Defensive Carry banner

What would YOU do?--Disabled Witness

7K views 107 replies 20 participants last post by  mulle46 
#1 ·
OK, I know this is off the wall but I'd really like your ideas on this scenario and how you would react:

This is a combination of the classic Hitchcock / James Stewart movie Rear Window and an actual assault that made the news last year. That was of the younger male who pinned the senior citizen between his car and the opened car door, then pummeled the old guy for what seemed like an hour.

So there you are, sitting in a chair next to the window of your third floor apartment. You just finished cleaning your scoped deer hunting rifle. You hear some loud voices and look out the window to see this assault before the punching actually begins. You scan the area and see there is nobody else in the vicinity of the assault. You're unable due to a physical disability to run down to help the old guy. But you do have a box of cartridges within reach. You look again to see that the thug is continuing to pound the old guy. It's obvious that if this continued, the old guy would be severely injured if not killed.

The weather is clear, wind is calm, they are maybe 100 yards away - a distance that is pretty much a slam-dunk for you with that rifle...

What could you LEGALLY do that would stop the assault. Obviously you call 9-1-1 because of the crime and need for an ambulance (or coroner's wagon.) You expect help to arrive no quicker than 8 - 10 minutes, far longer than the old guy could withstand the beating. Can you do anything more? Would doing anything more land you in jail?
 
See less See more
#57 ·
Yeah, if you are at home, people, some people, will ask why you chose the assault rifle (meaning that you should not have one and that this shooting probably never would have happened if you had not had one) So yes, I would always choose the lesser weapon if possible, and it is not what these people think, it is if one of these or six of these clowns is on a jury and you are on trial.
You can never tell who will be on trial these days. I had a LEO whose brother pulled up a block ahead of a convenience store, LEO was in uniform coming home from work, sitting in the car as passenger. Brother goes into convenience store but to buy cocaine.
Citywide drug control unit swoops in and grabs not only brother but LEO IN THE CAR and arrests him. This is no lie. At the arraignment the news media was there and I told them no interviews except that they are to print tomorrow morning that they are just like vultures looking for the kill, print it just like that, and they left, mad.
When he got his not guilty at trial, we looked around, not a media person to be seen for miles.
His being a LEO did not keep fellow LEOS from arresting him. Thankfully the jurors knew the truth.
This is the same kind of ramification of firing a weapon and then there are ten thousand people second guessing you later on, and putting you on trial because of their own ignorance about the streets and how mean the streets really are.
The reason I say all this is twofold.
That you never know what will happen to you later, so you have to think ahead, and two, that there is no guarantee that you will get out of it in the legal system. It is really scary.
I don't think we talk about these scenarios, even the whacked ones, to practice about what we would do in real life. We do it so we can see that instead of two or three sides to every story, there may be ten sides.

I will mention, though, that juries in the South and in the West and Midwest know a h.... of a lot more about what should be done in shooting situations than people elsewhere. And this is a cultural thing.
My dad was from Oklahoma and I grew up in Bakersfield CA, and lived in Texas for several years and guns are a part of life.
In parts of the Northeast, especially the urban areas, guns are not a part of life and people ask me. First, is that loaded? And second, WHY do you carry it?
So the mental climate around urban Northeast areas is not all that friendly toward firearms to begin with and the numbers of people who have ever held a gun is small. Consequently they have no real conception of self-defense via a firearm. So the things I am saying do not apply nationwide and I can see someone in Tennessee shaking his head saying I have it all wrong. That there is no need to walk on eggshells with these scenarios, but I am going at it from a large city in the East perspective, mostly.
I can just see an Arkansas jury caring if it was an assault rifle or a handgun. I think common sense is more common in South and West. Especially concerning guns.
 
#59 ·
I know. Is not my perspective, but theirs.
Here is the way people around here look at guns.
Suppose you walked into a bar or a mall with a flamethrower strapped to your back with all combat accessories and sat down and ordered a beer, or a meal.
Exactly like that. The same stares, the same questions. The same fear.
Fortunately this is a minority of states. But my analysis of scenarios always keeps this in mind, so you might say to yourself, this guy advocates doing nothing. Uh uh. We do something, we always try to help those who are victims.
We just keep in mind what our little jurors might say about our guilt or innocence.
Rural countryside South and West? Common sense. No need to worry.
 
#60 ·
I know. Is not my perspective, but theirs.
An easy way to understand someone's perspective is to understand the difference between truth and fact. I expect that too many jurors don't know the difference. Consider:

The temperature in a room is 72 degrees. There are two people in the room. One person likes hot weather so he feels that the room is too cold. The other person loves cold climates so the room is too warm for him.

The truth is that the room is too cold for the hot weather guy and too warm for the cold weather guy.

The fact is that the room temperature is 72 degrees.

Truth is how each of us interpret the facts, or what we believe to be the facts. Different people can have different interpretations of the same set of facts. Neither person is being untruthful when they state their "truths" but neither person can be necessarily relied upon to be stating the facts.
 
#61 ·
No one, but no one could have said it better, Rivers. Why can't my posts be short and to the point instead of long like a newspaper article?
 
#62 ·
Actually, I enjoy your posts. But watch it, I've never been accused of being brief and to the point. Don't want to set any precedent here!

Not that either of us are in this league, but remember how Everett's speech contrasted with Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Two hours and over 10,000 words, and nobody even knows who Everett was. (His speech preceded Lincoln's 2-minute masterpiece.)

Guess "spray and pray" happens with orators too!
 
#63 ·
That is true. Thank goodness you did not come back with what i thought you were going to say about lawyers being long-winded, because I was going to reply that that was cold, yet true :)
 
#66 ·
Well said.
But it sure would be nice if the judge instructed the jury that the law says the room temp. must be held at 72 degrees and that they are required to stay within the boundaries of the law when they are making their judgements about a law-abiding citizen defendant. :twak:
 
#67 ·
Without reading this entire thread, I would probably:

Fire a well-placed shot into a small part of the BG's car. This would let him know that I have the drop on him and he needs to stop what he's doing. After doing this (and of course, the BG has heard the shot fired and seen the result), I would yell to him that I've called 911 and they're on the way, whether it's true or not.
 
#68 ·
Hi SpringerXD. Some were wondering if it COULD be done like that and I said I thought some folks on these forums could do it safely, i.e. where the round stays in the car and does not ricochet and hit others in homes etc in the city scenario.
I kind of thought it could be done where the round stays put in the car as intended. Others thought it was far too dangerous to attempt.
 
#70 ·
The thread really got going when they came on and said wait a minute, you could kill innocent bystanders while you are trying to save the one victim. And they were right, i THOUGHT.
They we started wondering if a real good shooter COULD do it or not, and the debate went on from there, but I thought it was still up in the air whether a good marksman or excellent marksman, rather, could do it safely where it would stay put in the car. It's a good question. I thought it could be done, as I said, by some people reading this.
I still wonder if it could be done or not, if anyone else wants to jump in.
Could a rifle round fired into a parked car right near where assailant is assaulting V, could an excellent marksman keep the round from ricocheting around into houses etc on this city street?
And I guess we were wondering if it was something that could be done at all, i.e. could even a trained sharpshooter do it or would it still be too risky?
Naturally the best thing to do is wait for police to arrive and maybe do a few of the alternative things we suggested on previous posts, but then I ended up wondering about it and Howard said he was, also.
 
#72 ·
Thanks. So a well placed shot could be done into the car, hopefully getting the message across to assailant.
 
#73 ·
The assailant would hear a sound like a small ball bearing or stone, thrown very hard, hitting the car and simultaneously, a sharp "crack" sound caused by the pressure wave of the bullet passing by him in close proximity in excess of the speed of sound. (guaranteed to discourage him from beating on the old man).
 
#74 ·
I guess so! The next round just might accidentally hit him, of course aimed at the car again, but since he did not stop his assault on the old man, well, the shooter just messed up a little bit. Too bad.
 
#76 ·
I can hear 'em. The assailant can't :) But he is definitely rehabilitated.
 
#78 ·
I look forward to more scenarios......
 
#80 · (Edited by Moderator)
OK, you're a non-swimmer at the side of a public pool. The town bully is drowning your wimpy best friend. (He's turning blue now...) There is nobody else in the area. The maintenance crews have removed all the poles and pool tools for the winter. There is only one tethered life preserver available. But you do have your fully loaded .44 Auto Mag, wrapped in a towel... And your buddy did bring his brand new video iPod to show it off to you. Headphones too.

Hey, this can be fun! But just kidding, no intention of starting a truly ridiculous scenario. I'll save it up for one that's worth the debate.

BTW, is it expensive to stop leaks in pool walls caused by bullets? And lets not forget the MythBlasters episode that covered the effectiveness of a bullet once it hits water.

On a serious note, is "jury nullification" actually illegal? If a jury decides on a "not guilty" verdict, can a judge overrule that and declare a "guilty" verdict? Would such an action hold up on appeal? Or, if a judge felt that there was a case of jury nullification, would the judge likely declare a mistrial to give the DA the option to try again?
 
#82 · (Edited by Moderator)
If a jury says NG that is it. If a jury says G, then the judge can act on a Motion for Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto. Judgement Notwithstanding the Verdict and say that legally speaking, there was not enough evidence presented to convict the defendant. And he would reverse their finding. But if there WAS enough and it just looked like D was Not Guilty and the jury said Guilty, nothing can be done. Jury has spoken.
Only when the judge says no, it was impossible for the jury to say he was guilty because of insufficient evidence.
Example: Suppose a crime has three elements, or components to it. You need all three, Two is not enough. The judge is listening to the entire trial and at the end, the jury comes back Guilty, The judge says as a matter of law, you did not have enough evidence.
Much more common is a Directed Verdict, whereby at the close of the state's evidence, the defense moves for a Motion for A Directed Verdict, then the judge turns to the jury and says he or she is instructing the jury to find D not guilty, because the proof was not beyond a reasonable doubt. Takes it right out of their hands either before they have a chance to decide or after they decided. He is ordering the jury to find the defendant NG.
But the NG is not changeable.

These scenarios are fun. I don't care how whacked out they are. Who cares? They are only scenarios and we would be surprised to learn just how many of them have really occurred.
Swimming pool. Imminent serious bodily injury or death. You can act to protect your buddy from being drowned. Force necessary to repel attacker.
Just as a quick aside, in civil law there is no duty to assist anyone. You can be walking by a lake, see someone drowning twenty feet from you, shrug, keep on walking, no problem. No duty to come to anyone's aid.
But IF you do come to his or her aid, you have to see it through in a non-negligent manner. E.g. You swim out, grab the swimmer, drag him under by mistake and he drowns. Your fault. Or you swim out, grab onto him, say, ah, I changed my mind, this is way too much trouble, you swim back. He drowns. Your fault. You came to his aid and did not see it through in a non-negligent manner. I mention this only as an aside as this is civil law. But I was reminded of it because in law school they gave a drowning guy case as an example.
But in our swimming pool case, whatever force you need to repel imminent serious bodily injury or death.

Jury nullfication seldom comes up, at least where I go, because it is attributed to other causes. I.e. jury must not have thought there was enough evidence or that it was not convincing evidence, so people who are observing do not always know that it was jury nullification.
 
#83 ·
With out knowing why the old dude was getting his butt kicked i would certainly not play sniper with my deer rifle!
I might haul buggy down there and try to help or intervene.
Heck, The old dude might be a pedoliphic neo-nazi atheist muslim extremist terrorist child molester democrat or something!...and I hate Democrats! [:)
 
#84 ·
Hi Bill: The original scenario by Rivers said that the shooter was disabled and basically confined to where he was, and had only a rifle. So it was a last resort type thing where the shooter helps out the old guy or doesn't.
A very tough scenario and realistically police in a large city would be there before you knew it.
 
#85 ·
aaaahhhh, my bad. thats what i get for fast screening to get caught up!

Weeeeell then, I'd bust a cap in his arse...j/k:wink:

Keep calling to po-po, 5-0, and Leo's and see who show's up first.
 
#86 ·
There you go! One more BG off the streets and into instant rehab.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top