Protecting others?(not family)

W

Witness-P

Inactive
I was wondering is it ok to prtect others?
Say you were in a gas station and some one was robbing them at gun point. I know if you can get away your suposed too,but then you would be leaving some one in danger to defend for themselves which would he worse if they don't have protection(in my thoughts). Would it be ok to defend them if you had a chance say when SOB turns his gun away from them(that way you avoid them pulling trigger as they go down and injuring the person in question). I would like some thoughs on this have read alot on defending yourself and family but not others .WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD BE WISE?

------------------
"Guns are no more responsible for killing people than the spoon is responsible for making Rosie O'Donnell fat."
 
I don't know about your state but here It is OK to use deadly force in stopping a crime being committed with a gun. You never know when he will decide it is better to have no witnesses . Of coarse judgement must be used so that you are not responsible for an innocent victim and you will have to live with your actions the rest of your life and will probably have a big legal expense when his family sues you for wrongful death.
 
Dear Witness-P,
As Mr. McMillan said, it depends on the state in which you live (and no, you Cooper fanatics out there, I don't mean White, yellow, orange, or red :) ). In Oklahoma, a private person with a CCW may not use deadly force or the threat of deadly force to protect someone who is not a loved one. In your scenario (which as a LEO I have rehearsed in my mind millions of times, and did in real life twice)I made the decision that if the badguy causes me to believe in my mind that he is an imminent risk to anyone present - including me, I will take action. If, on the other hand, the BG has gun in hand as he runs away, I say bye-bye.
This is a very complicated issue, very dependent on state laws, local prosecutors, your ability to commnicate the reason why you took the action you did, and (unfortunately) the ability to afford good legal counsel.
Ya'll be careful
 
Be very careful.

Suppose you see two men struggling. Believing one to be the unlawful assailant, you shoot him. It turns out that the "unlawful assailant" is really the victim and the person you saved is the original agressor. This raises the issue of "Imperfect Self-defense" where you, the shooter, believed that the agressor was the victim and as the victim, had the right of self defense. You, as the bystander, assisted in good faith. Some jurisdictions may feel you had a right to help and others don't.

The Courts are still wrestling over this concept and unless you know the facts, don't become the test case which could be immortalized by your name.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
In Florida, you do have a law-given ability to defend not only yourself, but someone else who is in immediate danger of suffering death or serious injury. It doesn't matter if they are loved ones or not.

This, by the way, is not official legal advice.

The brochure that came with my CCW license reminded me that even though I have a permit to carry, I don't have a permit to use whatever weapon I'm carrying. It doesn't make me a freelance LEO (trust me, I don't want their job, either--no offense to the LEO TFLers--but that job isn't for everyone). And if the conditions I find myself in don't warrant the use of deadly force (Assailant has the Ability, Opportunity, and Intent to do serious bodily injury), I'm in deep Dreck.

------------------
Exodus 22:2 -- Biblical precedent for home defense.
 
Texas also grants the right to defend life, limb and property of a third party.

The way it ought to be.

CMOS

------------------
Join GOA, NRA, LEAA and vote.
 
Regardless of the letter of your local law , you,d be a pretty poor person if you stood by and let an innocent or weak person be victimized, whether it goes to your concealed weapon or just standing by that person.
 
You (generally) have the legal and moral duty to protect innocents from deadly harm. But...

1. If you don't know the participants, and are not already involved, how can you be sure of what's happening? A burly guy struggling with a petite lady screaming "rape" may be a vice cop taking down a prostitute. Storeowners have been known to stage fake robberies as "readyness drills" for their employees. Movie crews have filmed violent scenes "undercover" *. Those cases may be rare - the holdup in progress is likely an actual holdup - but do you really know what's going on?

2. How will you be perceived? You - a third party - would be injecting yourself into an already stressful and confusing situation. What happens when the storeowner or off-duty cop sees a screaming anonymous guy pull a gun...and then another (you) does the same?

3. Your job is to protect first your self, second your dependents, third your friends, then others. Getting into a defensive situation for the sake of a stranger may result in you losing your own neck.

These are not absolute arguments for staying out of the situation, but they must be considered before going in.

---
* - Example: In the '68 version of The Thomas Crown Affair, the stunning bank robbery scene was filmed in a real bank during real business hours with real customers and real tellers using hidden cameras. A great scene; it could have turned ugly if an armed citizen decided to get involved (not that it wasn't ugly to those who didn't know what was happening).
 
There was a discussion along this line some time back, but I hit so many boards, I don't remember which one it was on.

Of all the replies, this one got me: "The right to carry is available to everyone in my state. I spent the money and took the time to arm and train myself for defense of me and my family. These other people had the same opportunity and failed to do so, yet now I am expected to put myself in harm's way and my family at huge financial risk?
I don't think so."

At first I thought that was pretty self-centered, and God knows what I would do in a similar circumstance, but he DOES make a point. However, if kids are in danger, there
is no choice, and I think the above poster made that caveat. If we are talking adults, I would tend to agree with him.
 
Yes in Florida you can use deadly force to stop a robbery w/firearm.

Just ask the BG that walked into a restaraunt in Jacksonville 2yrs ago. He pulls his gun out and asks for the money only to be immediatley shot at by two peope in seperate parties. Only one hit him. That gentleman participated in lots of competition shooting before retiring. If I remember right he shot him with a .25 in the torso. He said he could easily have shot him in the head but was afraid it would not have penetrated. He was hailed a local hero and was on TV quite a bit. I lived there at the time. Bet after that BG gets out of jail he never sticks up another place where the AARP hangs out.

I'm sure in some states our hero would have lived out the rest of his life in prision. Be sure and check your state statutes carefully. Look for legal opinions and rulings if at all possible. Florida lists those on their websites.

Dutch
 
Dutchboy,
Very minor point but, the AARP is anti-gun. The BG is likely to go after AARP members since they are easy targets. I think your point was that BG's will think twice before picking on retired people since not all of the buy into AARP's gun control BS.
Yes, you are right in that the gentleman, here in Ohio would be in jail for the next 7 to 25 years.(The hero)

------------------
CCW for Ohio action site.
http://www.ofcc.net
Do what you C.A.N.
http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/can.html
 
OK, marking off Ohio as one of the states I would NOT want to live in... ;)

Wisconsin is a close 2nd. They issue no concealed carry licenses that I am aware of, and the overall political stance is somewhere left of Mao...

------------------
Exodus 22:2 -- Biblical precedent for home defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top