Man shoots another man who is attacking a woman

Enjoying the reasoned, cordial discussion. but I need to digress briefly to eat some crow.

In post#10 I mentioned a fellow in UK who ran over and killed a guy who was stabbing a woman, and was arrested for doing so. Cynically, I assumed there would be no followup.

Today the news is that the cops let him go. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-60218733

He did not manage to save the woman's life but he tried.
 
rodfac posted
My own position vis a vis inserting myself into an "apparent" attack on another is this....I will intervene only in the case of a family member or very close friend. The consequences of my actions, if I misread the unfolding scenario, are far too great to gamble with the future of my family.
That goes for me, and for most former senior LEO personnel whom I know.
 
where you live

Where I live the application of deadly force is defined in Iowa code. Witnessing a forcible felony in progress is one. Make sure you know the law concerning deadly force where you live. 12-34hom.
 
For all these folks saying they 'only carry a firearm to protect themselves and their family', I'm curious; would you REALLY watch an unarmed, fleeing woman get stabbed to death while you were armed and able to prevent it?

While that may speak to your 'superior' knowledge of law and self-protection, it's evidence of a very frightening moral stance; I know I couldn't live with myself having done something like that.

Larry
 
This forum is about tactics and training, specifically with respect to firearms. Morality is a separate topic and, for what it's worth, the definition and delineation of morality tends to vary from person to person. Finally, it's difficult to discuss personal moral codes without people being insulting (perhaps without meaning to) and feeling insulted.

From a tactics standpoint, and also from a legal standpoint, there's a clear best choice.

Without weighing in one way or the other on the morality of intervening or not intervening, I would make a couple of suggestions. If your personal moral code demands that you act on behalf of others, then I would suggest, at the least, you need to be 100% sure of the situation before you do anything other than call 911. That is, you need to have observed things long enough to know how the situation started so you don't break in on the middle of a scenario that may be very different from what you think it is. Second, you need to be sure that you're not getting in over your head.

Why? Well, here are a couple of reasons.

1. There was a study some years ago that showed concealed carriers tended to shoot the wrong person less often than cops did when they intervened in a situation. The results seemed confusing so there was additional work done to determine why. It wasn't that the concealed carriers were better trained, or smarter, or had better ability to assess a situation; it was that they tended to have been present for the whole situation and therefore had a better idea of who was really the aggressor and what was really going on.

2. If you take control of a situation, you take on some level of responsibility for the persons in it. If you don't have the ability to fully control the situation, things can get really ugly. I watched a video awhile back of a police response to a disturbance. A homeless person attacked a group of people picnicking in a park and started trying to hit them with a large rock. The situation went back and forth, but eventually the group got the upper hand and were administering an attitude adjustment to the attacker who was apparently disturbed/deranged enough that he would not break off the engagement even after it was clear that he was losing badly. About then the police arrived in the form of a single officer. He broke everything up and focused on the group since they seemed to be the aggressors when he came on the scene. That gave the actual attacker time to recover. While the officer was focusing on the group, the homeless man picked up his rock and casually walked over to the group. Right in front of the officer, he hit a woman in the group in the head with the rock with enough force to knock her unconscious.

The bottom line is that you'd better get it right and you'd better be able to take full control of the situation and all the people in it if you're going to intervene. It is definitely possible to make things worse than they already are and also to get yourself into a lot of trouble.
 
The bottom line is that you'd better get it right and you'd better be able to take full control of the situation and all the people in it if you're going to intervene. It is definitely possible to make things worse than they already are and also to get yourself into a lot of trouble.

I mentioned seeing this before in force on force scenarios and I wanted to springboard off of John’s comment to fill out my remarks above and add another example. In this case these students were all people who had proficient marksmanship and had gone through firearms courses before, though not force on force training.

One of the scenarios was an open air cafe. Two actors enter the scene and harass, punch, and knock two customers at the entrance to the ground. The assailants stop as soon as the victims fall to the ground. The assailants proceed to enter the cafe, knock things off tables, verbally abuse some customers, push people, and then eventually they leave. Out of the twelve students in the class, 10 of the students either blended into the back of the restaurant or waited until they had a clear path and bolted out of the restaurant. Two did not. One student saw the two people being attacked, ran to the assailants and commanded them to stop, and when they turned to him (not moved to him but turned) he shot and incapacitated both. The other student decided to draw her pistol when the assailants got near her in the restaurant. At this point the assailants were between her and the exit (the cafe had a fence around it). She made some initial verbal commands. The assailants ucontinued to get closer to her, taunting her, then eventually one pushed her and she shot him. She stayed in place as the second assailant rendered aid to his friend. In the above the first student was a competition level shooter and the second student was a NRA instructor. I mention this not to disparage those groups, but to point out that even students of some experience can make decisions that are questionable in hindsight.

In the above scenario, students choosing to take action had no impact on the well-being of the initial two victims. Between the available sight lines and the speed of the initial attack there was no way to stop the attackers before they made their first attack. The victims were hurt, though their wounds were presumably not overly serious. The only difference then was what happened to the assailants. In the case of most students the assailants left, hopefully to be reported by police afterwards. In the case of those two students at least one or both of the assailants died. While what can start as simple assaults can turn deadly, shooting someone for knocking someone to the ground may well resort in legal charges.

As an aside, if anyone has an opportunity to do force on force training I recommend he/she closely watches what other students do (if you get the opportunity). Decisions that are obvious to one person are not to someone else. I learned a lot in watching others and listening to the instructors give pointers to each student based on their course of action.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
John, respectfully, I don't believe you can divorce tactics from morality. If that were possible, we would all watch Rome burn while we held extinguishers, would all lie to investigators to protect ourselves from our actions and would do all manner of heinous things which worked out better FOR US.

Morality has to be the underpinning for every civilized man's actions; it's the reason men have died to protect others throughout history, and the reason we've risen above the caveman; without morality, what discussion of tactics could be relevant except, "Do whatever is best for you as long as you can get away with it."

Larry
 
John, respectfully, I don't believe you can divorce tactics from morality.
You don't have to. They are two separate things. Which is fortunate because we only discuss one of them here.

Legality is also separate from morality--again, that is fortunate, because again only one of them is a topic for discussion here.
 
legality vs morality...
I am constantly reminded of the difference...

Holmrd-61.jpg

"This is a court of law, not a court of justice."
.............................................. (former LT, 20th Mass)


.
 
Last edited:
JohnKSa wrote
you need to have observed things long enough to know how the situation started so you don't break in on the middle of a scenario that may be very different from what you think it is.
Absolutely!

And you need to understand the potential consequences. Even things are what they seem and if you are right and your action is lawful, you face
  • The risk of killing or injuring an innocent person
  • The risk of injury or death from the perp's reaction
  • The risk of being shot by an armed citizen or LEO
  • Legal expenses, starting from the time of your call to an attorney immediately after the fact
  • The possibility of being charged, convicted, and/or imprisoned
  • The risk of civil liability

Your objective had better be important to you.
 
S
So just let the woman (in this case) continue to be stabbed to death...
...and be done with it
Do what you choose, realizing that you may be in fact joining a criminal act unlawfully on the wrong side, and that, whatever had actually been going on, your action may well mean the end of your life as you have known it.

Don't get involved.

One should certainly call 911.

If it really, really appears to be a case of a true innocent being attacked, one might display a firearm--and accept the attendant risks.
 
Reasonable Man standard applies.

Much of time, your wording and expression of the situation makes all the difference. Intervening to stop an attack by using deadly force or the threat of deadly force might not be the best approach or even legal in many states....
Most states have a good Samaritan Law to protect as well as encourage others to render reasonable aid.

In this case, I would not have intervened with deadly force in defense of another. I would have confined my use of force to my own self defense.

I would simply state that I attempted to render aid to the injured woman when her attacker turned upon me placing me in fear for my life.
 
Last edited:
you may be in fact joining a criminal act unlawfully on the wrong side....
In the OP/object case ... a man repeatedly stabbing a woman while simultaneously pursuing/continuing to stab her as she fled...

....You have got to be kidding.
At least I sincerely hope so.
 
In the OP/object case ... a man repeatedly stabbing a woman while simultaneously pursuing/continuing to stab her as she fled...

....You have got to be kidding.
At least I sincerely hope so.
Do not confuse the fact that the man doing the stabbing was obviously a felon, even though there is the possibility tha the started out with lawful self defense, with the idea that his victim had necessarily been innocent and therefore lawfully entitled to defend herself.

The two are not at all related.

If she were not lawfully entitled to defend herself with deadly force, no other civilian could lawfully use such force to defend her.

I would not necessarily rank that very high among the risks in that case, however., even though the consequence could be life imprisonment. Whether the defender's use of deadly force had been reasonable and necessary would become the next question.

In a criminal case the defender's burden of proof is to establish reasonable doubt, but on the ciivil side it is much higher,

Personally, I would not be able to come up with the costs of legal representation, private investigation services, or expert witnesses, even if the criminal case were dropped at a preliminary hearing. And no one would pay for any out-of-court settlement recommended by my attorney.

Does that help?
 
Moderator... I'm done.
...and so are those who would need help in such a world.

My apologies to having extended the dialogue to this point.
 
Back
Top