Do YOU intervene?

Status
Not open for further replies.
This bears repeating: If you're thinking of posting "screw the law, do it anyway" posts, don't bother, because you probably won't be around TFL long enough to read any replies.

Just a word to the wise from your friendly forum moderator. ;)

I'm tempted to close the thread at this point, because really, what remains to be said that hasn't been said already? But we'll leave it open a bit longer. Please re-read hogdogs' excellent post #100 -- and carefully consider what it means -- before you post.

pax
 
I stopped an armed robbery...sort of

When I was 17 yrs 185 lbs a friend and I were working at a pizza joint and we saw some numb nuts "hiding" behind a paper box until all the customers walked out of the gas station.
He walked in with the gun out and pointed. We had the store call 911 and hid by the door behind a car till he ran out with a small bag of cash.
We chased him quietly behind the store and group tackled him when he stopped to take of the mask and store his gun in his belt. He didn't see us coming and did not even know who we were until my boy took off his belt and hog tied him (he was 5'10 and 250lbs). The store owner came out the back door with the phone and stood on the BG's gun till the cops came. He was a 14 yr old little brother of a friend of ours.
If that happened now I would call the cops and stay the hell in the pizza place, or at most I would go out our back door and hide in a spot around the building to get another/better description and direction of travel.
A CCW wont make me a crime fighter, and age has burned the worlds cruel truth that I will probably never get another dumb luck day again.
If someone comes into a store I'm in and shows intent, capability and opportunity I will put them down the first chance I have the tactical high ground but until then it will stay in the holster.
 
just for clarification AGAIN...im not saying he was right in brandishing a firearm...i would not have chosen this method...Personally i would have apprehended him using other means and probably would be facing assault charges instead! cuzz hey thats what america is about right guilty until PROVEN innocent, or wait i mean ahhh ya!

not saying it was legal what he did...
What i AM saying is that its sad that you are all blaming the guy who was TRYING to do the right thing and no one here has spoken up and said good for that slimy dirtbag for stealing a bag from a defenseless homeless person!

OUR United States of America once was founded and based upon doing THE RIGHT THING...not anymore because of turn the other cheakers and tree huggers who would soil themselves at first sight of a "bad situation".

MLEAKE: again i appreciate your contribution to this fine yet confused country but how can you say trying to do the right thing should be punishable by laws? how many bombs have you dropped on bad people for breaking OUR laws in their own countries? ALL in the name of what is MORALLY right...not legally right.

AGAIN: never would i suggest breaking gun laws because THAT my friends is what has gotten us where we are today. but do what you feel is right in your HEART and you should not be punished when your life comes to an end. Im not religious but somehow we will all answer somewhere.

LOVE you all and hope none of us ever have to be in a situation where WE feel the need to unconceal our weapon.
 
What I am saying...

... is not that people should just watch bad things happen.

However, in many if not most cases the best thing to do is call 911. Unless imminent harm to an innocent will occur if immediate action isn't taken, there is no pressing need for physical engagement in an event where we may not know all pertinent facts.

How do I know the homeless guy isn't yelling that some guy took his bag because he's mad the guy wouldn't give him some change?

How do I know the guy who's shoving the woman didn't just get attacked by her? (Note: buddy of mine was a bouncer in Daytona; he ko'ed a woman once, because she came at him with a folding knife. It would have been easy for bystanders to fail to notice her attack with that knife; imagine if Samaritan #1 had seen THIS from the wrong angle...)

Now, if I see a guy knock a little old lady off her walker and take her purse, then I'm probably chasing him down unless she's obviously injured and in need of immediate attention. Then again, depending on her age and health, it might be wiser to assume she's hurt, and stay with her until help arrives.

As far as your bomb-dropping analogy goes, that dropped bomb had BETTER be legally right, or the pilot is screwed. That's why we have laws of war, and rules of engagement - both to help us determine what targets are lawful, and to defend our actions after the fact if necessary. Intentionally attack a protected target, without legal justification, and now you're talking war crimes.

Note: If combatants are storing munitions at a hospital or mosque, or actively engaging friendlies from same, that "protected target" may well be declared a legal target. Status changes with changing conditions, not unlike in regular life.

BTW, three subjects I have had a LOT of training in are Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC), CJCS Standing (and theater-specific) Rules of Engagement (ROE), and target identification.

Note: in addition to flying planes, I was also a Ship's Weapons Coordinator and a Tactical Action Officer (the Navy makes pilots do disassociated tours as ship's company, to round us out or make us appreciate the surface navy.) From that perspective, there would be few feelings worse than realizing the aircraft one had thought to be an enemy fighter inbound for an anti-ship cruise missile attack, and had ordered shot down by SAM's, was actually an airliner. Target identification is crucial; see "Vincennes."

To put it into EOD perspective: Would you find it prudent to go straight at a device without first setting a perimeter, looking for a second device, identifying persons in area and watching for a possible remote detonation setup? Would you use a rifle to blow a small device without first making sure there weren't larger, secondary devices likely to be tripped by the induced detonation? I'm guessing your answer would be no, you'd want to know the situation first...

To go back to street scenarios:

I would put it to you that I would feel more endangered by a guy who draws a weapon without full possession of facts than by a purse (or duffel) snatcher. I might (and probably would) find the snatcher to be slimier, but the guy with the gun is by far the more dangerous.

Samaritan #1 got very lucky. He didn't have to shoot a petty thief, so he's not facing truly serious charges. He also didn't get shot by Samaritan #2, which was also very lucky - for both Samaritans. Potential worst cases here were really, really bad.

If Samaritan #1 had not drawn a gun, worst case would have been that a dude would have run away with a stolen duffel.

These are not remotely comparable. Drawing his weapon without need and without a full picture was not the right thing to do, it was reckless. It also happened to be illegal.
 
just for the record i support our troops...ive been one

my question about the bombs and war were from the position that: do you think the IRAQI government thought it was LEGAL for us to bomb them?

we as a USA people are biased to the belief that WE ARE MORALLY correct and justified in helping those who cant help themselves...you are dropping bombs for what reason? because people of Iraq could not fight back against tyrannical leadership. period? so why not just go and call the police(NATO) and then supply them with a description of the bad guys?

WHY NOT> because WE are a NATION of strong people with....wait for it....wait for it....MORALS and we help those whom can't help themselves.

I already said he went to far but you fail to understand he was doing a MORALLY correct thing.
 
It is not morally correct...

... to pull a firearm over petty theft. So no, he wasn't morally correct. Nor was he legally correct.

A father who uses corporal punishment (IE a spanking) to correct unacceptable behavior by a child may be morally correct. If his paddle of choice is an axe handle, he isn't morally correct and he's legally in serious trouble.

With regard to Iraq, a UN resolution authorized the use of force. So did an act of Congress. Current operations are done with the approval of the present Iraqi government.

Legality isn't a problem. Morality depends on your perspective. Whether it will all turn out to have been worthwhile is something to be determined down the road.
 
Flyguy,

You claimed that the USA was founded on doing the right thing™. This isn't true, it was founded on the idea of the rule of law -- that laws are supposed to apply equally to all and not exempt the rich, the well-connected and the "King's family". Doing the right thing (whatever that may be) was and is based on morality and ethical conduct.

In this case, the "right thing" to do would have been to stop and apprehend a petty thief from getting away with another person's property.¹ But using a firearm in a "threatening manner" risks turning the situation into a homicide. The constitution says no cruel or unusual punishments for crimes - so if CCW #1 had actually used his gun the courts would have deemed it excessive force and unlawful homicide.²

Of course, if CCW #1 had given chase and then been confronted with the thief pulling out a knife, then the situation changes somewhat.³

You ask "what harm was done" by CCW #1's actions. In this case, fortunately, no harm was done. But he displayed a woeful lack of good judgement and also ignorance of the laws under which he should be operating. THIS incident resulted in no harm, but what about the next time? Giving him an "attaboy" medal just reinforces the bad behavior. If the next incident involves a less compliant thief, what then? The gun goes off in a struggle and someone gets hurt needlessly (a bystander perhaps). That's the essential HARM -- CCW#1 failed to adhere to the law regarding apprehending petty criminals.

The law would be equally harsh if a couple of citizens wielding baseball bats confronted him and "prodded" him with the bats (a.k.a. deadly weapons). And while we all might like to "slap the snot out of" a common thief, beating him when he stops resisting is illegal.

Mind you, I'm just as disgusted with laws that prevent citizens from being able to defend themselves. I'm also disgusted with lawyers who argue that his client received "excessive force" because he was bruised up trying to resist apprehension. Then there are court and legal rules that prevent juries from hearing all the evidence or deciding on anything but what the law says, instead of judging whether the law was appropriately applied.†

But I still think CCW #1 was wrong and should face some kind of punishment. And I've previously indicated one possible solution. Others suggest harsher penalties. In any event, the man has no one to blame but himself.

¹ Apprehending by physically grabbing a fleeing thief is typically legal. Most state laws permit using only that force which is necessary to restrain him if he resists.
² And rightfully so. The state is not allowed to use capital punishment for misdemeanors, even after exhaustive legal reviews and arguments. Nor should anyone be executed for a minor crime. That makes the presence of the firearm wholly inappropriate.
³ And only somewhat. Unlike a LEO, a citizen has no legal duty to catch the thief. If said thief turns with a knife while still backing away or saying "don't come after me", the citizen can end his pursuit. Only if the thief tries to attack could the citizen resort to deadly force.
† Don't even get me started on the apparent average IQ of a lot of juries.
 
Vanya....About KY Law...Sorry Took So Long For ME to Get To You

Here are my exact sources. The Gill case pertains to the stopping a felony part only there is a completely different KY criminal code that allows you to shoot and kill a fleeing felon in the state of KY.

Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible.
(See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)

Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest
(Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)

Sources Stated.....Not much arguing you can do with that. Gotta understand we are a Commonwealth and alot of things are different here with law than in non-commonwealth states.
 
Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest
(Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)
Click to expand...

Kentucky citizens -- along with all other US citizens -- are legally bound to follow the rules set forth in TN v. Garner (1985), a much stricter standard than the state law. Garner does allow the use of deadly force against fleeing felons in some very narrow circumstances.

pax
 
Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest
(Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)
Click to expand...

Shows up here and there complete with "indeed." The cited references do not lead anywhere today.

Here are the relevant sections of current Kentucky statutes:

431.005 Arrest by peace officers -- By private persons.

(6) A private person may make an arrest when a felony has been committed in fact and he has probable cause to believe that the person being arrested has committed it.

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/krs/431-00/005.PDF
Click to expand...

503.090 Use of physical force in law enforcement.

The use of physical force, including deadly physical force, by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant is preventing the escape of an arrested person and when the force could justifiably have been used to effect the arrest under which the person is in custody, except that a guard or other person authorized to act as a peace officer is justified in using any force, including deadly force, which he believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of a person from jail, prison, or other institution for the detention of persons charged with or convicted of a crime.

The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when: (a) The defendant, in effecting the arrest, is authorized to act as a peace officer; and (b) The arrest is for a felony involving the use or threatened use of physical force likely to cause death or serious physical injury; and (c) The defendant believes that the person to be arrested is likely to endanger human life unless apprehended without delay.

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/503-00/090.PDF
Click to expand...

No apparent justification for a civilian using deadly force, but I do no know what constitutes being "authorized to act as a peace officer."

This appears cosistent with Garner (lay opinion), which was argued more than five decades after Gill v. Commonwealth.
 
Last edited:
All of this consternation seems to come from those who are now armed as they go about their daily lives when they hadn't been previously, most of the time simply because it's now legal for them to do so, and being gun enthusiasts they seize the opportunity.

But adding a firearm into how one relates to the events and circumstances around them on the mundane daily routine of their lives complicates the issues and adds risks both legal and physical, because carrying a gun has a lot more gravity than many realize at first. If this thread has any value it's probably in revealing just how vague and situational the rules are, and just how uncertain and unpredictable the effects of inserting a gun into situations otherwise avoided would be- the possibility of serious criminal charges and the potential to really harm someone are amplified 100 times with the presence of a gun that's brought forth; the gamble made 100 more times more expensive if the possession of a gun acted as an incentive to get involved in the first place, and none of those effects are predictable. Pull a gun = roll the dice, with lives and futures in the pot.

I don't think it's prudent for average civilians to CC unless there's a specific threat or probable specific threat they're going to encounter; otherwise a CCW permit shouldn't change how one goes about their daily routines or how they would act in an unforeseen situation.
 
This particular incident illustrated two points as I see it:

1. To intervene or not

2. How to intervene

---

I'm pro intervention, most of the time. In all times were intervention occurs, it should be done in a reasonable and prudent manner. In this instance, there's plenty of unreasonable and imprudent behavior to go around.

---

Never, ever pass yourself off as the police when you are not. It can, will and should trigger legal troubles in many locals; even in conservative Idaho, as it turns out.
 
Pull a gun = roll the dice, with lives and futures in the pot.
Click to expand...

Not too good an analogy, because you have some control over the situation--unlike rolling the dice. The key is to know what you are doing, something that the birds in this story did not.

And if you need one and do not have it, you have rolled snake eyes.

I don't think it's prudent for average civilians to CC unless there's a specific threat or probable specific threat they're going to encounter;
Click to expand...

Cannot agree. If there's a "specific threat or probable specific threat" that one is "going to encounter" (and I cannot fathom just how one might know that), the proper strategy is avoidance. Otherwise one is looking for trouble. Not wise at all.

I live adjacent to a city that has the second highest murder rate in the country; police are dispatched to crime scenes are prioritized, with calls regarding gunshots sometimes being answered four hours after the fact. Parole officers calling 911 are put on hold, and not infrequently.

We are surrounded on two sides by meth country. Meth addicts and producers are bad people--I'd trade them for radical jihadists.

And the two most heavily trafficked drug arteries in these United States converge here.

I think that not carrying is imprudent.

The likelihood that I will ever have to produce a weapon is remote, and the likelihood that I would ever have to fire it is less than remote. But the potential consequences of needing one and not having it are extremely severe.

... otherwise a CCW permit shouldn't change how one goes about their daily routines or how they would act in an unforeseen situation.
Click to expand...

Agree, if you drop the word "otherwise."

The best way to survive a violent encounter is nonattendance. Some time ago, a licensed carrier was asked by another, a retired LEO, whether he carried all the time; the answer was "yes". The other follow said he only carried when he was going somewhere where he though he might need the gun. The retired LEO said he never goes anywhere he thinks he might need it.

And frankly, there is nowhere that one can be assured of being safe. The perps have wheels, and will go where the money and the victims are.
 
Last edited:
eclipsetactical said:
Here are my exact sources. The Gill case pertains to the stopping a felony part only there is a completely different KY criminal code that allows you to shoot and kill a fleeing felon in the state of KY.

Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible.
(See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)

Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest
(Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)

Sources Stated.....Not much arguing you can do with that.
Click to expand...
Sigh. The technical term for the passage above is "an unreferenced quotation," not a "source."

The passage above is all over the internet, quoted (mostly) by others who want to interpret it as you do. None of them cite the source, either.

Doing your homework for you... It's from a very short 1994 article, "Citizens' Arrest," by David C. Grossack.

So... how valid is an opinion from a 15-year-old article, based on a nearly 80-year-old court case, which, as Pax and Oldmarksman point out (and as I did in my post above), is well and truly superseded by Tenn. v. Garner (1985).

Umm... not very valid, IMO.

And as I wrote in my earlier post, Gill v. Commonwealth speaks more to the issue of aiding and abetting than to that of citizens' arrest: in this case, "taking affirmative steps" to prevent a felony comes under the heading of not "aiding and abetting," which would make one an accessory, rather than imposing some sort of obligation to intervene directly -- the point being that if you have knowledge of an impending crime, you're obliged to report it. Not reporting it makes you an accessory before the fact.

Gotta understand we are a Commonwealth and alot of things are different here with law than in non-commonwealth states.
Click to expand...

Would you care to elaborate?

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Gotta understand we are a Commonwealth and alot of things are different here with law than in non-commonwealth states.
Click to expand...
Would you care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

Here's something on it:

In 1785, district residents of Kentucky County began petitioning the Virginia legislature for statehood. They wished the County to be recognized as a "free and independent state, to be known by the name of the 'Commonwealth' of Kentucky." On June 4th, 1792, Kentucky County, Virginia became officially the "Commonwealth of Kentucky."

When Kentucky joined the Union, the terms "commonwealth" and "state" were recognized by the U.S. government as being synonymous. There are four states in the United States that are titled commonwealths: Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The designation is an elected title deemed by the states' legislatures. To be a commonwealth rather than a state grants no differences legally or economically.
Click to expand...

http://www.kdla.ky.gov/resources/kycommonwealth.htm

Back to the point: one more time, everyone who carries a gun in Kentucky, and everyone who anticipates doing so, should read and study The Tactical Kentucky Concealed Carry Manual by Nick C. Thompson, as his or her bible, chapter and verse.

The question of shooting fleeing felons is addressed in it.

Here's the link again:


http://www.kentucky-concealed.com:/Information/Kentucky%20Concealed%20Carry%20Justifiable%20Homicide.pdf
 
What i AM saying is that its sad that you are all blaming the guy who was TRYING to do the right thing and no one here has spoken up and said good for that slimy dirtbag for stealing a bag from a defenseless homeless person!
Click to expand...
The problem is that in most such situations you simply don't know what the right thing is, as has been shown in this situation. And your good intentions won't necessarily keep you out of prison if you mistakenly violate the law.

Suppose you are parking your car in the strip mall when the door to one of the shop bangs open. Out runs a man, running as hard as he can. A couple seconds later, another man comes running out after the first, with a gun in his hand.

What have you just seen? Two robbers leaving the store? A robber being chased by the store owner? A jealous husband chasing his wife's boyfriend? An undercover officer chasing a wanted felon? You simply don't know. And if you don't know what is going on, you don't know what the right thing to do is.

Whether or not you feel our laws are just, the reality is that you place yourself in serious legal jeopardy by intervening.

You also place yourself in serious physical jeopardy as well. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you will prevail. Just because you are the good guy doesn't mean you will prevail. Just because you are the good guy doesn't mean that the responding officer won't think you are the assailant and fire on you before you realize he is screaming at you to put down your gun.

I'm not saying that you should never intervene. But you darn sure better understand the true risks going in. Lots of folks on the net seem to bang their chest and think they are John Wayne.

There is no way in heck I'm going to draw a gun to prevent some punk from stealing a homeless guy's duffel bag. That is both illegal and unwise.
 
Do you realy know the situation?

I posted about how I intervened in subduing a mugger.
I also have a memory from my teens that makes me think twice about getting involved if I do not fully know what has happened.
When I was 12 I was with my cousin and my uncle at a Taco Bell going through the drive thru. We saw 2 men slam a woman onto the hood of a car and it appeared that they were tring to force her into the car. She was screaming, kicking, and fighting. She was screaming for help. My uncle grabbed the shotgun from the rack in the truck and stepped out and chambered a round and yelled at the guys to let her go. Next thing we knew there were cops everywhere. We had a lot of guns trained on us.
Turns out the two guys were undercover cops making a drug buy. They were arresting the woman for selling meth, and the other cops were closing in. My aunt picked up me and my cousin from the jail. They booked my uncle on a charge of asauting a police officer. The charge was later dropped in court. It cost him a lot of money for bail, and an attorney.
Sometimes things are not what they appear to be. Make sure you know what is going on. It can save you a lot of grief, money, and possibly your life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top