Consideration in defense.....

C

cheapsk8

Inactive
Hey all. Been awhile since I've been here and been lurking lately, but I had to jump in here.
Not to re open a closed thread, but I was watching the Mc Donalds beating. Everyone jumped in and said they would have jumped in and did something.
Living in Canada, we can't carry firearms publically. I would have hesitated jumping in on this fight too, and here is why:
The two women beating the victem appeared to be of "questionable nature". I base this solely on their attire. My first thought is "if I jump in and get cut/ scratched and there is fluid transfer, am I going to contract HIV?" As much as I would have done something, I would of at least hesitated. This is maybe something that should be taken into consideration if a ccw holder is deciding to draw or not draw their weapon.
Just a thought......
cheapsk8
 
I hear you cheapskate, . . . but I also subscribe to the old axiom: "All it takes for evil to dominate, . . . is for the good folks to do nothing", . . . and I can't live that way.

I have some real reservations about the gay lifestyle, . . . transgenderization, . . . and all that falls in with that "stuff". But the person being beaten did not deserve that, . . . I would have had to have done something, . . . and let the courts, lawyers, doctors, etc. sort out the afterbirth.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
I don't know about the situation in question.

However, and this has gotten me in trouble on many occasions.

I would have jumped in just on pure reaction, someone is in trouble I help. Someone is getting attacked, I defend them.

If I would have seen the entire incident unfold, my response may have been different. But my fight or flight instinct is always fight.

While your concerns for your own safety are valid, I couldn't imagine looking at a broken beaten person laying on the ground when I had the ability and opportunity to help.
 
While I understand your concern, the chance of the type of fluid exchange that would result in a risk of HIV infection to a good Samaritan are extremely low. Your intact skin is an effective barrier, and the the only body fluid that can effectively transmit HIV in the absence of sexual contact is blood. (To the best of my knowledge, there has not been a documented case of HIV being transmitted by saliva, in spite of rumors to the contrary.)

The amount of good you can do in a situation like that just by speaking up could be enormous, but even if you have to physically intervene, the threats of injury far outweigh the threat of contracting HIV.

Good question, though.
 
TailGator, I'm not disagreeing with you, per se... and I'd be one of those who would be inclined to step in. Doesn't matter what started the problem, nobody should be stomped while they are lying there.

BUT... having been in a couple of minor scraps when I was younger, and working out regularly in the dojo to the present, I feel compelled to point out that the odds are not all skin will be intact if the assailants don't immediately desist.

Realistically, you have to expect to get clawed or bitten, especially in a girlfight like this.

But even with guys, it's easy to break your own skin when you throw a punch, let alone for the other guy to break your skin somewhere through his actions.

(Note: I train in grappling styles, so my first reaction is normally to contain, rather than strike, but even in Aikido - the way of harmony - Ueshiba said "Aikido is 90% atemi" meaning strikes or feints to set up a throw or lock.)
 
Having been read my Miranda Rights before makes me less apt to jump in if I don't know what's going on.

I plan to protect me and mine, and any IDENTIFIED, read that as uniformed LEO, good guy. Other than that I plan to call 911 and let them sort it out. We can sit here and think about what we would do, but we don't really know until it happens. Also, while one may want to jump in and save the day, there is a lot at stake and one needs to decide beforehand if the cost is worth it.

I have concluded for myself that society is not worth what it would cost me, right or wrong.

Biker
 
Biker RN, as you said, that's a personal decision.

I've already jumped into a couple of these things, in years past, and know that I'm not wired to watch somebody take a beatdown - especially a woman or a kid.

Mutual combat is another matter entirely. The video showed a beatdown. Not the same.
 
MLeake,

It's the same to me.

I don't much care what happens to a stranger. I will "care" enough to summon the on-duty constabulary, but little else.

Biker
 
Put it this way, if HIV transfer is that easy, and it's not, then I'm a dead man after 18 years as a corrections officer.
 
BikerRn brings up a good point of being a "good witness" in this situation. Especially for those who choose CC. ( i know this is a bit of thread jacking)

But, during my initial training as an LEO, it was brought up that as off duty officers, armed or not, that we had no legal obligation to interject ourselves into a situation such as the McDonald beatdown. It was referred to as being a "good witness" and protected by the Good Samaritan Act. Meaning, if we didn't want to get involved, other then the 911 call, to get as much information as we could for the responding on duty LEOs.

That goes to those who chose CC over OC in those states where OC is allowed. You chose to stay a witness, you aren't forced otherwise. However, in this particular situation, I don't think anyone would have been forced into any decision about jumping in or not.

All that said, there is no way, LEO or not, I would not have stepped in. Sooner or later, we all have to make a stand in good vs evil, or however you want to phrase it. For too long we've been a nation of political correctness, and it's made the good guys soft.
 
Guys, this is why it is a very good thing to carry pepper spray in addition to your firearm. A couple of sprays would have broken it up. Sure, the victim would have been peppered too but it would have ended right there (in this situation).
 
As noted there is no right answer this situation. For me several posters had what I believe is the best answers. A- call 911, B- be a good witness, C- make lost of noise honk car horn, D- as last resort use pepper spray or some other non-lethal weapon.

Thanks all.
 
I think my point may have been missed slightly.
In the original thread, there was talk of whether to jump in and physically break up the the fight or present a cc piece and discourage further attack with threat of force.
I was merely offering another consideration to factor into that decision.
Best,
cheapsk8
 
I agree that a break in the skin is certainly possible if you have to do physical combat. My first point is that someone who authoritatively steps in to such a situation may stop the assault without doing combat. More to the point of the OP's question, though, to contract HIV in such a situation would require that (1) the assailant have active HIV levels in the blood (meaning that they are both positive and not being treated), (2) the assailant shed sufficient blood to be infectious, and (3) you receive a sufficient amount of that blood into an open wound to become infected.

My field is veterinary medicine, not infectious disease of humans, so I don't know the required viral dose for HIV transmission, but it is not a very small number. Saliva exchange doesn't do it, and the amount of blood that is transferred from abrasion to abrasion is really quite minuscule compared to blood transfusions, so I would expect it to be exceeding difficult (although perhaps not impossible) to transmit the virus in that way. I hope I can phrase this in a way that is not considered to be too graphic by the moderators, but even heterosexual contact is a much higher risk for females than for males because of the direction of the fluid exchange.

The risk of HIV transmission in a situation like this is so minimal that I would not let it dictate my actions. I respect everyone's right to make their own decisions in that regard.
 
I can only speak as to Ohio. The question is, do you believe the person was at risk of death or serious injury? and: Would that person be justified in using deadly force had they been able?


That second one would hang you up, it makes you responsible for things you do not and can not know.
 
If the victim in this case had been CC and pulled and used it with lethal consequences I don't think anyone would question whether or not they were justified. Anytime it escalates to one person on the ground and being stomped in the head repeatedly bouncing your head off a tile floor, I would be comfortable with calling that a life threatening situation. Also, if you fear that you are in danger of serious bodily harm and not particularly death, lethal force is still justified in most states.

The part that is tough for me is, in the given situation, the victim would have had to have been already taking a prison yard beating for it to have been justified. The two attackers didnt have any weapons except their god given ones. Had the vic pulled the CC weapon and used to avoid any bodily harm at all then I imagine they would have one helluva time explaining themselves. Even if the vic just drew the weapon and that was enough to keep the others from taking the action they did someone from McD's would have been on the phone "Theres someone in our store with a gun!" Which IMO would again lead to an unfortunate situation for the CCW holder because you can't prove what wouldn't have happened, would have.

The suspect is charged with FELONY assault. I think a half decent lawyer ought to be able to prove if the were committing a FELONIOUS assault on you then you were justified in using deadly force.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top