January 20, 2015, 06:49 PM | #51 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Posted by TimSr:
Quote:
If he turns and attacks you simply because thou took a picture, and if he has the ability and the opportunity to injure you seriously and if it reasonably appears to you that he is about to do so, you most certainly have a right to claim self defense. Whether you will prevail will depend on what evidence you are able to produce after the fact, and on what others say they saw. And if you do prevail, you may be seriously impoverished. Is it clear that his yelling at you would not suffice? And then there is physical risk--he and/or his accomplices could cause you all kinds of pain and anguish. Take a pic is a good idea, but it would be much, much wiser to do it surreptitiously. |
|
January 20, 2015, 07:16 PM | #52 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Tim, I did not mean to come across as argumentative, but I have become absolutely convinced of one thing. That is that one should always, always, avoid confrontations wherever and whenever possible.
I am very risk averse. There are two kinds of risk that I want to avoid: legal and physical. The first encompasses both criminal and legal proceedings, against which the defenses could be panlful and costly, and that could have extremely serious consequences. Regarding the second, we need to always remember that our firearms, even if we are able to access them timely, provide absolutely no ballistic protection against those whom we see and those whom we do not see. I hope this is helpful. |
January 20, 2015, 08:21 PM | #53 |
Staff
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 21,823
|
Be a good witness. Call the police, give description, direction of flight and ask for an ambulance for the victim.
There is a theory of mistaken defense. You see a fight. One guy is winning. You intervene and subdue him. Later it is determined that the guy who was winning was the victim and that he was besting his attacker. Opps!
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe! |
January 20, 2015, 10:07 PM | #54 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,617
|
Helping the wrong guy in the fight even happens to the police too, from time to time. This is why you must be MORE than just certain you know exactly what is happening, and who is who BEFORE you choose to intervene.
The law gives you the right to do so, but YOU have to be sure and your assessment of the situation MUST be accurate. Even beyond the potential physical risk and legal risk to your self, your well intentioned help could wind up causing MORE suffering instead of less. Never an easy call.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
January 20, 2015, 10:44 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 12, 2005
Posts: 2,536
|
Double Naught Spy
If he is still deploying force as he withdraws then jeopardy still exists. You see, now we get into reasonable belief. That can be a rough row to hoe. Is it reasonable to believe he intends to continue his use of force? What factors bring that conclusion? Convince the prosecutor. Jeopardy and Proclivity are the factors her. While he may still have the ability the other two have to be a reasonable belief. |
January 21, 2015, 04:59 PM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 447
|
Quote:
As much as I don't want to injured when it could have been avoided, and as much as I'd rather avoid anything which could (even mistakenly) land me in prison, I am equally haunted by the notion of having done nothing when I should have, and living with the consequences of my inaction.
__________________
__________________ NRA Certified Instructor • NRA Certified RSO • Certified Glock Armorer |
|
January 21, 2015, 06:41 PM | #57 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Posted by zombietactics:
Quote:
If you believe that you "should" intervene in a conflict, and it turns out to be domestic violence, and both parties testify against you and report you as having attacked them and you go to trial and jail, will you have done something that you "should have"? That happens. Or if, as 4V50 Gary suggested, it turns out that you intervened on behalf of a violent criminal actor... (no, we do not have to ask; you most certainly did do something that you should not have done). That happens. What if you intervention made matters worse for a legitimate victim, or resulted in the injury or death of an innocent third party? That happens. What if you are seriously injured and can no longer support your family or yourself, and they have nowhere to live? Will you have "done something that you should have"? That happens. And what if you are otherwise deprived of your livelihood and fortune as a result of your actions and can no longer support your family or yourself, and they have nowhere to live? Will you have "done something that you should have"? That, too, happens. You will not be the only one who lives with the consequences of your action or inaction or your poor judgment or your mistaken assumptions. |
|
January 22, 2015, 02:58 PM | #58 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
Quote:
Is there such a thing as citizen's arrest? How much force is allowed to detain the suspect in that case? What about the hew and cry? Does yelling "stop that man" get us out of bounds? If we can get a group of people to gang up on the bad guy are we instigating mob violence? The limit of my involvement in this kind of thing was helping a store security guy restrain and handcuff a shop lifter. It was even less impressive than it sounds. My main concern was not hurting the guy as we ground his face in the pavement and twisted his arms behind his back. I'd be very hesitant about using force unless the bad guy was small and weak, unless there was more people to help. |
|
January 22, 2015, 04:59 PM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 447
|
Quote:
All of your points are valid, and detail quite well many of the problems with real world decisions. There are countless "what if"s which can imagined on any side of any question. However, I do believe that "what if" is seldom the basis of good judgement.
__________________
__________________ NRA Certified Instructor • NRA Certified RSO • Certified Glock Armorer |
|
January 22, 2015, 05:04 PM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Quote:
|
|
January 22, 2015, 05:22 PM | #61 | |||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Posted by zombietactics:
Quote:
Quote:
There are so many, inf fact, that the only time I will intervene on behalf of a third party is when I know that third party very well and when it is crystal clear what is happening. Not very apparent, but crystal clear. Quote:
Rob Pincus happened to put out the following to today. This timely article is worth reading, slowly and more than one. |
|||
January 22, 2015, 05:50 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,525
|
That is a really good article by Pincus. Thanks for the link.
|
January 22, 2015, 07:32 PM | #63 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 447
|
I closely align with the following from Rob's article:
Quote:
__________________
__________________ NRA Certified Instructor • NRA Certified RSO • Certified Glock Armorer |
|
January 22, 2015, 09:07 PM | #64 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2013
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 3,047
|
Quote:
To those who would draw their gun to prevent escape, just stop and think what will happen if someone with your same ideas steps around the corner when you draw In their eyes, YOU could be the "bad guy with a gun"
__________________
One shot, one kill |
|
January 23, 2015, 12:07 AM | #65 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Zombie, I'm afraid you missed the main points of the article completely.
|
January 23, 2015, 12:11 AM | #66 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,910
|
There was a study done awhile back that showed police officers tend to shoot the wrong person (identify the wrong person as the bad guy and shoot him) more often than armed private citizens do.
The analysis indicated that the reason for the difference was that an armed citizen had a better chance of seeing the incident develop and therefore had a better chance of actually understanding what was going on, who was in the right and who was in the wrong. Cops tend to show up after being called to the scene and must make a rapid assessment of the situation with very little information and while under considerable stress. Not surprisingly it can be extremely difficult to do that accurately and sometimes mistakes are made. We have to understand that unless we see the situation develop and therefore have a reasonably accurate picture of what's actually going on, that there is significant potential for trying to rapidly assess a stressful situation and getting it wrong. Does that mean we shouldn't act at all? No. But it does mean we must be very careful about deciding when to act and how that action should be carried out. It's one thing to point out the wrong guy to the cops when the evidence and other witnesses will likely sort things out in the end. It's another thing entirely to end up in a situation where you would like to "unshoot" someone now that you know all the facts.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
January 23, 2015, 07:01 AM | #67 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,712
|
Quote:
I am glad you clarified your point, garryc, because your original statement... Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
||
January 23, 2015, 04:14 PM | #68 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 447
|
Quote:
I'm often enough in contact directly with Rob and/or his circle to believe otherwise.
__________________
__________________ NRA Certified Instructor • NRA Certified RSO • Certified Glock Armorer |
|
January 23, 2015, 04:45 PM | #69 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
In my opinion, the main points are, in addition to those pertaining to personal risk,
This one pertains to personal risk, but it is extremely important: That brings to mind something that is not in the article--the risk that there may be a "tail gunner" looking for someone who may intercede. I do believe I may have overreacted in my last post, but in addition to "personal safety" there is the issue of depriving those who depend on you of your support, in its entirety, either due to death or injury, imprisonment, or impoverishment due to the cost of a defense of justification. Which "third party" do you most want to protect? |
||
January 24, 2015, 01:11 PM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
|
Every situation has to be judged individually, and at the time, as to whether or how one is to intervene. There are no hard fast rules that apply to all situations. Any advice that begins with "always" or "never" should be rejected on that basis alone. There is nothing wrong with discussing the criteria you should use when making your decision, but in the end, it will be your decision, and you will have to defend it after the fact. Whether you do everything right, or whether you do everything wrong, there is no way to predict how the courts will see it. You have to determine the extent of personal risk you are willing to endure in order to determine the amount of action, or inaction your conscious can deal with after the fact. The most common standard to be applied will be whether or not your actions are deemed reasonable by a panel of Monday morning quarterbacks. Sometimes people are punished for doing the right thing, and sometimes people are rewarded for doing wrong. Be thoughtful and use extreme caution, and make a decision that you can live with.
|
January 24, 2015, 02:02 PM | #71 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Posted by TimSr:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Several summers ago, I made the decision to use deadly force, if necessary, to prevent an armed robbery,for the reason that it could well have turned much worse, in a small store. I knew the employees very well. A man buying one soda, not two, was looking out at someone whom I had seen acting as if he were 'up to no good"--and at the office where the cash was kept. My first thoughts were "backstop" and "clear shot", and I moved accordingly. In the event, I spooked the robber-to-be, and he took off, dropping his soda and his change. Did I do the right thing? I don't really think so. When I saw the accomplice parked heading the wrong way in the lot outside, looking around very nervously, and watching someone inside very intently, I should have driven out of sight and called for help rather than going inside. I could have been shot. And my intervention in the store could have precipitated bloodshed that would not have occurred but for my intervention. I did judge the situation individually, at the time. |
||||
January 24, 2015, 02:19 PM | #72 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,712
|
Quote:
A high percentage of people know there attackers and those attackers often are friends or family members. It is very realistic to consider the fact that if you do have to shoot a person in self defense or defense of another, that person may be somebody you know and it may be a friend or family member.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
January 24, 2015, 02:20 PM | #73 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
That's better.
|
January 24, 2015, 04:20 PM | #74 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 447
|
Quote:
__________________
__________________ NRA Certified Instructor • NRA Certified RSO • Certified Glock Armorer |
|
January 24, 2015, 04:25 PM | #75 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
A good discussion covering three pages and running more than a week. I think it's a good time to call it a day.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|