Fight, a beating that won't stop!

The plot thickens

Shout verbal stop warnings/commands/called 911 type of thing, and then maybe a series of blasts of pepper spray in the aggressor's face? And that's only if I was conviced that the guy getting pummled was out cold and taking potentially seriously dammaging strikes at that point.

But what if the plot thickens

1)You intervene by getting the pummeler off of the pummeley. The Pummeley than produces a handgun/knife and shoots/stabs the initial aggressor, and runs off.
2)you intervene as above, but after doing so the Pummeley comes to, and sees the ex Pummeler hurt, shouts "YOu son of a @@@@! You hurt my brother/dad/etc, I AM GONNA KILL YOU!"

We bit a little more than we could chew on that one, didn't we? The point is like you guys have been saying, you have no idea exactly what is happening and potentially you could be attacking the aggrieved that just had the capacity to gain the upper hand after being attacked initially, or you could get involved in a domestic violence issue. I am not saying that one shouldn't intervene necessarily, but by intervening you are opening a big old Pandoras box, and by intervening you have to realize that you have to be able to control both parties, OR that you can become a target! That scenario is a job for the police that can control both subjects until they figure out what is going on!
 
2)you intervene as above, but after doing so the Pummeley comes to, and sees the ex Pummeler hurt, shouts "YOu son of a @@@@! You hurt my brother/dad/etc, I AM GONNA KILL YOU!"
Click to expand...
Good point! I have had this happen to me several times. Arrived on scene of a domestic to find hubby beating the hell out of his wife. Did a takedown on hubby, only to find his wife on my back trying to remove my scalp.

It happens, and it happens frequently. Often, things are not as simple as they appear.

Google Stockholm Syndrome, and it does occur in battered spouses, etc.
 
Dial 911 and observe from a safe distance until police arrive. I have never been an LEO, or a bouncer and I have no training in fight intervention. I'm simply not qualified to render that type of assistance, just like I'm not qualified to administer CPR.
 
The guy getting the worst of it may go home and kill someone too. The point is:

Your possible presence at the scene of a beating and carrying a gun, puts some choices before you that should be considered before the event. Your choice is what you will live and possibly go to court with.

We encounter many people by chance in life and the chances are high that it may be one of them in trouble.

What about the mall shootings? If CC was allowed there, and you were behind the perp, would you take him out?

I guess I would .. I don't know for sure .. but that is my best guess about getting involved personally.

There are laws on the books about neglect and indifference. They will either support your action or be used against you in civil court.

The aggressor that won't stop when the opponent is knocked out just takes the situation down to a smaller number of victims. Hopefully he will stop when warned. Maybe he won't.
 
ATW525: Dial 911 and observe from a safe distance until police arrive. I have never been an LEO, or a bouncer and I have no training in fight intervention. I'm simply not qualified to render that type of assistance, just like I'm not qualified to administer CPR.
Click to expand...

So if an attacker broke into your house and was going to slit your wife's or kid's throat and you are standing there with a handgun, you are saying you are not qualified to end the threat? GIVE ME A BREAK...

I say, anyone that values life, and knows how to pull a trigger is qualified.

The scenerio of this post is not alot different than the attacker slitting your wife's throat. There is a recognizable threat that someone is taking getting ready to take a defenseless person's life.

imo, loe's are no more qualified (many less) to end a threat than I am...
 
There are laws on the books about neglect and indifference. They will either support your action or be used against you in civil court.
Click to expand...

I'd like you to cite said laws. They do not exist. No state requires its citizens to get involved (unless specifically asked by an LEO in some). No state penalizes its citizens for not getting involved. This is pure fallacy.

As is the concept that you WILL get sued if you use lethal force. You May or May Not, it depends on many factors. For those who are fortunate enough to live in certain states, you cannot be sued if the shooting is ruled as legal use of lethal force.

Comparing this scenario to the Mall shootings is definately apples and oranges. But even in that case, you have no LEGAL obligation to intervene.

I think the instructor gave the most appropriate answer.
Click to expand...

Up to the point where he advocated getting involved, it was good advice. After that, his advice will affect the rest of your life and several others. In almost every case, the best course of action in third party incidents is to call 911 and be a good witness. You have no idea what transpired before your arrival, no idea who the actors are, nor the specifics of the incident. In other words, you don't have enough information to make an informed decision. How do you know the guy on top isn't a cop for example? How do you know he isn't deaf or so focused he can't hear your warning? There is far too much you don't know and what you don't know can hurt you in this case.

Some of you really need to learn more about the law, think your actions through and consider finding better qualified, more informed instructors.
 
The scenerio of this post is not alot different than the attacker slitting your wife's throat. There is a recognizable threat that someone is taking getting ready to take a defenseless person's life.
Click to expand...
It's totally different. You know the actors involved and though you may not know every detail, you know enough that any reasonble person could make an assumption about the situation.

Mattro, it isn't a question of being qualified to end the threat, it is a question of wisdom, legal and moral justification.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Creature, deadly force is deadly force. It does not matter if its civilian, military, or on an alien planet.

Also, that "tone" was not directed at you, please leave your military bulliness at your job.

The "tone" that you've shown here should be sharpened as well. Misplaced and out of line you say? If you're offended by what someone says on an internet forum, you should grow some thicker skin.
 
I think I have a moral obligation to intervene, your moral code may differ. If you're religious, this may be a question your priest/minister/rabbi/wizard can answer; but ask yourself, how would the world be if everyone acted like me?

At least think about what you would do in various situations; even a mediocre plan beats standing with your mouth hanging open.

How much force common law still has depends a lot on your state; I wouldn't want to try to explain to a jury in Vermont how my gun was just to protect myself and not anyone else.

This is why a well regulated (trained) militia is necessary to a free state (and if you're not confident/competent, get some training); or do you want to have (and pay for) enough cops so citizens won't have to act like adults?
 
Indifference and neglect are used in common case law in both criminal and civil courts. Juries decide on these issues regularly. From an insurance company that won't pay for surgery, like the Sarkisyan case in CA. or the parent leaving the kid in a hot car alone in NV. It's in the news regularly. The basis for the action is neglect and/or indifference to a life. The cases are very very common.

When you have the means to prevent a death, and you do nothing, you can be held liable for damages. How likely is it?

Well, the police will take ID info from witnesses, you are a witness and you have a CC permit, that will show up eventually on your report. Even if you take no action.

A dead or severly injured person's family will be looking for a way to pay final expenses, or an attorney will offer his services, just to scan the reports to look for "deep pockets"

If you have assets, bingo, you're sued. Whether or not you took action. And even if you are cleared by law enforcement on a shooting.

The CC permit holder could be sued either way he/she goes in almost any situation. Sorry if this takes away some of the warm glow of security you feel as a permit holder. It's just a fact in America today.
 
Last edited:
So if an attacker broke into your house and was going to slit your wife's or kid's throat and you are standing there with a handgun, you are saying you are not qualified to end the threat? GIVE ME A BREAK...

I say, anyone that values life, and knows how to pull a trigger is qualified.

The scenerio of this post is not alot different than the attacker slitting your wife's throat. There is a recognizable threat that someone is taking getting ready to take a defenseless person's life.

imo, loe's are no more qualified (many less) to end a threat than I am...
Click to expand...

Defense of myself, close friends and immediate family is a completely different situation than intervening in defense of perfect strangers. Quite frankly, the notion that knowing how to pull a trigger somehow qualifies a person to play hero and run around breaking up fights is downright scary.
 
Creature, deadly force is deadly force. It does not matter if its civilian, military, or on an alien planet.
Click to expand...


Of course deadly force is deadly force...however, the rules regarding the application of deadly force differ enough between the two that you should not apply a DoD Directive to a encounter in the civilian world.

To say that ROE in the military are the same as the use of deadly force in the civilian world will almost certainly create problems. I suggest you further research the differences.

Also, that "tone" was not directed at you, please leave your military bulliness at your job.
Click to expand...

Funny, I was going to say the same of you.
 
You folks must have gone to a unique law school. The one I went to, the torts professor said that the is no legal requirement to act to save or protect someone unless you have a legal duty to protect them, like your child or spouse, or you put them in the danger in the first, like pushing a non-swimmer into a pool. Now I find out he was all wrong and there is "an old common law principle" to go around shooting people you see winning fights in order to protect complete strangers, including possible initial aggressors. Will wonders never cease?
 
Breaking up fights isn't the issue. Saving a life is. The legal issues are there. Law's basis is the citizen's obligations to society. Neglect and indifference are at the root of many specific laws. From child care to locking up your guns. Speed limits to blocking sidewalks, these laws are all around us and their basis goes back to neglect and indifference. In a civil action the term might be "Depraved Indifference" or "Grossly Neglectful Conduct".

Whether any one acts accordingly or considers these things is strictly up to them.
 
In florida they claim that I must stop at an auto accident and attempt to render aid if emergency personnel are not there yetor face severe charges. A doctor is in fear of malpractice suit if he renders aid. I don't see where it should be a legal issue anytime a person has to decide to render assistance or not... It is a moral decision IMO...
Brent
 
Funny, I was going to say the same of you.
Click to expand...

Creature, I am law enforcement in the military. Theres quite a bit of difference between ROE on the front line and ROE in law enforcement, I do agree with you. But the ROE do not differ that much. I did reference the deadly force triangle, which are the rules of engagement. :D

Atleast about the military part, we can agree on something. :D
 
The US Supreme Court ruled that police officers can't be held liable for failing to protect any particular person, even though one of their primary functions may be to protect society in a general sense. If a police officer isn't legally responsible, why would a civilian CCW be held legally responsible?
 
If a police officer isn't legally responsible, why would a civilian CCW be held legally responsible?
Click to expand...

100% correct...Im surprised the thread has gone on for so long in the way that it has..There is a difference between peoples moral convictions and whats mandated by law..having a CCW doesnt make you anything except a person who is able to conceal a weapon. We are not part of some elite crime stopping unit with the resposibility of protecting the innocent or maybe not so innocent. I would really like to see a case where someone was prosecuted and convicted in a situation simular to the OP scenario. The instructor gave terrible advice in my opinion..My duty is to myself and my family first(primarily being able to protect and provide for them)...anything that puts me at risk of not being able to do that; whether is me in jail, me broke from legal stuff lawsuits for getting involved, me getting injured or killed is not part of my duty. everything depends on the situation at that time, but I/we are NOT required to use lethal or any other force in the OP scenario.
 
Actually DOD uses the Standing Rules for the Use of Force (SRUF) for the few occasions in which the interact with civilians here in the states. ROE, only applies outside the US.
 
I thought we were part of the most elite group in history, citizens of a free country. We'll only stay free if were willing to do stuff, including stuff that scares us. I don't want to live in a society where people feel no obligation to resist evil, or believe that only some people (however you define it) are worth protecting.

Those of us who aren't lawyers aren't surprised that law schools teach lies; lawyers are professional liars anyway (my brother is an attorney; both me and my dad think what he does for money is immoral, so maybe I'm biased).

Common Law has never been repealed, just ignored.

I'd rather be hung for a ram than a sheep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top