Quote:
|
And... so you're saying that believing that the risk to health or life of a defenceless individual is not enough for someone to intervene in that attack?
|
I referred specifically to the use of
deadly force.
We cannot see who else was in the store, but we do note that no one attempted to intervene.
Quote:
|
Deadly force is not the only method of intervening: another poster recounted hold thieves at gun point until the police arrived.
|
That opens another can of worms.
What right would one citizen have to detain another citizen who had been kicking someone? What would the person with the gun do if the other chose to depart? This is very,
very rarely a good idea.
And in this case it would have been entirely unnecessary. The man was apprehended shortly after the incident.
Quote:
|
We all recognise that, those of us that are firearms carriers, drawing a weapon may be enough to end the threat.
|
Yes, and in many circumstances, it may not only be sufficient, it
may be lawful.
Quote:
|
Are we saying that drawing a weapon and bellowing "stop kicking that man in the head and step away immediately or I'll fire!!" is not an option?
|
Well, it would be, in Texas and in a few other states, if what was known at the time gave the intervener reason to believe that
force would be an option.
And it
would be an option,
provided that (1) the would-be intervener had reason to believe that the man he was trying to protect had not provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force; or (2) the person on the ground had abandoned the encounter, or had clearly communicated to the other his intent to do so, reasonably believing he could not safely abandon the encounter; [I]and[/I (3) the other nevertheless continued or attempted to use unlawful force.
The first of these is what would have required a third party to understand what had transpired from the beginning.
The second is a judgement call.
Regarding the third, the robber
did leave; the question becomes one of when the third party tried to step in.
Note that the aforementioned applies to the justification of the use of
non-deadly physical force.
...which, in Texas, would justify drawing a firearm. Not so in most jurisdictions.