Think twice before jumping into someone else's fight

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was a paid 'sheepdog' and as such I knew and still do where the line is drawn in legal use of force.



Yes but as a "paid sheepdog" you had legal backing, as a civilian we do not.

That in itself is enough to sway most folks into not getting involved. If you want to roll the dice on that as a civilian then have at it.

I value you as a member here so I dont really want to get into a argument but the law doesnt necessarily back those with the best intentions. In most cases its actually far less.
 
Yes but as a "paid sheepdog" you had legal backing, as a civilian we do not.

That in itself is enough to sway most folks into not getting involved. If you want to roll the dice on that as a civilian then have at it.

I value you as a member here so I dont really want to get into a argument but the law doesnt necessarily back those with the best intentions. In most cases its actually far less.
No argument as to being on your own if you act.

My major point is, many will not realize that they are "acting".

They will just react to a stimulus ,such as a child attacked,a woman attacked etc.

IF [ and that a HUGE if ] if,you know the actual laws of your state [ and those you visit too ] then you will have a measurement to judge your actions by.

If as we all say,you practice " situational awareness " ,then you will have time to THINK about the action your about to take.

I made up my mind long ago that there are things worth dying for,if that moment arises ---- then me and the good Lord will have a great conversation.

He might start it with ' WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING ".

Blessed be the sheepdogs,on or off duty.

Damn it,I miss being a cop !!.
 
I was once assaulted by three guys who knew what they were doing & I was definitely losing ground very quickly except another guy who happened to be walking by with his girlfriend saw what was happening & he got into it to help me out. His girlfriend was screaming for him to not get involved & between her screaming and his help the 3 assailants ran off. I was pretty banged up afterwards but not nearly as badly hurt as I would have been if that guy had not done what he did. I was a little stunned and everyone left the scene as quickly as they could after it was over so I never even got his name. But whoever he is I will never forget what he did & I will always be grateful because he got into another dudes fight for no reason other than for him it was the right thing to do.
There were no cell phones in those days so maybe today things are different but if this happens again and I'm the guy walking by I believe that I'll return the favor.
 
A number of years ago, after my LEO days I was in an area of Chicago on business where gangs were prevalent. I was getting in my car when I witnessed a young thug grab a woman's purse and start running in my direction. The woman was screaming for someone to stop him and my instinct as he ran towards me was to do so. I then thought about where I was, that I was not armed, didn't know if he was and balanced the loss to that woman of her purse, which was an inconvenience (I don't mean to downplay what happened to her) versus the risk to my life if I tried to stop the thug and what it would mean to my wife (at the time) and son if the worse happened. I didn't stop the thug, and while I felt sick and like a coward afterwards it was the right decision. As a LEO I was in more of these situations than I can count as it was my job, and I always intervened as was expected. As a civilian I can't say I'll never intervene and hope I'm never again in a situation where I have to make that decision.

I wanted to add one more thing as food for thought. While I was a LEO, a few of us were leaving a bar and came across a woman on her knees being punched repeatedly in the face by what I'm assuming was her boyfriend. I pulled out my badge and started to approach them, telling him to stop when, between punches the woman started yelling at me to mind my own f'ing business. I knew if I intervened and things got physical she would testify against me and I'd be in trouble legally. I asked her once if she was sure she didn't want us to stop it. She told me again to mind my own f'ing business, again between punches to her face. We shook our heads and walked away. Every situation is different, but don't assume the person you're helping will be grateful.
 
Last edited:
While I was a LEO, a few of us were leaving a bar and came across a woman on her knees being punched repeatedly in the face by what I'm assuming was her boyfriend. I pulled out my badge and started to approach them, telling him to stop when, between punches the woman started yelling at me to mind my own f'ing business. I knew if I intervened and things got physical she would testify against me and I'd be in trouble legally. I asked her once if she was sure she didn't want us to stop it. She told me again to mind my own f'ing business, again between punches to her face. We shook our heads and walked away.
Let me get this straight: as a sworn officer (and you said "a few of us"), you said you witnessed an assault (which is a crime where I'm from) and didn't even find a phone to call it in? Color me incredulous.

Every situation is different, but don't assume the person you're helping will be grateful.
In some neighborhoods, for certain. As I alluded to earlier in the thread, there is a certain street culture now where many citizens harbor more hard feelings against law enforcement than those in their own neighborhood that would do them harm.

I would only say, don't make any assumptions.

I have knowledge of a situation that happened in a Southern California city around 2:00 a.m. when a large crowd was exiting a nightclub; we'd responded to a report of a fight but got there after 200 people had witnessed, without intervening, a man (later determined to be a pimp) brutally beating a woman (later determined to be a prostitute). Well over a hundred people simply watched while the woman told the crowd "don't pay no mind" and the man ended up killing the woman.

I'm simply amazed by the number of folks here who (1) apparently didn't read the OP carefully enough to notice this was not a concealed-carry issue and (2) pretty much state that there's no situation they'd ever involved themselves in.

Earlier:
Getting involved in a 3rd person incident is ALWAYS risky, both physically and legally.
Of course. But lots of things about life are risky. Especially when it comes to making a judgement call about doing the right thing. Certainly there are instances where one clearly shouldn't intervene, but I don't think the mentality that one should never intervene speaks well of any citizen.
 
Certainly there are instances where one clearly shouldn't intervene, but I don't think the mentality that one should never intervene speaks well of any citizen.
When I'm considering different factors, deciding if I'm going to get involved in someone else's fight, how I'm spoken of won't be one of them. And I'm grateful for the first responders who don't care about public opinion.
 
Let me get this straight: as a sworn officer (and you said "a few of us"), you said you witnessed an assault (which is a crime where I'm from) and didn't even find a phone to call it in? Color me incredulous.

Yup. This was the late 80's and we had no cell phones. I suppose we could have gone back into the bar to use their phones and we were willing to intervene but were told in no uncertain terms by her to mind our f'ing business. As I mentioned as a LEO I responded to more calls than I can count. I currently head up a ministry our church has where we help women who were abused, and I teach them self defense and how to avoid and get out of dangerous situations. I have and continue to go to the mat for people who need help, but a woman like that, I'll take a pass.
 
I'm simply amazed by the number of folks here who (1) apparently didn't read the OP carefully enough to notice this was not a concealed-carry issue and (2) pretty much state that there's no situation they'd ever involved themselves in.
Why would the second amaze you? Few of us are ever faced with either the decision or the opportunity.
 
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.
It is no longer relevant-- and there are reasons for the change.

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.
It is really an observation of something else.

In the old days, once a felon had made it into hill and dale, he was as good as gone.

Not so today. We have patrol cars, fixed-wing aircraft, rotorcraft drones, radios, internet data transmission, digital cameras, searchable databases, fingerprinting, DNA, and facial recognition.

The saying "you cannot outrun a radio" is now an understatement.

These changes were undoubtedly among the things taken into account in the deliberations that led to the rulings in Garner v Tennessee in 1987, which spelled the end of the Fleeing Felon Rule.
 
These changes were undoubtedly among the things taken into account in the deliberations that led to the rulings in Garner v Tennessee in 1987, which spelled the end of the Fleeing Felon Rule.
How are you equating the topic at hand with the use of deadly force to effect apprehension? It's Tennessee v. Garner by the way, a case about seizure subject to the 4th Amendment's reasonableness requirement. The case did not speak to the use of physical force to apprehend a fleeing felon, but deadly force. It's all about the totality of circumstances and whether the officer has reason (probable cause) to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the him/her or the public.

Yes, this ruling reaffirmed the shift away from common law, but I'm not seeing in this thread where we were talking about citizen intervention vis a vis the use of deadly force.
 
Last edited:
Why would the second amaze you?
Because one would have to be a fairly sever sociopath to watch seriously grotesque assaults and murders on women and children
(remember: no situation they'd ever involved themselves in)
and not have conscience enough to try and stop them if possible, and that’s surprising from a group of supposedly normal gun owners.

Few of us are ever faced with either the decision or the opportunity.

1: true - thank the Lord
2: irrelevant in hypotheticals


I think I’m going to do a self lock out this from here on out..
It’s been interesting... oh and see the red writing I the wig line below.
 
Now I regret the way I phrased the title. I didn't intend it to be clickbaity but I see it wasn't really accurate. The guy in question didn't really jump into a fight, he came in after the fact and tried to seek justice. I'll admit, wise or not I might attempt to intervene if I came upon an assault/battery in progress. But I can tell you some certainty that I wouldn't chase a guy down the street after the assault was over, especially if no one was injured. In the OP I believe the alleged perp pulled a gun on a woman but never actually fired. It was a tragic waste of life to die chasing someone after an incident in which no one was physically harmed.
 
And yet, your sig line talks about the Bible ... when JC himself consorted with, and tried to help "women like that."

Old Dog, I'm a single dad who owns a business. What little free time I have I spend heading up a ministry at my church that helps women who have been abused or are in other difficult situations by teaching them self defense and how to avoid those situations in the future. It's not as meaningful as sitting at my computer and passing judgment on people I've never met, but it's what I can do. I'm pretty familiar with my Bible and am pretty sure there's nothing in it demanding that after offering to help a person who clearly doesn't want that help, I insert myself into a situation where the person I'm trying to help turns around and backs her attacker in any legal action against me, which happens far too frequently and would most likely have happened if we intervened in the situation I described. You having been there, you know that of course. As far as me and JC, we're good, but thanks for your concern. I'm going to take a step back from this thread.
 
Last edited:
How are you equating the topic at hand with the use of deadly force to effect apprehension? It's Tennessee v. Garner by the way, a case about seizure subject to the 4th Amendment's reasonableness requirement. The case did not speak to the use of physical force to apprehend a fleeing felon, but deadly force. It's all about the totality of circumstances and whether the officer has reason (probable cause) to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the him/her or the public.

Yes, this ruling reaffirmed the shift away from common law, but I'm not seeing in this thread where we were talking about citizen intervention vis a vis the use of deadly force.
The point is that in both issues, the discussion hinges in part on the fact that a fleeing felon is no longer as good as gone upon his flight, given today's capabilities.

In the Hue and Cry discussion, it is about the fact that the felon will most likely be caught anyway.

In the Fourth Amendment case, same thing, except that there is also the matter of whether there is reason to believe that that's not good enough.
 
Last edited:
Because one would have to be a fairly sever sociopath to watch seriously grotesque assaults and murders on women and children
You did not suggest that that had happened.

(remember: no situation they'd ever involved themselves in)
...would have to be the case had there been no opportunity, right?

It doe not discuss what persons would not do.
 
Now I regret the way I phrased the title. I didn't intend it to be clickbaity but I see it wasn't really accurate.
No worries. You were influenced by he erroneous news headline.

The guy in question didn't really jump into a fight, he came in after the fact and tried to seek justice
That's the real point here.

I'll admit, wise or not I might attempt to intervene if I came upon an assault/battery in progress.
Most people would probably consider it. One would hope that they would understand their capabilities, and know enough about the situation to be confident that their actions would not make things worse (first, do no harm) and/or get themselves into a lot of trouble

But I can tell you some certainty that I wouldn't chase a guy down the street after the assault was over, especially if no one was injured.
Nor would any rational person who really thought about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top