Intervention & de-escalation in FL
"The Scenario: You come out of your front door and you see a group of 4 males severely beating and kicking a 5th one on the street right in front of your house. You do not know any of them. What would you do?"
Wow, Miggy, that is a really interesting scenario to ponder.
OK; I'll bite.
I live in FL, I have a CCW, and our laws here allow the use of physical force to prevent the serious injury or death of ourselves or someone else.
Since the assailants are beating the man, but not stabbing, clubbing, or shooting him, I will make the assumption that they have no knives, clubs, or firearms.
Even given that assumption, since the man is down and outnumbered and unarmed, and the attack is already in progress, any reasonable person could assume that the victim's death is , even likely, even eminent (i.e. the criteria for the use of deadly force has been satisfied).
Despite that, after calling the police, I would go outside unarmed, but after having given my rifle (we live in a remote area) to my wife.
Then I would confront the group of four, asking them why they were beating an unarmed man (i.e. you get them to think that they are "unmanly" but without actually saying so, because you want to de-escalate the situation), and pointing out that the police were on the way.
If attacked, I would use the first one who grabbed me as a shield, and threaten to break his arm (or dislocate his shoulder; it would depend on the way he attacked, and the leverage point I had access to) if they did not stop immediately.
Call me stupid if you like, but I have used this technique in situations similar to the one you described.
Situation 1: Three [arabic] attackers throwing bricks at another man [European] in Jerusalem. I was in Israel working for their Air Force, but I was not liscensed to carry there, and was unarmed. But to let the attack continue would have been against my personal ethics.
Back at the airbase, they said I was crazy/lucky/insane, and that if I had actually laid a hand on one of the attackers, it could have been riot time (this was several years ago, after the 1st intafada, and things had just quieted down a bit). Fortunately, I was able to convince the attackers that they were losing face in public (it was in the marketplace in the Muslim Quarter) by using weapons against an unarmed man.
Situation 2: Two carfulls of 18 to 20 years old guys starting a fight at a dance (where I was a chaperone). I called the antagonists away (from the earshot of the crowd), and pointed out that although they did not realize it, they were about to start fighting in front of a church, and what woman would want to go out with a guy who would be so low class as to do that? The leaders stopped immediately when one of them looked up and saw that they were indeed in front of a church (moral: young guys do not like to do anything they perceive as making them lose face).
If my assumption is wrong, and the attacker are armed, then the situation is totally different.
In that case, I would have my wife call the police, while I stepped outside and leveled my rifle at the assailants, telling them to stop and that the police were on the way (remember: they have already satisifed the FL criteria for the use of deadly force against them).
These answers are not correct for everyone (my wife thinks I am crazy with some of the things that I have done; she respects my reasons, but still thinks I am crazy). But I ran three different martial arts schools (aikido and combat jujitsu), and I firmly believe that [even unarmed] we are obligated to come to the defense of the innocent (or, in this case, the presumed innocent).
Thanks, Miggy, that was a cool exercise.
And to those who disagree with me, please use logic to show me the error of my ways. Thank you.