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
#2 ·
Call 911, if you get a busy signal...call back again.
If you are unable to get down there (I wouldn't to that...), try shouting that the cops will be here in just a minute.
I certainly will NOT be taking a rifle shot as you 'might be thinking'...after all, what if the old guy is a BG and the other is an undercover officer.:blink:

Stay armed...stay safe!
 
#3 ·
what if the old guy is a BG and the other is an undercover officer.
To clarify, by seeing the assault BEFORE it happened, it would obvious to the viewer which man is the aggressor. (That would be the young beefeater, not the other guy who was born during WWI.) That would identify who the aggressor is. Would even being a UC justify the potentially fatal beating being witnessed? I don't think so. Have ANY courts actually legitimized a murder by an undercover officer? Again, I don't think so.
 
#5 ·
Taking a "snipe" shot would be my absolute very last ditch no other chance of helping save a life method of stopping the beating.

If I couldnt call 911, police, or someone who could help and I was totally unable to get closer I might actually consider shooting to wound the assailant just to stop the beating. Still, with a high power rifle you stand a great chance of hitting the victim of the beating as well or possibly the bullet exits the BG and enters the beating victim you are trying to save. That would be a very hard case to beat!
 
#6 ·
If you had a physical disability that limited your possible escape from a fire, you should have already looked for a 1st floor apartment. If your disability incapacitated you from being able to leave your 3rd floor apartment, how in the hell are you expecting to climb into a deer stand and then track down/haul your kill, hence no need to spend your afternoon cleaning your old hunting rifle. Sell it or give it to a family member who can actually make use of it and keep your home defense options narrowed to a shotty. You surely can't be serious about using a rifle for home defense if your home is a multiple dwelling type structure. How many WW1 vets do you know that are going to be able to yell back and forth with an aggressor that you're going to be able to comprehend from 100 yards? If they were two feet away, why would they be screaming that loud anyway? Sorry bro, just keeping it real. Call 911, and if you're that concerned about the time, mention that from 100 yards away, it looks like one of the men MAY have a gun. Once the popo arrives, unpause your movie and enjoy the rest of your day knowing that you did all you could do due to your circumstances. :gah:
 
#103 ·
:congrats:

:congrats::congrats::congrats:
 
#7 ·
First, I want to say that I'm not advocating any action or opinion. I'm simply describing what to me is a "no win" scenario.

Regarding the "disability," for the sake of the scenario, the viewer tore the ACL in his knee the weekend before while deer hunting. That would put him on crutches, not really a fast way to move.

If it was a permanent injury, you're correct that having a third floor apartment would not be wise. But, if you know anything about the movie I noted, Stewart's character had just injured his leg, putting him in a wheelchair during recuperation. A temporary disability can be every bit as limiting as a permanent one, just with an end in sight.

Last, I didn't say the voices were intelligible, just loud. You're reading things into what was actually written.
 
#8 ·
With the OP, I don't know how I would react. Thinking about the situation objectively over the 'net, I would probably call 911, continue to watch the situation and at most, put a round into the car nearest the BG and victim as a warning. I think it would be a hard case to dispute if you killed the guy. OMO.
 
#9 · (Edited by Moderator)
That seems like a simple scenario but it is not. And it is kind of a shame that because of the world we live in, that you CANNOT help the victim that easily without everyone going crazy because of it. That alone speaks volumes about our society.
We know right from wrong. We see a wrong. We see lethal force being used against an elderly gentleman, we have the means in front of us to stop it, but we cannot do it for a number of reasons.
This is a very very good question you pose. I'd like to hear what some others have to say. I don't know "the answer" if there is one.
I don't think there is a single good answer to the scenario you presented.

One of the major major problems with a scenario like that is this: That everyone Monday morning quarterbacks it and it is so easy to do that.
What if you shot the perpetrator?
What if your shot missed and hit some kid after bouncing off the pavement?
What if you hit the old man instead by mistake?
The difference between actually being there live on the scene and talking about it later, is huge, and we overlook this a lot of times.
So what we say we would do is often different than what we would do if we were in someone else's shoes that we are just reading about, not living in their shoes during a particular incident.
People's advice to you and their own actions on the scene might be really different.
This is one of the best scenarios to talk about because it raises ten or twelve issues and not one or two. Thanks for bringing it up.

I think mulle46's suggestion about the round in the nearby car is one of the most sensible things to do because it is the only way to get this guy's attention real quick.
Hollering at him wouldn't do it, calling 911 is the way to go but in the meantime, the round in the car, while taking a big chance,
I can't imagine the younger guy standing there after a high-caliber round hits real near.
 
#10 ·
JMHO... This is a worthless scenario to try and debate.

But for arguments sake... I sure wouldn't pull the trigger on that Boomstick.
 
#11 ·
I say that the big, younger guy has a stick or club that he is beating the old guy with, then I'd have an AD into the ground right in front of me. Otherwise, I'd probably. . .
 
#12 ·
I saw the news tape of that incident,and in the scenario you describe I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't put a well-aimed rifle bullet into the car with the open door to scare that predator into not killing that old defenseless gentleman. Then I would dial 911, then a firearms-oriented lawyer for myself.
 
#13 ·
So a lot of people DO agree with mulle46. That is good to see.
 
#14 ·
Let's restrict the situation further. You're at your mountaintop cabin with family and it's one of your own family members being violently assaulted at ~100yds from the house. If disabled and unable to reach your son/daughter/spouse, would that change things?

To me, this altered situation seems a bit more clear, whereas the original poster's proposed scenario is well within the realm of the local police/sheriff's ability to respond. It's highly unlikely that anyone's going to come prior to next Tuesday, up on the mountaintop so, in a very literal sense, you're on your own.

My take: I can't see taking a rifle shot within the city limits, since I cannot see a jury of "peers" seeing the logic no matter what arguments are offered up. Yet, were the same situation to happen at my own mountaintop retreat where (a) my own family was directly threatened and (b) police didn't have a chance in Hades of arriving anytime this week, you're damned right I would respond in any way I could. Given that I am, in fact, disabled (hip/leg damage), that leaves one practical choice in the "mountaintop" scenario. For my money, the choice would be : 9-ring or 10-ring, plain and simple.

It's interesting. I wonder if most folks would, in the legal community and in juries, see the same practical necessity up at a mountaintop home differently than they would in town. Makes one wonder about the justifiability of an action, one that can be seen as supportable at one locale but a legal target if done at another locale. Hm. Given the simple legal precedent on the books stating that law enforcement agencies have no specific duty to protect, despite the marketing pap on the side of the cars, it really shouldn't matter where the action is taken. If it's justified in one locale, I'd think it should be equally justifiable (based on the crime being witnessed) in another locale. Hm.
 
#15 ·
In my humble opinion it sure would change things. You ARE the police force there. And no city neighbors etc to worry about accidentally getting hurt. I would say a round, not into a car in that case, but into the perpetrator, should just about do it.
And not to be picky here, but it makes a difference if it is your son, who is opening up his own can of WA on the assailant and it is not clear if he needs that kind of help, yet. And is the daughter or mom being beaten up badly or assaulted and the guy walking away, etc etc.
If it is a continous assault and you reasonably feel that they are in danger of grave bodily harm, then defense of others is a valid defense to taking out the assailant.
Again, not to nitpik but sometimes I guess it can depend on who the victim is and how he is doing at the moment you see his or her assailant thru the scope.
And it may sound like nitpicking but these are the conversations later on after it is over.....by people who have a great deal to say about what you did, even though they were not there at the time, as usually happens.
They always know what YOU should have done, after the fact. DA.s I mean.
 
#16 · (Edited)
Well, that's exactly my point.

I have a hard time seeing what it is that justifies a given action at one locale but not that same action at another locale.

The law enforcement community, judges, attorneys and legislatures seem so hell-bent on claiming that ONLY law enforcement has the right, power or authority to defend people in town, and yet it's clear (particularly with precedents) that law enforcement has no such duty and frankly cannot possibly arrive in time in the vast majority of situations, let alone a clear-cut situation where you're on your own at your remote cabin.

In simple point of fact, the people have not relinquished any rights or authority, in town. They've merely delegated much of the task to a trained group (LEO's).

Seems to me there's an iron-clad argument for equal protection under the law and right to bear arms, in there, that could withstand any and all arguments.
 
#17 ·
The people who make decisions about who to prosecute and when, sometimes think they know better than the citizens what should have been done.
Thankfully, I have seen many police officers go to bat for defendants in that position, to the point where the officers have talked the DA out of proceeding against a particular guy or if they must proceed, make it a small fine or something. I am amazed at this. And the DAs listen because they know that the cop on the beat knows a lot more about the streets than they will ever know.
But the problem lies in some ADAs, not all, subsituting their judgments for ours, and some, not all, jurors thinking that no one should have done anything at all to defend themselves.
Not to get off topic but very very briefly, this is why I am completely unconvinced that anyone can ever COUNT on a jury to do the right thing. They might do the right thing but planning on it? There is no way.
It is scary to be in the hands of people who are second guessing you in these incidents and they have control over whether you go to court or stay home.

It's almost like you have to convince people of your own constitutional right to bear arms and convince them that self-defense was okay and all these givens, that they think are mere privileges. That is what is annoying about these real life things on a daily basis. The defendant is put in a position of having to justify things that should be justified already in people's minds.
And they say that the goverment has the burden of proof. It is more than that. YOU have the burden of proving yourself as having done the right thing. And this is topsy turvy and not the law, but this is the way it is, although no one will admit to this.
So I agree with you, that when someone is on the receiving end of a severe beating, the perpetrator should be checking out of life real soon, and I agree with that completely. Just mentioning the realities of the system we live and work in.
 
#18 ·
A few posters nailed the issue that I posed in this scenario. I don't believe that the response that you could live with is necessarily a response that a DA would allow, but a jury might understand. That's a huge crapshoot that I doubt anyone would want to take, especially on behalf of a stranger. If it was for family, that's a completely different story only in that you're even more sure of your own actions. There is still a very disturbing examination to follow, when our legal system passes judgment.

It's sad that we have to question whether doing what is morally correct is legally justifiable. Doing what is legal does not necessarily mean you are doing what is right. I wonder just how, or even if we can get our legal system's compass back on track.

I'd love to see how lawyers and cops debate this hypothetical scenario, from an "after the fact" point of view.
 
#19 ·
The original scenario or the changed one re the mountaintop?
Both. Compare the situations, options, actions. Do the differences make any difference in whether any action is justified? If so, where is the threshold?

Or, despite the urban / rural, emergency time response, etc. differences, are the scenarios fundamentally identical? Would the same action be justified in both scenarios?

Would the rural scenario have a legal system with a different outlook than the urban scenario's legal system?
 
#20 ·
That would involve going over it again, I guess. But the overriding rule is whether you are doing what you ought to be doing in trying to save someone's life, considering bystanders and residents etc and their safety just as much. There are so many variables that you could debate this all day.
I would have to be asked specific questions.
The countryside scenario seems very different in that there is no one around to get hurt besides the victim and the perpetrator and even then it depends upon exactly what is being done to whom, as I said earlier re the son is being assaulted but is giving back as good as he gets, so for you to drop the assailant is using more force than necessary.
How much force can and should you use right now based on what you see and hear right this minute?
Is the victim in really bad danger or not?
This could go on forever. If you have a certain scenario that is different but it is tough to cover all bases.
The general rule is to know what is going on down there, who is the agressor and who is the victim, what is happening to the victim, how can you stop it without your bullet bouncing off the payment into some house and killing someone? On and on and on.
The rural JURY would probably have a wayyyy different outlook.
The problem with the city scenario is the potential for hurting others, and this is a heavy consideration and after the fact you would never hear the end of it.
The old man you saved would be out of the picture and it would be you and your firing into a city street.
And it really depends on who you want to hear these opinions from. There is a very very small minority that seems to maintain that scenarios are worthless. Most know that is impossible to discuss anything without some kind of scenario, true-life or not. And some will tell you to take all opinions with a grain of salt, but this sidesteps the fact that the poster asked for opinions in the first place.
Your state law controls. You can use that force necessary to repel the attacker, and you can come to the "defense of others" too, not just defend yourself. But it is not cut and dry in all cases. The principle stays the same but the exact scenario varies and you cannot say that in all cases, this or that prevails or applies.
Real statutes are black and white, with interpretation. But applying those statutes to specific fact situations is where it gets very situation-specific.
In every court trial, there is a very specific situation only, not other hypotheticals. Not what we would like to see but what happened. And these are detailed scenarios that actually happened. Otherwise, blanket pronouncements about the law are tough to give.
 
#21 ·
In the "mountain top" scenario, I think there would be a good chance one could elicit a standing ovation from any jury if one's daughter was being attacked at 100 yds. distant and one placed the crosshairs of a scoped .30-06 rifle on the groin of the attacker and delivered a 3,000 fps bullet precisely to stop the attack.
 
#22 ·
Amen.
 
#24 ·
call 911, and mention a gun. they tend to speed up...at 100 yards, maybe their was one. becoming an urban sniper is not an option. yelling down there may or may not be effective, but that is really the only option after calling 911.
 
#25 ·
OK, here's a question then to clarify some comments:

With these GIVEN facts:
#1
You witness from the beginning an incident in a parking lot in an urban area that has marginal law enforcement support.
You know who the good guy is;
You know who the bad guy is;
(You are absolutely clear about the identities of the two men, their characters and predator/victim status.)
The bad guy is beating the ... out of the good guy;
The good guy is in immediate danger of significant if not fatal injury from this beating;
You are 15' away with a clear view of the both men;
You have called 9-1-1 and been put on hold;
You are legally armed with a handgun that is loaded and ready to fire;
You have the advantage of the bad guy not being aware of your presence;
You shout to the bad guy to stop, and the warning is not heeded;
There is no law enforcement in the area capable of arriving before the good guy has suffered permanent injury or death...

What would you do?

Now take the above scenario and alter ONLY these items:
#2
You witness from your 3rd floor apartment's open window the incident in the parking lot;
The distance is now 100 yards;
The weather is bright and clear, with no wind;
You are physically unable to close that distance for whatever reason;
Your weapon is now your ready-to-fire hunting rifle;
The distance is well within your skill level for a 10-ring shot...

Would you do anything different from the first scenario? If so, what and why?

#3
Now take #2 and move it out into the woods where there is no cell phone coverage.

Would you do anything different from the other scenarios? If so, what and why?
 
#26 ·
#1. This might sound odd but dropping things out the window to smash against the sidewalk creates more of a disturbance than the subject is already causing and may startle him into taking off.
Warning shot. Round into nearby parked car.
Must not use more than force necessary to come to "defense of others",have to treat it as if victim is you.

Makes a difference if V is taking a beating or in danger of losing his life.

#2. Rifle becomes the only option now, aside from creation of a neighborhood disturbance where you are dropping a small TV to the sidewalk below, making a lot of noise. Perpetrators do not like a lot of noise nearby that they brought on themselves. A lot of them panic when they realize it is not just them and V. Ten people hollering out the window often has effect of making subject run away. He knows police must be on way by now.

#3---no home phone either? Have to make sure that the force you will use is the force necessary to repel attacker. Warning shot first? Close hit next?

These things are easy to Monday morning quarterback and a lot of us would do the very thing we advise NOT to do, so let's keep that in mind too.
One of the crucial things is how bad the V is getting beaten. It sounds academic but it is not. You are stepping in to defend someone other than yourself.
You use the force necessary to stop the attack and no more. If you have force with you that by nature exceeds that, then you have to tone it down to a warning shot or nearby shot or then leg etc in my judgement.
We sometimes think we can just kill an assailant just because he is an assailant. Sometimes we are justified and sometimes we are not. It is not as if in all cases it is okay to kill your assailant. That is a myth.
We do what we have to do, though. The question becomes, Is what we are about to do something we have to do or just want to do. And are we saving someone's life or protecting them from harm which does not rise to the level of serious bodily injury or death.
There are still variables even within the very structured scenarios.
Again, I only answer because you asked. This last comment I have had to make lately and is for the few who do not like scenarios and tell you to disregard them. They are well aware of who they are :)
Bottom line? It always has to seem to others that you had no choice other than to do what you did. If you had other choices, you will probably be told that you should have used them first instead of resorting to killing the subject. This is the reality of the world we live in, not the way it should be. What other options were open to you at the time? You tell them. Then, fine, why didn't you use the other options you just told us you had???
 
#27 ·
Since you noted that all the means were present to kill, I wish to point out the overlooked: all the means were there to turn away and do nothing. These two extremes, and actions in between, are our choices. We choose to do what we hope to be right because we have to live with that choice. LE and the DA choose to do what the law books suggest, because that is what they feel safest doing. A jury may choose to follow either the letter or the spirit of the law, as the jurors also must live with their decisions. And, not to be forgotten, the media will take the story, splash blood all over it and vilify whomever will sell the most advertising.
 
#28 ·
i understand. I didn't say that the person could do nothing. I listed a lot of things they could do. The deciding factor is whether they had to do what they did. If they did have to do it, no problem, to defend life, yours or someone else's.
If they know they had other options, they will have to answer the question, well, how come you did not exercise any of them, if you had them?
So if you have no choice, and V is dying or about to be killed, that is the deciding factor(s).
Do you see how it looks to say I had other choices but I chose to kill the guy? All I am saying is to make sure you can honestly say you had no other choice in order to save someone's life.
You can always turn away and do nothing. Legally, no one has a duty to save anyone else's life, but once they begin to do it they have to follow it through in a non-negligent manner. This is civil law. You see a person drowning, you keep walking, you cannot be held liable. You have no duty to save.
The above scenario I thought it was assumed that the person in the window wanted to assist V. If he does, then he can, he just has to use force necessary to repel attack and no more. If he has other options and does not use them, he has to answer police and ADA questions just like I mentioned. And imagine how it sounds then:
Q. Did you have other options, Sir.
A. Uh, yes, I did.
Q. So you did not have to kill this victim.
A. Well, uh, no, not actually, I mean.
Q. Then why didn't you use the other options that you just now said you HAD.
And that is about it for those questions at that point. That is the real problem.
You can save someone's life but you have to be careful how you do it and factor in a few things and be real sure.
It is a myth that someone can just fire and kill someone else's assailant and that is the end of it, without weighing this and that.
It is not the law books. It comes from old English common law, where a lot of our criminal law comes from, and it basically says that we can defend ourselves and others, but not just any old which way we want. Use the force necessary to do it and no more. It isn't the asst da.s and judges, it is mostly common sense.
If you kill someone and have good reason for it, that is different than just saying you could have done other less lethal things but chose not to, for whatever reason.
The problem we see in the news is when people go way overboard without taking other steps or looking into what is going on. Someone steals a pocketbook from the seat of an open car. Blam! That type of thing, out of proportion to what is happening at the moment.
 
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