I had my first "man with a gun" incident last night.

[Prometheus]

I agree. But. What if you saw him hitting her. And I'm not talking about a slap. I mean a beating. Should you intervene then? Of course you'd call the cops. But could you just stand there and watch, and not get involved?

Could you or should you.

I think the answer here would determine what sort of beating she was taking. Are we talking about a slap or two, or is she down on the ground getting the crap kicked out of her.

Also Is she screaming for help or scream "Please baby, please stop, I love you, I won't do it again".

I would venture to say any person witnessing a woman getting the crap kicked out of her while she is screaming for help has a moral DUTY to do more than just call 9-1-1.

I would also say that any person witnessing a person get a few slaps probably shouldn't intervene.

A person has moral DUTY to defend another person when they are able to. That is one reason why this country is so fracked up. COWARDS rule this nation. Face it, the majority of Americans (that means at least 50.1%) are cowards. Sorry I'm rolling off on a tangent here, I digress.

How or if you should act depends entirely on the situation. Sometimes calling the cops and being the witness for the physical abuse is a much better route to go, because cop the can arrest even if the victim is too scared to admit to any abuse.

 

[SirRealism]

I'm not arguing. I'm simply curious how you can draw a distinction between a domestic dispute involving two stupid parties with 7y/o maturity levels who probably should be left alone to pummel each other, an assault on an abused partner by an abusive partner, or an assault by a guy on a gal who may or may not have a "domestic" relationship. Without any foreknowledge of the parties involved, that is. Clearly, if it's a regular thing and the participants are well known for this behavior, it's a bit obvious. But let's say you were walking in the park and don't know either party.

Taking it further, is it safe to assume that there are no other circumstances--save protection of you or your family, of course--in which you would opt to use your firearm? I realize this would be determined on a case by case basis to some extent, but you can at least answer with an absolute 'yes' or a qualified 'no.'

Again, no judgments implied.

On a lighter note, I think the proper response to "go inside and mind your own business" should have been something along the lines of "Yeah, I'm going. I forgot my popcorn anyway."

I wouldn't draw a distinction between domestic violence versus any other kind. You're right, without knowledge of the people, you couldn't tell if it was DV.

In order for me to get involved in a dispute... any dispute... beyond calling the cops, I'd probably need to feel that my inaction would result in death (or very serious injury) of one of the parties, and I'd need to be pretty confident in my ability to be able to make the shot if need be. The first part is a judgment call that's going to be different in every situation. The last part depends on your own confidence and training.

Since we've already gone outside the OP's situation, I'll go a bit further. What if you intervene in a situation where a big guy is pummeling a little guy, had to shoot because you thought the little guy was going suffer grievous bodily injury, and then later find out the the guy you're trying to defend just raped the wife of the "attacker"?

It gets really complicated when you don't know at least one of the parties involved.

 

[billybob44]

Here's one point of view on that:

Commentary by Evan Marshall

^^^VERY Good read..

 

[groovatron]

Heck, we still carry cells, even though the service is turned off because we went back to a land line. The phones can still be used for emergency calls.

Good point........If it wasn't for my job, I'd be doing the same thing. My phone is just a work leash...........but at least I can check out some INGO threads on the crapper

 

[troy2198]

Glad the situation ended well. The only thing I have to say about the situation was the "what if" of if he did have a gun and decided to draw down on you. Did you have a plan for if you had to put him down taking into consideration not only the BG but other potential by standers that may be down range such as the woman and her child? Also such things as cover and a escape route if SHTF. I know most think of the first part where all the action is occuring, but seldom think beyond that. Again congrats on a pleasant encounter with the police and Im glad nothing had to be done.

 

[j706]

One of the biggest problems with domestic situations is that often times both sides will start to defend each other against any third party. I hate them and they can be very unpredictable. Man beats a woman,go to take man into custody and the woman jumps on you. Or the other way around.

It sounds like the OP did a good job. He might have saved someone from injury or worse.

 

[DarkRose]

but at least I can check out some INGO threads on the crapper

You too?!

 

[groovatron]

You too?!

 

[littletommy]

I hope I'm not taking this out of context, and I've read a lot of Jacks posts and tend to mostly agree with him. I also tend to agree with the majority of the posts in this thread. Main lessons here: Be very cautious, have a phone and be prepared to use it.

I do take issue with most people all saying things like "not your problem", "don't get involved"...Etc.

What if the OP didn't say anything? What if he didn't and he drives by the police and her body in the street on his way to work tomorrow morning?

I know there are a million variables in a situation like this and ANYTHING can happen, but there is no way (now I'm venturing into the conversation not the actual situation) I can see a guy beating a chic's face in and not do something. Agreed, I can't just start popping off rounds, but I am going to kick him repeatedly (after I call the police and rush in). I mean, would you let a swimmer drown while trying to determine if they needed help or would you jump in a check to be on the safe side?

One of the reasons I carry is to help protect those that might need protecting. Part of the problem in society today is douche bags getting away with dum**** because they know no one will step in. Maybe if we policed each other and our neighborhoods a little more crime rates might drop, maybe some punks would think twice about being spotted whilst acting like a retard. I'm no knight in shining armor, but no one is getting strong arm robbed, jumped, beating women, raping, pillaging...etc if I can help it. I will intervene if it seems necessary, but I will also call the cops in NY second (prior to intervening if possible).

Just an opinion, and likely not articulated right, but hopefully you get my point.

It's a completely different situation than someone being attacked and screaming for help. I do not carry my weapon to break up two idiots fighting in public. Let's say you successfully break up the fight, and the darling couple go back in the house, he/she is free to beat the living **** outta the other party, and there is nothing you can do, other than what you should have already done, which was call the cops.
As I said before, I will not risk all the bad things that could come from firing my weapon, to break up a domestic .

 

[Booya]

It's a completely different situation than someone being attacked and screaming for help. I do not carry my weapon to break up two idiots fighting in public. Let's say you successfully break up the fight, and the darling couple go back in the house, he/she is free to beat the living **** outta the other party, and there is nothing you can do, other than what you should have already done, which was call the cops.
As I said before, I will not risk all the bad things that could come from firing my weapon, to break up a domestic .

How soon we forget...

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...110556-gun_carrying_couple_stops_beating.html

I see and awful lot of "+1" and "hell ya"'s in that thread, yet for the most part this thread seems to contradict that. The situations are different as are the interventionists reaction, but we're following the same line here. There is really no way to know what your getting involved in, in a case like this. Every situation is going to be different and everyones reaction is going to be different, but I applaud the OP for stepping in, you'll never know if someone needed your help if you don't offer it. The Marine Corps and my parents would be disappointed in me if saw something like this and just continued walking.

What I'm taking from this is A) be cautious and know your escalation of force, not every situation requires a gun. B) Call the police and have a plan for your intervention (time permitting). C) DO NOT pick a fight with my wife in the drive way and risk some INGO pulling his pistol all willy nilly on me (C was a joke).

All in all the OP's situation ended well and that's the best part, but +1 to you for man(ing) up. Who knows what would have happened if you hadn't.

 

[88GT]

I wouldn't draw a distinction between domestic violence versus any other kind. You're right, without knowledge of the people, you couldn't tell if it was DV.

In order for me to get involved in a dispute... any dispute... beyond calling the cops, I'd probably need to feel that my inaction would result in death (or very serious injury) of one of the parties, and I'd need to be pretty confident in my ability to be able to make the shot if need be. The first part is a judgment call that's going to be different in every situation. The last part depends on your own confidence and training.

Since we've already gone outside the OP's situation, I'll go a bit further. What if you intervene in a situation where a big guy is pummeling a little guy, had to shoot because you thought the little guy was going suffer grievous bodily injury, and then later find out the the guy you're trying to defend just raped the wife of the "attacker"?

It gets really complicated when you don't know at least one of the parties involved.

Fair enough. I recognize that each situation would have to be taken on its own merits. It just seemed that there was an absolute standard against intervention in physical altercations involving a man and a woman because the assumption was that it was automatically a domestic dispute in which both parties share an equal amount of responsibility and blame. I've got no beef with not interfering in known idiot boxing matches. But I've got a problem assuming that most interactions fall under that category as well.

To the text in red, I can only make choices based on the best available knowledge at the time. Frankly, based on nothing more than visual cues, and assuming all the other circumstances warranted and allowed for safe intervention, I wouldn't have a problem with doing so. (I don't hold that I actually have to shoot the person to stop the altercation though, which is what a fair amount of people seem to be using as their operational definition. Being willing to do so if a firearm clears leather and actually having to do it are two very different things.) Doesn't mean I would though. Just means I'd sleep at night if I did.

I think it's a logical fallacy to assume that an armed response to your hypothetical necessary requires the big guy to be shot. It assumes facts not in evidence. Either the good Samaritan (that would be you or I) draws and fires without warning or the big guy fails to heed instructions by us to stop. Now, I assume most of us would never opt for the first choice without more information which clearly indicates it was necessary and prudent. Which leaves only the second, and frankly, having someone ignore my commands to stop beating the ever-loving snot out of a third party while I'm pointing a gun at him gives me all the information I need to feel justified in going farther. It ceases being about self-defense or defense of the rape victim if the big guy disregards the command and continues with his beat down. It has become nothing more than vigilante justice. I don't have a problem stopping someone from administering that.

 

[Booya]

Maybe I'm just instigating here, but JettaKnight said he was a big dude and was definitely tougher then he was. What if he had said he was some little punk wannabe thug high school kid or something? I can't help but wonder if some of the responses would have been different when in reality that doesn't really change the dynamic of the situation.

 

[22collector]

JettaKnight, thanks for post. It's easy for the rest of us to say what we might have done, but you lived it. I also appreciate you sharing how you might have reacted differently. A good lesson.

 

[xring62]

Haha, glad you are ok. Did this guy happen to have a neck tattoo? Sounds like the same dumbass I ran into.

.........you live in NewCastle ? ha ,lots of those junkie guys there!

 

[littletommy]

Maybe I'm just instigating here, but JettaKnight said he was a big dude and was definitely tougher then he was. What if he had said he was some little punk wannabe thug high school kid or something? I can't help but wonder if some of the responses would have been different when in reality that doesn't really change the dynamic of the situation.

Not to me. I'm not walking into a bad situation wether the dude is 8' tall or 4' tall. A man has to know his limitations, even if he's carrying a weapon, and getting between a lovers quarrel/fight, especially strangers, is where I draw the line and let the cops handle it.

 

[DIRTY HARRY]

Bravo, good for you and glad no one was hurt.