In defense of others

A few years back I was riding my bike through the neighborhood when I saw a man and a pregnant woman fighting in their front yard. She was telling him to leave, he had her by the arms yelling obsceneties.
I slowed down and about that time he shoved her down and started toward her when she started crawling away. I leapt of my bike (no gun) and got between them. He got in his car and drove off, still yelling. The police came as he was rounding the corner because another neighbor had called. They went after him and caught him a few blocks away.
The pregnant lady thanked me, I told the police what happened and went home.

If any man would have just rode by and watched, he deserves a butt-whoopin imo. Scumbag pushing a pregnant woman around,sheesh, a woman at all for that matter!! :mad:

Even if I had a gun I wouldn't have drawn on him though.
 
If any man would have just rode by and watched, he deserves a butt-whoopin imo. Scumbag pushing a pregnant woman around,sheesh, a woman at all for that matter!!
Click to expand...

We will have to disagree on this then.

If employers have to pay a woman the same as a man to do the same job, then they should take the same risk.

This belief extends to day to day life for me. I treat everyone equally, male or female. That means that when I observe a man hitting a woman, I see a human being hitting another human being, not man vs woman. Of course it could be the woman that is the aggressor too.

Nobody gets a "free pass" from me, but I will not intervene in a situation when I am off duty, if I can help it, beyond doing more than being a good witness and calling 911. In this case you were very lucky. Usually in a domestic both the "victim" and the aggressor will turn on you.

Make sure that what you're risking is worth it, as it very well could mean your life.

Biker
 
You are risking sleep disturbances, flashbacks, nightmares, impotence, anorexia, alcoholism, drug reliance, and a long and bitter lifetime of regret if you get it wrong.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And don't forget, "wrong" could also mean you should have acted. Perhaps the victim having the gun pointed at them also has the aforementioned life...kids, family etc.

We will have to disagree on this then.
Click to expand...

No, what you're not understanding is the guy hitting the pregnant woman was hitting two people, not just one. And yes women in general should get a little extra bias, just the way I was brought up.
 
nobody gets a "free pass" from me, but I will not intervene in a situation when I am off duty, if I can help it, beyond doing more than being a good witness and calling 911.
Click to expand...


so you wouldn't want someone to help your pregnant wife in times of trouble? You'd rather someone turn the other cheek? Wow, you clearly define apathy.
 
Wow, you clearly define apathy.
Click to expand...
Never confuse apathy with good sense. I'm going to hazard a guyess here that many of not most of the folks advocating intervention early and often have had little or no experience doing that, while those who are advocating tread softly and slowly have spent a fair amount of time having to intervene.
 
however you wanna justify it in order to make you sleep at night.
Click to expand...
I sleep fine, thank you. I spent 20+ years intervening in stuff like this on a professional level, I've got it pretty well figured out.
And never confuse good sense with self-preservation. The Founding Fathers didnt confuse the two. They rolled the dice for what was "right".
Click to expand...
You might want to read up a bit on the Founding Fathers. A whole lot of their "right" was based on personal gain and aggrandizement and self-preservation.
 
Last edited:
We can discuss this until the end of time but I think just about everything that can be said about this general scenario has already been said.

I think everyone can agree that the ONLY way to approach this situation is with a cool, level head. Know your state's laws thoroughly. Your response is your choice but as someone stated earlier when you use deadly force you are gambling your freedom and your ability to provide for your family, choose your course of action with this in mind.

I used the hand to hand example earlier just to illustrate that, for me, the gun is an absolute last resort.
 
I think its all circumstantial. If I am walking by a bar and two drunks are whopping up on one, I'll just call the cops. If I'm in a place thats being held up, I'm complying unless I die otherwise. Then there are some situations where you couldn't help but intervene. Imagine you get off a bus and you see a man trying to force a woman at gun point to let him in the car that contains a child. How bout a mass shooting type situation? I remember reading an account from one of the heroic journalist who was trapped in the Mumbai attacks. He took some of the photos we all saw splashed across the news and Internet. One thing he said really stuck with me...

Quote:
"I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."
Click to expand...

well said teifman
 
Quote:
If any man would have just rode by and watched, he deserves a butt-whoopin imo. Scumbag pushing a pregnant woman around,sheesh, a woman at all for that matter!!
Click to expand...

We will have to disagree on this then.

If employers have to pay a woman the same as a man to do the same job, then they should take the same risk.

This belief extends to day to day life for me. I treat everyone equally, male or female. That means that when I observe a man hitting a woman, I see a human being hitting another human being, not man vs woman. Of course it could be the woman that is the aggressor too.

Nobody gets a "free pass" from me, but I will not intervene in a situation when I am off duty, if I can help it, beyond doing more than being a good witness and calling 911. In this case you were very lucky. Usually in a domestic both the "victim" and the aggressor will turn on you.

Make sure that what you're risking is worth it, as it very well could mean your life.

Biker
Click to expand...

I agree to a degree, but you have to factor in that men and women, no matter what is politically correct, are not usually evenly matched opponents.

Even further than that, a pregnant women is severly hindered by her unborn child, and the stress, strain and resulting impacts occured from defending herself or being assulted, can and may very well result in the abortion of the unborn child. Abortion in the sense of miscarriage etc.

As such, impartially viewing a pregnant woman and man fighting as simply two humans fighting is not quite a balanced view. A single punch from the man may result in the death of the unborn child, whereas a single blow to the man's stomach likely wouldn't even slow his assult.

The well being of a pregnant womans unborn child would be a serious concern if I were to observe a pregnant woman being assulted. It would be a sticky situation, but you wouldn't stand by and watch someone knife a person or shoot them without responding because of the immediate threat posed. I don't view the threat to the baby as being very much different. If a man is beating a pregnant woman, I have to assume he knows he is a threat to the childs life.

It's hard to say what any one of us would do or even ourselves, perhaps hardest to say what we could do ourselves. In theory though, my first priority and reaction to seeing a pregant woman being beaten would be to stop the physical assult as fast as possible, the danger to the child is real no matter why the assult is in progress.
 
You might want to read up a bit on the Foundign Fathers. A whole lot of their "right" was based on personal gain and aggrandizement and self-preservation.
Click to expand...

The founding fathers weren't so much interested in self-preservation in the face of the most powerful and successful standing army and capable navy in the world ...and well as the king's judicial system as they were about "doing the right thing" for their children and grandchildren on down the line.

I disagree with your notion that there was less moral fiber and righteous indignation in the founding fathers than there was greed and personal gain.

I also disagree with the notion that it is better to stand by and do nothing than it is to get involved.
 
I agree to a degree, but you have to factor in that men and women, no matter what is politically correct, are not usually evenly matched opponents.

Even further than that, a pregnant women is severly hindered by her unborn child, and the stress, strain and resulting impacts occured from defending herself or being assulted, can and may very well result in the abortion of the unborn child. Abortion in the sense of miscarriage etc.
Click to expand...

+1. I agree. Well put!
 
You might want to read up a bit on the Foundign Fathers. A whole lot of their "right" was based on personal gain and aggrandizement and self-preservation.
Click to expand...

OK... I'll bite. I still have not formed an opinion on this statement as I'm interested in hearing your (more) complete meaning. I have not disagreed much with any of your prior statements, but my attention is pricked with this comment.

I (personally) find a lot of wisdom in many of the "founding fathers" charter thoguhts for our country. While not necessarily complete nor perfect, I'd like to hear more about the "personal gain" and "aggrandizement" perspective you mention. I may be thinking too narrow here (2A rights), but I'm interested in this thought (not to derail this thread).

As to the OP I would project (i.e. guess) that I would only intervene if I was 100% certain of the situation AND I felt that it was a life and death situation. Absent that I'm calling 911 and (and I say this with great care and thought)... *possibly* intervening w/o involving my firearm. There are always a lot of variables and hopefully my training and instinct lead me to good choices.

Mike
 
I spent 20+ years intervening in stuff like this on a professional level, I've got it pretty well figured out.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what degree you've spent doing it on a professional level, but (at least here in Indiana) police, either on or off duty or any other public safety person has what you call a "duty to act."
 
FROM CREATURE:
The founding fathers weren't so much interested in self-preservation in the face of the most powerful and successful standing army and capable navy in the world ...and well as the king's judicial system as they were about "doing the right thing" for their children and grandchildren on down the line.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your notion that there was less moral fiber and righteous indignation in the founding fathers than there was greed and personal gain.
Click to expand...
Good, because I never said anything like that. Remember, it is always better to deal with what is actually said than to make stuff up.
From Mjoy64:
OK... I'll bite. I still have not formed an opinion on this statement as I'm interested in hearing your (more) complete meaning. I have not disagreed much with any of your prior statements, but my attention is pricked with this comment.
I (personally) find a lot of wisdom in many of the "founding fathers" charter thoguhts for our country.
Click to expand...
So do I. But there is a tendency among some of the less informed to talk about the Founding Fathers as if they were some sort of heroic figures who stepped up willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of mankind, could do no wrong and such, when in reality they exhibited all the frailties and problems of most people. They included people that we would now consider con men, shysters, rapists, murderers, thieves, and so on. That does not diminish what they did, but to try to invoke them as some sort of Dudley Do-Right is incorrect.
Other than "the wild west" few elements of American History are more mythological in nature than the Founding fathers and the American Revolution. Washington, for example, apparently married Martha because she was the wealthiest widow he could find that would take him at the time and he was in desperate need of money to avoid loss of his land and possible imprisonment. Created quite a scandal at the time. But I'm sure that the mods don't want expansive history lessons here on Tactics and Training, so let me suggest a couple of books:
"Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong " by Loewen
"Don't Know Much About History: Everything You Need to Know About American History but Never Learned" by Davis
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what degree you've spent doing it on a professional level, but (at least here in Indiana) police, either on or off duty or any other public safety person has what you call a "duty to act."
Click to expand...
And I'll bet if you talk to those police officers that have been on the job for twenty years they'll overwhelmingly tell you just what I and other here have said...tread softly and slowly, and avoid when you can.
 
Okay, that is it!

I can't believe all the B.S. I am reading on this subject that Floydpink was trying to explain in his original thread. Are we men or mice?

You come upon a ongoing felony of innocent people, you call the police before doing anything (if you have the seconds to do that). Then depending on the crime being committed, you should (your decent responsibility) take action. As someone mentioned earlier, "what if that was your wife, daughter, mother, etc being beaten, robbed, raped".... You know that you would want someone to do something to save their lives and/or a trip to the ER.

You always need to be prepared mentally for things like this. Sure its hard to try and figure out all the scenarios of "what could happen" if you decide to intervene, but we are human beings and MEN! Grow a pair and stand up for your fellow citizens and do what is definitely right.
First of all, stop the attack from going further by confronting the attacker verbally and in a loud command. Act like you are in charge and mean it with your voice and look. If the attack continues, draw your weapon and warn them again. If they continue or turn and come towards you, give them their last warning. If they still continue the fight (I seriously doubt it will after this) then you must act accordingly and defend yourself and the victim.
You can then explain to the law enforcement folks when they arrive what actually went down. That is the way I see this and what I plan to do if it ever happens to me. Sure hope it doesn't but I know I will do the right thing, no matter the consequences. The alternative is do nothing and that is not acceptable to decent men.
 
The alternative is do nothing and that is not acceptable to decent men.
Click to expand...

There are lots of very articulate, well-reasoned responses posted here by folks who feel otherwise. I truly do not believe that they would opt not to intervene because they are "mice" or plan to "do nothing." It is a question of what course of action is best - depending on a number of complicated, difficult questions that must be answered in a split-second.

If I am being attacked by someone, I think it will probably be rather clear who the BG is. But that still doesn't mean I want any random person to fire upon my assailant if it could further endanger my life. I am confident that yelling and/or calling the police to give them specific information about the BG is more than appropriate, and I would be eternally grateful for that non-violent action.

Moreover, if it is NOT clear who the BG is, or if you think you know but are WRONG, taking lethal action is more than unadvisable. Not because anyone is a 'fraidy cat, but because you are potentially risking an innocent person's very life.

I do think a person has a moral obligation to call the police and/or keep an eye on the situation from a safe distance so you can give LE information. I wouldn't simply turn a blind eye to a situation that makes me uncomfortable, and I would hope others would agree. But that's a moral decision - the other is a question of situational reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top