Third Party Protection?

[Ringo]

I hear many people talk about how they would intervene with the use of their weapon (deadly force) to protect or defend a third party (anyone aside from your immediate family) whose life is in danger. I'd like to know how many here would or would not, and why. I'll start by saying that I would not. I carry for personal defense and defense of my family only. I'm not heartless or un- compassionate, my refusal is directly related to the financial burden that my family would suffer should I have to defend my action, and also end up in jail to boot. I will not jeopardize the welfare of my family for any stranger, period. How about you?

 

[Red Hat]

You mean to tell me that if you saw someone being assaulted with a weapon you wouldn't intervene! I'm sorry but I would in a heart beat. You might want to read your AZ Castle Doctrine to see what rights you have in a situation like this. For example, a woman was being stabbed would you walk away or protect her? Deadly force is not always needed to stop an attack.

 

[nogods]

What if you hear a woman screaming in a house and can see through the window that is she is being attacked by a man with a knife?

Now, what if the man is John Wayne Bobbit and he woke up while Lorena was attacking him, he grabbed the knife and was stabbing her in self defense?

Who you going to shoot?

 

[HK4U]

It of course may depend on the circumstance but the short answer is yes. I do not think I could stand by while some punk raped and killed a woman, murdered a child etc. One thing I am glad for is the fact that I live in a state where I have the same legal right to use force up to and including deadly force to defend a third party as I do to defend myself.

 

[JJFlash]

Yep. Depends on the circumstances, as HK has pointed out, but yep. Just the way I'm built.

I'm aware, of course, of the legal, emotional, and financial ramifications but no way do I watch some innocent fellow human being be severely victimized or killed if I have the opportunity to prevent it.

There's only one Judge whose opinion I worry about and He's got my back.

I'm a sheepdog. And sheepdogs fend off the wolves.

 

[HootmonSccy]

OK.. Let's try this one..
You come across a woman being attacked at knife point, and it's obvious that she is about to be raped.. (let's say in a park or something, not inside a house). SO, you know he is not defending himself, but about to perform a terrible crime.
Do you just walk away?
Walk away and call 911, knowing that the deed will be done prior to the police arriving?
Shoot the bastard?
OR.. coming to the the Original Posters main concern "Financial Burden" Do you draw the attackers attention (by yelling at him, shoving him, etc), something to break off the tunnel vision of his attack and thus stopping the crime. It is unlikely he is going to continue knowing that you are standing there watching, especially since you already have your phone in your hand calling 911 right?? So, he is likely to do one of two things..
One, run away
Two, turn aggressively toward you - Now.. IF YOU should need to stop the threat, you are NOT protecting a third party, you are protecting yourself. You will run through your usual list of rules you have in your head before you pull the trigger to insure your life was threatened, you have 911 on the phone, they will know the guy was in the middle of a crime & hear you telling the guy to stop before the shots are fired. You have at least the woman that was being attacked as a witness..

So, I agree with the original poster in general; However, there are circumstances that morally you should intervene... The important thing in these rare situations IMO is to break off the threat to the 3rd party and if the threat is then drawn towards you, IF YOU MUST, then you eliminate the threat. You are no longer protecting a 3rd party, but protecting yourself..

 

[gunsite]

OK.. Let's try this one..
You come across a woman being attacked at knife point, and it's obvious that she is about to be raped.. (let's say in a park or something, not inside a house). SO, you know he is not defending himself, but about to perform a terrible crime.
Do you just walk away?
Walk away and call 911, knowing that the deed will be done prior to the police arriving?
Shoot the bastard?
OR.. coming to the the Original Posters main concern "Financial Burden" Do you draw the attackers attention (by yelling at him, shoving him, etc), something to break off the tunnel vision of his attack and thus stopping the crime. It is unlikely he is going to continue knowing that you are standing there watching, especially since you already have your phone in your hand calling 911 right?? So, he is likely to do one of two things..
One, run away
Two, turn aggressively toward you - Now.. IF YOU should need to stop the threat, you are NOT protecting a third party, you are protecting yourself. You will run through your usual list of rules you have in your head before you pull the trigger to insure your life was threatened, you have 911 on the phone, they will know the guy was in the middle of a crime & hear you telling the guy to stop before the shots are fired. You have at least the woman that was being attacked as a witness..

So, I agree with the original poster in general; However, there are circumstances that morally you should intervene... The important thing in these rare situations IMO is to break off the threat to the 3rd party and if the threat is then drawn towards you, IF YOU MUST, then you eliminate the threat. You are no longer protecting a 3rd party, but protecting yourself..

I agree, distract or acknowledge your presences/witnessing the crime, after calling 911. The 2nd part to this question is... if your target is threatening to do harm with a knife, would your weapon be at the ready when you give your acknowledgment...

 

[kelcarry]

Hey Y'all: I really believe that Ringo, in the sweet, warm confines of his computer room, can easily compose his comments on this thread but I have to believe that the replies to his thread are what he would truly do. As others have said, it depends on the circumstances but the "alter ego rule", at least in SC is crystal clear in its intent; we are not talking about being a gunslinging vigilante, we are talking about protecting someone who is about to be murdered or is being subjected to great bodily harm---Ringo is telling us he would walk away--I do not believe him. If he really means what he says, I would love to have him respond to the replies.

 

[HK4U]

O.k. here is a couple of what if's. What if someone was attacking your wife or kids. Would you want someone that had the opportunity to intervene and save them to do so or would you want them to walk away and do nothing? Or lets look at it another way. You watch someone raping and killing a woman, walk away and do nothing. The scum bag gets away. A week, a month, or a year later while you are away the same guy breaks into your home and kills your wife. How do you feel now about letting him go when you had a chance to stop him?

In the Old Testament we read how Cain because of jealously murders his on brother Able. God comes to Cain and asks "Where is your brother Able"? (Of course God knew all along what he had done). Cain try's to avoid the question by asking God a rhetorical question, "Am I my brothers keeper".

Lets move on to the New Testament to get the answer.


Matthew 25
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

When saw you being attacked and did not help you? (My addidition)


45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

For all of us that are Christians the answer is , Yes we are our brothers keeper.

 

[HK4U]

Both of the following have been posted before but with a lot of new guys here I thought this would be a good time to review both.

A Nation of Cowards

On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman

as JJ said I have chosen to be a sheepdog. I can do nothing else.

 

[Unfettered Might]

I'm a sheepdog, no doubt about it.

But I do have the benefit of Kentucky law giving me the same protections under Justifiable Homicide that I have for myself, when defending another.

 

[HootmonSccy]

I agree, distract or acknowledge your presences/witnessing the crime, after calling 911. The 2nd part to this question is... if your target is threatening to do harm with a knife, would your weapon be at the ready when you give your acknowledgment...

Depends on your definition of "ready" - Does that mean already pulled (Brandished).. OR.. Ready to pull?
I would not have it already pulled, he is not a threat to me yet.. ( I think it may be legal to be pulled, but that is in terms of being arrested vs. being sued.) but I would be ready to pull..

 

[HK4U]

After my last post I got to thinking that I need to post a disclaimer. I in no way intended the post to infer that if someone says that they would not intervene on behalf of a third party that it was an indication of cowardliness. I think it is more likely a case of just not realizing what a horrible thing it would be to watch someone killed or injured without trying to do something to help. I feel that most of us when push comes to shove will be compelled to act even if we don't think so now.

 

[Ringo]

OK.. Let's try this one..

coming to the the Original Posters main concern "Financial Burden" Do you draw the attackers attention (by yelling at him, shoving him, etc), something to break off the tunnel vision of his attack and thus stopping the crime. It is unlikely he is going to continue knowing that you are standing there watching, especially since you already have your phone in your hand calling 911 right?? So, he is likely to do one of two things..
One, run away
Two, turn aggressively toward you - Now.. IF YOU should need to stop the threat, you are NOT protecting a third party, you are protecting yourself. You will run through your usual list of rules you have in your head before you pull the trigger to insure your life was threatened, you have 911 on the phone, they will know the guy was in the middle of a crime & hear you telling the guy to stop before the shots are fired. You have at least the woman that was being attacked as a witness..

The important thing in these rare situations IMO is to break off the threat to the 3rd party and if the threat is then drawn towards you, IF YOU MUST, then you eliminate the threat. You are no longer protecting a 3rd party, but protecting yourself..

That would be my answer.

People can create all of the emotional tear jerking scenarios their imagination can dream up, even take Bible verses out of context to justify "THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE" to defend a third party, that's okay, just keep it "personal', those are your convictions. HootmonSccy presented the situation, and the course of action, that I would agree with,for those who are seeking my reply. I'm not a coward, Dirty Harry, Rambo,a Hero,and most of all, NOT A SHEEPDOG. I carry for personal defense, not defense of the public or my next door neighbor. Everyone has the same right as I do to own or carry a gun for protection, if they choose not to then their safety and their life is on their conscience, not mine. I do not allow their lack of personal responsibility and common sense to influence my actions and choices to come to their defense. How would I feel if my wife and children we're being threatened and someone didn't jump in to protect them with a gun? I wouldn't be troubled, because my wife is responsible and has the common sense God gave her to carry concealed to protect the children and defend herself. All the while not encouraging nor imposing that burden of responsibility on a total stranger, if one even happened to be around. And I do not have a "brother", and the "world" is not my "brother", therefor I am not my "Brothers Keeper".

 

[JJFlash]

[/B]

That would be my answer.

People can create all of the emotional tear jerking scenarios their imagination can dream up, even take Bible verses out of context to justify "THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE" to defend a third party, that's okay, just keep it "personal', those are your convictions. HootmonSccy presented the situation, and the course of action, that I would agree with,for those who are seeking my reply. I'm not a coward, Dirty Harry, Rambo,a Hero,and most of all, NOT A SHEEPDOG. I carry for personal defense, not defense of the public or my next door neighbor. Everyone has the same right as I do to own or carry a gun for protection, if they choose not to then their safety and their life is on their conscience, not mine. I do not allow their lack of personal responsibility and common sense to influence my actions and choices to come to their defense. How would I feel if my wife and children we're being threatened and someone didn't jump in to protect them with a gun? I wouldn't be troubled, because my wife is responsible and has the common sense God gave her to carry concealed to protect the children and defend herself. All the while not encouraging nor imposing that burden of responsibility on a total stranger, if one even happened to be around. And I do not have a "brother", and the "world" is not my "brother", therefor I am not my "Brothers Keeper".

I appreciate that it's your decision. No problem. Just curious to see where the line really is, tho: You've stated you intend to defend yourself, your wife, your kids and no others. How about neices and nephews? How about your very close friend's kids? How about your close friend? What about your neighbor's kid who's always playing in your backyard with your kids? How would you explain to your kids that yeah, you could've helped little Janie when she was being cut up and raped but you chose not to? (yeah, I know, emotional tear-jerker...)

I'm not being a smart-ass, here. But, my point is that if you expand your circle to include extended family and close friends, then where's the line? Whether you know them or not? Whether you like them or not?

I really do agree with your basic premise - that it is every individual's responsibility to provide for their own protection, and I have argued that point many times to the extent that I believe we should have a minimal police force, since they provide no real protection and usually only serve as "mop up". Everybody takes care of business when necessary, and we'll eventually have a nice, polite society, with minimal LE presence.

But, even believing that, as I do, I don't think I could coldly just walk away, singing "What will be, will be..."

 

[father-of-three]

There was another thread recently about helping police in a shootout and how that can led arriving officers to shoot at you, as well as have multiple gunman turn on you after they have shot the officer. It is difficult to think through these scenarios, which it why it is good to hear all the feedback. I know I am here to learn and to understand. "With great power comes great responsibility."
The third party issue is just as difficult in Pennsylvania. I believe the language of the law states that lethal force can be used if the third party wants it almost implying that you need to ask first. This may sound dumb, but Joe third party can say he'd rather have his wallet stolen with the threat of lethal force than have you shoot the aggressor!
As HootmanSccy put it, if the bad guy attacks you instead of the third party, the third party scanario goes out the window. However, some states, including Pennsylvania, will put the "defender" at fault for using lethal force if it can be shown that the defender provoked the aggressor. I guess it depends on how everyone, including lawyers, defines provocation.

 

[festus]

The perp goes down!

OK.. Let's try this one..
You come across a woman being attacked at knife point, and it's obvious that she is about to be raped.. (let's say in a park or something, not inside a house). SO, you know he is not defending himself, but about to perform a terrible crime.
Do you just walk away?
Walk away and call 911, knowing that the deed will be done prior to the police arriving?
Shoot the bastard?
OR.. coming to the the Original Posters main concern "Financial Burden" Do you draw the attackers attention (by yelling at him, shoving him, etc), something to break off the tunnel vision of his attack and thus stopping the crime. It is unlikely he is going to continue knowing that you are standing there watching, especially since you already have your phone in your hand calling 911 right?? So, he is likely to do one of two things..
One, run away
Two, turn aggressively toward you - Now.. IF YOU should need to stop the threat, you are NOT protecting a third party, you are protecting yourself. You will run through your usual list of rules you have in your head before you pull the trigger to insure your life was threatened, you have 911 on the phone, they will know the guy was in the middle of a crime & hear you telling the guy to stop before the shots are fired. You have at least the woman that was being attacked as a witness..

So, I agree with the original poster in general; However, there are circumstances that morally you should intervene... The important thing in these rare situations IMO is to break off the threat to the 3rd party and if the threat is then drawn towards you, IF YOU MUST, then you eliminate the threat. You are no longer protecting a 3rd party, but protecting yourself..

If a violent felony is about to be committed...The perp goes down. He is beyond a shadow of the doubt the aggressor. He is wielding a deadly weapon and brandishing it so as to do harm...He is going down. Better to be judged by twelve than carried by 6. In Florida if you take the actions required to stop a violent felony in progress you are pretty much covered because for all you know you could be victim number two. You may use a weapon in defense of life of yourself or other innocent person and be covered by law. Florida is a great place to live!

 

[HK4U]

I appreciate that it's your decision. No problem. Just curious to see where the line really is, tho: You've stated you intend to defend yourself, your wife, your kids and no others. How about neices and nephews? How about your very close friend's kids? How about your close friend? What about your neighbor's kid who's always playing in your backyard with your kids? How would you explain to your kids that yeah, you could've helped little Janie when she was being cut up and raped but you chose not to? (yeah, I know, emotional tear-jerker...)

I'm not being a smart-ass, here. But, my point is that if you expand your circle to include extended family and close friends, then where's the line? Whether you know them or not? Whether you like them or not?

I really do agree with your basic premise - that it is every individual's responsibility to provide for their own protection, and I have argued that point many times to the extent that I believe we should have a minimal police force, since they provide no real protection and usually only serve as "mop up". Everybody takes care of business when necessary, and we'll eventually have a nice, polite society, with minimal LE presence.

But, even believing that, as I do, I don't think I could coldly just walk away, singing "What will be, will be..."

JJ I agree with you. In a perfect world it would be great if we all carried and were ready to protect our loved ones. Like you I know that is not reality and like you I can not walk away while some one kills a child telling myself " Oh well the parent should have been there to protect them".

 

[HK4U]

[/B]

That would be my answer.

People can create all of the emotional tear jerking scenarios their imagination can dream up, even take Bible verses out of context to justify "THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE" to defend a third party, that's okay, just keep it "personal', those are your convictions. HootmonSccy presented the situation, and the course of action, that I would agree with,for those who are seeking my reply. I'm not a coward, Dirty Harry, Rambo,a Hero,and most of all, NOT A SHEEPDOG. I carry for personal defense, not defense of the public or my next door neighbor. Everyone has the same right as I do to own or carry a gun for protection, if they choose not to then their safety and their life is on their conscience, not mine. I do not allow their lack of personal responsibility and common sense to influence my actions and choices to come to their defense. How would I feel if my wife and children we're being threatened and someone didn't jump in to protect them with a gun? I wouldn't be troubled, because my wife is responsible and has the common sense God gave her to carry concealed to protect the children and defend herself. All the while not encouraging nor imposing that burden of responsibility on a total stranger, if one even happened to be around. And I do not have a "brother", and the "world" is not my "brother", therefor I am not my "Brothers Keeper".

People can create all of the emotional tear jerking scenarios their imagination can dream up

o.k. so explain to me how your dreaming up some off the wall scenario to justify not getting involved is any different because that is all it is.

even take Bible verses out of context to justify "THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE" to defend a third party

Now why is the scripture so out of context. I find that quite often someone will claim a scripture is out of context if it is a scripture they want to ignore. Kind of pick the ones they want to believe.

One thing we do agree on is that it is my personal choice. I will never walk away from the slaughter of the innocent.

 

[AvidshooterTX]

It's kind of academic to try to decide what you're going to do in a situation like this. You probably won't know until it actually happens. How often have you decided how you will react when your boss gives you crap or a neighbor lets his dog poop on your lawn only to completely wimp out? Or just the opposite - decide you're going to maintain your cool when you visit the parent of the bully who's picking on your kid only to lose it. We rarely react the way we have decided to in the heat of a particular incident. You just better hope that 12 people decide your actions were justified - make that 13 because you have to live with yourself.