I fully grasp all that you mentioned.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,
And--they are fit. I am not, and I know it.
- 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.
That's not really the issue here.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.
"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 the notion that one cannot shoot until the last resort - life on the line.
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.Unfortunately, gone were the gallant and chivalrous knights.
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.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.
True.The man who took action in the OP's story was in no way acting as "prosecutor, judge, jury, and perhaps, executioner"
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...I have no idea why you keep bringing this up.
I cannot understand how anyone would ever think that chasing someone could help.He saw something going on, thought he could help, and took action.
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.there was nothing this man did that was unlawful
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.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...
I cannot speak for others ,but I cannot say that I would never "get involved".Some of you really don't need to keep reminding all of us what your reasons are for never getting involved.
NO! Each person should live within the law.Each man should live by his own code.
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.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.
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.I cannot understand how anyone would ever think that chasing someone could help.
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.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.
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.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.
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.I would never try to chase down a fleeing suspect.
Did my statement conflict with that? I think not.NO! Each person should live within the law.
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).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.
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.Consensus? Well, that would require all parties to have some common understanding of the subject.
Really? Do LEOs usuell recooemne that, except when they request assistance? Des the criminal justice system like the idea? Hint: very rarely.Everyday, ordinary citizens jump in to assist law enforcement officers, sometimes even saving lives.
That is, of course, true.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.
Surely you understand that in the general case, one person cannot lawfully chase down another without cause.Why would it not be?
Then why did you refer to them in a manner that is completely irrelevant?No, I most emphatically do NOT misunderstand the meaning of those statements..
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.
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
Which would change nothing.The person you just watched get raped may disagree.
You can't shoot someone because they are beating a dog to death.
If you want to be a "sheepdog" get a badge or join the military.
TOTALLY DISAGREE = the "sheepdogs" do not wear badges they just guard SHEEP.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.