This is a discussion on real life scenario from this past week... within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Lots of thing to consider here. but the men were beating on the women as well as on each other, but the women were NOT ...
Lots of thing to consider here.Sounds like the women were accustomed to being punching bags. As sad as it is, they made their bed and now they have to lie in it. If you were to shoot "Baby Daddy", who provides food and shelter to the woman and her baby, do you really think you will be getting a "Thank you" from said victim?but the men were beating on the women as well as on each other, but the women were NOT fighting back--
Commentary by Evan Marshall
As much as we may all want to help, that help needs to be tempered with the realities of the world that we live in today. Until our legal system is changed to being more supportive of third party intervention, I will only be bringing a gun to the most profound engagements.
Do I care if the woman lives or dies? Not really, as it has no bearing on my day to day life. Is it sad? Most definately it is. Sadly the world is not Utopia, and evil does inhabit the world. My goal is to see that myself and my loved ones make it home.
On the surface this appears to be a shoot situation, weaker defender, aggressor armed with a deadly instrument, disparity of force. Now, when it's all said and done, do you think that if you shot "Baby Daddy" that the victim here will be thankful towards you?
Life has taught me that you would be painted as the aggressor and that your intervention was not warranted. I can assure you that the local prosecutorial powers that be would make sure you learned that lesson. That forces one to have a hard shell and appear uncaring about those around you. At least that's the approach that I have taken, as it seems to work for me.
Would I be justified in shooting? From what I know, and looking strictly at the elements in this thread and that all of the elements of Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy are met on paper, yes. Would I want to take the risk of finding out if I didn't have to? Nope, as I've got too much to lose.
Last edited by BikerRN; May 24th, 2010 at 12:38 PM. Reason: more info: AOJ
“What we have done for ourselves alone dies with us; what we have done for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pike
It would be a hard call to make. If i felt that someone was going to die i might step in and try to do something but that many people against me isnt good at all. That might also attract unwanted attention to the kid as well. It would be best if stepping in wasn't necessary
The problem with that situation in NC, as I understand it, is if the woman started the violence I have no legal means to defend her. If she is not legally justified in defending herself, ie instigated it, then I cannot defend her either. Tough call. If I did not see it start and know which players are responsible then I have a tough decision based on our third party defense ideas.
That's the type of situation I worry about the most. I would probably want to do something, but feel like the law ties your hands to a point. That can be good or bad I guess.
For example, if she tried to stab the guy before I saw anything then he is justified in bashing her head in.
I prefer to live dangerously free than safely caged!
"Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun. And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son." Josh Thompson "Way Out Here"
Drunks and a domestic dispute? No thanks.....
Children in the way...yeah...tough call. I probably would have stayed on the line with 911....
Magazine <> clip - know the difference
martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know
I cant say for sure what I would have done. But this scenario goes right back to my thread from last week: Opportunity, Ability and Intent. And while all of us on here know we would never like to be placed in the middle of a situation like that I much like you dont know if I would have been able to stand by and watch a woman be hit in the face with a rock like that either.
This thread goes to show just how on your own you really are, my fellow man...LOL
Not my problem is much easier, and we wonder why we're in the shape were in.
Only an authority figure can act...come on
I guess it confirms one statistic. in a crisis situation 80% will do nothing, 10% will do the wrong thing, and 10% will do the right thing, which in this case is save the women LIFE!
GUN CONTROL= I WANT TO BE THE ONE IN CONTROL OF THE GUN
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Are you saying that the "right thing" to do is to kill the man harming the woman?
Even if you have no idea what the situation is?
Even if the police may have been called already?
Since you separated "doing nothing" as a different statistic, what would be the "wrong thing" to do?
There is something about firing 4,200 thirty millimeter rounds/min that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
My own thoughts would have been the following as in order of importance to my own view:
1) Rescue and secure the child;
2) Dial 911...And state persons are being assaulted with lethal weapons in the immediate;
Yes, I know that third item is harsh...But aside from some very specific conditions that is what I'd do.
I have no idea who is the BG, who is the GG, and who was the instigator (there is always one of each!).
As well my primary thought as a default has to be my own safety and security.
My own kids depend on that.
There after my own morals require me to do what I can to care for the child.
In doing so me going into to become one among the fray does not further enable me to ensure active security of the child.
Further now I become a secondary instigator as not just by the view of all others involved, but by the eye of a hindsight is 20/20 jury too.
Even as my intent to act/react might have been in the immediate per my understanding of the situations dynamic, nothing but pure & benevolent.
The situation to my view per the OPs third person reporting is largely full of suck and circumstance.
As much as I would not want to see _any person_ being assaulted, regardless of gender!, I would likely act in a carefully measured response for these reasons.
- Janq is not a police nor Captain Sav-A-Dope
I would think that in states where you are allowed to come to the aid of another person, you would need to apply the evaluation to the victum, in this case the woman.
Does the guy with the rock have opportunity to injury the woman; He already is, does he have ability, a rock would qualify, has he displayed intent, he is already hitting her.
I am not taking the position that coming on this scene would I would automaticially shoot, nor can I say I would not shoot. Really tough call.
Imagine you shot the guy with the rock, only to have the little girl run over and cry, "Daddy" as he fell. Then you find out the woman had grabbed the child, and the fathers friends were busy keeping her accomplishes off the dad while he wrestled the little girl from the womans grip. By then adrenelin dump got the best of him and he continued to use the rock after she let go of the girl.
an option is making enough noise to let the involved know that the police are on their way and that if anyone wants to avoid going to jail now would be the time to haulass....you might get lucky and appeal to someones desire for freedom...or they might turn on you and deadly force will be necessary...
very tough call...i vote secure the child and make some noise while attempting to leave the situation...then see where it goes...
Can we really say that these women are "used" to getting beaten simply because they aren't fighting back?
And is it logical then to make the assumption that, even if they are used to it, they have "made their beds" and are somehow deserving of getting beaten to death?
And what if the man doing the beating is indeed justified in the attack (or defense) because the woman was the initiator - does this mean that he is legally allowed to attack her after any threat she may have posed is clearly nonexistent now? It would appear that, if the woman was the initiator, her threat is clearly over, and the man's act of self-defense has now become assault, even if it is an "adrenaline dump." Again, just food for thought.
I think removing the child from danger is the first move, followed by a 911 call, then a verbal warning to the attacker. I honestly think the savageness of the rock beating would motivate me to intervene in some form. I didn't ask to be put in that situation, but if I found myself in it, I could not stand by waiting for the police to arrive if the woman's life was clearly in immediate danger. Am I saying that I would pull my weapon? Not at first, but I would consider it if other methods did not work. I would even consider firing a few rounds in the air before pointing the weapon at someone.
Bersa Thunder Plus .380
"The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."
Especially if all you have is 8 rounds in your .45 and nothing in reserve, eh?
Yes sir, you betcha!! Listening to the nurse at work tell the story and thinking thru the implications has caused me to think about carrying a spare mag on a routine basis.
Scott, US Army 1974-2004
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
- Ronald Reagan