Fight, a beating that won't stop!

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.
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
You don't cease being the victim just because you're winning
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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"
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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!
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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

kgpcr, you are taking this too far out of context. Protect public health means that, say, theres a person threatening the air you breath by contaminating it, or the water you drink, or the food you eat.

Also, "escape" is a broad term, I do agree, but in short it means an escapee from apprehension or some sort of restraint.

Theres also this little thing called the "deadly force triangle" that we must adhere to.

Also, please do not insult me because you do not like my opinion.

Please think about what you're typing before you post it.
 
By "escape" as mentioned by the LEO I thought it meant so he could escape from attack:o.
As for me I am no big guy 5'8" 140-145 usually... Armed or unarmed I would do my best to stop the attack. First move would be to tell a witness to call 911 at the same time I am going for fight ending kick to the face or a haymaker fist blow. If that were not enough and I was armed I might draw. If not I would go for more kicks and punches! I will either succeed at knocking him out or draw attention to myself at which point I will be fresh and ready to keep going and I hate to be on the ground so would battle for all I was worth!
Brent
 
Since it seems I have to define this more, lets go into depth.

"6. Arrest or apprehension: When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to arrest or apprehend a person who, there is probable cause to believe, has committed one of the serious offenses referred to above.

7. Escape: When deadly force has been specifically authorized by superiors and reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner, provided there is probable cause to believe that such person:
A. Has committed or attempted to commit one of the serious offenses referred to above
B. Would pose an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm to law enforcement or security personnel or to any other person."

This isn't hidden knowledge.

Taken from DOD Directive 5210.56
 
scriz...I am military also. I know that directive intimately. That DoD directive does not apply to civilian matters and has no bearing on the discussion and should not be presented here as the guiding justification of the use of deadly force. Your snide and condescending tone is misplaced and out of line.
 
Scenarios like this one are why I wish we'd had Tasers when I was working in LE. We always had to get folks separated the hard n' dirty way.
 
Wow. I don't know what planet this Kansas is on, but there sure is a lot of misinformation there apparently.
You have no "duty" to intervene in anything as a private citizen.

Good samaritan laws protect those who intervene, not punish those who don't.

You don't open yourself to civil liability by not acting. But, anyone can sue you for anything at any time.

You don't open yourself up to criminal liability by not acting. You are not a LEO.

At the point where someone's life is in danger, it doesn't matter who was the aggressor.

In many states, if your use of lethal force is justified, then you are protected from civil liability. KNOW YOUR STATE'S LAWS! The real ones, not one that someone posts on the internet and realize that knowing the law is only half the information you need to know. The other half is case law. If there is a legal precedent in the law that goes for or against your action, then it is going to have an effect on the proceedings.

I would question the wisdon of any instructor who advocates that students get involved in third party incident in almost every case unless all of the facts surrounding the situation are known. Your Concealed Weapon Permit is not a hero waiting to happen permit.
 
OK, how about this. You briefly interview both, (or at least the coherent one), to see who is the offending party. Then you shoot the other one and leave. Works for me.
 
OK, how about this. You briefly interview both, (or at least the coherent one), to see who is the offending party. Then you shoot the other one and leave. Works for me.
Click to expand...

And this is why WA snorts on about yahoos and chest thumping...especially when it is not even remotely funny or amusing.
 
Wow. I don't know what planet this Kansas is on, but there sure is a lot of misinformation there apparently.
You have no "duty" to intervene in anything as a private citizen.

Good samaritan laws protect those who intervene, not punish those who don't.

You don't open yourself to civil liability by not acting. But, anyone can sue you for anything at any time.

You don't open yourself up to criminal liability by not acting. You are not a LEO.

At the point where someone's life is in danger, it doesn't matter who was the aggressor.

In many states, if your use of lethal force is justified, then you are protected from civil liability. KNOW YOUR STATE'S LAWS! The real ones, not one that someone posts on the internet and realize that knowing the law is only half the information you need to know. The other half is case law. If there is a legal precedent in the law that goes for or against your action, then it is going to have an effect on the proceedings.

I would question the wisdon of any instructor who advocates that students get involved in third party incident in almost every case unless all of the facts surrounding the situation are known. Your Concealed Weapon Permit is not a hero waiting to happen permit.
Click to expand...

Exactly!!!!!!!!!

I'm from KS and I totally agree with the above. I would love to see proof of someone who lost a court case in Kansas because they did not help someone in need.

KS's CCL has only been out for a year now. So, I can understand some mis-information as KS has redone some of it's CCL laws.
 
Well smallshot, I thought it was funny. Of course, since we are also considering military solutions, just shoot them both and let God sort them out.

Some of you guys seem very, politically correct and also very tightly wrapped. Lighten up just a tad.
 
OK, how about this. You briefly interview both, (or at least the coherent one), to see who is the offending party. Then you shoot the other one and leave. Works for me.
Click to expand...

lmao....sound good, or at least funny, to me! :D
 
I would rather be hung like a ram and have plenty of sheep available :D

My experience and training in the continuum of the use of force would not necessarily indicate shooting the actor on top doing the pummeling. If I could get behind the aggressor and whack him sharply on the side of the neck about an inch below the angle of the jaw that would do it.

If A was completely helpless, B was clearly taking the acton beyond self defense and no other means were available then a shot might seem indicated. Sitting here with my tin foil hat on and all of my keyboard commando symbols of power nearby I can't clearly see a path of action.

In reality if there was anyway for me not to get involved that is what would probably happen. Sometimes right is right and you have to take action. In this day and age that would have to be very clear cut for me. YMMV.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

This isn't true because you must owe a legal duty to another before you can be liable for breaching the duty owed. A CCW holder owes no legal duty to anyone with regard to the required use of deadly force (or any force, for that matter) to protect another. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see the Kansas case holding otherwise (I'm not aware of a case imposing such a duty on a CCW holder); ask your instructor to provide the name and cite of the case establishing such a duty.

My guess is that your instructor can't provide the cite -- because it doesn't exist. I'd find another instructor if I were you, preferably one who actually knows the law. This guy is giving you bad advice.
 
lmao....sound good, or at least funny, to me!
Click to expand...
Well smallshot, I thought it was funny. Of course, since we are also considering military solutions, just shoot them both and let God sort them out.

Some of you guys seem very, politically correct and also very tightly wrapped. Lighten up just a tad.
Click to expand...

It's one thing to make jests when someone is posting a scenario after the fact and quite another to offer it up as a solution to a legitimate question. If you think suggestions like the one Small made has a place here, you are not adding anything to this forum.

Keep in mind that some who visit here are not at all as mature or clear thinking as should be. Some come to broaden their minds and some possibly to see things in a different light. If your jest influences someone to make a bad decision, you have done a disservice to this forum.

If you want comedy, go watch the comedy channel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top