Neighbor sees 60 year old attacked and grabs his gun instead of his phone!

[JYD]

Neighbor sees 60 year old attacked and grabs his gun instead of his phone!

When a neighbor saw what was happening he jumped to action, but instead of grabbing his phone to call police, he grabbed his firearm knowing second may count. The neighbor yelled at the attackers to stop their assault on the elderly victim, and when they ignored his demand he fired at the main attacker striking him in the chest causing the men to flee.

http://junkyarddog911.blogspot.com/2014/07/neighbor-grabs-gun-and-not-phone-when.html

What would you do in the same situation?

Personally i feel the shooter should get the key to the city!

 

[mikecu]

I like the end result.

I think our state of Florida just passed a law that allows a warning shot.

 

[manta49]

<snip>

Getting involved in other peoples situation and using lethal force without knowing the facts of what happened , and you could end up in jail not always a good idea.

 

[burrhead]

Umm…. 60 isn't "elderly". If the writer of the original article thinks so, he and I can step out back and discuss it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Neighbor sees 60 year old attacked and grabs his gun instead of his phone!

....What would you do in the same situation?

Maybe I'd do the same, and maybe not. It depends on the totality of the circumstance. And this sort of situation presents very tricky practical and legal issues.

The OP isn't doing anyone any favors making it appear a simple matter. Sometimes intervening with lethal force will work out, and sometimes it will not.

1. This has been discussed at length on this board, including here, here, here, and here.
   
   
2. The threshold question must always be is, "Do you really know what is actually going on?"
   
   
   • You might be legally justified in using lethal force in defense of others, but in doing so, you step into the shoes of the person you are defending. If that person would have been justified to use lethal force to defend himself, you would be justified in using lethal force in his defense. But if not, your act of violence would be a criminal act subjecting you to prosecution, conviction and jail.
     
     
   • So if you are considering using force in defense of someone, are you sure you know what happened? Are you sure you know who the original aggressor was? Are you sure that the person you intend to help is the innocent good guy? If you think you know, but are wrong, you are risking jail and your family's future.
     
     
     • You might think a kid is being kidnapped, but no one is going to be giving you the key to the city for shooting the father taking his kid, in mid-tantrum, outside for a "time out.
       
       
     • The guy you think is beating up an old lady might be a caregiver trying to get a confused and combative Alzheimer patient out of traffic to safety.
       
       
     • You think that a scruffy bum is beating up some guy, but you won't get a medal for shooting an undercover cop trying to arrest a pimp who is resisting. You'll be going to jail instead.
       
       
     • And you certainly won't be getting any congratulations if you injure an innocent bystander in the process.
       
       
     • And if you think you know, but are wrong, you will be shooting the innocent good guy.
     
     
   • If you can't be absolutely sure what's going on, you still don't have to do nothing. But do things that limit jeopardy to you and minimize the risk of making hash of things.
     
     
     • Call 911,
       
       
     • Be a good witness
       
       
     • Take notes,
       
       
     • Take photos,
       
       
     • Let those folks involved in the apparent conflict know they've been seen,
       
       
     • Be prepared to defend yourself if necessary.
     
     
   • There's an adage from medicine which applies here. "First, do no harm."

I think our state of Florida just passed a law that allows a warning shot.

Please cite the law and explain how it allows for a warning shot. In fact, you're incorrect. And warning shots are pretty much always a lousy idea.

 

[manta49]

Please cite the law and explain how it allows for a warning shot. In fact, you're incorrect. And warning shots are pretty much always a lousy idea.

Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a law on Friday that builds on the state's controversial “stand your ground” self-defense rules by allowing citizens to brandish weapons and fire warning shots to ward off attackers.

You might be legally justified in using lethal force in defense of others, but in doing so, you step into the shoes of the person you are defending. If that person would have been justified to use lethal force to defend himself, you would be justified in using lethal force in his defense. But if not, your act of violence would be a criminal act subjecting you to prosecution, conviction and jail

Would you get in more trouble for firing a warning shot in what you describe above, or if you shoot and kill someone without justification.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Please cite the law and explain how it allows for a warning shot. In fact, you're incorrect. And warning shots are pretty much always a lousy idea.

Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a law on Friday that builds on the state's controversial “stand your ground” self-defense rules by allowing citizens to brandish weapons and fire warning shots to ward off attackers.

No. I asked for citation to the law. Not quotations from news articles about the law.

Folks need to understand the difference. And folks need to understand that if they want to know what the law is they need to look at the actual law (and other legal resources like court decision) and not news articles. Folks here constantly complain that reporters don't know anything about guns. What makes you thing they know anything about the law?

In fact, here's the actual bill as passed by the Florida Legislature. It says absolutely nothing about warning shots. And it really doesn't do much. It basically allows one to justify a threat of deadly force in the same way, under the same circumstances, and with the same results as a use of deadly force.

You might be legally justified in using lethal force in defense of others, but in doing so, you step into the shoes of the person you are defending. If that person would have been justified to use lethal force to defend himself, you would be justified in using lethal force in his defense. But if not, your act of violence would be a criminal act subjecting you to prosecution, conviction and jail

Would you get in more trouble for firing a warning shot in what you describe above, or if you shoot and kill someone without justification.[/QUOTE]Well you will always be in more trouble if you kill someone without justification than if you merely assault someone with a deadly weapon. Assault with a deadly weapon or aggravated assault is certainly less trouble than voluntary manslaughter; but any one of those crimes is more trouble than I'd like.

 

[manta49]

In fact, here's the actual bill as passed by the Florida Legislature. It says absolutely nothing about warning shots. And it really doesn't do much. It basically allows one to justify a threat of deadly force in the same way, under the same circumstances, and with the same results as a use of deadly force

That's fair enough , but does it not amount to the same thing. Draw firearm and threaten to shoot, or fire a warning shot.

 

[Frank Ettin]

That's fair enough , but does it not amount to the same thing. Draw firearm and threaten to shoot, or fire a warning shot.

Really now? You don't know the difference between firing a gun and not firing a gun?

 

[Machineguntony]

Getting involved in someone else's situation is just asking for trouble. Observe and report, thus I would just call the police and report an ongoing crime.

So many things can go wrong.

 

[edfrompa]

What happened to the Elderly lady in Walmart's parking lot?? She was in her 70s and some big women came up and beat the tar out of her and stole her pocketbook and took off in a car. Many bystanders with cell phones videoed the situation. No one offered to help her, not one person. Now that is an example of not getting involved. To me that is very sad. I would never sit back and say hey that's not my problem. When I see someone older and frail getting the tar kicked out of them I am in whether the outcome is good or bad. I will never sit back and say I do not want to get involved. Some day it could be you getting the crap kicked of you and every one around is using cell phones to video the action. I will never look the other way in a situation like that. Some people do not have a conscious. Report while somebody is getting killed.? Call the cops and a half our later the person is dead. .

 

[kilimanjaro]

There must be some kind of a Grey Panthers gang out there trying the knockout game and getting the crap pounded out of them as retaliation.

I don't think it's too much of a reach to assess the situation when you see some pensioner getting assaulted, in favor of the elderly. Just one punch or kick can kill an older person, 911 is not going to arrive in time.

 

[s3779m]

Frank, wouldn't the neighbor who stepped in to help the 60 year old fall under the "good Samaritan" act if he thought this was the only way to save a life?

 

[mehavey]

"...When the suspect did not get what he wanted, he and
two others proceeded with beating the elderly man....

Getting involved in someone else's situation is just asking for trouble.
Observe and report, thus I would just call the police and report an
ongoing crime.

Without comment... other than a silent groan.

 

[manta49]

Really now? You don't know the difference between firing a gun and not firing a gun?

I know the difference between firing a warning shot and shooting at someone.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by manta49: I know the difference between firing a warning shot and shooting at someone.

First, there is no difference in the threshold for lawful justifcation.

Second, many shots fired "at someone" miss, and some alleged warning shots have struck the parson to be "warned". Who decides which were which? Not that it would matter.

So just what is the difference, and why do you think it is important?

 

[manta49]

First, there is no difference in the threshold for lawful justifcation.

Second, many shots fired "at someone" miss, and some alleged warning shots have struck the parson to be "warned". Who decides which were which? Not that it would matter.

So just what is the difference, and why do you think it is important?

This has being discussed before. I did not say anyone should fire a warning shot, I said they could. As for hitting an innocent person, you could also do that if you miss the person you are shooting at. So obviously you should not shoot at someone or a warning shot if you are likely to hit an innocent person.

First, there is no difference in the threshold for lawful justifcation.

So if you had justification so shoot someone, you would have the option to fire a warning shot if that was what you decided to do. Would you not. ? Its the( justification ) that's the issue not if you fired a warning shot or shot at the person.

 

[Machineguntony]

1. You generally can not break up a fight by using deadly force. There was no evidence in this case, at least presented in the story, that the attackers had posed a threat of death or great bodily harm to the victim. No mention of a pipe, a deadly weapon, the victims head being bashed against the concrete, etc. just a story about a 60 yr old being beaten up (which is another naive assumption, that 60 is elderly, and thus helpless).

2. Stories like this encourage gun owners to be vigilantes. Some CHL holders have a 'sheriff' mentality, and stories like this just reinforce that mentality.

In my time in law enforcement, I saw fights involving multiple people versus one person, especially outside of bars. You can never shoot to break up the fight because one person is losing. Also, I've been to fights where the one person being beaten up was the aggressor and after the fight, they arrested the one person.

Also, there is some significant hindsight evaluation going on in this story.

Finally, I can think of at least one department case where a group of plainclothes offers were on top of a woman, dog piling her to make an arrest (dog piling to effectuate a difficult arrest became the department taught method, of many departments, after Rodney King). In a dog pile, it's hard to hear, and you get tunnel vision. Imagine if a guy walks by and sees that situation without context.

 

[Theohazard]

So if you had justification so shoot someone, you would have the option to fire a warning shot if that was what you decided to do. Would you not. ? Its the( justification ) that's the issue not if you fired a warning shot or shot at the person.

Manta49, you seem obsessed about warning shots. I thought we went over this ad nauseum in this thread. Are you still arguing that firing a warning shot is a good idea?

 

[mehavey]

You generally can not break up a fight by using deadly force. There was no
evidence in this case, at least presented in the story, that the attackers had
posed a threat of death or great bodily harm

Three-on-1, that "one" being known to you, your neighbor, and in excess of 60 years old, passes my threshhold.

Xin Loi.

.