the main rational argument against CCW for the general public is that for a lot of people, packing a gun makes them feel like a superman. It is argued that these people will not only tend to act rashly and imprudently, they can not be convinced that their planned actions are rash and likely to lead to a bad outcome. The biggest problem is that it is people like these that are most eager to CCW and are represented disproportionately among those that carry.

Sadly, reading this thread makes those criticisms appear justified.

Bren
04-11-2012, 04:42
One of the main rational argument against CCW for the general public is that for a lot of people, packing a gun makes them feel like a superman. It is argued that these people will not only tend to act rashly and imprudently, they can not be convinced that their planned actions are rash and likely to lead to a bad outcome. The biggest problem is that it is people like these that are most eager to CCW and are represented disproportionately among those that carry.

Sadly, reading this thread makes those criticisms appear justified.

It's all relative - the more "timid" you are, the more "rash" and "imprudent" others appear to be.

Bren
04-11-2012, 04:44
Maybe, but not according to the law in various states, so you are relying on the good will of judges and prosecutors.

An example I use in training is a shooting in Orlando, where an on-duty Orlando Police officer at a ball game came through the crowd and saw a guy pointing a gun at an unarmed college student who was on the ground. He shot the guy with the gun, who turned out to be an off-duty university police officer who was trying to make an arrest after being jumped by a group of college students. The result, had it been under Kentucky law, would be a murder charge and no justification defense for acting in defense of a third party.

Here's a version of the story, with some additional facts I may put into my class example:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-01-25/news/os-ucf-officer-shot-killed-lawsuit-20110125_1_officer-dennis-r-smith-valerie-jenkins-wrongful-death

In that case, both the guy who jumped Jenkins in defense of the college student, and got shot, and the officer who then shot Jenkins, would be legally wrong. The "you can make a good faith mistake and have no legal defense" part is always very controversial in class,

I had to come back this morning and find that link and refresh on the facts of Mario Jenkins' case. I'm off to teach a class on Use of Force law to some probation and parole officers in a couple of hours.

The part in the Jenkins story about the Orlando officer thinking Jenkins was pointing the gun at him wasn't in the original reports that I used for class, but now this one throws in another 3rd party use of force angle, with the college student jumping the undercover cop because he thought he was a criminal.

HK Dan
04-11-2012, 11:26
Look, if someone is being beaten to the point that you're concerned about the safety of the "victim", then the beater IS the bad guy. Stick to Suarez' advice--IDOL, Immediate Defense of Life. I can't think of a single jurisdiction where this is illegal, excepting Illinois, where carry is illegal. I'm sticking to IDOL, making sure I know what's going on, giving the bad guy a chance to come down to earth, and yes, I'm defending life.