The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 6, 2022, 08:05 PM   #76
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,018
Quote:
If you reasonably become in fear for your life, you have every right under the law to defend it.
Provided that you meet all of the requirements of lawful self defense.

However, we have been discussing the defense of a third person.

Quote:
Again, how you articulate makes all the difference.
Much more important is the evidence gathered after the fact.

Again, I suggest taking courses from Massad Ayoob and Andrew Branca.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old February 6, 2022, 09:57 PM   #77
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,171
Quote:
Much more important is the evidence gathered after the fact.

Again, I suggest taking courses from Massad Ayoob and Andrew Branca.
Noted.

And what if a frog had wings?

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=270787

Last edited by davidsog; February 6, 2022 at 11:28 PM.
davidsog is offline  
Old February 6, 2022, 10:59 PM   #78
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,460
Quote:
Many states have liability protection for anyone who was not prosecuted if the use of force was deemed lawful.
That is true, but it won't undo things that went wrong as a result of intervening without understanding the situation. Injuries will remain, dead people will still be dead, etc.

And if the use of force was not justified because the reasonable belief turns out to not have been reasonable in court, then the protection doesn't apply.
Quote:
In many situations you are even covered in lawful use situations for collateral injuries or death. For example, an innocent is killed in a hostage rescue in a confined space of an aircraft.
LE has some additional protections that the rest of us don't. The biggest one is that their department goes to bat for them in court while we have to foot our own bill.

The situation you describe--where a person is acting properly and is fully justified and a bullet goes somewhere it shouldn't have is generally not going to be a problem from a prosecution standpoint because humans aren't superhuman. They can't stop bullets after they go through a target. They all miss sometimes. But it's important to keep in mind that there can be collateral damage--that should be something that is factored into a determination of whether to intervene or not.
Quote:
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.
I think it's almost always wise to control a violent situation and stop it--IF, and that is a huge IF--the intervening person truly has the capability and situational awareness necessary to ACTUALLY control the situation.

The incident with the cop and the group of people attacked by the homeless guy underscores what can happen if a person steps in without understanding the situation and doesn't (or can't) really take control of the situation. In that case, well-meaning intervention resulted in an innocent person being badly injured because the officer failed to control what happened after he stopped what he perceived to be an attack.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old February 6, 2022, 11:25 PM   #79
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,171
Quote:
That is true, but it won't undo things that went wrong as a result of intervening without understanding the situation. Injuries will remain, dead people will still be dead, etc.

And if the use of force was not justified because the reasonable belief turns out to not have been reasonable in court, then the protection doesn't apply.
Absolutely. One's reaction should almost never be to immediately go to deadly force. Take a deep breath, assess, and act appropriately.

Also keep in mind you cannot bring back the dead in scenario's you should have intervened. That is the nature of not having a crystal ball and why a reasonable man standard is limited to what that individual would have known IN THE TIME.

Quote:
I think it's almost always wise to control a violent situation and stop it--IF, and that is a huge IF--the intervening person truly has the capability and situational awareness necessary to ACTUALLY control the situation.

The incident with the cop and the group of people attacked by the homeless guy underscores what can happen if a person steps in without understanding the situation and doesn't (or can't) really take control of the situation. In that case, well-meaning intervention resulted in an innocent person being badly injured because the officer failed to control what happened after he stopped what he perceived to be an attack.
Good summary.
davidsog is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.03592 seconds with 10 queries