Stopping a fight

[shibumiseeker]

interesting thread, however, anybody remember the gun owner that saved a woman from being stabbed to death by her ex-husband?

Wal-Mart Gun Policy Saves New Mexico Woman's Life

Now you're talking about an attack with a deadly weapon. That changes the equation. It's still not cut and dry for me (so to speak), but it does tilt it some for me.

 

[shibumiseeker]

I don't know why, but your reply made me chuckle.

Thanks! I was trying for a little humor in a serious reply.

 

[Caleb]

Now you're talking about an attack with a deadly weapon. That changes the equation. It's still not cut and dry for me (so to speak), but it does tilt it some for me.

Maybe, but hasn't it been established that punches can be lethal? Especially if the other person is unconscious and the aggressor keeps on pounding his face in....

One thing for sure, I'd have a really guilty cloud over me if I stood by and not do enough and later find out that person is dead.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Maybe, but hasn't it been established that punches can be lethal? Especially if the other person is unconscious and the aggressor keeps on pounding his face in....

One thing for sure, I'd have a really guilty cloud over me if I stood by and not do enough and later find out that person is dead.

I do not dispute that someone can be beaten to death barehanded, I've seen it.

But I'm not going to wade into fight with my bare hands. If I shoot someone beating someone else up it incurs much more jeopardy for me. If I shoot someone wielding a deadly weapon I have a much stronger defense.

Like I said both times: I can't say I would never intervene, nor would I always intervene, but once a deadly weapon is in play it does change the equation some for me tilting it more towards intervening.

 

[EvilKidsMeal]

But I'm not going to wade into fight with my bare hands. If I shoot someone beating someone else up it incurs much more jeopardy for me. If I shoot someone wielding a deadly weapon I have a much stronger defense.

.

but like ive said before it would be pretty hard for a defense attorney to argue the fact that (figuratively speaking) this victim is in the hospital and in critical condition. a few simple pictures from the hospital showing how battered this person is could easily clear that up. that combined with the doctors report of injuries. i don't see how that could be turned against the person who was protecting the victim. that seems like a pretty solid defense to me.

 

[Caleb]

I do not dispute that someone can be beaten to death barehanded, I've seen it.

But I'm not going to wade into fight with my bare hands. If I shoot someone beating someone else up it incurs much more jeopardy for me. If I shoot someone wielding a deadly weapon I have a much stronger defense.

Like I said both times: I can't say I would never intervene, nor would I always intervene, but once a deadly weapon is in play it does change the equation some for me tilting it more towards intervening.

My point being is that anything can and probably will become a weapon in a fight, anybody can die from those weapons. My choice wither to stand by and watch it unfold or to get involved and help probably will affect wither somebody could die or not...

 

[finity]

The guy on top was just mugged by the guy on the bottom and got the advantage.

The sister of the guy on top was raped by the guy on the bottom.

The guy on the bottom worked for AIG and all of the guy on top's savings are gone.

The guy on the bottom worked for TSA and groped the guy on top's kid.

The guy on the bottom was a drunk driver who just got out of jail after spending six months in lockup for killing the guy on top's wife and kid when he was driving blind drunk.

The two guys are in a domestic relationship having a fight and the moment you do something to the guy on top the guy on the bottom turns on you and starts beating the tar out of you.

...

You intervene physically in something you don't know about? I can't say I never would, but I'd need a more compelling reason to do so.

It sounds from a later post that you MAY have been joking but none of those situations justify deadly force be used against the one on the bottom by the one on the top. Some would try to argue that MORALLY it would be justified (not that I don't partly agree) but as the law is now it wouldn't be legally justified.

Vigilante justice is never OK. NEVER. The rule of law goes completely out the window & we would lose total control of justice if we could go back after the fact & decide for ourselves what punishment someone deserved.

Even if the guy on top is the good guy, you might be stopping him from making the biggest mistake of his life.

Exactly.

That is true; you did not specifically ask about using deadly force, but it was implied, when you said:

"so if you really feel like this guy is in serious need of help would you pull your gun and try to stop it?"

I also agree that I would have a hard time living with myself if I stood by and watched someone be beaten to the point of serious bodily injury (which includes death) and not pull a gun if I had one. If intervening by pulling a gun, however, one had better be prepared to use deadly force, and the repercussions will still be extensive and severe regardless of how legal, "reasonable," or justified.

People say this like it is a foregone conclusion that ANY use of force (especially deadly force) even when justified self-defense will always end up with the defender being put in the poor house from legal fees. That's not true at all. COULD IT happen? Sure Anything CAN happen.

For those who say that it WILL happen do you have any statistics to back up your argument that "the repercussions will...be extensive & severe" especially in a "legal, reasonable, or justified" self-defense situation or are those claims just hyperbole & scare tactics?

I'm sort of with LP1 on this one. You may manage to keep yourself out of trouble legally but...if the past decade or so has taught us anything, it's that just about anyone can sue someone for what we may see as ridiculous and still walk out on top. In a way it reminds me of several civil cases throughout the country in which a burglar (or suspected burglar) is shot by a homeowner on his own property and the family of the would-be burglar ends up with a huge payout. Yes, it's ridiculous. No, it makes no sense whatsoever. But unfortunately, we've come to a point as a society where making a lot of money with the least amount of effort possible is endlessly glorified, regardless of the means.

So. All that to say, you're probably going to end up paying for it. Would I still get involved? Oh...probably. : )

Why?

I go back to my above comments. How many people in IN have been sued (especially successfully) after having been found to have been justified in using force (deadly or otherwise) to defend themselves?

I think people are getting a couple of things confused.

First, IN is not "throughout the country". Our laws have very little to do with the laws in other states.

Secondly, most (all?) of those cases where people have been sued afterward for liability are from cases where either the person didn't claim self-defense or where self-defense was found to be not justified.

Take OJ as a huge example. He didn't get sued after he was found to be justified in using self-defense to kill his wife & the other guy. He never used self-defense as a defense at all. He was simply found not guilty of murder because there wasn't enough evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) to legally convict him. At that time the civil liability option was available to the families. It would be very difficult to sue someone in IN after they had been found justified in using deadly force. Again, could it happen? Sure & I'm sure it has happened (Walter Zoomie's case comes to mind) but that is most likely the exception & not the rule. If anybody has evidence to show that is the standard then I would like to see it.

The way I understand it is that a gun, used in self-defense of person and/or property, must be used in a 'pull, point-n-shoot' situation to be termed 'self-defense.' Anyone who pulls a gun and points it directly at someone, or simply pulls it or flashes it and lets others know you have it, can be prosecuted under 'intimidation' or 'threatening someone with a deadly weapon'.

I don't think you understand it properly. There is no law that says you HAVE to use a gun (or any other weapon) if you pull it as long as you would otherwise be justified to use deadly force. IOW, if you can legally use deadly force on someone then pulling the gun & not using it is OK. As a matter of fact the IC that covers pointing a firearm points out as an exclusion the IC that covers the use of deadly force. OTOH, if you do continue to use DF on someone who is no longer a threat just because you pulled your gun in the first place then you could be in trouble.

The intimidation IC says that the threat has to be for a prior lawful act, or that you are threatening to "unlawfully" injure them. If you are justified in using DF then the "threat" is not "unlawful".

Now, if you are just "flashing it" to show somebody how BA you are & deadly force isn't justified then that could be (& has been) found to be intimidation.

 

[Amishman44]

interesting thread, however, anybody remember the gun owner that saved a woman from being stabbed to death by her ex-husband?

Wal-Mart Gun Policy Saves New Mexico Woman's Life

Two kids fighting it out...evenly matched...not a problem...they'll be friends again in two days.

A man stabbing a women...totally changes things...that's not a fair fight...the woman should receive instant help!!!