Think twice before jumping into someone else's fight

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's not relevant, really. In the incident mentioned in the OP, the man who was killed was running after someone who was departing from the scene. There was no one being beaten.

But regarding those hypothetical scenarios,
  • Police officers have departmentally-approved procedures to tell them when and how to do what. I do not.
  • If they follow those procedures, the have some protection from personal liability for civil suits. I do not.
  • Their employers will provide legal representation if and when it is required. Mine will not
  • They are equipped and trained to appropriately use a continuum of non-deadly force. I am not.
And--they are fit. I am not, and I know it.
I fully grasp all that you mentioned.

I was so trained and actually did that training.

As to the legal use of force,SHAME on any and all who CCW and do not know and FULLY grasp the legal use of force in their state .

I carry CCW [ that is the company name ] for just in case I am 'forced' to use any degree of deadly force.

And as an old fart,I still know that I cannot sit idly by and watch an innocent be assaulted,especially if it appears to be deadly force.

I went here due to all the replys about all the possible outcomes,I saw what he did was wrong = BUT his heart & meaning were correct.

In a better world,or iunder a few different circumstances [ the perp missed or was not armed ] he would or could have been a real hero.

My point being,we all have a breaking point or a point where we might not be able to control our rage at an act of violence.

KNOW THE LAW,and practice all you can with whatever you can.[ martial arts,firearms,cane etc ].
 
It is unfortunate.

Today’s society is all about me and mine alone. Society tells us to leave if it’s none of your business. A “We don’t need another hero” way of thinking.

A buddy of mine suffered the same fate when he tried to stop an assailant towards a young female. Being a good samaritan, he approached the incident. Tried to mediate. While still inside his SUV Perp pulled the gun and shot him. Buckled up, he was able to draw and volley a shot but was fatally hit first. What killed him was the notion that one cannot shoot until the last resort - life on the line. Had he left the incident alone, the female assaulted and raped, he would still be alive. In the end, he gave his life and saved the young girl. He left behind a wife and two kids.

I’m not going to sleep well tonight because I remembered.

Would you do the same? Unfortunately, gone were the gallant and chivalrous knights.
 
Today’s society is all about me and mine alone. Society tells us to leave if it’s none of your business. A “We don’t need another hero” way of thinking.
That's not really the issue here.

The real issue is that there are those who believe that they should act as constables but who become contused and somehow believe that they should also act as prosecutor, judge, jury, and perhaps, executioner.

That's not about "today's society". Except in unrealistic fiction, duties to enforce the law have been assigned to particular people for hundreds of years.

What killed him was the notion that one cannot shoot until the last resort - life on the line.
"Notion"? Really? That's been the way of the world for the law=abiding at least since the time of Hammurabi.

What killed him was intervening unsuccessfully.

Unfortunately, gone were the gallant and chivalrous knights.
Another false vestige of fiction and fantasy. The knights of old were men who, because they were not first-born, would inherit nothing, and went out to make their livings fighting for the highest bidders.
 
I was going to stay away from this thread, as it's pretty obvious someone desire to have the last word … but,
The real issue is that there are those who believe that they should act as constables but who become contused and somehow believe that they should also act as prosecutor, judge, jury, and perhaps, executioner.
The man who took action in the OP's story was in no way acting as "prosecutor, judge, jury, and perhaps, executioner" and I have no idea why you keep bringing this up. He saw something going on, thought he could help, and took action. Misguided or not, there was nothing this man did that was unlawful or demonstrated anything but the fact that he had a conscience.

For a forum in which every day a thread reminds us that "the police are not here to protect us" and "the police have no duty to protect us" some of the comments I'm seeing in this thread and other recent threads are in varying degrees ironic, hypocritical and in turn, displaying the new social attitude, "It's not my concern."

Some of you really don't need to keep reminding all of us what your reasons are for never getting involved. Each man should live by his own code.

When threads start mentioning Blackstone or Hammurabi and someone is compelled to counter long-standing myths of the Anglo-Saxon culture, perhaps it's a sign that there will be no agreement or consensus.
 
The man who took action in the OP's story was in no way acting as "prosecutor, judge, jury, and perhaps, executioner"
True.

I have no idea why you keep bringing this up.
Simply because what those who would pursue an escapee and use force would be doing, and there have been those in this thread who have mentioned if not advocated the use of deadly force in third party intervention. That can be lawful in some instances, but...

He saw something going on, thought he could help, and took action.
I cannot understand how anyone would ever think that chasing someone could help.

there was nothing this man did that was unlawful
Why do you think that chasing someone would be lawful? Is it because the dead man thought that he had seen the man committing a crime? Would hat make apprehending him lawful? Had the woman not supported that belief, he would have been in a real pickle, and that is not at all uncommon in DV cases.

For a forum in which every day a thread reminds us that "the police are not here to protect us" and "the police have no duty to protect us...
It seems that you completely misunderstand the meaning of those statements. The police are hired and sworn enforce the law and to to protect innocents. You are referring to the fact that courts have ruled that communities cannot be held liable when persons are victimized by criminals--and for obvious good reason.

Some of you really don't need to keep reminding all of us what your reasons are for never getting involved.
I cannot speak for others ,but I cannot say that I would never "get involved".

I would start with a cell-phone and with a warning, and take some video. Force? Perhaps, if I knew the victims and knew everything that had led up to the incident.

I would never try to chase down a fleeing suspect.

Each man should live by his own code.
NO! Each person should live within the law.

When threads start mentioning Blackstone or Hammurabi and someone is compelled to counter long-standing myths of the Anglo-Saxon culture, perhaps it's a sign that there will be no agreement or consensus.
On the first of those: those who for whatever reasons disagree with the law as it exists would be well served to understand how it has become what it is--and why.

On the second--using myth to describe the "good old days" is false narrative.

And along that line, the Good Samaritan was not someone who engaged in violent confrontation.

He offered aid and succor to a man who had been left in need.

Consensus? Well, that would require all parties to have some common understanding of the subject.
 
I cannot understand how anyone would ever think that chasing someone could help.
Not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. Everyday, ordinary citizens jump in to assist law enforcement officers, sometimes even saving lives. It's also usually a good bet that someone who pulls a gun on another in a public place is a bad actor with a history, and if left to get away, could possibly commit further bad acts.
Why do you think that chasing someone would be lawful? Is it because the dead man thought that he had seen the man committing a crime? Would hat make apprehending him lawful? Had the woman not supported that belief, he would have been in a real pickle, and that is not at all uncommon in DV cases.
Why would it not be? And, yes, yes, I am acutely aware of unintended consequences in DV cases, having actually been assaulted myself -- by a victim -- while attempting to restrain a perpetrator of domestic violence, but thanks for your concern.
It seems that you completely misunderstand the meaning of those statements. The police are hired and sworn enforce the law and to to protect innocents. You are referring to the fact that courts have ruled that communities cannot be held liable when persons are victimized by criminals--and for obvious good reason.
No, I most emphatically do NOT misunderstand the meaning of those statements, and I most certainly don't require you do say so. I think you completely misunderstand the context in which I made my statements, nevertheless, I'd bet some others reading this thread might get my point.
I would never try to chase down a fleeing suspect.
To re-quote the immortal words of the legendary Clint Eastwood, "You're a good man, Briggs, and a good man's gotta know his limitations." Man in the OP story overestimated his own capabilities or underestimated the marksmanship of the guy he pursued. Nonetheless, there are, and always will be, times that citizens need to take action.
NO! Each person should live within the law.
Did my statement conflict with that? I think not.
On the first of those: those who for whatever reasons disagree with the law as it exists would be well served to understand how it has become what it is--and why.

On the second--using myth to describe the "good old days" is false narrative.

And along that line, the Good Samaritan was not someone who engaged in violent confrontation.
I wasn't seeing anyone disagreeing with the "law as it exists" in this thread. Of course, I only graduated from a small state university, so my major and minor in Political Science (including Con Law) and History probably prevent me from understanding "how it has become what it is - and why." Never mind that I've spend the past many years being trained on, and enforcing, variously California Penal Code, U.S. Code, and Revised Code of Washington (as well as those pesky vehicle codes).

As far as using myth? You really believe it's "false narrative?" Most of our cultural conventions and social mores -- especially those based on religious influences, i.e., scriptures, Gospel, etc. -- are based on what many consider myths.
Consensus? Well, that would require all parties to have some common understanding of the subject.
Gotta appreciate the wordsmithing there, the sly manner in which one implies another is less intelligent or incapable of comprehending a topic … C'mon, I expect better from you.
 
Everyday, ordinary citizens jump in to assist law enforcement officers, sometimes even saving lives.
Really? Do LEOs usuell recooemne that, except when they request assistance? Des the criminal justice system like the idea? Hint: very rarely.

It's also usually a good bet that someone who pulls a gun on another in a public place is a bad actor with a history, and if left to get away, could possibly commit further bad acts.
That is, of course, true.

But "could possibly commit further..." justifies nothing before the bail bond stage.

Why would it not be?
Surely you understand that in the general case, one person cannot lawfully chase down another without cause.

...and that "cause" is one of the possible defenses, and that the defense would hinge upon evidence and testimony.

No, I most emphatically do NOT misunderstand the meaning of those statements..
Then why did you refer to them in a manner that is completely irrelevant?

The point here is that the unfortunate decedent elected to take off on foot to chase a man with a gun and was killed, From his statements, it would appear that he believed that somehow he was defending a third person from a criminal-a noble thought, though the act was fraught with risk.

But the victim was no longer in danger.

That would have destroyed a successful legal defense of defending a third person, had it come to that.

But it did not come to that.
 
If you want to be a "sheepdog" get a badge or join the military.

Theres a difference in self defense and simple offense. The law acknowledges SD for civilians but even then it can be extremely tricky. I dont think there is any legal acknowledgment for civilian offense. Even in situations of assisting an officer or chasing a shooter from a church I dont know that the law actually permits that, even though it sometimes works out.

Intervening or chasing is not SD. It is not a question of morals or ethics, it's a matter of going home to ones family. And even that can be unknowable in a perfectly legal justified SD scenario.

The scrupulous interpretation of the law is the limit by which we live, or at least those of us that wish to stay free. Right or wrong it's the world we live in.


If you want to take the offensive role and hope it works out then have at it. Most of us would hope to avoid a defensive role and would still have to hope that it works out.
 
Bearing witness is not standing idly by.

The person you just watched get raped may disagree.


The point is, their is a point where anyone, that’s not a (non high road comment here) would intervene. The disagreement is when that is, some will go in quick, and may get killed and or sued. Others may one day answer a cop, “yes, the third time she yelled help I decided to video it, you know as a witness...... had she lost conciseness I was going to move into action.”



I don’t think we can honestly know we as individuals where we will draw that line until/unless we are presented with a situation because they’re all judgement calls, and have so many variables.
I think Emotions get high on this because the consequences can be so terrible if one intervenes when he shouldn’t have. Also to say I would never, under any circumstances intervene, is saying you’d watch some of the most terrible things possible happen to women and children and not try to stop it, and that is also horrific.
 
Last edited:
The person you just watched get raped may disagree.

The point is, their is a point where anyone, that’s not a (non high road comment here) would intervene.

If one decides to intervene, or to "do something" other than call it in and warn, one may make things a lot worse.

Things may may not be what they seem.

We have had cases reported here in which a person "intervened" when a caretaker was trying to help someone experiencing a grand mal epileptic incident , and did the wrong thing.

More common have been incidents in which the apparent "thug" turned out to be an officer of the law effecting an arrest.

And there have been apparent victims who had been violent initial attackers and the "bad guys", lawful defenders.

Also, unless the intervener can present evidence supporting a reasonable belief that the "victim" would himself or herself have been lawfully justified in using force in self defense, he may end up a felon.

And in some states--the alter ego jurisdictions--even that reasonable belief will not justify the use of force in intervention, if it turns out to be incorrect.

These things happen. The fact that the "victim" had been calling for help may not change the underlying facts.

Bottom line, one had better know what one is doing---and hope that the testimony that emerges, as in a DV case, does not undermine the basis for one's legal defense.
 
I respect his willingness to stand, but as the Good Book says; there is a time and place for everything. And yes. I will critique him; not for him, for the the betterment of others. As a non-LEO, non-military; his *sole* responsibility was to the protection and betterment of his wife and kids. *NOT* to play wannabe Batman, the random vigilante. I tend to say "Wannabe heroes end up dead." Sadly, in this case; I was right. And no, I'm not happy about being right.
 
Defending oneself or others is best done with the intention to stop or drive odd the offender. If the offender runs away it is up to LE to pursue or find that person. A retires LEO is a person who is no longer engaged in law enforcement. The victim paid a steep price for his bad judgement.
 
Here is a true tale.
The other day, my wife and I were standing outside the garage. A couple was walking in the field across the road. Suddenly another couple appears and loud utterances are exchanged. The new couple charges across the road and attacks the first. It becomes entangled, strong blows are engaged. It is a real fight.

What should we two old folks do? Engage, yell at them, call the police? Go get the shotgun? Do nothing - a pause for the answer.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
We just watched. The reason being = they were GEESE. Big, honking geese! The fight took to the air in a dogfight. They circled around for awhile. Later, the first couple returned to their chose place in the pond.
 
If one decides to intervene, or to "do something" other than call it in and warn, one may make things a lot worse.

Very true!
Also true, one may save a life, or several lives.

Things may may not be what they seem.

Very true!
Also true, they may be worse than they seem and multiple lives could be saved.

We have had cases reported here in which a person "intervened" when a caretaker was trying to help someone experiencing a grand mal epileptic incident , and did the wrong thing

Very true!
Also true, their have been cases where lives were saved because someone decided to intervene in an incident.

See how this could go on and on and on.


Its not exactly two sides to the same coin, it’s a spectrum.
Determining where on the spectrum it is not always easy, and it also determines appropriate action... and what appropriate varies depending on who you ask...

Again, the point is, as you stated “Bottom line, one had better know what one is doing--“ or be willing to accept the possibility that they could be missing something that could them, or someone else killed.
 
Does the 13th century doctrine of ”Hue and Cry” have relevancy in our analysis of criminal intervention by citizens, or does present day civil and criminal law supersede and prohibit collective/individual intervention in observed criminal conduct? Reading specific responses by learned authors suggest the doctrine is obsolete. I think it is not with the appropriate caveats of legal intervention to accomplish the task of apprehending the offender.


The doctrine’s intent was to prevent wrong doers’ escape and bring them to justice. It mattered not which citizen or citizens (constable or commoner) initiated the call. The doctrine was a community value and belief at the time, which may not be held by all present-day lay citizens and legal scholars.

This is just an observation as to societal attitudes, values, and beliefs changing over time. Responses indicate the Hue and Cry doctrine may still be retained by some of us in this forum.
 
Not a lawyer, but on beating a dog - in some states you can use force to intervene in such but not lethal force. However, if the person then attacks you , depending on that circumstance being a lethal threat of threat of grievous bodily harm you could use lethal force. But does that mean getting into physical fight first - not the wisest move. However, that's why folks carry OC sprays.

About intervention - this is not an unknown topic - there are many factors that predict intervention so it's not clear cut.

The risk to you and your family (if you have a bad outcome), your perceived reward if you, do you think the person is worthy of help, your ability, your personal psychology and philosophy, the immediacy and intensity of the incident, the social outcome of helping or not helping, the presence of others may inhibit or promote intervention.

See a child being beaten? See two gang members in a fight and one getting the upper hand on another? See a group of 15 attack someone and you have your 5 is enough J frame, you don't like the guy being beaten, you don't like his race or ethnicity, your take out will get cold, etc.

So you will save a child, but do you give enough to charity to insure a poor child might have a better life? Do you just like the idea of a shootout as this is a gun forum as compared to a religious forum of charity?

It's complicated.
 
Last edited:
Man, LE is typically given a lot of training devoted to them being expected to jump into the middle of some situation involving other parties, and even then they can make mistakes that gets them in hot water, injured or killed. How much more likely might the average non-LE citizen make mistakes, lacking such training and experience?

Good intentions. The road nobody wants to travel is paved with them.

No "reset button" when making mistakes in the real world, in real time.
 
If you want to be a "sheepdog" get a badge or join the military.

Theres a difference in self defense and simple offense. The law acknowledges SD for civilians but even then it can be extremely tricky. I dont think there is any legal acknowledgment for civilian offense. Even in situations of assisting an officer or chasing a shooter from a church I dont know that the law actually permits that, even though it sometimes works out.

Intervening or chasing is not SD. It is not a question of morals or ethics, it's a matter of going home to ones family. And even that can be unknowable in a perfectly legal justified SD scenario.

The scrupulous interpretation of the law is the limit by which we live, or at least those of us that wish to stay free. Right or wrong it's the world we live in.


If you want to take the offensive role and hope it works out then have at it. Most of us would hope to avoid a defensive role and would still have to hope that it works out.
TOTALLY DISAGREE = the "sheepdogs" do not wear badges they just guard SHEEP.

I was a paid 'sheepdog' and as such I knew and still do where the line is drawn in legal use of force.

If you know that [ and you MUST if you CCW ] then taking action is what humans do as HUMANS.

I am now "just a citizen" and as such I do not have that badge that cover little of my chest and NONE of my ass [ as we were told the first day in the academy ].

But I can feel and see and as I believe my judgement is better than most,I see that standing by will not assuage my conscience if I am watching a horrific event open before my eyes.

I will try as hard as possible and even second guess myself,but in the end I MIGHT have to take action.

And btw = the "law" is not the same as justice !!.
 
A concealed carrier trying to be a cop?

Never a good move.

Getting involved in a 3rd person incident is ALWAYS risky, both physically and legally. You don't know which is the good guy and which is the bad guy or even if there IS a good guy.

Call 911 and be a good witness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top