In defense of others

[#18indycolts]

I spent 20+ years intervening in stuff like this on a professional level, I've got it pretty well figured out.

I'm not sure what degree you've spent doing it on a professional level, but (at least here in Indiana) police, either on or off duty or any other public safety person has what you call a "duty to act."

[David Armstrong]

FROM CREATURE:
The founding fathers weren't so much interested in self-preservation in the face of the most powerful and successful standing army and capable navy in the world ...and well as the king's judicial system as they were about "doing the right thing" for their children and grandchildren on down the line.

I disagree with your notion that there was less moral fiber and righteous indignation in the founding fathers than there was greed and personal gain.

Good, because I never said anything like that. Remember, it is always better to deal with what is actually said than to make stuff up.

From Mjoy64:
OK... I'll bite. I still have not formed an opinion on this statement as I'm interested in hearing your (more) complete meaning. I have not disagreed much with any of your prior statements, but my attention is pricked with this comment.
I (personally) find a lot of wisdom in many of the "founding fathers" charter thoguhts for our country.

So do I. But there is a tendency among some of the less informed to talk about the Founding Fathers as if they were some sort of heroic figures who stepped up willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of mankind, could do no wrong and such, when in reality they exhibited all the frailties and problems of most people. They included people that we would now consider con men, shysters, rapists, murderers, thieves, and so on. That does not diminish what they did, but to try to invoke them as some sort of Dudley Do-Right is incorrect.
Other than "the wild west" few elements of American History are more mythological in nature than the Founding fathers and the American Revolution. Washington, for example, apparently married Martha because she was the wealthiest widow he could find that would take him at the time and he was in desperate need of money to avoid loss of his land and possible imprisonment. Created quite a scandal at the time. But I'm sure that the mods don't want expansive history lessons here on Tactics and Training, so let me suggest a couple of books:
"Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong " by Loewen
"Don't Know Much About History: Everything You Need to Know About American History but Never Learned" by Davis

[David Armstrong]

I'm not sure what degree you've spent doing it on a professional level, but (at least here in Indiana) police, either on or off duty or any other public safety person has what you call a "duty to act."

And I'll bet if you talk to those police officers that have been on the job for twenty years they'll overwhelmingly tell you just what I and other here have said...tread softly and slowly, and avoid when you can.

[skydiver3346]

I can't believe all the B.S. I am reading on this subject that Floydpink was trying to explain in his original thread. Are we men or mice?

You come upon a ongoing felony of innocent people, you call the police before doing anything (if you have the seconds to do that). Then depending on the crime being committed, you should (your decent responsibility) take action. As someone mentioned earlier, "what if that was your wife, daughter, mother, etc being beaten, robbed, raped".... You know that you would want someone to do something to save their lives and/or a trip to the ER.

You always need to be prepared mentally for things like this. Sure its hard to try and figure out all the scenarios of "what could happen" if you decide to intervene, but we are human beings and MEN! Grow a pair and stand up for your fellow citizens and do what is definitely right.
First of all, stop the attack from going further by confronting the attacker verbally and in a loud command. Act like you are in charge and mean it with your voice and look. If the attack continues, draw your weapon and warn them again. If they continue or turn and come towards you, give them their last warning. If they still continue the fight (I seriously doubt it will after this) then you must act accordingly and defend yourself and the victim.
You can then explain to the law enforcement folks when they arrive what actually went down. That is the way I see this and what I plan to do if it ever happens to me. Sure hope it doesn't but I know I will do the right thing, no matter the consequences. The alternative is do nothing and that is not acceptable to decent men.

[stilettosixshooter]

The alternative is do nothing and that is not acceptable to decent men.

There are lots of very articulate, well-reasoned responses posted here by folks who feel otherwise. I truly do not believe that they would opt not to intervene because they are "mice" or plan to "do nothing." It is a question of what course of action is best - depending on a number of complicated, difficult questions that must be answered in a split-second.

If I am being attacked by someone, I think it will probably be rather clear who the BG is. But that still doesn't mean I want any random person to fire upon my assailant if it could further endanger my life. I am confident that yelling and/or calling the police to give them specific information about the BG is more than appropriate, and I would be eternally grateful for that non-violent action.

Moreover, if it is NOT clear who the BG is, or if you think you know but are WRONG, taking lethal action is more than unadvisable. Not because anyone is a 'fraidy cat, but because you are potentially risking an innocent person's very life.

I do think a person has a moral obligation to call the police and/or keep an eye on the situation from a safe distance so you can give LE information. I wouldn't simply turn a blind eye to a situation that makes me uncomfortable, and I would hope others would agree. But that's a moral decision - the other is a question of situational reality.

[skydiver3346]

Yada, yada, yada, etc. I don't think I would want you on my side in a serious confrontation. We all have a responsibility to protect the weak and defend ourselves. If you took the time to actually read my response you would see that I mentioned "you should yell and confront the bad guy by a stong voice command". By the eay, its pretty clear to me who the bad guy is if he is coming after me just because I stop him beating a woman and/or committing this felony....
What are you going to do if he comes after you, to commit further damage? Run away? It's nothing personal with you. Just that I am really getting tired of reading the papers and evening news about the murders, rapes, crime increasing, etc. and no one ever doing much about things when they have the chance and/or ability to do so. Everyone is worried about lawyers, etc. etc. If you come upon someone committing a felony attack, you are obligated to try and stop it. If not, who are we then? You just can't have it the way you want it perfectly. You should act and follow a similar sequence I originally discussed. By the time you try and figure out how to "cover your ass" so you won't get in trouble, the victim is probably already beaten too badly or worse.......... Think about it, it could have been your loved one. For sure, it was somebody else's loved one.

[pax]

Skydiver ~

It's not a matter of "covering your ass" as you so delicately put it. It's a matter of being very, very certain that you do not kill an innocent person when you don't have all the facts.

Of course if you are certain of the circumstances -- so certain that you are willing to bet your entire life on it -- then by all means step in. That's what a good person would do, and it's certainly what I would expect of anyone with the ability to do it.

By the way, your planned tactics suck. Just ask Dan McKown.

pax

[OldMarksman]

What are you going to do if he comes after you, to commit further damage? Run away?

Better know your state laws. In many states, including mine, if someone "comes after me [or you]" unprovoked, yes, you or I do have a duty to retreat if possible. The principle goes back centuries.

Now, if you had stepped into it, it may not be considered unprovoked. At that point your ability to justify the use of deadly force as an action of self-defense is almost certainly gone--in all states.

Of course, if the person was in fact committing a violent felony before you stepped into it, that's something else again.

And that is what PAX is driving at.

You think you see a felon attacking someone. Perhaps you've actually come upon someone legally defending himself or herself from an attack that you did not see. Perhaps what you see is someone tying to save another from swallowing poison or choking. Perhaps you are witnessing an arrest in progress.

And no, if the person with whom you interfere is then "coming after" you, that adds absolutely no clarity to the question of who the "bad guy" is.

In fact, if the person whom you believe to be "coming after you" is now in fact defending himself or herself against you, you may now be the "bad guy."

And that's not just in the eyes of the law. It's in the eyes of reasonable persons judging the facts objectively.

But if you are certain of the circumstances, as PAX says, do what you need to do, knowing that you may get maimed or killed in the process.

In between? Well, if it turns out that you have come upon a domestic dispute, even if one person was injuring the other, you may find that both are eager to sign a complaint against you, and you will be on your own.

GSUEagle put it pretty well:

I think everyone can agree that the ONLY way to approach this situation is with a cool, level head. Know your state's laws thoroughly. Your response is your choice but as someone stated earlier when you use deadly force you are gambling your freedom and your ability to provide for your family, choose your course of action with this in mind.

[Splat!!]

Act like you are in charge and mean it with your voice and look. If the attack continues, draw your weapon and warn them again. If they continue or turn and come towards you, give them their last warning. If they still continue the fight (I seriously doubt it will after this) then you must act accordingly and defend yourself and the victim.

When you do this , call me and I will send you some cookies for you and bubba to share...

[skydiver3346]

Hi Pax, (am just stating my opinion like everyone else is all)

I understand what you are stating and agree with you to a degree.
Of course, I would make sure that it was a situation that required "more serious response" before I would ever use a weapon. Please re-read my post. I did not say I was going to "kill" someone as you mentioned. I just said that I was going to intervene on the victims behalf instead of just standing there trying to figure out what the heck I'm goning to do (so I won't get in trouble for helping victim). By then as i stated earlier, it may be too late if you wait to figure everything out just to make sure you got all your bases covered? If said perp decides to attack me because I break up his assault, then I will give him a loud and severe verbal warning while backing up. If it still progresses to the point where I feel my life is threatened, then I will respond accordingly, Thats it.

I am really getting sick and tired of the low lifes in this country thinking they can get away with anything and nobody will do anything about it. It happens everyday here in Florida, (my city happens to be the murder capital of the state). Crime is rampant and these criminals are put in jail and then released to commit the same or worse crimes later.
I can promise you this, I plan to be ready at all times and am prepared. Hopefully that day never comes. But I will be ready to respond if I feel it is warranted, you can count on that. That is my personal opinion.

[stilettosixshooter]

I just said that I was going to intervene on the victims behalf instead of just standing there trying to figure out what the heck I'm goning to do (so I won't get in trouble for helping victim).

Agreed. I think most people would agree with you there.

I think most of the posts advocating a "non-interventionist" perspective were made (1) out of concern of using a firearm against someone who may or my not actually be a BG, and (2) with a nod to the legal ramifications as they pertain to the use of deadly force. If you aren't discharging a weapon, the legal ramifications aren't as considerable (unless you assault someone, and even then we are talking about a misdemeanor in most instances).

By "non-interventionist," I, for one, specifically mean not intervening with a firearm. Yelling, announcing your contact with the police, and/or calling the police are all what I consider to be non-intervening actions - they have the capacity to stop an aggressor but, other than directing a BG's focus on you, they probably will not further endanger someone involved.

Certainly, we are all against the BGs. No question about that.

[David Armstrong]

Grow a pair and stand up for your fellow citizens and do what is definitely right.

There is the basic problem, figuring out what is definitely right. Often it isn't particularly clear what is right.

Sure hope it doesn't but I know I will do the right thing, no matter the consequences. The alternative is do nothing and that is not acceptable to decent men.

There are lots of decent men who disagree with that idea.

Just that I am really getting tired of reading the papers and evening news about the murders, rapes, crime increasing, etc.

In most parts of the country and in the U.S. overall, murders, rapes, and other crimes are decreasing, not increasing.

[skydiver3346]

I apologize if I came across a little overboard.
I feel that we all have a responsibility to respond to folks in trouble and being assaulted (in the case mentioned earlier, it was a woman).
It is nothing personal with anyone's comments, but I have my way to respond to this situation, (others have their way's).

This is the bottom line to me: Sometimes when you intervene and try to stop a mugging, rape, brutal attack, etc. then you may have to follow up with more agressive responses if it ends up going that direction. It may entail you having to (hopefully not) use your concealed weapon to end the confrontation. I never said you should just walk up and pull out your gun without knowing all the facts. But I feel you have to act in someway to end the violence. Unfortunately if it ends up escalating to where they don't stop the assualt on the victim (after you have yelled and verbally warned them) I feel you need to take some kind of immediate and decisive action. It should not take a long time to do this as time could be running out on the victim. If the perp then attacks you for helping the victim, then so be it. Use whatever force you feel is required to end the situation, (even if it means using your weapon). Why do we carry our guns anyway? To protect yourself and your family from harm.

[stilettosixshooter]

Often it isn't particularly clear what is right.

Absolutely. Or, even worse - it appears to be VERY clear, but the appearance was 100% misleading.

[David Armstrong]

Or, even worse - it appears to be VERY clear, but the appearance was 100% misleading.

Exactly. As just one example, as a LEO I rolled on "rape in progress" calls twice that turned out to be couples spicing up their love life with a little role play.

[stilettosixshooter]

As just one example, as a LEO I rolled on "rape in progress" calls twice that turned out to be couples spicing up their love life with a little role play.

A good reminder to all of the public to keep it indoors, please!

Or, at least, the volume down!

[David Armstrong]

A good reminder to all of the public to keep it indoors, please!

One was, complete with "BG" crawling in the window wearing a ski mask.

[Creature]

Good, because I never said anything like that. Remember, it is always better to deal with what is actually said than to make stuff up.

I didnt make anything up. I understand exactly what you inferred. So do the rest of the readers in this forum.

Exactly. As just one example, as a LEO I rolled on "rape in progress" calls twice that turned out to be couples spicing up their love life with a little role play.

As for rolling up on two couples engaging in spicy role-playing sex, I am sure that their behavior did not pass the "reasonable person" test. Seems to me that any witness can only be expected to follow that criteria when confronted with those circumstances. Kinda like the abduction/kidnapping pranks we have all heard about. Would you as a citizen assume that these situations are just a pranks from the outset? Would you assume the same while on duty as a LEO?

[Marty Hayes]

For all of you pontificating on this subject, answer this question please.

Are you in a jurisdiction where you "stand in the shoes" of the 3rd party you are purportingly defending, or are you in a jurisdiction where you must simply "act like a reasonable person" when coming to the defense of another?

If you cannot answer this question, then I submit you had better spend some time researching this topic, because to get the answer wrong, means perhaps a long time in prison.

[David Armstrong]

I didnt make anything up. I understand exactly what you inferred.

Pretty much by definition if you are responding to what you think is inferred, you are making things up instead of responding to what is actually said. And in this case your inference is grossly incorrect.

Seems to me that any witness can only be expected to follow that criteria when confronted with those circumstances.

And that is the point so many are making here. What you are seeing may not be what you think it is, so go softly and slowly.

[David Armstrong]

Are you in a jurisdiction where you "stand in the shoes" of the 3rd party you are purportingly defending, or are you in a jurisdiction where you must simply "act like a reasonable person" when coming to the defense of another?

I know the answer for my jurisdiction, and that is a great point. Heard you did a great presentation at Tulsa, BTW.
CRASS COMMERCIAL PLUG: I work with some criminal defense attorneys as a consultant, so I have easy access. For those who are not in as fortunate a situation, Marty's Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network is something you should look into. Given many of the responses in this thread and in others, it might be one of the best investments you make.

[csmsss]

Advice to "always" do something is generally as poor as advise to "never" do something.

As to what to do: Weigh each situation and act accordingly. I'm in the camp that leans more toward intervention, as it turns out, but not always or even most of the time.

This is STILL the most intelligent and useful post in this thread. Good judgment and clear thinking and the ability to formulate and act upon the correct action are far more important than trying to memorize all possible responses to unlikely hypothetical scenarios.

[pax]

CRASS COMMERCIAL PLUG: I work with some criminal defense attorneys as a consultant, so I have easy access. For those who are not in as fortunate a situation, Marty's Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network is something you should look into. Given many of the responses in this thread and in others, it might be one of the best investments you make.

I'll second that comment! The DVDs that come with membership in the Armed Citizens' Network are alone worth the cost of joining up.

pax

[OldMarksman]

You... [(David Armstrong)] have admonished us that what we see may not always be what we think we are seeing...and that we should not intervene.

Actually, what I believe David advised was to "go softly and slowly"; earlier, he said that police officers themselves will echo the advice to "tread softly and slowly, and avoid when you can".

And police officers, who are sworn to enforce and uphold the law, are afforded legal protections that the civilian does not have.

If David were the only source of that advice, I would be strongly inclined to heed it.

But he is by no means alone in making that admonishment. Where I live, it is permissible under the law for a civilian to use deadly force to protect a third party under certain circumstances. However, attorneys and most CCW instructors I know recommend very strongly against it for the reason you mention: what one "sees" may not be what one thinks it is. Mas Ayoob makes the same case in Chapter 4 of In the Gravest Extreme. A former policeman I know tells me that the only time his gun will ever come out is when he is "about to die."

Do not infer from that that I would not intervene if necessary to prevent the continuation or completion of a most heinous assault if I knew the facts and if there was no other reasonable alternative.

That is the limit of my knowledge, and I think it behooves me to learn more about Marty Hayes' comment in case the need to decide should ever arise in another state I might be visiting.

[Creature]

You are implying that I recommended using ONLY deadly force when interveneing...which I did not.