|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 5, 2022, 09:11 AM | #51 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,894
|
Quote:
"This is a court of law, not a court of justice." .............................................. (former LT, 20th Mass) . Last edited by mehavey; February 5, 2022 at 09:18 AM. |
|
February 5, 2022, 01:50 PM | #52 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
JohnKSa wrote
Quote:
And you need to understand the potential consequences. Even things are what they seem and if you are right and your action is lawful, you face
Your objective had better be important to you. |
|
February 5, 2022, 02:39 PM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,894
|
So just let the woman (in this case) continue to be stabbed to death...
...and be done with it. Don't get involved. Today, in fact, ... just video it for Facebook.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese |
February 5, 2022, 03:30 PM | #54 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
S
Quote:
Quote:
If it really, really appears to be a case of a true innocent being attacked, one might display a firearm--and accept the attendant risks. |
||
February 5, 2022, 03:39 PM | #55 |
Member
Join Date: April 27, 2021
Location: SE Mississippi
Posts: 92
|
FastTrip in Waco? I'm surprised he wasn't shot by more than one guy.
|
February 5, 2022, 05:33 PM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Reasonable Man standard applies.
Much of time, your wording and expression of the situation makes all the difference. Intervening to stop an attack by using deadly force or the threat of deadly force might not be the best approach or even legal in many states.... Most states have a good Samaritan Law to protect as well as encourage others to render reasonable aid. In this case, I would not have intervened with deadly force in defense of another. I would have confined my use of force to my own self defense. I would simply state that I attempted to render aid to the injured woman when her attacker turned upon me placing me in fear for my life. Last edited by davidsog; February 5, 2022 at 05:42 PM. |
February 5, 2022, 05:40 PM | #57 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,894
|
Quote:
....You have got to be kidding. At least I sincerely hope so. |
|
February 5, 2022, 06:56 PM | #58 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
The two are not at all related. If she were not lawfully entitled to defend herself with deadly force, no other civilian could lawfully use such force to defend her. I would not necessarily rank that very high among the risks in that case, however., even though the consequence could be life imprisonment. Whether the defender's use of deadly force had been reasonable and necessary would become the next question. In a criminal case the defender's burden of proof is to establish reasonable doubt, but on the ciivil side it is much higher, Personally, I would not be able to come up with the costs of legal representation, private investigation services, or expert witnesses, even if the criminal case were dropped at a preliminary hearing. And no one would pay for any out-of-court settlement recommended by my attorney. Does that help? |
|
February 5, 2022, 07:14 PM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,894
|
Moderator... I'm done.
...and so are those who would need help in such a world. My apologies to having extended the dialogue to this point. |
February 5, 2022, 07:18 PM | #60 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
|
|
February 5, 2022, 07:26 PM | #61 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,989
|
Quote:
Would it be reasonable to use deadly force to stop a group from attacking someone, knocking him to the ground repeatedly and hitting him with a large rock? It's important to know what's going on before intervening. So, in the OP's case, without knowing what led up to the situation, you don't really know what's going on. In TX, for example, under certain circumstances, a person may legally pursue a person who has robbed them, and even use deadly force to recover the property--again, under certain circumstances. There was a case not too long ago in TX where a man chased and then killed a prostitute who took his money and left without providing services. He was acquitted. I'm not saying that either person in that situation was exactly an upstanding citizen, but the point is that if you had intervened in that situation with deadly force--a situation where a man pursued a woman and ultimately killed her, you might have killed someone that was found to have been justified in his use of deadly force. Quote:
As I said before: The bottom line is that you'd better get it right and you'd better be able to take full control of the situation and all the people in it if you're going to intervene. It is definitely possible to make things worse than they already are and also to get yourself into a lot of trouble.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
February 6, 2022, 09:56 AM | #62 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
In your example, the cop did the right thing in stopping the violence. End of Story. The fact some attorney thought it he should posses some super-human insight outside of what the reality of the here and now presented is ridiculous. The only person responsible for the violence is the attacker not the individual who intervened to stop the attacks. That your profession would muck up that fact in the safety/security of a conference table sipping coffee does not speak highly of the direction you are sending society. |
|
February 6, 2022, 10:56 AM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 647
|
Besides the obvious factor of having no idea what's really going on in that situation, I have no way of knowing whether another witness has already called 911 and the police are going to arrive any second. Now when they pull up to the scene of a reported knife attack they discover an active shooter situation instead. I really don't want to be the guy with a gun in my hand at that moment.
|
February 6, 2022, 11:04 AM | #64 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
If you haven't thought about your reaction to LE showing up on scene as a CCL holder I highly suggest you do. Life is full of risk. Doing nothing and hiding is definitely the less risky path in life. it is a matter what you can live with and subjugate yourself too. Personally, I do not want to live in a society where my fellow citizens do not come to my aid when I am in trouble. Our legal system is predicated upon a "reasonable man" standard. My mind reading ability and crystal ball did not work very well in the Q-course. I simply had my ability to think, act, and my judgement to lead me forward in life. So far...it's been successful. If you do not think this deterioration of that "reasonable man" standard and the advancement of logical fallacy concocted in the safety of an office after an event.... Then I suggest you take just about any Human Resources training being given out by our corporations to see the dangerous path this is leading our society down. Last edited by davidsog; February 6, 2022 at 11:10 AM. |
|
February 6, 2022, 11:19 AM | #65 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
John's account is an excellent example of why one should never step into a violent incident without understanding what is going on. Last edited by OldMarksman; February 6, 2022 at 12:21 PM. Reason: typo and grammar |
||||
February 6, 2022, 01:19 PM | #66 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
I did not misread John's post.
The police officer was not responsible for the homeless man's attack on the woman regardless of the woman actions in defending herself. There are many examples of a good Samaritan attempting to stop violence and things do go wrong. That is life. It is not risk free. Quote:
Quote:
There are many more examples of things not going wrong. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Again, one must exercise a reasonable man standard and make your own decision as to what kind of society you wish to live in. One can "What IF" anything with logical fallacy leading to a rabbit hole. It is a fact that our Judiciary is the watchdog against such occurrences. It is what allows that reasonable man to move forward in freedom and forms the foundation of a social contract that says, "If you need help; someone will help you." What I said is not a personal attack on John or his profession. There is a appeals process for a reason as we are all endowed with the fallacy and grandeur that forms humanity. In both of these instances, the Police Officer reacted reasonably to the threat he encountered based upon the information he had in the moment. For that to be picked apart in the safety of a conference room simply adds to the tragedy. Last edited by davidsog; February 6, 2022 at 01:35 PM. |
|||||
February 6, 2022, 02:32 PM | #67 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The rest of your post is irrelevant. The Kleck study had nothing to do with defense of third parties. You have a lot to learn on this subject. I suggest taking courses from Massad Ayoob and Andrew Branca |
||||
February 6, 2022, 04:37 PM | #68 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,989
|
Quote:
Quote:
Because of his actions--specifically failing to take full control of all the people involved in the situation, he created a situation where a "bad guy" was able to hurt a "good guy". That is, an innocent person was harmed because of his actions. The point of one of us intervening would be to help those who need help, not to increase their chances of being injured. There's a lesson to be learned there. Quote:
2. There's no need for "super human insight". We can look at real-world examples that were at the time they happened, PRECISELY the reality of the here and now. We can ignore the examples and the lessons they teach, or we can learn from them. The point is that the world is a complicated place. There are no white hats or black hats to tell good guys from bad guys. In fact, both of the parties in a situation can be bad guys. Or maybe both sides may be good guys and there could just be a horrible misunderstanding like the shooting that happened awhile back in TX where cops were given the wrong address on a falsified no-knock warrant and a law-abiding homeowner ended up in a gunfight with officers just trying to do their job. If you're going to make it part of your CONOP to intervene in confrontations, you need to be aware of the potential pitfalls. You can end up on the wrong side of the law. (Such as would have happened had someone used deadly force to stop the guy from shooting the prostitute since his actions turned out to be legal.) You can make it possible for an attacker to hurt a victim. (As happened in the situation where the police officer intervened in the situation where a homeless man attacked a victim after the officer stopped them from defending themselves.) You can end up getting killed or seriously injured by an accomplice, or maybe even by one of the primaries. You could be killed or seriously injured by responding law enforcement--or by another person who thinks they are helping but doesn't understand the entire situation. You could be sued for intervening, even if you didn't do anything that was criminal. Quote:
People need to understand this. Not just on a level of "Oh yeah, I guess it can happen." but on the level of "Oh wow, this could end my life, or destroy my life and others, or cause an innocent person harm! I should be very sure that I know what is going on before I act." In the case of the officer who intervened in the group being attacked by the homeless guy, he wasn't even using deadly force--he just tried to break things up and instead a victim ended up being severely injured because the officer didn't correctly assess the situation, and more importantly because he failed to control everyone when he intervened. There are a lot of people out there who view the world as very uncomplicated. As in: "Oh look, a wrong is being done to an innocent. Because I am a good person, I will intervene and stop the bad guy and then there will be medals and hugs." 1. It may not actually be a wrong. 2. It may not be an innocent. 3. Being a good person has nothing to do with good tactics or legality. 4. Your intervention could harm an innocent (or multiple innocents) instead of helping. 5. You may not be able to tell who the bad guy is and therefore you may intervene on the side of the bad guy. 6. Your intervention could result in you being killed/injured by participants, by responding law enforcement or by someone trying to help who doesn't know what's going on. 7. Instead of medals and hugs there can be prosecutions and lawsuits. Or even in addition to medals and hugs there can be lawsuits. If you look back at my posts, I haven't said not to ever help anyone, what I said was very clear. The bottom line is that you'd better get it right and you'd better be able to take full control of the situation and all the people in it if you're going to intervene. It is definitely possible to make things worse than they already are and also to get yourself into a lot of trouble.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||||
February 6, 2022, 04:49 PM | #69 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 12, 2020
Posts: 1,177
|
Quote:
The laws are written to DIS-courage this behavior. The law is very specifically written so that if you involve yourself and end up shooting someone, you have better have gotten it 100% right, or you will pay the consequences. There is no pass for getting it wrong. I know Kentucky law so I'll reference it. If I'm defending myself, MY perception (reasonable man) standard applies. If I'm defending someone else, there is no reasonable man standard. The standard applied is the reality of the situation. My perception is now completely irrelevant. Maybe you should consider a LEO career so you will then have cover of law for helping people. |
|
February 6, 2022, 06:52 PM | #70 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
If you want to see it in action...Dial 911 Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
February 6, 2022, 06:55 PM | #71 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by davidsog; February 6, 2022 at 07:19 PM. |
||||
February 6, 2022, 07:00 PM | #72 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,989
|
A person can reasonably believe the wrong thing and that would, assuming the courts agree that their belief really was reasonable, keep them from being prosecuted. It wouldn't change what actually happened in the situation if they ended up killing the wrong person or creating a situation where someone was injured or hurt because of their intervention. Nor would it make them any less dead if there's a misunderstanding and they are shot by LE or another person trying to help. It wouldn't prevent them from being sued by participants who feel like things didn't go the way they thought they should have, or by survivors.
The point is that when people's lives--including potentially yours--are on the line, you owe it to everyone to make sure you know what's going on before you act AND that you understand the possible negative outcomes that can result from acting without fully understanding the situation. Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
February 6, 2022, 07:34 PM | #73 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
JohnKSa,
I edit'd my short response, adding more detail and during that time you responded. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You can easily have a situation where the officer is deemed to have used deadly force lawfully and deemed not responsible for the collateral death even though he pulled the trigger. The Federal Government is immune from lawsuits. In this case, a Federal judge will dismiss the civil lawsuit but order the Government into arbitration and settlement of the damages. The officer holds no liability. It gets even weirder in certain situations were you are expected to apply immediate deadly force without warning or identifying yourself as a LEO. |
|||
February 6, 2022, 07:36 PM | #74 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
it does not mean "I came upon the scene and saw some people pounding on a man, so I naturally assumed, having no actual knowledge of what had previously transpired, that the apparent victim was an innocent person entitled to defend himself, so I acted." That is not untested theory, There is enough case law on that to fill a law school course. |
|
February 6, 2022, 07:56 PM | #75 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
Force is on a scale. It would be reasonable in that situation to stop the violence. Non-deadly force can always be met with non-deadly force and at a minimum verbal commands. Verbalizing and verbalization skills matter. If you reasonably become in fear for your life, you have every right under the law to defend it. There is a plethora of case law backing that up to fill a law school course too. Again, how you articulate makes all the difference. Last edited by davidsog; February 6, 2022 at 08:03 PM. |
|
|
|