Gas station robbery video, What would you do?

[OldMarksman]

According to a number of defense laws, it doesn't matter who struck the first blow, when one person is being injured by another to the extent of risk for life or serious injury, justified defense is present.

But under the laws in most jurisdictions, who initiated the conflict does matter--a great deal.

There are potentially extenuating circumstances, but they require assessment and judgment to be made under very stressful circumstances in a very short time.

Speaking here only on the subject of third party intervention, most knowledgeable experts advise that intervention should very rarely be attempted by someone who did not actually know what had transpired from the beginning, and the should probably be done only by persons who actually knew the apparent "victims".

That is excellent advice.

We have the benefit of a high quality video recording here that we can view one and over from a point in time the precedes the initiation of the confrontation.

Persons on scene would not have that.

A couple of weeks ago, a police officer in our area shot an off-duty officer at a crime scene. He was missing a very key piece of information.

In the past few years, there have been numerous accounts of third party interventions here and on other boards that involved misinterpretation of what seemed to be clear facts.

Not good.

You will not find me using deadly force to intervene in any situation of which I was not fully knowledgeable.

Or any one of the knowledgeable and trained citizens with whom I regularly associate.

In this incident, in Texas, where it is sometimes permissible to draw when conditions justifying the actual use of deadly force do not exist? If I had seen everything that we now we see on the video?

Well, I cannot say for sure, but I can certainly see myself drawing a firearm and loudly issuing a couple of commands, after the man was on the ground and being kicked and apparently unable to defend himself..

After I had looked around for possible accomplices.

[briandg]

Marksman, what you seem to be missing is that some, if not most jurisdictions allow third party intervention, and the requirements do not include having been present for the entire duration of the attack. Some jurisdictions require no more than seeing a man being beaten, maybe to death, in a situation where the victim is clearly unable to defend himself. During the first few seconds, and only the first few seconds, it isn't clear. After that, the victim is down and the situation changes from a fight to possible homicide. In my jurisdiction, as I read the laws, as a third party I am allowed to intervene when another party is facing probable serious injury or death.

I've said enough. The vicious beating of a defenseless man is what opens up third party intervention. It's pretty clear in many places.

Read and understand the laws of any place you visit

[Ton]

Ah, the unanswerable question, the elemental that 98% of the population doesn't understand: Real violence. People are fragile, and a person, even being unarmed and untrained, can easily cause serious physical injury, disfigurement, or death to another person.

Like most of the topics of conversation on this board, there are no perfect answers. If you have arrived at a point when you have to consider if a bullet is an appropriate solution to a situation, somebody has long since bypassed all the good answers. These types of things shouldn't happen, yet they do. And the courts will expect a witness considering whether or not deadly force is appropriate to have considered multiple factors and elements within seconds as the adrenaline courses through their body (or, in the case of the victim, their brain bounces around in their head like ping pong ball).

Again, there are no good answers. If you found yourself the victim or witness of this situation and you were armed, no matter your choice, you would have to answer to somebody. It may be your local law enforcement, attorneys, and a jury, it may be your doctor, it may be yourself in the mirror.

In my state, this situation would have been considered a robbery closely followed by an (probably aggravated) assault.

Looking at this situation in the light of a shoot or don't shoot "scenario", I'll offer the following as my "answers"

As the victim: I would have drawn and shot around 0:32.

As a bystander: I would have drawn and given verbal commands around 0:32. Trigger squeeze would have taken place around 0:38 assuming the same progression of events.

Given the disparity of force between the robber and the victim, in conjunction with the fact that the robber initiated the attack (although the victim DID block his way out), and continued to attack long after the victim had fallen to the ground, targeting the head and face almost exclusively, and employed several leg strikes and "stomps", I believe any reasonable person would conclude that the actions were likely to cause, at minimum, serious physical injury.

Again, those are my hypothetical "answers". Agree with them or don't. They are based on MY training, experience, and legal protections. I know several people would disagree, and unfortunately in today's political climate the demographic may cause unrest and political pressure to indict, but I would defend those actions to the county attorney or a jury if need be.

IF you don't like those answers (nobody should), a small can of pepper spray could have easily changed the entire dynamic of this situation in the hands of either the victim or a bystander.

[OldMarksman]

Marksman, what you seem to be missing is that some, if not most jurisdictions allow third party intervention, and the requirements do not include having been present for the entire duration of the attack.

All US jurisdictions allow third party intervention, at least under some circumstances.

None require that the third party be present for the entire duration.

What they do require, first and foremost, is that the third party have a basis for a reasonable belief that the person on whose behalf he has intervened is innocent.

That means that he has a basis for believing either that the person did not initiate the altercation, or that he tried to disengage and made that clear to the other.

It is unlikely that the third party could reasonably articulate a basis for the former unless he had been there from the outset.

Do you now understand the reason for my statement?

Of course, it he is unable to disengage or depart, that opens another avenue for justification.

The amount of force that would be justified would then hinge on the question of necessity.

A third party in the gas station would have seen a person on the ground, covering up and being kicked.

Yes, that can cause serious bodily harm. But "can" and "imminent threat" are not necessarily congruent.

People walk up and "see" what they believe to be the "vicious beating" of a defenseless, innocent person. In too many cases that have been related on this and other boards, what appeared so obviously to be the case has tuned out to be something else entirely.

When they are wrong, things go poorly, for them, or perhaps for undercover law enforcement officers or caregivers involved, or for the apparent "victims" themselves.

[Deaf Smith]

Marksman, I'm having a hard time understanding something. You appear to be clearly saying that a third party , seeing a man on a floor, in fetal position, being beaten and kicked isn't in a serious risk of death, therefore, there is absolutely no justification for possible lethal intervention? Repeatedly Kicking a man in the head would even qualify as attempted homicide.

Yes some people here go by 'book law' and not the real world. That is quite evident!

Deaf

[jmorris]

From the original story.

In the video, you can allegedly see Vanzandt beat up Archer.

Is that supposed to be a joke?

[Pond, James Pond]

You may be referring to the use of deadly force and if that is the only way you can envisage a firearm of coming into play, so be it.

The OP's question was "What would you do?"

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?

The right is that it stops that second citizen from trying to break open a man's skull with their boot.

As to them leaving, why should we don't care: they'd, by then, stopped trying to break open a man's skull with their boot.

That would have been the motive for acting, after all. Mission accomplished, call the paramedics and the police and let them both pick it up from there...

[JoeSixpack]

oldmarksmen, If you're being raped you have the right to use lethal force.
Rape is considered serious bodily harm.. but why?

Not all rapist have diseases, Some even wear condoms.. so no pregnancy either (although guys can be raped too)

So what's the big deal? I mean unless the rapist is particularly violent with you.
If you just cooperate you'll probably come out with nothing more then a few bruises and scrapes.

Of course you'll have deep psychological trauma.. Maybe that's why?
Ya it must be the unmeasurable metal damage.

Nvm I guess I answered my own question I mean It's not like the guy who was beaten in the video will have any psychological scaring, His injuries was all physical. /Sarcasm

I mean this is basically the logic you have.
And I hate to use rape as an example here but you seem to think just because a particular assault on you "COULD" be fatal but isn't always that it somehow disqualifies it for justifying lethal force.

Look the victim survived, It's not because the man who took his wallet showed restraint, If I had to guess he just got tired and left.


I've gave this example a few times but let's try it again.
You come up and punch me, I punch you back in self defense.. you fall to the ground.. by law how long may I now pound on you before im no longer the good guy?

Is it ok if I beat you to death since im just using my feet and hands?

What about if I break your jaw, your ribs, puncture a lung and give you a severe concussion? what if you eye pops out of it's socket?

What if I beat you to within 1 blow of death.. But I stop just short, you don't actually die.. so it's ok right? I mean you threw the first punch remember. You started it.

I'd really love to hear your answer on this scenario.. It ain't even hard to imagine.. just pretend the guy with the wallet thru the first punch.

That completely justifies the beating he received right?

[OldMarksman]

The right is that it stops that second citizen from trying to break open a man's skull with their boot.

I was referring to your comment "hold thieves at gun point until the police arrived ".

By the way that guy was not a "thief". He is much worse.

[OldMarksman]

Mister Sixpack, all of those questions have been decided by legislatures and/or by appellate rulings in superior courts.

Some go back for many centuries. It won't do much good to debate them on a public forum, and it would do little good to try to contest them in a trial court if higher courts have already ruled on the issues in question.

What the convicted sexual assailant agrees with them now or did at the time of his trial is not up for debate here.

What constitutes lawful justification for the use of deadly or non-deadly force has been the subject of deep thought by learned judges and appellate court officers for many, many years.

The laws have evolved over time. In the days of contact weapons, "retreat to the wall" was required. Until just over three decades ago, it was permissible to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon under a broad range of circumstances.

The things that brought about changes to those rules involved technological advances, as well as a broad expansion of the definition of felonies.

I would not rule out the possibility of further changes.

Two areas to watch, as indicated in my crystal ball:

1. the enactment of "defensive display of a weapon" laws in more jurisdisions; and
2. possible rethinking of when a defender would be justified in the use or threat of deadly force when faced with unamrmed attackers.

[K_Mac]

I think OldMarksman asks some good questions. The victim stops the thug from leaving. Why? He clearly isn't prepared or willing to fight. Had he drawn a weapon, or drawn and used a weapon, the case could be made that he feared for his life and was justified in using lethal force. The case could also be made that he used lethal force to protect the content of his wallet since the thug didn't attack until after the victim stepped in front of him. I don't think it is as black and white as some would like to believe.

Joe, throwing the first punch is a very dangerous decision that might get you killed. There is nothing in my wallet worth dieing for. There certainly isn't anything in your wallet that I would die for. Yes, if I had been there I probably would have intervened. I would not have drawn my pistol unless it was absolutely necessary though. Jumping into a fight, and then using lethal force is dangerous business in any jurisdiction.

[Pond, James Pond]

I was referring to you comment "hold thieves at gun point until the police arrived ".

I only referred to that in the context of a firearm being used, but without the use of any force, merely the threat of it.

Look, I get that embroiling oneself in a situation is fraught with ramifications and with the benefit of all angles offered and the time to debate the issue it is easy to see how many ways it could go wrong for the would-be good Samaritan, but when a man's life ostensibly hangs in the balance, there will either be the option to act, or do nothing be it sit back and watch with a pack of Doritos in hand, or making for the door or trying to be a good witness.

And I think that what sticks with most people on here is that such violence can be done to someone and, having chosen the responsibility of carrying a firearm, then not being able to use it as intended: to end a threat.

The fact is that if that person had been a relative or friend anyone would have acted way faster even without knowing all the details of the event.

Well, that guy on the floor, convulsing, is (thankfully not "was") someone's relative and probably someone's friend too.

That is the only point I'm trying to make and the truth is I have no idea how I'd react....
Cold analysis is in way shorter supply than one's sense of right and wrong in those situations.

My 2€¢

[JoeSixpack]

Deadly force is Deadly force, it is the end result not the method that matters.

A Gun, Knife, Club, Rock, Chain, Car, Bare Hands.

It's all the same, If I'm justified I am justified.

The problem you seem to be having is with the concept that someone who is on the ground defenseless being beatin could somehow be at fault and that the person doing the beating could somehow be in the right.

And Im telling you it wouldn't have mattered if the owner of the wallet had struck first.

I wanted WWUD scenarios.. a few people gave thoughtful answers and I thank them for that.

If your answer is I'd have done nothing as a bystander that's fine.. let it be that.
I don't know what you would have done as the victim. maybe you already shared it but if you did it's over shadowed by the debate on whether or not he's even justified to use force.

I think it's pretty ridiculous we can't even agree on that.

[JoeSixpack]

Originally Posted by K_Mac

Joe, throwing the first punch is a very dangerous decision that might get you killed. There is nothing in my wallet worth dieing for. There certainly isn't anything in your wallet that I would die for. Yes, if I had been there I probably would have intervened. I would not have drawn my pistol unless it was absolutely necessary though. Jumping into a fight, and then using lethal force is dangerous business in any jurisdiction.

I do believe you and anyone who agrees with your post has missed my point by a mile.

Once someone is on the ground it is not license to beat them.
Response must be proportional.. Imagine the owner of the wallet threw the first punch.. does that make the rest of the video justified?

forgot the wallet lets say there is no wallet, The white guy came in and punched the black guy, the black guy administered the beating we witnessed.

Black guy is good guy now?
That's not how the law will see it.

[OldMarksman]

I only referred to that in the context of a firearm being used, but without the use of any force, merely the threat of it.

Sorry, missed your point.

And again, in Texas and in a handful of other states, the use of a firearm to create an apprehension that deadly force would be used if necessary would be lawful--if force would be justified.

That is a fairly recent change in Texas. And in Arizona, people were being convicted of aggravated assault for even mentioning that they had a gun, if things had not reached the point where firing the gun would be justified.

Then they enacted the Defensive Display of a Weapon provision. Can't remember the year. But the use of force must still be justified.

That takes us to something very important that Bartholomew Roberts mentioned earlier in the thread. He was discussing the important balance point between when drawing a gun would constitute a criminal act, and when it would be too late to do so.

That issue is not confined to the strong-arm robbery of people waving their money around in Texas gas stations. It applies to all of us.

Read the following for a more comprehensive discussion:

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=536596

[OldMarksman]

The problem you seem to be having is with the concept that someone who is on the ground defenseless being beatin could somehow be at fault and that the person doing the beating could somehow be in the right.

That is not at all in question.

As a matter of fact, if two people were engaged in mutual, consensual combat, neither would be in the right, and both would be breaking the law.

In this case, there is no way that the person administering the beating could be "in the right". That is not in question, nor is it at all relevant to the issue.

What is relevant, and what has to be sorted out, is whether the other guy would have been justified in the use of deadly force under the circumstances. One would think so, but some details shown in the video that might call that into question.

And Im telling you it wouldn't have mattered if the owner of the wallet had struck first.

It would matter in Texas, and in all other US jurisdictions of which I am aware.

It has been the law for a very long time.

Of course, what transpired next could change the picture significantly.

[JohnKSa]

I only referred to that in the context of a firearm being used, but without the use of any force, merely the threat of it.

In TX, the use of a firearm to create the apprehension that deadly force will be used if necessary is considered to be using force. Not deadly force, but force. In other words, unless force is justified, you would not be justified in drawing and displaying a firearm.

Marksman, what you seem to be missing is that some, if not most jurisdictions allow third party intervention, and the requirements do not include having been present for the entire duration of the attack.

It's not a matter of seeing the whole attack as much as it is knowing that it is actually an attack.

If you see someone on the ground being beaten, it's not safe to assume that the person on the ground is being attacked unless you know the circumstances leading up to the beating.

It's entirely possible that what you're seeing is the result of the person on the ground attacking the person now doing the beating. In which case, depending on the circumstances of the attack and the duration and severity of the beating, the person doing the beating might be completely justified by law.

It's entirely possible that what you are seeing is the result of mutual combat in which case the person on the ground is not actually being attacked and both parties are in the wrong.

Speaking from the perspective of TX law, in my (non-professional) opinion it is true that once the beating progresses past the point that the person on the ground has any capability to resist and it is clear that he is in imminent danger of serious death or injury, a third party person would be justified in using force (not deadly force) to stop the beating if there were no other reasonable option for doing so. In those circumstances, if there were no reasonable way to use non-lethal force to stop the beating then deadly force might be justified. Not to stop the person from escaping or to punish him after the fact, but to stop the actual beating while it is still in progress. If the beating is over, deadly force is absolutely off the table as a legal option.

Just keep in mind that intervening with deadly force in a situation involving unarmed combat is going to be as risky (more actually) as using deadly force to defend yourself against an unarmed assailant. Unless the circumstances are extremely clear cut, there's a good likelihood for criminal prosecution and a virtual certainty of a civil suit.

[JoeSixpack]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

That is not at all in question.

As a matter of fact, if two people were engaged in mutual, consensual combat, neither would be in the right, and both would be breaking the law.

Both would be breaking but not of equal severity.

~IANAL

As I pointed out before and you choose not to answer
If someone strikes you and you strike them back, maybe even a few times and they fall to the ground that is self defense. NOT breaking the law.
The person who attacked you is guilty of assault.

But lets say you now administer a beating.. much like we seen in the video.. now YOU'RE guilty of Felonious Assault!

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

In this case, there is no way that the person administering the beating could be "in the right". That is not in question, nor is it at all relevant to the issue.

Well it is if we're trying to decide who's in the wrong before we take action.
The person on the ground is no longer in the wrong.. are they innocent if they attacked first? NO.. but once that person is on the ground and especially when they are no longer able to even bring their hands up in defense.. YA it's no a fight any more, it's not self defense, its' a very serious physical assault and the fact you can't seem to make that determination by at least half way thru the fight seriously makes me question your critical decision making.

Now don't misunderstand me here.. If you simply don't wanna get involved for fear legal or safety fears that's fine, It's your choice and you gotta do what you feel is best, Im not hear to browbeat you about that.

Big difference between I Won't and I Don't Know if legally I can

But I honestly can't phantom how you could not come to a decision watching that even if you came in after the first punch was thrown.

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

What is relevant, and what has to be sorted out, is whether the other guy would have been justified in the use of deadly force under the circumstances. One would think so, but some details shown in the video that might call that into question.

Please tell me how we can twist this scenario to make the guy on the ground the one in the wrong? twist it anyway you want.. maybe the guy had a suicide vest on? I mean feel free to take as many liberties as you need to make it fit.

[FireForged]

A foot stomp from a large adult man can generate in excess of 800 lbs./inch. It only takes 600-650 lbs./inch to crush an adult man's skull. The victim was very lucky he's not suffering from a severely cracked skull or dead.

It appears from the video that the attacker simply missed with most of his stomps, and he was wearing something like flipflops and not something with a hard heel/sole. Otherwise I would imagine the victim would be much more seriously hurt.

The basic sentiment that you seem to be highlighting is full of all kinds of -maybe, almost, sometimes, and could have been. I wont pull a gun based on a "maybe" or "perhaps". None of what I saw in the video caused me to fear for his life. If it had continued I may have felt differently but it didn't continue. The best evidence to support my impression being correct is the fact that he is apparently alright.

[K_Mac]

Joe, your comprehensive knowledge of the law notwithstanding, you have no idea of how the law will respond in your example. You don't know what the conversation between the two is. White guy punches black guy and says, "I'm going to beat you to death" while doing it? Since he doesn't have a gun to shoot him with, is the black guy beating him into submission a crime?

Have you ever seen a video of police bringing down a threat. Nothing proportional about it. Proportional in a street fight is nonsense. Intervening in a fight you don't understand is dangerous. That is all I have to say about that.

[briandg]

Under this law, it is plainly spoken that if one party was the first aggressor, but clearly breaks off the attack, and the second party continues the attack, a third party may intervene to prevent injury on the first party by continued aggression by the second party.

By the provisions of this law, I would be justified in using deadly force if I believe that it is necessary, to protect myself or another.

being on the ground in a fetal position while another person savagely beats on the first party is pretty clearly covered here.

563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:
(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:
(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

Again. Read and understand the laws.

[FireForged]

You don't think kicking someone, full-force in the head; repeatedly, is not life threatening? And leaving someone brain-damaged or paralysed is not reason enough for intervention?

Repeatedly can mean twice and it can mean 50 times. I will say that the specific attack method and duration that is shown in the video is [not] what I would call life threatening. Other people in other places might say it is..but I wouldn't. As I said earlier each blow is a new calculus and I might have felt differently had it continued. But it didn't.

Is he brain damaged? or Paralyzed?

I wager that of the fights you've witnessed of this kind where you've seen the victim alive and the end, you've never followed their progress and prognosis through the healthcare system to know which permanent sequelae he/she had.

You would be incorrect, the majority of attacks that I have witnessed were under circumstances where I did know exactly what the extent of the injuries were to the victim and how they progresses or worsened during treatment.

It doesn't need to be fatal to be worthy of intervention.

That depends on the type of intervention. If you mean pull the guy off the other.. I don't disagree.

A gunshot from a pistol is fatal in 1/7 of cases according to one ER trauma surgeon I saw give a talk on it. So, get shot and you'll probably survive, yet if someone pulls a gun, no one questions the validity of responding in kind.

I think that would be considered by some to be a precedent that could potentially be set by existing case law. If one form of attack is generally accepted as deadly force (without question) and the other required substantial qualification... that's your pickle.

[Pond, James Pond]

Repeatedly can mean twice and it can mean 50 times. I will say that the specific attack method and duration that is shown in the video is [not] what I would call life threatening. Other people in other places might say it is..but I wouldn't. As I said earlier each blow is a new calculus and I might have felt differently had it continued. But it didn't.

Then you and I have very different views on how resilient the human CNS is....

You think none of that could have broken bones?
Ribs? Ribs can puncture lungs.
Vertebrae? They can sever the cord...

How limp did the guy have to be before you'd think maybe it had gone too far?

Is he brain damaged? or Paralyzed?

No. He is extraordinarily lucky. The outcome has nothing in common with the risk that existed at the time of the attack.

And saying that he is OK so the attack wasn't all that bad is like saying:
"The bullet missed all your vital organs, and you pulled a gun in response?! Whaddaya?? Nuts?!"

But at least you recognise that, given the nature of the attack, those two possible outcomes you offered were well within the realms of possibility.

You would be incorrect, the majority of attacks that I have witnessed were under circumstances where I did know exactly what the extent of the injuries were to the victim and how they progresses or worsened during treatment.

Great, so you can tell me: of those that suffered a similar assault, or even a lesser one, did none of them need surgery or other significant medical intervention? That kind of medical attention necessitated by serious injuries?

And if so, would those injuries not have been reason for self defence?
If the case for self defence exists, I understand that 3rd party intervention is also permissible.

That depends on the type of intervention. If you mean pull the guy off the other.. I don't disagree.

Given the ferocity of the attack, do you really think laying hands on that assailant to "pull him off" would be the best way to a) end the attack and b) not become the next victim yourself?

And again we're drawing a line between acting to preserve life and acting to preserve healthy life as if it's a huge leap from one to the other.
It's not. It's a bunny hop. It's not only about if something is a threat to life itself. Gouging someone's eyes out is not life-threatening, so let them get on with it...

If the guy had died, loved ones would have wished someone had helped.
If the guy was brain-dead, loved ones would have wished someone had helped.
If the guy was paralysed, he and loved ones would have wished someone had helped.
Just because he's none of those, doesn't mean he didn't deserve help.

Anyway, that's my view....

[FireForged]

You think none of that could have broken bones?
Ribs? Ribs can puncture lungs.
Vertebrae? They can sever the cord...

what is possible and what is probable are not the same things. What "could have" happened is speculative and in my estimation, is somewhere below the evidence that I would accept as being "probable". You and I are simply different. Maybe people who have a responsibility to evaluate these things are like me and maybe they are like you.

Great, so you can tell me: of those that suffered a similar assault, or even a lesser one, did none of them need surgery or other significant medical intervention? That kind of medical attention necessitated by serious injuries?

In my mind.. serious injury would mean that which is commonly accepted to be life threatening or permanently maiming. If that is the context then I would say that I can recall 1 out of an enormous number.

Given the ferocity of the attack, do you really think laying hands on that assailant to "pull him off" would be the best way to a) end the attack and b) not become the next victim yourself

I would say that if a person is not capable of dealing with that level of violence, they should probably stay out of it. Just because they may not be able to rise to the occasion without the aid of a firearm is not really a good excuse in all circumstances. I am not all that keen on getting into the middle of someone elses problems and probably would not have but [if] I had intervened in this one, it would not have been with a gun.

[Pond, James Pond]

what is possible and what is probable are not the same things.

No they are not.

Are you saying that those blows would only have meant possible broken bones, and not probable?

For the record, a quick search online showed he was air-lifted to hospital, not driven, so the paramedics certainly thought he was in danger.

He had serious injuries to head, face and eyes and was in and out of consciousness. So no broken ribs, but perhaps partial blindness, a bleed on the brain or epilepsy were on the cards...

In my mind.. serious injury would mean that which is commonly accepted to be life threatening or permanently maiming.

So if it takes 6mths or so of physio and surgery to fully recover it's not serious?

I would say that if a person is not capable of dealing with that level of violence, they should probably stay out of it. Just because they may not be able to rise to the occasion without the aid of a firearm is not really a good excuse in all circumstances.

The whole point of firearms ownership, in the context of self defence is that, at the very least, it levels the playing field. Yet, we shouldn't apply that to help others such as Mr Archer...

Well, to each their own.