Man shoots another man who is attacking a woman

D

DaleA

New member
A sample size of one (which this is) proves nothing. It's just yet another example of what can happen. In this case a man at a gas station shot another man who was stabbing a woman.

1. The shooter did not know the man attacking the woman or the woman.
2. No one died although both the woman and the attacking man, who was shot, were severely injured.
3. The police let the shooter go home after the shooting and, so far, he has not been charged with anything.
4. The police said the shooter was very cooperative with them.

Again, this 'proves' nothing.

What should you and I do? DOTS! (Depends On The Situation).

I'm just putting this out as something that has actually happened and am not claiming this should be a blueprint or an example or anything else except food for thought. Of course things could have turned out differently but this is how they did turn out---well at least for now.

Here's the link to the article:
https://www.newsweek.com/quiktrip-s...acker-actively-stabbing-female-police-1674291

P.S. I really like the DOTS acronym but it is not original.
 
If the shooter witnessed the entire scenario unfold, from beginning to end, I can understand his defense of the woman. If he walked into it half way through, well, that makes it a tough call.
 
From the Newsweek report cited by the OP....

> The man—who police did not identify—saw a
> man stabbing a woman and chasing her into
> the Waco QuikTrip,

That's a tough call ?
 
So if 'she started it' (whatever that means), one lets the knife attack continue?

Note that simply saying "I don't want get involved" is not a serious option unless you are prepared to watch the woman die. *
Note also that saying "we should call the police" is not a serious option either... unless you are prepared to watch the woman die.

Serious questions to the readers.
(In this situation)... with a 'Zero & One" alternative.




** ever seen the aftermath of someone gutted in a knife attack?
 
a lot depends on what city/state you are in. In Berkley CA the shooter would probably be arrested. In most parts of Texas, he wins a medal. :cool:
 
So if 'she started it' (whatever that means), one lets the knife attack continue?
Click to expand...
If she had been the initial aggressor, she could not lawfully employ deadly force to defend herself, and therefore, a third party would not be justified in using deadly force to defend her.

That's a basic element of use of force law, and people who carry firearms should know that.
 
I'm sorry, that's flat wrong.
So your view is that her only recourse is but to die...
and those about her to allow it to happen?
Please elaborate as to options otherwise.


An aside... ever been in a knife fight?
 
not in a knife attack, but saw one happening about half a block away and it was a bloody mess. two black men were in it over a women, no one died, but both needed trandfusions pretty quick to survive.
 
Not a shooting, but this case in London, UK is analogous. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-60154444

Guy was stabbing his ex to death. Other guy saw it going down and used his car to run over the stabbing guy. Cops took him off to jail and he is asking to be "de-arrested" because he was only trying to help.

It would be interesting to see how this plays out, but once it is not "new" it is not news.
 
I have made the decision to carry in order to defend myself and my family. Not anyone else.

One of the things I took away from my CCDW class was that if I am defending myself or direct family, MY perception of the events is what matters.

But, if I involve myself in an altercation, my perception of the events no longer matters. Now it is only what that actual facts are. So if I gun down what turns out to be a plain clothes cop attempting to subdue a woman I am going to be tried for murdering a cop.

No, I've never seen a knife fight to answer the question that keeps being asked (no idea why), and it makes no difference if I have or not.

What matters is this: Am I willing to risk my family's loss of my presence and my income for the rest of my life over something I know nothing about? My answer to that question is 'No'.

If it unfold in front of me? I'll settle for praying I'm never put in that situation.
 
ghbucky said:
If it unfold in front of me? I'll settle for praying I'm never put in that situation.
Click to expand...


Life doesn’t work on hopes and prayers.

You said you wouldn’t intervene to protect another. Why then would it matter if it unfolded right in front of you? It seemed you’d already made your choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Am I willing to risk my family's loss of my presence and my income for the rest of
my life over something I know nothing about? My answer to that question is 'No'.
Click to expand...
And so you watch the woman gutted....

As to "However, a third party may not defend another unless he reasonably believes that
the other person was without fault in provoking the attack" (VA Statute)... Somehow I do
not believe a woman slapping a man, who then proceeds to slice her up w/ a knife,
is covered under that prohibition.

But then one must sleep w/ the flashback visions of one's decisions . . .


.
 
Last edited:
ghbucky said:
I beg to differ.
Click to expand...


If that’s your mentality, why carry a firearm in the first place? Surely your prayers will keep attackers away.

My point here is being unwilling or unable to consider a possibility, no matter how distasteful it might be, is a serious limitation. I have seen it negatively impact people personally both in their life decisions and in force on force situations. If preserving your life and the life of your family members is your ultimate goal, then you have to accept you may end up watching someone get murdered in front of your eyes. Is it likely? I don’t think so, but it’s certainly possible. I want to add I’m not saying you’re in the wrong for that mentality, but you should be able to accept the implications of that decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
That is a tough one.

My "sitting at my computer thinking about it" answer would be to get cover, dial 911 and use verbal commands towards the knife wielder...if I perceived a person was about to be killed and was not trying to also kill the knife wielder. Turning the attention of someone intent on murder onto oneself is a hard call and I won't ever attempt to make that choice for anyone except myself.

I do fundamentally agree with this:

Am I willing to risk my family's loss of my presence and my income for the rest of my life over something I know nothing about? My answer to that question is 'No'.
Click to expand...
 
I'm sorry, that's flat wrong.
Click to expand...
What is your basis for that opinion?

Any assumption that the lady is the "good guy" would likely be based on facts not in evidence. Suppose a small woman with a knife were chasing and stabbing a large man?

In some jurisdictions, a third-party defense can be justified if the actor had had a basis for reasonably believing that the other person would have been lawfully justified in defending themself. "The way things seem" would not suffice.

In other states, only the facts matter, regardless of what the actor may have believed at the time

It is extremely important for armed citizens to avail themselves of the training and education to know these things.
So your view is that her only recourse is but to die...and those about her to allow it to happen? Please elaborate as to options otherwise.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid that is not up to me. Lawmen will not pat me on the back if I enter into a conflict unlawfully. My objective is to avoid life imprisonment.
 
I'm afraid that is not up to me. Lawmen will not pat me on the back if I enter into a conflict unlawfully. My objective is to avoid life imprisonment.
Click to expand...

^Like^

We need a like button. :)
 
DaleA said:
A sample size of one (which this is) proves nothing. It's just yet another example of what can happen. In this case a man at a gas station shot another man who was stabbing a woman.

1. The shooter did not know the man attacking the woman or the woman.
2. No one died although both the woman and the attacking man, who was shot, were severely injured.
3. The police let the shooter go home after the shooting and, so far, he has not been charged with anything.
4. The police said the shooter was very cooperative with them.

Again, this 'proves' nothing.

What should you and I do? DOTS! (Depends On The Situation).

I'm just putting this out as something that has actually happened and am not claiming this should be a blueprint or an example or anything else except food for thought. Of course things could have turned out differently but this is how they did turn out---well at least for now.

Here's the link to the article:
https://www.newsweek.com/quiktrip-s...acker-actively-stabbing-female-police-1674291

P.S. I really like the DOTS acronym but it is not original.
Click to expand...
Was the woman good looking?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top