Defense of a Third Person

[Phaedrus/69]

• The gun in your hand cannot deflect or stop incoming fire

This is so critical to understand yet so often ignored! For every discussion of body armor or trama/blow-out kits there are fifty threads devoted to carry guns or holsters. So many people expect to produce their gun and defeat the bad guy in the moment, with few thinking they might wind up taking hits in the process. It's absolutely possible for an opponent to kill you after you have fatally wounded them! And no matter how well trained and skilled you are there's always a chance you'll lose. The only fight you will always win is the one you don't take part in. I'm lucky to have never been in a gunfight but two of my best friends have been shot (accidents in both cases) and it's not like on TV- you don't rub some dirt on it. One was shot in the pelvis with a 9mm and spent the better part of next year in a body cast. Almost two decades later he still suffers some effects from the wound.

For home defense I think things are often a bit more clear cut, or at least the resident has a little more control of the situation. The law is often a bit more clear, and in most states if someone breaks into a structure they know to be occupied then bad intentions are presumed. Also, if one has done some work to harden the perimeter then the defender will likely have a bit more time to react. Therefore body armor is a part of my plan! True, the situation might unfold in a way that doesn't allow me to get to my armor but it offers at least some chance. Likewise I strive to make sure I'm not going to be "outgunned" in my own home. Given 20 seconds or so I can have my carbine and slip on my carrier, giving me rifle protection, a few spare mags and a TQ.

 

[Rexster]

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.

I understand what you mean. A DA, elected in this county during the 2016 “blue wave,” is one of the “straws on the camel’s back” that prompted me to retire from LEO-ing in early 2018, rather than staying another year or two. Then, in two years, the anti-police political environment of 2020 happened, and, wow, I was glad that I had gotten outta Dodge, before that. (I had long known that any use-of-force could cause me to have to “fade some heat,” of course.)

We are blessed to live in a smaller city, within this county, that better-supports its police, but, I would rather be living out of this county. Here a “retired cop” prosecution could be tough for me to endure, because it is the county DA who prosecutes in the case of defensive shootings. (We do, however, want to be near my wife’s doctors. Life’s choices…)

 

[Water Garden]

I am not against helping a fellow citizen but it is unlikely that all the moons and stars will align is such a way that I am confident about what is happening, what has happened, by whom and why. I have learned to mind my own business and the lesson was taught to me by a female who was getting knocked around by her drunk boyfriend. To make a long story short... we got into a minor scuffle and were tangled up when the police arrived. The female told the police that I attacked her bf for no reason and I nearly got arrested. Plenty of impartial witnesses and none would step forward and give a statement. I got lucky only because once separated, the male and female had notable inconsistences in their stories and were intoxicated.

 

[theotherwaldo]

I find myself on the edge of similar situations on occasion.
I run a small library on the Texas border.
Women and young girls often take refuge here from husbands/boyfriends/family/etc.
Whoever is on desk duty usually calls the police, who are stationed a block away.
I've had to intervene a few times for a couple of minutes.
Luckily, we've got excellent security camera coverage... .

 

[wayneinFL]

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.

It blows my mind that you would have to explain it to anybody. It's not some abstract construct made up by law professors. It's case law based on people finding themselves in kill or be killed situations. This should be the most natural decision ever, and for some reason we have to complicate it.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Had another little incident.
Couple of wannabees from the sketchy apartments down the road had a little set-to that led to one of them getting stabbed.
Paramedics, cops, an ambulance, even a helicopter looking for the guy with the knife.
Nobody made it to the library, though.
Thus I didn't have to defend anybody... .

 

[jstert]

it is common sense that if you operate a motor vehicle then you should know traffic laws, and therefore if you carry a firearm you then should know use of deadly force laws.

common sense isn’t all that common.

water garden’s tale is most instructive. isn’t physically wading into the middle of a domestic disturbance about the most dangerous house call that most policemen can make? even as a trained and armed civilan i would want to talk it down, summon help and do all that i can to avoid igniting a conflagration with me in the middle, just as our rulers should have done in the ukraine.

 

[fastbolt]

It blows my mind that you would have to explain it to anybody. It's not some abstract construct made up by law professors. It's case law based on people finding themselves in kill or be killed situations. This should be the most natural decision ever, and for some reason we have to complicate it.

If it really was 'the most natural decision ever', we'd likely not have needed case law to clarify and define it so much.

Sadly, there have been - and will likely continue to be - situations where someone believes they're in a 'kill or be killed' situation, but later discovers they erred in their judgment. The 'reasonable person' standard is not always an easily understood objective standard for everyone, and it still puzzles a lot of people who have no particular education, training or background experience which might help them understand it.

Trying to catch up and think to intuitively understand it in the midst of some unexpected, exigent, dynamic, chaotic and evolving situation isn't likely going to help, either. Just look at how even cops, who receive both academy and ongoing in-service training and legal updates can make mistakes in judgment which puts them on the wrong end of criminal charges (and civil actions). How much more likely might an 'average' private person, without exposure to all that training, find themselves making the wrong decisions under rapidly occurring and changing conditions?

 

[JohnKSa]

The 'reasonable person' standard is not always an easily understood objective standard for everyone, and it still puzzles a lot of people who have no particular education, training or background experience which might help them understand it.

It's not really necessary to understand it to stay out of trouble with the law. The key is understanding that the deadly force laws are a safety net, not a trampoline. You don't use them optionally, you use them when there's absolutely no alternative. Then, afterwards, you can rely on the protections in the law to keep you out of prison.

It's the people who analyze your situation after the fact who really need to understand the reasonable man principle and apply it correctly.

Trying to catch up and think to intuitively understand it in the midst of some unexpected, exigent, dynamic, chaotic and evolving situation isn't likely going to help, either.

No, and if you find yourself thinking like that in the middle of a situation, it's almost certain proof that you don't need to use deadly force. If you do need to use deadly force, you should be thinking something like: "I'm going to die if I don't do something right now!"

 

[Charlie Martinez]

It amazes me how far the steady and relentless attacks on our freedoms has come. We may have not yet lost our right to own guns but we are darn close to losing our right to use them.

Not that many years ago it would have never occurred to me that I would have to worry about serious consequences from the law if I used deadly force to save the life of an innocent person. There was a time when risking life and limb in a deadly force scenario to save a defenseless third party was seen as an act of heroism. Today anyone that does something like that instantly becomes a defendant in a murder case.

These days I am still spiritually tempted to use deadly force (if necessary) to defend an innocent life but unless it's a close relative or very good friend friend my practical side says "stay away".

 

[AK Hunter]

Sounds like a bad shooting to me. I will defend myself, my loved ones & friends but I won't play cop.

 

[Kleanbore]

It amazes me how far the steady and relentless attacks on our freedoms has come.

I can think of nothing relevant to this thread that would describe any successful attacks on our freedoms.

Not that many years ago it would have never occurred to me that I would have to worry about serious consequences from the law if I used deadly force to save the life of an innocent person

If the person were innocent, and force were properly used. that applies to most of us. What is it that you rhink has changed?

There was a time when risking life and limb in a deadly force scenario to save a defenseless third party was seen as an act of heroism.

No--only in fiction, unless the defenseless person were innocent, and deadly force was immediately necessary.

Today anyone that does something like that instantly becomes a defendant in a murder case.

Not for those who know what they are doing and act accordingly.

 

[bdickens]

Today anyone that does something like that instantly becomes a defendant in a murder case.

Hogwash.

 

[BWstickman]

Did she say if a bad guy is done killing someone that you cant use deadly force… so I come home and some crack head has killed my family and is walking out the back door I just gotta let this guy go

 

[Kleanbore]

Did she say if a bad guy is done killing someone that you cant use deadly force…

I do not recall what she said, but that has indeed been the law for eons, and I should hope that youalready know that.

so I come home and some crack head has killed my family and is walking out the back door I just gotta let this guy go

You may choose to ask him to stay for the police, but that's usually not a good idea, and there is not a lot that you can do to make him do so.

 

[old lady new shooter]

so I come home and some crack head has killed my family and is walking out the back door I just gotta let this guy go

You may choose to ask him to stay for the police, but that's usually not a good idea, and there is not a lot that you can do to make him do so.

I remember a case from a few years ago where a father came home and caught the trusted male babysitter molesting his young son. The father beat the guy to a bloody pulp and was about to go get a carving knife from the kitchen to finish the job and the son got between them and told his father not to do it. Which the father later marveled at, but that's not the part I want to relate: The father was not charged. Partly I guess because he only used fists and feet, but also there was some kind of provision in the law where this happened that in some cases the defender is driven beyond rational control by the behavior that was the catalyst for his actions.

 

[Kleanbore]

The father was not charged. Partly I guess because he only used fists and feet, but also there was some kind of provision in the law where this happened that in some cases the defender is driven beyond rational control by the behavior that was the catalyst for his actions

That probably had nothing to do with the law, but with people.

The reverse of Zimmerman, as it were.

 

[wayneinFL]

Did she say if a bad guy is done killing someone that you cant use deadly force… so I come home and some crack head has killed my family and is walking out the back door I just gotta let this guy go

Partly I guess because he only used fists and feet, but also there was some kind of provision in the law where this happened that in some cases the defender is driven beyond rational control by the behavior that was the catalyst for his actions.

If a crime is committed in the heat of passion, it might remove malice, but it's still a crime. Might get you manslaughter instead of murder.

There have been cases where jury nullification has let someone off, or someone hasn't been prosecuted. Or someone got a light sentence, like Gary Plauche getting 3 years probation for shooting his kid's kidnapper in the airport. A guy in Miami walked in the 80s after "accidentally" shooting a mass shooter in the head from a moving vehicle, as the killer fled the scene on a bicycle.

It's the exception rather than the rule, and I wouldn't stake my life or freedom on it.