Defense of a Third Person

I think there is a mindset of "see bad guy--reach for gun" that can cause people to step out of the bounds of lawful use of force.

That may come from screen fiction.

It is a good idea to try to inoculate oneself against that that mindset and to think first.
 
Poor choice of words on her part when she says: "...you don't get to use deadly force..." Unfortunately, it seems a lot of people talk this way, and maybe think this way too. As if deadly force is something they want to use and they are hopeful for a situation where they "get to use" it. The law isn't written that way, and the general philosophy of the legal use of deadly force is not about "getting" to use deadly force, but more about providing legal protection for those who are forced to use it.

She is, of course exactly correct, however. A lot of people think that they have the right to use deadly force to punish a person for committing a serious crime, but that is absolutely not correct. Punishment is the exclusive responsibility of the government. Deadly force laws are not about punishment, they are about prevention. If there's nothing to prevent (the crime is over/the threat is ended), then there's no justification for the use of deadly force.

In this case it appears that the bad guy was trying to leave the scene and was not near the victims at the time he was shot.

https://www.weau.com/2022/12/06/officials-family-dollar-customer-who-shot-suspected-robber-charged/

"Police say surveillance video shows the man running toward the door before Jackson fired the gun. Court documents went on to say the women were not near the man when Jackson shot and killed him."

That's going to make his legal defense very difficult.
 
Last edited:
JohnKSa said:
Poor choice of words on her part when she says: "...you don't get to use deadly force..." Unfortunately, it seems a lot of people talk this way, and maybe think this way too. As if deadly force is something they want to use and they are hopeful for a situation where they "get to use" it.
Click to expand...

I think she was talking directly to the segment of the shooting community that does think that way. Browse through any gun forum and you will see that attitude proudly on display. How much of that is bravado and how much is really the way people think is debatable.
 
Jeff White said:
I think she was talking directly to the segment of the shooting community that does think that way. Browse through any gun forum and you will see that attitude proudly on display. How much of that is bravado and how much is really the way people think is debatable.
Click to expand...

You are right on target. There is a segment of gun owners with this attitude and I don't have much use for them. I tossed a few out of my CCW courses in the past because of remarks that they couldn't wait to shoot some (insert derogatory term of choice here).

As an LEO I was charged with taking people into custody. As a civilian, I now carry with a mission to force a break in contact and no more. I will not draw unless life is at risk and I have determined that my firearm will not make the situation worse than it is. I also figure into my plan that if I shoot an armed badguy with a handgun he will still likely be capable of returning fire, even if he has sustained what will be a fatal wound.
 
Last edited:
This is tragic.

I would expect our members to know not to do that.

There is something more we can do. If someone we know acquires a firearm, we can and should take the time to tell them to always remember...
  • You are not a cop--do not get over-excited by trouble that you observe; avoid rather than pursue; stay away from trouble; go the other way
  • Do not forget the fundamentals--you may if necessary use force to defend life and person, when the threat is imminent; you may not threaten or harm anyone because of what he may have done; do not threaten deadly force to protect property
  • The gun in your hand cannot deflect or stop incoming fire
  • Your good guy halo can cease to exist in less than a second
 
We can and should take the time to tell new gun owners to always remember...
  • You are not a cop--do not get over-excited by trouble that you observe; avoid rather than pursue; stay away from trouble; go the other way
  • Do not forget the fundamentals--you may if necessary use force to defend life and person, when the threat is imminent; you may not threaten or harm anyone because of what he may have done; do not threaten deadly force to protect property
  • The gun in your hand cannot deflect or stop incoming fire
  • Your good guy halo is not visible to others
  • Your good guy status can cease to exist in an instant
 
This is a horrible example of defense of a third person. In fact, I'm pretty sure the armed attorneys didn't even use that term the whole video.

The guy walked in on a shoplifting incident and interjected himself into it.

I can think of a dozen different things to say but really the simplest way I can say this is unless it is serious enough that you are willing to go to jail for the rest of your life if you're wrong your gun shouldn't come out of the holster
 
Last edited:
Well, no matter how well someone may be able to do a little song and soft-shoe for a jury ...

Police say surveillance video shows the man running toward the door before Jackson fired the gun. Court documents went on to say the women were not near the man when Jackson shot and killed him.
Click to expand...

... The unarmed suspect was fleeing. The threat to the women victims was over.

The use of deadly force on someone who is no longer an imminent threat of seriously bodily injury or death to anyone, after what would be considered at most a strong-arm robbery (unarmed), where no grievous injuries were reported among the women victims, may be a hard sell, at best. The statements reported by the media do not make it sound as though the shooting suspect expressed a reasonable belief that the fleeing unarmed robbery suspect presented an imminent threat to anyone else, either. The robbery suspect

Like it or not, there are people who end up in jail or state prison because they simply didn't understand the laws related to self defense, including acting in the defense of any innocent third person(s). They acted outside the laws, and suffered the legal consequences. Sadly, this isn't something new.
 
In defense of yourself or an innocent 3rd party from death or serious physical injury or a forcible felony against one's person. It really is that simple.
 
JERRY said:
In defense of yourself or an innocent 3rd party from death or serious physical injury or a forcible felony against one's person. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

Sadly, there's no shortage of people who simply can't explain what may constitute 'serious (or grievous) injury', or explain (let alone understand) a 'reasonable fear' versus a 'bare fear' when it comes to fear.

When the average person is selected to serve as a juror on case involving such things, the court explains it for them, so they understand. Too bad many average folks who lawfully carry a handgun for self defense don't make the effort to learn what it means ... before they do something that causes them to hear a judge explain it to jurors.
 
fastbolt said:
Sadly, there's no shortage of people who simply can't explain what may constitute 'serious (or grievous) injury', or explain (let alone understand) a 'reasonable fear' versus a 'bare fear' when it comes to fear.

When the average person is selected to serve as a juror on case involving such things, the court explains it for them, so they understand. Too bad many average folks who lawfully carry a handgun for self defense don't make the effort to learn what it means ... before they do something that causes them to hear a judge explain it to jurors.
Click to expand...
The 1st thing I tell anybody who decides to carry a gun is don't let the gun make you brave.
 
JERRY said:
The 1st thing I tell anybody who decides to carry a gun is don't let the gun make you brave.
Click to expand...

This is something that too many people, both private citizens and LE alike, fail to consider. While the gun, as a defensive tool, may be able to help someone resolve trouble, its presence ought not contribute to the wrong sort of mindset.

I remember when I first read Heinlein's Tunnel in the Sky book as a youngster. I was surprised when the protagonist didn't choose to carry a firearm to another planet, but instead chose a hunting knife after attending some sort of advanced survival training. His reason? Taking a gun might make him overconfident. That just didn't make sense to the young me.

It wasn't until I began my lifelong pursuit of various martial arts, and then went from being an enthusiastic hobby shooter & handloader to starting training as a firearms instructor in my LE career, that I later realized it made perfect sense to me.

Options for tools & gear are all well and good, but the wrong mindset - like relying overly much on just 'having a gun' - may set you up to get hip-deep in trouble that might've been more easily avoided.
 
JohnKSa said:
If a person notices that their behavior is different when they carry, and the difference isn't in the direction of being MORE careful, then they have a problem.
Click to expand...
The problem is when they don't notice the change.
In law enforcement you have those that carry the badge, and those that the badge carries them. Same in the private sector when ccw'ing.

Many people swell up with the power a firearm gives them, and they often fail to realize that they overextend themselves, often doing things they otherwise wouldn't do unarmed. They relax too soon, get over confident, they fail to watch their surroundings, they take on duties or obligations that should be left to others...

I think a few of on here knows where and how this goes, unfortunately seeing it firsthand in others.

I'll be the first to admit that I fell into that trap. By the grace of Gods on Mt. Olympus or whomsoever I made it through and was humbled without losing my life.

To anyone in the know, please stress this lesson to any new gun owner.
 
Night Rider said:
This is a horrible example of defense of a third person. In fact, I'm pretty sure the armed attorneys didn't even use that term the whole video.

The guy walked in on a shoplifting incident and interjected himself into it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I carry a gun, that doesn’t make me a police officer. If I were one, in Dallas, I’d show up 20-30 minutes later. After they are gone, and take the report….and skip the murder charges.
 
Kleanbore said:
Do you think that the evidence would disappear in twenty minutes? What would you do with it?

Police officers do not make charging decisions.
Click to expand...

The only evidence that would disappear would be what the perpetrator(s) stole. With them being long gone, I would have no one to engage, kill, and risk any charges against me.

I can promise you, as a regular guy, there is nothing in that store or any store in Dallas, that I would risk my freedom for.
 
Kleanbore said:
I thought you were discussing how you would respond to the shooting if you were a policeman.
Click to expand...
He was talking about how he would respond to a shoplifting call.

My last year working I would call the police at work and I would be told if there are no injuries and no one's in danger file a report online, we're not coming
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Defense of a Third Person
2 3
Replies
69
Views
5K
Kleanbore
K
J
  • Locked
An interesting discussion on training and how it sometimes plays out in court
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
3K
Old Dog
Old Dog
J
  • Locked
You are responsible for every round you fire
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Sage of Seattle
S
K
Defense Against Home Invasion--And More
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
shafter
S
F
  • Locked
Self Defense, From Your Attorney's Point Of View...
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
Jim K
J
Back
Top