Defending a third party

[spirit4earth]

Can anyone help clarify the law concerning the defense of a third party? I know about the risks, etc, like not knowing who started it.... Strictly speaking, if I'm out and see someone actually approach and begin attacking another person in a lethal way, do I have the legal right to protect that person from being murdered?

 

[preppernow]

There is no one answer to your question. You need to be very familiar with the laws in your own state as it applies to conceal carry and the defense of others. For some states it is the castle law. If you look on your state's Attorney General website, you may find the laws for your state as it applies to conceal carry.

 

[misunderstood]

Who is the agressor. Key thing to keep in mind in north carolina. No striaght anwser on this one.

 

[Joseph Senter]

Can anyone help clarify the law concerning the defense of a third party? I know about the risks, etc, like not knowing who started it.... Strictly speaking, if I'm out and see someone actually approach and begin attacking another person in a lethal way, do I have the legal right to protect that person from being murdered?

If you try to stop the aggressor by brandishing your weapon and he turns on you then you are defending yourself. Just a thought.

 

[Andrew17]

Use common sense. You may find yourself in court, but if a person's life is worth more than that... It's your decision, and depends entirely on the situation. Like if I'm next door and I see a thug run into my neighbor's house and I can hear her screaming, I'm gonna put 911 in my pocket, grab my gun and run over there to help her. Like I said, just be "reasonable" and use common sense.

 

[The_Outlaw]

Can anyone help clarify the law concerning the defense of a third party? I know about the risks, etc, like not knowing who started it.... Strictly speaking, if I'm out and see someone actually approach and begin attacking another person in a lethal way, do I have the legal right to protect that person from being murdered?

Any lawyer can try to turn your 'legal rights' against you.

If you witness someone being raped, maimed or murdered, should you intervene or not?
That is entirely up to you the individual. I personally could not sleep at night if I didn't do whatever was in my power to try & help another human being from serious bodily harm or death.

Here's the shortest answer i.m.o.
1) Call 911
2) Update dispatch of the situation as much as possible.
3) Take 'appropriate' action if necessary.
4) Understand that 'appropriate' action may require the use of deadly force.
5) 'IF' you do decide to utilize your firearm 'appropriately', then be prepared to call your attorney a.s.a.p.
(If you do not yet have an attorney FIND ONE.)

 

[Rabbitcreekok]

I teach CWL classes in Oklahoma and the approved teaching guide states in the section covering use of non-deadly force:

"If a person chooses to come to the aid of another person, they step into the shoes of the person they defend. If the protected person is in the right, the protector may use lawful, non-deadly force. If the person protected is a trespasser or is unlawful, the party attempting to protect the unlawful party may be guilty of a crime for using unlawful defense of another. Using force to protect another is, therefore, a risky decision on the part of the protector."

In the use of deadly force section, the note says:

"a citizen's use of deadly force to protect another is strictly limited under Oklahoma law. Before use of a firearm can be threatened or used in defense of another, the person protected must be the defender's spouse, parent, child, employer, or employee. To display, point, threaten, or use a firearm in defense of anyone other than a spouse, parent, child employer, or employee, is unreasonable, unlawful use of force."

The bold is not mine but included in the manual.

This is Oklahoma law and it will probably be different in your state. All of this should have been covered in your class you took to get your license.

As has been stated, when we see an assault taking place, we do not always know what is going on between the parties and I surely do not want to step into the wrong shoes and spend time in jail or prison for protecting someone who was the aggressor and just was getting the worst of the fight when I came on the scene.

I used to be a police officer and was sworn to step into such incidents and stop them. As lawful citizens with state issued carry permits or able to carry in states which do not require permits, we carry no such obligation. There are numerous folks in prison who made a bad decision while meaning to do well. I do not wish to join them.

 

[olsparky]

Each state has a different answer to your question. Above it was explained that Oklahoma limits third-party to specific relationships. Utah does not limit who constitutes a third-party.

For Utah: If you witness acts that were you the victim you would be justified in using deadly force, than you would be justified in using deadly force to defend that third-party. That being said you must still determine if the third-party is actually the victim and not the instigator.

As in almost every case where deadly force is used, you will have to make that judgement as to whether or not it is justified, and be prepared to defend (and live with) your decision.

 

[Rayb]

I teach CWL classes in Oklahoma and the approved teaching guide states in the section covering use of non-deadly force:

In the use of deadly force section, the note says:

"a citizen's use of deadly force to protect another is strictly limited under Oklahoma law. Before use of a firearm can be threatened or used in defense of another, the person protected must be the defender's spouse, parent, child, employer, or employee. To display, point, threaten, or use a firearm in defense of anyone other than a spouse, parent, child employer, or employee, is unreasonable, unlawful use of force."

The bold is not mine but included in the manual.

I will always do what it taked to abide by the law, no matter where I am, but I must say that I agree with the statement by The_Outlaw above, I don't know that I could sleep at night if I, for example, witnessed a rape in progress and just let it continue because the victim is not related to me. That law is messed up, hope I never have to make that decision.

 

[Coyoye52]

Speaking with Texas in mind it is wiser to just call 911 Leave it to the Cops. Because you don't know which party is right. It come down to common sense. It can turn to h*ll and hand basket too quick

 

[bob16066]

No matter what you think you saw: you are not in possesion of all the facts. Period.

 

[rdm6680]

What's a third party vs a second party?

 

[Rabbitcreekok]

No matter what you think you saw: you are not in possession of all the facts. Period.

Exactly. What looks like a child abduction may just be a father picking up his child who does not want to go with Dad. Kids nowadays sometimes don't respect their parents and it could look like an abduction. Even a rape may not be what it seems. Actually rapes usually do not occur where we are likely to see them and if they do, it could just be a couple playacting.

 

[b2359]

First, there is no obligation under law that requires you to defend a 3rd party - no mandatory 'Good Samaritan' law - that I'm aware of.

As with any use of (potentially) deadly force, there are legal and other consequences.

My firearm will be a choice for defense of myself and a 3rd party. The decision to shoot becomes a bit more complicated and difficult when I'm not aware of all of the facts - when I'm not directly involved. The example in a previous post - where I stumble on what I believe to be a rape - may be something else entirely.

I hope I choose wisely, and shoot well.

 

[bob16066]

You could really find yourself in a bad way if you see a young buck holding a pistol beating the crap out of an old man and then only after you shoot him find out that the old man asaulted him attempting to kill him and he was in the fight of his life and over reacted a little after he disarmed his attacker and got in a few blows for good measure.

 

[Bighouse Doc]

I teach CWL classes in Oklahoma and the approved teaching guide states in the section covering use of non-deadly force:

"If a person chooses to come to the aid of another person, they step into the shoes of the person they defend. If the protected person is in the right, the protector may use lawful, non-deadly force. If the person protected is a trespasser or is unlawful, the party attempting to protect the unlawful party may be guilty of a crime for using unlawful defense of another. Using force to protect another is, therefore, a risky decision on the part of the protector."

In the use of deadly force section, the note says:

"a citizen's use of deadly force to protect another is strictly limited under Oklahoma law. Before use of a firearm can be threatened or used in defense of another, the person protected must be the defender's spouse, parent, child, employer, or employee. To display, point, threaten, or use a firearm in defense of anyone other than a spouse, parent, child employer, or employee, is unreasonable, unlawful use of force."

.....

actually the SDA law somewhat relaxes that. I suspect this is the older text that is probably beens superceded by the new. Of course CLEET teaches the public only what they want the public to know!

TITLE 21 § 1289.25 PHYSICAL OR DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER
A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety .....
....


D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.....

So CLEET may actually be just little off the mark in their manual!

-Doc

 

[TechStuffBC]

Read this article:
Link Removed

In this specific situation, it would most likely be reasonable, as a 3rd party person, to conclude Clinkingbeard is the aggressor.
Factors that come in to concern is your distance to the situation, what or who is "behind" your line of fire.

I do concur with The_Outlaw:

Here's the shortest answer i.m.o.
1) If possible, call 911.
2) Update dispatch of the situation as much as possible.
3) Take 'appropriate' action if necessary.
4) Understand that 'appropriate' action may require the use of deadly force.
5) 'IF' you do decide to utilize your firearm 'appropriately', then be prepared to call your attorney a.s.a.p.
(If you do not yet have an attorney FIND ONE.)

In the above situation, we could guess all we want as to if there is time to call 911.

"S'cuse me, there, Ma'am. Yeah, you with the Glock 17 pointed at the store employees. I have a firearm right here and, before I unholster and point it at you because, after you are already doing that here, including activating the laser-sight [Side bar, Ma'am: That's cool! I've not put one on my Glock yet... sorry, I digress] at the currently living 3rd persons (e.g., not family) of whom I don't know how much longer they may be alive if you do, in fact, decide to pull the trigger, but I'd like a moment or two to get 911 on the line and get them involved. Hey, thx for being patient with me (that's kinda funny, Ma'am, cuz my wife was a patient of yours once ... LMAO!)."

No, life and death are *not* like that.

The above link/story and the one below is what life and death*really* is:

Link Removed

The "gun-carrying man" is reported to be an Idahoan (fyi ~ wasn't me).

BC

 

[Jim_Macklin]

50 States- 50 laws

Can anyone help clarify the law concerning the defense of a third party? I know about the risks, etc, like not knowing who started it.... Strictly speaking, if I'm out and see someone actually approach and begin attacking another person in a lethal way, do I have the legal right to protect that person from being murdered?

Generally the law of each state allows the use of lethal force to defend innocent life. But each state has variations in their laws. When defending yourself, you know what you have done and you know when you are attacked. But as Florida kangaroo courts have shown, Chapter 776 can be violated by a zealous prosecutor.
In this Internet age, almost every state is on-line. The difficulty is that common citizens search for te words "self-defense" and the search term to use is "use of force" or "justification of force" or perhaps "lethal force."
Since there is no instantaneous travel, take the time to read the law and then remember George Zimmerman. Better have an audio recording or better yet, a video with sound and witnesses.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT](1)A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT](2)A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT](3)The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
[FONT=&quot]History.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.[/FONT]

You can find Kansas laws linked here Concealed Carry - Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt

 

[bob16066]

If you try to stop the aggressor by brandishing your weapon and he turns on you then you are defending yourself. Just a thought.

If you brandish a pistol and then he attacks you: then you are not defending yourself. You started the altercation by the act of brandishing the weapon.

 

[spirit4earth]

This appears to be NC law, but I will research it further:
Q. When can I use my handgun to protect a family member or to protect another
person?
A. In protecting a family member or another person, you can only use deadly force
(i.e., your handgun) if, under the circumstances, the family member or other
person would be legally justified in using deadly force to protect himself or
herself.