Good Guy Intervenes to Defend Third Party

[xXxplosive]

Quote: "What tends to separate Kansas's statutes from the laws of other states,"

Try that in NJ...........and see where you wind up.

 

[Jeff White]

Your statute reads almost the same as Illinois. Here is Kansas:

http://ag.ks.gov/docs/documents/self-defense-statutes.pdf?sfvrsn=4

21-5224. Use of force; presumptions. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3212a]
(a) For the purposes of K.S.A. 21-5222 and 21-5223, and amendments thereto, a person
is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death
or great bodily harm to such person or another person if:
(1) The person against whom the force is used, at the time the force is used:
(A) Is unlawfully or forcefully entering, or has unlawfully or forcefully entered, and is
present within, the dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle of the person using force; or
(B) has removed or is attempting to remove another person against such other person’s
will from the dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle of the person using force; and
(2) the person using force knows or has reason to believe that any of the conditions set
forth in paragraph (1) is occurring or has occurred.
(b) The presumption set forth in subsection (a) does not apply if, at the time the force is
used:
(1) The person against whom the force is used has a right to be in, or is a lawful resident
of, the dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle of the person using force, and is not subject
to any order listed in K.S.A. 21-5924, and amendments thereto, that would prohibit such
person’s presence in the property;
(2) the person sought to be removed is a child, grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful
custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the force is used;
(3) the person using force is engaged in the commission of a crime, attempting to escape
from a location where a crime has been committed, or is using the dwelling, place of work or
occupied vehicle to further the commission of a crime; or
(4) the person against whom the force is used is a law enforcement officer who has
entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle in the lawful
performance of such officer’s lawful duties, and the person using force knows or reasonably
should know that the person who has entered or is attempting to enter is a law enforcement
officer.
History: L. 2010, ch. 124, § 3; April 29.

21-5231. Use of force; immunity from prosecution or liability; investigation. [Amends
K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3219]
(a) A person who uses force which, subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 21-5226, and
amendments thereto, is justified pursuant to K.S.A. 21-5222, 21-5223 or 21-5225, and
amendments thereto, is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such
force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer who was
acting in the performance of such officer’s official duties and the officer identified the officer’s
self in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should
have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, "criminal
prosecution" includes arrest, detention in custody and charging or prosecution of the defendant.
(b) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of
force as described in subsection (a), but the agency shall not arrest the person for using force
unless it determines that there is probable cause for the arrest.
(c) A county or district attorney or other prosecutor may commence a criminal
prosecution upon a determination of probable cause.
History: L. 2006, ch. 194, § 2; L. 2007, ch. 169, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 136, § 29; July 1, 2011

21-5228. Private person's use of force in making arrest. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-
3216
(a) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful
arrest is justified in the use of any force which such person would be justified in using if such
person were summoned or directed by a law enforcement officer to make such arrest, except that
such person is justified in the use of deadly force only when such person reasonably believes that
such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to such person or another.
4
(b) A private person who is summoned or directed by a law enforcement officer to assist
in making an arrest which is unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which such person
would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful.
History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3216; L. 2010, ch. 124, § 9; L. 2010, ch. 136, § 26; L. 2011, ch.
30, § 12, July 1

And here is Illinois:

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading) ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION
(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)
Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-2)
Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-3)
Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7-6) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-6)
Sec. 7-6. Private person's use of force in making arrest.
(a) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.
(b) A private person who is summoned or directed by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest which is unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, unless he knows that the arrest is unlawful.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

You will note that both states have provisions that say that no claim or liability may arise from the use of force. And that line is conspicuously absent from the citizen's arrest provision. You might also note that neither statute prohibits the filing of such a claim. Nowhere do they say that "The clerk of the court will not accept any claim on a case that the police and prosecutor have ruled justified."

The only protection those statutes give anyone is a defense to a claim of liability resulting from justified use of force. The action can still be filed in court, you will still have to hire an attorney to go to court and file a motion to dismiss the claim based on the statute. At which point the plaintiff will argue that for this or that reason your claim of immunity based on the statute shouldn't apply. And depending on how the judge rules, it may or may not end there. And even if the judge rules the statute applies to your case, the plaintiff has the option to appeal or in some circumstances, file the claim in federal court where the rues are different.

I've had personal experience because like so many law enforcement officers and former officers I've been named in lawsuits. Both times the attorney hired by the insurance company had my name removed from the action (in one case I wasn't even present during the activity that generated the suit and in the second, filed in federal court I was removed because federal law stated that a supervisor who wasn't present couldn't be part of a suit resulting from certain types of conduct by a subordinate) but if I had been a private citizen instead of being sued due to something that happened on the job, I would have been out several thousand dollars in legal fees.

Unfortunately, the old adage that anyone can be sued for anything, still holds true. Those laws give you a defense you can use against such actions, but the don't shield you from those actions.

 

[Kleanbore]

What tends to separate Kansas's statutes from the laws of other states, the statutes I referenced are within our "presumed reasonableness" code.

No different from most states.

So while other states use these "rules" once things go to court to determine rightfulness of the action, ....

Where did you get that idea? Decisions are made at the investigator level, by the prosecutor, in some cases by a Grand Jury, and in some jurisdictions in an immunity from prosecution hearing, all of which prided the proceeding s o a rial court.

kansas's presumed reasonableness codes are effectively a step prior in the cycle - if at site, any of the statutes apply, the actions cannot go to court, criminal or civil. If the statutes are NOT satisfied, it is not a "go straight to jail card," it's a "now it's in the hands of the courts." Effectively, we have pre-established "conditions" which are protected from falling upon opinion of a given court. If X happened, you're deemed rightful and absolved before the courts ever get their hands on it. If X didn't happen, then you're at the mercy of the court. So what might be guidance towards convictions or liabilities to jurors in other states is guidance to officers and DA's in KS on whether the same would even granted a case.

There are no real differences there, either, but what you seem to be overlooking is how the question of whether the "statutes are satisfied" (i.e., the threat of use of force was justified) is decided.

That can be done at any of several stages along the way.

If you are referring to the immunity from prosecution provision, yes, that is something decided in court. The actor submits evidence to a court requesting immunity from prosecution undertake ;law.. If the court deems that a preponderance of the evidences shoes the persons actions to have been lawfully justified, the court will stop any further prosecution or civil proceedings. Otherwise, the case proceeds.

Kansas is by no means alone in that regard.

And by the way, one is not actually deemed "rightful". What can be decided is that the evidence is insufficient to support further legal action.

Edit: I see that Jeff White also explained this--more clearly, I think.

 

[Varminterror]

So now that it is well established the rights provided by law in Kansas, as similar to many other states - by your own provision - where we started is where we end - those with the right to carry ARE afforded powers to employ their defense weapon in specific ways as considered rightful by the law...

So it's a lot more than a law which says you can carry a gun somewhere other than your home. They are laws which confirm your right to use the weapon for these presumed reasonable circumstances.

 

[Kleanbore]

So now that it is well established the rights provided by law in Kansas, as similar to many other states - by your own provision - where we started is where we end - those with the right to carry ARE afforded powers to employ their defense weapon in specific ways as considered rightful by the law...

I wouldn't put it that way at all. No one other than a sworn officer is "afforded powers" to employ a weapon for anything, whether the have a right to carry or not.

What is true is that the threat or use of force, deadly or otherwise, when the actor had reason to believe that such action was immediately necessary for the defense against an imminent threat of death or serious injury, such action will be excused, or in other words, deemed justified, if the evidence is there to support the claim.

So it's a lot more than a law which says you can carry a gun somewhere other than your home.

That;s what the weapons laws permit,

They are laws which confirm your right to use the weapon for these presumed reasonable circumstances.

That weapon, or anything else hard or sharp. That falls under the use of force laws--different section of the code..

While many things have changed over the years--obviation of the duty to retreat, presumption of a reasonable belief. in the presence of evidence of forcible entry into a home or auto, etc, and the immunity from prosecution provision, that right has actually existed since long before the signing of the Magna Carta, and it goes back before the Code of Hammurabi.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Back in 1982 one of our off duty court officers came upon a woman being forced into a car by a man.
He identified himself and things quickly degenerated with the "bad guy" drawing a gun on our officer.
To make a long story short our guy shot and killed the "bad guy" who, it turned out, was a drunk,off duty NYPD police officer.
The victim was his wife who was having a "domestic" moment with her old man.
The wife blamed our guy for getting involved in a "personal" situation.
About two years later I was at a bar which was frequented by a wide variety of NYC law enforcement officers and we were haveing a party at about 0300 when outside we heard a woman screaming for help, shouting "Rape!! Rape!!"
Within seconds thirty of us piled out and about 20 guns were pointed at the guys head, who was on top of a woman.
The shocked woman looks up at us and says, "Hey, I was just kidding!! He's my boyfriend!!"
Still want to get involved???

 

[strambo]

Matt,

Those situations are unfortunate, but also squarely on the idiots on the other side of the equation. Given the info and especially given that the responders are LE, heck yeah they should intervene. I'm not LE, but couldn't/wouldn't ignore someone yelling rape outside the door.

And drawing on a LE who identified himself? Sheesh, that needed to be the moment when that moron sobered up enough to let himself get driven home probably by the same court officer. I don't think the court officer should have ignored the felony kidnapping he was witnessing (it was in that moment whether the wife would have pressed charges later or not).

A healthy dose of caution is warranted though, especially for citizens. "Observe and report" is a pretty safe bet if you aren't positive what you are seeing and especially if deadly threat to the 3rd party is not immediate.

 

[Elkins45]

I have thoroughly read both sides of my Kentucky CCDW permit. I have not been able to find the word "hero" printed anywhere on it.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Matt,

Those situations are unfortunate, but also squarely on the idiots on the other side of the equation. Given the info and especially given that the responders are LE, heck yeah they should intervene. I'm not LE, but couldn't/wouldn't ignore someone yelling rape outside the door.

And drawing on a LE who identified himself? Sheesh, that needed to be the moment when that moron sobered up enough to let himself get driven home probably by the same court officer. I don't think the court officer should have ignored the felony kidnapping he was witnessing (it was in that moment whether the wife would have pressed charges later or not).

A healthy dose of caution is warranted though, especially for citizens. "Observe and report" is a pretty safe bet if you aren't positive what you are seeing and especially if deadly threat to the 3rd party is not immediate.

Our guy was never charged but had it been a civilian who had intervened it could have been a different story since NY is a duty to retreat state.
Even though I am retired from LE I have a problem with not helping out those in need but people need to understand the risks--which include being mistaken for a bad guy by responding police.
One thing that every officer learns early on is that things are rarely what they seem.
Yes, you give some good advice--Use caution and remember that death or imprisonment are a definite risk.

 

[Girodin]

I had a handful of cases similar to this although all ended well. The most recent Guy going down the road sees a guy beating a woman. After she is on the ground bad guy gets on top and keeps hitting her. Good guy yells at him to stop. Bad guy keeps hitting her. Good guy draws his lawfully carried gun and repeats his command. Bad guy gets up and walks off. Police are contacted. DV victim claims nothing physical happened. Bad guy is charged (and ultimately convicted) of DV assault.

The thing to remember is that domestics can change really quick. I have seen DV victims totally lie about what happened afterwards. In two cases where someone pulled a gun to stop them from taking a real beating they subsequently claimed they weren't assaulted. Even worse I have seen the DV victims go so far as to attack the person who just helped them. I've even seen one where she attacked the cop who literally pulled the guy hitting her in the face off of her.

 

[fastbolt]

Domestic violence disturbances. Defending a third party. Use of force.

Folks, you're discussing off-the-cuff decisions to get involved in situations that have gotten some trained and experienced cops in serious trouble, legally and professionally, including seriously injured or killed.

Learn the laws in your state (and any state where you are able to lawfully carry your concealed handgun, where you think you may decide to use it for such situations). Learn what they say, and just as importantly, learn how they're interpreted and applied.

Not everything you think you see may be what you think it is you're seeing. That can be a hard lesson to learn for new cops, even with formal training and the availability of on-the-job training and exposure to situations.

...

So, one morning my wife comes to get me to tell me that a woman is nearby (on a side road), loudly yelling that she's been kidnapped and raped. Her voice, and the voices of 2 men, are easily heard arguing. Doesn't appear to involve obvious weapons at this point, and the men's voices aren't nearly as loud (but still somewhat audible). Not overtly threatening, but trying to quiet her. She's loudly claiming she was kidnapped and raped the night before, and doesn't know where she's at right now. The men are obviously trying to quiet her and get her to return to wherever they'd been (on foot). She's acting very upset and is calling for help.

My wife looks at me with that "Do Something" look. After all, I have a badge, handcuffs, training and experience, and I have guns. All true.

I also have a phone ... and aside from loud voices and yelling, nothing actually seems to be happening at that moment that puts anyone in imminent peril of serious injury, death, etc.

I call the local agency and explain what we hear and are able to see through bushes, giving an exact description of the location and how they can best approach and identify the involved persons. They quickly send 2 units, where they find the men and woman still engaged in their argument on the small easement road.

Short version? Everyone is identified and interviewed. No crime is suspected to have actually occurred. Nobody is injured. The men are released to return to their residence. The woman doesn't really believe she's been kidnapped or raped, and whatever may have happened the previous evening was fueled by a lot of alcohol, but considered consensual activities.

Oh yeah, I was told that the woman had a large enough outstanding warrant that she's probably not going to be back in the area anytime soon.

The result to the incident surprised my wife, who (understandably) had first heard the yelling and screaming for help, rape, etc and had run to get me.

I told her, "welcome to my world". Time for coffee.

 

[Kleanbore]

Not everything you think you see may be what you think it is you're seeing.

That bears repeating.

 

[fastbolt]

Not everything you think you see may be what you think it is you're seeing.

That bears repeating.

Awkwardly phrased, perhaps, but it said what I wanted said in the way that sounded right in my mind.

 

[Jack B.]

I obtained a ccw permit so I can protect my family and myself. Not for someone who won't protect themselves. I'm not going to jail or get in legal problems for somebody else and put my family in difficulty.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

I obtained a ccw permit so I can protect my family and myself. Not for someone who won't protect themselves. I'm not going to jail or get in legal problems for somebody else and put my family in difficulty.

As they tell rookie cops around here--
"This ain't the movies and you ain't John Wayne.."