Question about protecting others.

[hamlet]

Lets say my mother and I are out and about somewhere, completely minding our business. I'm inside paying for the gas while she's out ready to pump, I look out and see two men jump on her and start beating her (would your answer be the same if it was only 1 guy?), I already know I'm going to go out with my weapon drawn and tell them to stop immediately or be shoot. Would I be in my legal right to do so? And shot if they didn't stop? See, I'm looking for a cut and dry answer, I've asked cops and I ALWAYS get a different answer. Obviously two guys duking it out is something I'd walk right past, I'm talking about a person that is obviously helpless in the situation, i.e. older lady, handicapped etc etc. P.s. I live in Florida.

Well, legally you can use lethal force to prevent lethal injury to another - but you better know that actually is happening and your action will not make a situation worse or you will: kill an undercover cop holding a gun on someone, or cause a BGs gun to go off while pointed at a store clerk as your round hits him, or shoot a father stopping his car and pulling his run-away child into it angrily because you believed you are witnessing a kidnapping - you get the picture.
And if it's another person, I don't think the "reasonable belief" of SD for yourself applies: I may be wrong but I believe if you shoot someone because you believe he is killing another person you have to be correct, no matter what the signs SEEM to point to.

Unless you're really sure and sure they will die without your intervention, it is much better to let professionals with much more training - including the law - handle situations external to you.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[9MMare]

Well, legally you can use lethal force to prevent lethal injury to another - but you better know that actually is happening and your action will not make a situation worse or you will: kill an undercover cop holding a gun on someone, or cause a BGs gun to go off while pointed at a store clerk as your round hits him, or shoot a father stopping his car and pulling his run-away child into it angrily because you believed you are witnessing a kidnapping - you get the picture.
And if it's another person, I don't think the "reasonable belief" of SD for yourself applies: I may be wrong but I believe if you shoot someone because you believe he is killing another person you have to be correct, no matter what the signs SEEM to point to.

Unless you're really sure and sure they will die without your intervention, it is much better to let professionals with much more training - including the law - handle situations external to you.

The OP's question was fairly specific....and your answer is all over the place, covering a many completely different situations ("pulling his run-away child", "undercover cop holding a gun on someone").

2 people beating up someone. Then one person beating up someone. There are pretty specific laws that apply to those (and the differing degrees) in each state. And I dont think anyone told him to just shoot. Lethal force wasnt imminent, there's time to assess, identify, question.

[hamlet]

The OP's question was fairly specific....and your answer is all over the place, covering a many completely different situations ("pulling his run-away child", "undercover cop holding a gun on someone").

2 people beating up someone. Then one person beating up someone. There are pretty specific laws that apply to those (and the differing degrees) in each state. And I dont think anyone told him to just shoot. Lethal force wasnt imminent, there's time to assess, identify, question.

First of all, who are you to evaluate other posters responses to an OP.

Second, go read his post, which is what I responded to with information about protecting others with lethal means. (and, yes, he did ask about lethal means, as in "shooting"). And from that, he can get the answer, and avoid mistakes of acting on appearances alone - various examples of which I gave him.

Third: How about you take care of your own monitoring - of yourself......

In other words: you work your side of the street; I'll work mine.

[gottabkiddin]

My short answer would be simply this..... I see anyone attacking a loved one of mine and under any circumstances, they'll be extremely lucky to even hear me coming. I'll only use my firearm as a last resort, and only if the situation calls for lethal force. Two on one IMO does fall within the realm of disparity of force, but these kinds of calls are never easily articulated from an armchair. In the heat of a fight decisions are made in an instance and can have devastating results and consequences. IMO, a little more caution can go along way while out with the family, i.e. Mom stays in the car and you take care of the fuel situation.

[kelcarry]

Lot of good answers with most saying the same thing. In SC coming to the aid of someone else who is being attacked is called the "Alter Ego Rule". If you consider the attack on someone else as being an attack that, if it were you, would be a presumption and could cause imminent danger of death or great bodily injury to you, you are allowed to intercede. In your scenario, this Rule becomes even clearer since you know the person being attacked. The problem with Alter Ego is when you see an incident but do not fully know the circumstances surrounding it---you could end up possibly killing someone who, when the facts come out, may have looked to be the bad guy, but was not. In any event, imminent danger of death or great bodily injury are the key words when we are talking about presenting and using your firearm. Disparity of force, as mentioned in replies, would certainly be a precursor to imminent danger but just because a 250 pound muscular individual is beginning to lay hands on a 150 pound individual and it is starting to approach that "imminent" plateau you must still convince the legal system that imminent danger was evident.

[Sticks]

I have a very simple rule for "Defense of others"

It's not my problem until it becomes my problem.

Parties that I do not know involved in a scuffle = not my problem. I am a witness to give my information to the Police.

One person shooting at another person = not my problem.

One person shooting willy nilly at anybody and everybody = my problem since it is presumed I am on the list of targets.

Coming into an incident already in progress, even with someone that I know very well = Not my problem since I don't know what started the incident.

An incident involving immediate family = My problem.

The solution to "my problem" will vary based on conditions. In your example, no question, lethal force is justified...presuming your mother did nothing to instigate it (there's always a catch). If your mother happens to be drunk/hopped up on goofballs/mentally unstable and picked the fight, lethal force is not such a good plan. Other means to bring a halt to the events should be applied first.

[KindOfBlue]

I agree with ret. If I look out and see my mother being attacked by 1 or 100 I am discharging my sidearm if I have a clean shot. Some my try to subdue the attacker but if they have a weapon that you don't know about then the rest of your family may be burying 2 members of their family in about 3 days. I'm not taking that chance. Especially if it is a grown man or men assaulting my elderly mother. They picked the wrong fight. Shame on them.

This.
My mother is a kidney transplant recipient, and is weakened as a result of her medication. Unfortunately she wouldn't have any chance on her own.
Attack her and you're attacking me. My mom is a living saint, and anyone that would dare touch her would be in for a very bad day.

[Harryball]

I have a very simple rule for "Defense of others"

It's not my problem until it becomes my problem.

Parties that I do not know involved in a scuffle = not my problem. I am a witness to give my information to the Police.

One person shooting at another person = not my problem.

One person shooting willy nilly at anybody and everybody = my problem since it is presumed I am on the list of targets.

Coming into an incident already in progress, even with someone that I know very well = Not my problem since I don't know what started the incident.

An incident involving immediate family = My problem.

The solution to "my problem" will vary based on conditions. In your example, no question, lethal force is justified...presuming your mother did nothing to instigate it (there's always a catch). If your mother happens to be drunk/hopped up on goofballs/mentally unstable and picked the fight, lethal force is not such a good plan. Other means to bring a halt to the events should be applied first.

This is by far the best answer in the thread so far. Bottom line. Your family, your in the game, Not your family stay out of it.

[MattInFla]

Lets say my mother and I are out and about somewhere, completely minding our business. I'm inside paying for the gas while she's out ready to pump, I look out and see two men jump on her and start beating her (would your answer be the same if it was only 1 guy?), I already know I'm going to go out with my weapon drawn and tell them to stop immediately or be shoot. Would I be in my legal right to do so? And shot if they didn't stop? See, I'm looking for a cut and dry answer, I've asked cops and I ALWAYS get a different answer. Obviously two guys duking it out is something I'd walk right past, I'm talking about a person that is obviously helpless in the situation, i.e. older lady, handicapped etc etc. P.s. I live in Florida.

Unfortunately, the answer is not that cut and dried. I'll do my best, though. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor is this legal advice.

First: Jon Gutmacher's book. BUY IT AND READ IT.

In Florida, you are permitted to use force to defend a third party, up to but not exceeding the level of force that third party is permitted to use to defend against the assault in progress:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person. -

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

F.S. 776.013 deals with self defense within the home, so we'll leave it out of the discussion.

Since your scenario indicates that deadly force (or at least the threat of deadly force) is the option of choice, we need to determine whether or not you reasonably believe that you are preventing imminent infliction of death or great bodily harm, or preventing the imminent or actual commission of a forcible felony under Florida Law.

The type and character of the force being used against your mother in the scenario determines whether or not there is a reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm. For instance, if this is just a slap or shove ("what are you looking at, <expletive>. <slap>"), you probable do not have any reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm. OTOH, if they knock her to the ground and start kicking her, you probably do have such a belief.

Absent imminent death or great bodily harm, you might also have the reasonable belief that a forcible felony was about to be committed. The Florida Statutes define forcible felony as follows:

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

It seems to me that the two most likely forcible felonies here would be robbery, aggravated assault or aggravated battery. Because you cannot hear what is going on, you probably cannot make a case that you reasonably believe this to be a robbery, as you cannot hear any demand for money or property. This leaves aggravated assault and aggravated battery.

Florida Statue defines aggravated assault as:

784.021 Aggravated assault.—

(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:

(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or

(b) With an intent to commit a felony.

(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

No deadly weapon is in evidence, and you probably cannot establish intent to commit a felony from beyond hearing range (i.e. you don't know what is being said).

Aggravated battery in Florida likewise requires the use of a weapon, along with actual injury from that weapon, so it would not apply here.

So, we're back to imminent death or great bodily harm. From your scenario, I can't really tell if this applies.

But....

Here's how your scenario could go very, very bad and land you in prison.

Let's say this all goes down as you have written, and you come in and break it up at gunpoint. The police arrive, and statements are taken. Let's say that the force being used does not create a reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm in the eyes of the prosecutor.

You end up being charged with Aggravated Assault under the statue listed above. You threatened them with a deadly weapon, without any intent of committing a felony. The prosecutor files charges under the listed statute.

Now for the extra bad news. Under F.S. 775.087(2), Aggravated Assault using a firearm carries a minimum, mandatory three year prison term.

So, here's what I would suggest:

1. Get Jon Gutmacher's book, ASAP, and read it.
2. Obtain some decent professional training. We all need more training. I just finished a class, and I am looking for the next one.
3. Think about an intermediate tool in the force continuum. Pepper spray, etc. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Matt

[MitchellCT]

See, I'm looking for a cut and dry answer...

That's your problem. It's all situational, and subject to change.

If you want a cut and dry answer - stop carrying, because the lawful, effective use of a firearm requires a lot of situational evaluation under very limited time constraints.

For training to enable you do think fast and correctly, take Massad Ayoob's MAG-40 class, or Tactical Response's Fighting Pistol handgun class & "The Fight" situational force on force class or John Farnam's Pistol & Force of Force classes.

You are talking about defense of a 3rd party - and that's not a light, cut and cry subject for anyone to get into unless they know what they hell they are doing...

And people asking for a cut and dry answer, with respect...demonstrability do not.

Train up to the issue you are looking at, or leave it the hell alone.

To do otherwise is to invite disaster.

[MattInFla]

Florida, not sure where you live in the state, but this guy puts on a very good class: Defensive Handgun – 1 - High Point Personal Security Training – CCW Gun Training

Matt

[9MMare]

First of all, who are you to evaluate other posters responses to an OP.

Second, go read his post, which is what I responded to with information about protecting others with lethal means. (and, yes, he did ask about lethal means, as in "shooting"). And from that, he can get the answer, and avoid mistakes of acting on appearances alone - various examples of which I gave him.

Third: How about you take care of your own monitoring - of yourself......

In other words: you work your side of the street; I'll work mine.

Nothing unusual about trying to keep people from introducing all sorts of non-related things to scenarios and situations. I've seen you complain about it with your scenarios.

Stick with the program.

[hamlet]

Nothing unusual about trying to keep people from introducing all sorts of non-related things to scenarios and situations. I've seen you complain about it with your scenarios.

Stick with the program.

*Go back and read the OP's Post: he asked about the right to shoot as part of his post and I gave him the basic law that relates to that, as well as examples of how errors in judgment are easily made in such events as he brought up.

*I don't and haven't critiqued other posters formal writing capability like a nosy school-marm. I took issue with a point that they made, which is the nature of discussion.

* if you want to find irrelevancy anywhere, notice the off-topic nature of your own post.

*Mind your own business in the future.

[INccwchris]

Well, legally you can use lethal force to prevent lethal injury to another - but you better know that actually is happening and your action will not make a situation worse or you will: kill an undercover cop holding a gun on someone, or cause a BGs gun to go off while pointed at a store clerk as your round hits him, or shoot a father stopping his car and pulling his run-away child into it angrily because you believed you are witnessing a kidnapping - you get the picture.
And if it's another person, I don't think the "reasonable belief" of SD for yourself applies: I may be wrong but I believe if you shoot someone because you believe he is killing another person you have to be correct, no matter what the signs SEEM to point to.

Unless you're really sure and sure they will die without your intervention, it is much better to let professionals with much more training - including the law - handle situations external to you.

Since when does law enforcement have better training than the average CCW'er?

[claude clay]

Someone jumps my mother and their dead. Either by my hand or hers. End of story. Someone on the street? depends on the situation.

thats a B I G 10-4 seeing how she is at Bushnell Memorial next to my dad...


but the OP says--mother, and lets play it that way. thus we do in fact know who is pushing bad and what needs doing: making him stop without causing more injury to mom in the prosess than can be reasonably avoided. like grabbing her by the arm may cause a bruise but it prevents him from hitting her...that is acceptable.
so they are grappling and you are not going to threaten him wih a gun--they are too close together. and if you are holding a gun than you only have one hand to fight with.

if all you have is a hammer, than everything starts to look like a nail.

get them seperated and than perhaps he gun may be a tool to chase him off with.
or if you can't get them apart, than you get in close and fire into him from contact distance.

think how to seperate them, a window cleaner on a stick can be a push-him-away tool.
keep looking for answers, and don't shop there again.