Fight, a beating that won't stop!

[KS.45]

An instructor I know poses this scenario to his CC classes in Kansas.

There are 2 men (call then A & B) in a fist fight, B is now on ground and obviously not defending himself. A is astride B's chest and still pouring it on full force to the guys head. It now looks like B could be beaten to death.

You are a witness and licensed to carry. What do you say and/or do?

[Double Naught Spy]

If you are friends with the instructuor, why not ask him?

So what if you are licensed to carry?

[kgpcr]

let him know you have called 911 and the police are on the way. stay out of it unless he decides to come after you. When a perp hears the cops are on the way they dont want to be there when they get there.

[Blackwater OPS]

First off you don't know who started it, and that may make a big difference in your jurisdiction. In any case, you might not want to skip right to deadly force, but I would certainly intervene. Than again, I am 5'11 and 230lb, pretty fit, If I was 5'1 and 130lb I doubt I would do anything but call 911.

[KS.45]

The instructor's answer is to get 911 called, loudly ask a witness to do it if there are any. Verbally warn the aggressor, LOUDLY. End your statement to him with "Don't make me shoot you!"

Maintain control of your line of fire, do not intervene physically by shoving or kicking the aggressor.

If the threat to life is clear to you and there is no stopping the agressor verbally ... shoot the aggressor when you have a good shot that won't endanger others.

If B dies with you doing nothing but getting 911 called and it becomes known that you were carrying, you might be subject to civil action by B's family. If you shoot the agressor, the same thing may also happen, he will have a family too.

The instructor remarked that this is one of the things that that people don't often think about when they decide to CC. It's more than just you and your family that can be involved.

Always know that you can and will be sued in a deadly force situation. The more you are worth, the more likely it is that a lawyer will take the lawsuit on contingency. Even if you are cleared on the shooting by the police and/or DA.

[garryc]

That depends on where you are. In Ohio you may use force to defend someone if they would be justified in useing force if they could. That person must have had no part in creating or escalating the assault. That includes verbally.
I might pull him off, but no way I'd use my CCW. Even after pulling him off and he goes after me. It's a big risk because in Ohio it doesn't matter that you didn't know the situation, you are still responcible.

[cold dead hands]

Let's try this. You are C.

A is the one who attacked B.

B got the upper hand is now furiously beating the life out of A.

If you allow B to kill A then you are technically accessory to murder. The law may not charge you as such, but your lack of prevention in a killing makes you guilty just the same.

You have the duty to shoot to wound B. You aren't shooting to kill. You are shooting to stop the threat. If B dies from his wounds...so be it. That is what he gets for attempting to take the life of another.

A may be a scumbag, but B has no right to take A's life after he is obvious no longer a threat to B. A is beaten and B must cease his attack.

I say shoot B if needed to save A's life....even if A doesn't deserve it. That is what makes us better than A. C must rise above the level that A and B reside on.

[KS.45]

Either way in Kansas, if you have the capacity to defend a life, you can do it. Of course, the issue can go to what witnesses say in court.

But the fact remains you shoot, you don't endanger others by putting yourself in a position where your weapon could become a danger to anyone but the aggressor.

It's a situation fraught with "what ifs" and the advice was to focus on the immediate danger to human life and the need to stop the threat.

I think that putting the sights on the agressor's head and blowing his brains out might be seen by some as "over the top". But the danger to life needs to end once it is recognized.

This is the one thing about the class that gave me the most thought. It's a disturbing thing to contemplate when the implications are taken into account.

[Thunderhawk88]

If B dies with you doing nothing but getting 911 called and it becomes known that you were carrying, you might be subject to civil action by B's family.

Maybe that is Kansas law, I don't know, because I haven't read the Kansas CCW laws, but it is not that way everywhere. In our CCW class here we were told that we can use our weapon in defense of others if they are in extreme physical danger but- we are not in any way Law Enforcement.

For this situation though, after calling 911, if it looks like "B" is in danger of being killed then the Kansas instructors answer is a good one.

If you allow B to kill A then you are technically accessory to murder. The law may not charge you as such, but your lack of prevention in a killing makes you guilty just the same.

Wow, I don't see that anywhere in the law.

[KS.45]

In civil law, you generally must render lifesaving aid to those in need if you have the ability to help. That is true in this situation until the police arrive.

When the cops get there, put the gun on the floor and follow the nice cop's instructions. Have a cooperative attitude. But say only how glad you are they are there and tell them only: 1. ID info, 2. You are licensed to carry. 3. You had to act to save a life.

Say you want to make no other statement without advice of counsel. Other than that, shut up and contact an attorney.

[joab]

Wow, I don't see that anywhere in the law.

I think he is referring to a higher law

It is very plausible the A has lost himself in a moment of adrenaline induce fury
He may have just been in a fight for his life and the off switch has malfed for a moment
Simply diverting his attention momentarily may be enough to snap him out of it

If not you may have to shoot him

Last I cecked Florida did not have a good Samaritan law and our new law immunes of from prosecution and civil liability if we rightfully shoot someone

Figuring the instructors comments into the law suit risk assessment it would be better for me to shoot the guy

[KS.45]

The shouted verbal warning, and a laser dot. That's what the aggressor gets from me and the G36.

The next thing is bang.

And I pray this is something that never happens to me.

[Thunderhawk88]

Wow, I don't see that anywhere in the law.

I think he is referring to a higher law

That could be, and then that would be between you and you maker. The problem here is unless you are covered by good samaritan laws (and possibly even if you are) it's a no win situation for "C".

Ks.45, that laser dot could be a real attention getter!

[KS.45]

Think I'll add this to my sig.

A Laser dot transcends all language barriers.

[ssilicon]

You have the duty to shoot to wound B. You aren't shooting to kill. You are shooting to stop the threat. If B dies from his wounds...so be it. That is what he gets for attempting to take the life of another.

You don't have a "duty" to shoot anyone. Secondly, there is no shooting to "wound". A firearm is to be considered lethal force and DEATH is to be a highly anticipated outcome. These scenerios you create are not completely based in reality.

[jlwman]

In civil law, you generally must render lifesaving aid to those in need if you have the ability to help.

No...you don't.

[rbrgs]

Yesterday on another thread someone asked me how failing to intervene could expose one to civil liability. This is an old principle of common law, and it may vary by state, but you will probably get sued if someone dies, one way or another. I'd rather be hung for a ram than a sheep.
Certainly, I would feel a moral obligation to intervene.
In my youth, I was involved in some civil disobedience that used nonviolence as a tactic.
Nonviolence as a way of life includes be ready and able to stop violence when I see it.

[KS.45]

If you have the ability to assist and do not, you can be held liable for the outcome as easily as not. It's law based on neglect and indifference. Decisions like it are made often in civil litigation. Cases of this sort make the news commonly.

What's your explanation jlwman? Why is this not true?

[Brit]

Many years ago, 1960! sounds like a fairy tale, while working as a very new and inexperienced Doorman (Bouncer) in the UK, the exact scene described was taking place in a converted wine cellar in Liverpool, in my wisdom, lack of! I gripped aggressor, to pull him off... blow to my back, I had been stabbed.

Back to drawing board, new me, same situation, it happened a few times, first arrive mob handed, at least 4 of us, "Stand back" gain some space, kick with right foot, in to right kidney area, extract the two ex scrappers, dump in street. I worked there for 4 years, just a part time night job, new family, new house, extra cash. A lot of fights, you learn quick.

[The Tourist]

This goes back to something we pointed out a few weeks before.

You don't cease being the victim just because you're winning.

The guy on the ground might be a jacker with poor fighting skills.

From that standpoint, stopping the fight in any way means the felon might successfully attempt a counter-attack. Meaning it may have been better to let the winner finish him off.

For the sake of the debate, my opinion is that you do not have enough info to do anything but call the police.

[Scriz]

If I was in that situation, it would be a judgement call. But, heres my .02. This is my law enforcement training coming out, please don't mind me .

Reasons for deadly force

1. Self defense and the defense of others
2. Assets involving national security
3. Assets not involving national security, but inherently dangerous to others
4. Serious offenses against persons
5. Arrest or apprehension
6. Protect public health and safety
7. Escape

In this scenario, number 1 would apply. So yes I would use deadly force if my approach did not remove the "assaulter" from the "victim".

From that standpoint, stopping the fight in any way means the felon might successfully attempt a counter-attack. Meaning it may have been better to let the winner finish him off.

The Tourist

Whether the person on top is the one defending himself, defense should stop when the threat is removed. If the person who assaulted you is on the ground knocked out, this is not "defense" if you keep pummeling him.

Sorry for the rant.

[cold dead hands]

You don't cease being the victim just because you're winning

You don't get to kill your attacker just because you are winning. The only time that death to the attack is a legitimate option is when you realize that the attack will resume after you quit doing battle.

Meaning it may have been better to let the winner finish him off.

Lets take this to the extreme.

Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. America was the victim. However, retaliation was made and Japan was beaten. There was no reason to continue killing the Japanese. Should we have finished them off? The threat was over and there was no fear of the war starting again.

If it is obvious that the ''victim'' has turned the tables and is absolutely the victor than he has no right to destroy the life of his attacker. This is what seperates us from those who would seek to do us harm.

For the sake of the debate, my opinion is that you do not have enough info to do anything but call the police.

I bet the DA is gonna wanna talk to you as a witness to a murder and he/she will look in to your history to find out what kind of citizen you are. They want to know if you are not a criminal because it will affect your credibility on the stand after they subpoena you.

Now lets say that the DA discovers that you were legally packing and did nothing to prevent the killing. He isn't like to charge with anything relating to the killing itself, but some states do have good samaritan laws and you would in violation of that law. You are likely to face prosecution for that.

If you are willing to call the police because you are witness to a killer in the act, you had better be ready to deal the legal system for a while.

You don't have a "duty" to shoot anyone

That attitude is exactly the world is going to heck in a hand-basket. You may not be your brother's keeper, but you should have the moral integrity to save someone when it is obvious he is going to be killed unless you intervene.

Secondly, there is no shooting to "wound"

The attempt to save one man doesn't mean you intentionally kill the other. If the would-be killer should die from his wounds then that is just the way it was meant to be.

If you ever had to shoot in the defense of yourself or another and said that you were shooting to kill I bet that you would be hung out to dry. You say that you were shooting to stop the attack. That means causing potentially lethal wounds. You only shoot to kill when it is the ONLY choice that guarantees the threat will stop.

[joab]

Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. America was the victim. However, retaliation was made and Japan was beaten. There was no reason to continue killing the Japanese. Should we have finished them off? The threat was over and there was no fear of the war starting again.

Damn Hands, get ready for another cold day
Perfect analogy
Once the fight is won it is no longer a fight

If you ever had to shoot in the defense of yourself or another and said that you were shooting to kill I bet that you would be hung out to dry. You say that you were shooting to stop the attack. That means causing potentially lethal wounds. You only shoot to kill when it is the ONLY choice that guarantees the threat will stop.

It's warming up a little

I would never shoot to wound any more than I would shoot to kill
Using either term could bite you in the butt
You only shoot to end the threat noting more elaborate than that

[kgpcr]

Reasons for deadly force
1. Self defense and the defense of others
2. Assets involving national security
3. Assets not involving national security, but inherently dangerous to others
4. Serious offenses against persons
5. Arrest or apprehension
6. Protect public health and safety
7. Escape


Escape??? so you can shoot a kid who is running away after you told him to stop when all he did was something minor??
Protect public heath. Jimmy has a cold and did not cover his mouth when he coughed. Better shoot him
Aprehension, a bunch of kids are out having a beer in a park and you see them. they scatter so you can shoot them?? You law enforcement training must have been very very poor. Cops who have been trained like this scare the SH*& out of me!

[Thunderhawk88]

You don't get to kill your attacker just because you are winning. The only time that death to the attack is a legitimate option is when you realize that the attack will resume after you quit doing battle.

Excellent point. Alot of people get carried away with the emotion of the event and get into a "blood-lust".