This is a discussion on Really Happened within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Arko If you had drawn and shot a prosecutor would have crucified you. You were not in danger until you CHOSE to ...
I think you did good.
This is how I feel.I'll tell you ... If I am being stabbed, I hope to God that someone will intervene in my behalf if I am unable to stop the attack myself. The actions you took may very well be the difference from the guy being stabbed 5 times and living, to being stabbed to death. Yes, you may very well have saved the guy's life.
It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.
You guys are reading alot into this. Again, I ask, how do you know these were two innocent good guys?
The totality of a situation dictates my actions.
Again, do as you wish, but as I read the OP's description, I'm inclined to believe intervention was not wise.
"Don't Tread on Me"
How do you know that he was not stabbing someone to protect himself from a crime? How would the person that just pulled into the parking lot seeing you shoot an individual know that you were not the BG? What if he shoots you, thinking you were the BG? Then the next guy pulls into the parking lot and sees you getting shot, and shoots the guy that shot you. Parking lot could fill up with bodies pretty quick.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around laws. Plato
When you stuck the gun in your belt and went to stop the fight you set your self up to be arrested if you shot. You could have been one of those who got knifed and ended up in the hospital. Would work mans comp. cover your loss of pay and the hospital stay. this is just something to think about.
For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27
We were trained to comply with the BG's requests. During each of the 4 armed robberies I complied with their requests. I gave them the cash & within 60 seconds they were gone! I was left unharmed in each of the robberies. By NOT complying with the BG's you risk getting hurt or killed. Cash is replacable. My life isn't!
Again, I would rather comply with the BG's requests & not risk getting stabbed in the first place. The last thing I want to do escalate a bad situation. Shooting in my general direction puts my life in danger. Getting a BG angrier at me makes the situation that much worse. Now my life is in that much more danger.
The sooner the BG is gone, the safer I am.
Last edited by Pikachu711; February 20th, 2010 at 12:07 PM. Reason: spelling
"Gun control is being able to hit your target."
If ?? and ?? I am not sure what i would have done but it is always a good idea to shout COPS(not impersonating one but lying about the presence in hopes of them stopping) loudly when trying to stop a fight and then if the guy would have tried to rush you with the knife you could shoot to defend yourself. also if someone had pepper spray.
You may not like guns. You may choose not to own one. That is your right.
You might not believe in God. That is your choice.
However, if someone breaks into your home at 3AM the first two things you are going to do are:
1) Call someone with a gun.
2)Pray they get there in time." - A wise man
I don't believe "getting involved" is the deciding factor in criminality. Choosing to assist others isn't hardly a criminal act. Not smart, perhaps. But it's not criminal. Rather, criminal action should be the deciding factor. Intent drives escalation, and IMO without intent there cannot be escalation. And there were no such factors in the acts of the people coming to assist in a "clinch" between colleagues.
It's certainly reasonable for people to come to the aid of colleagues in a scuffle, in an attempt to separate them. That's hardly criminal, as there is no intent to escalate, and there is no intent to harm innocents. There is simply the desire to separate folks, to stop the scuffle. Perhaps not smart, given how far some felons are prepared to go these days, sure. Perhaps not the action most likely to result in surviving the day, possibly, if a felon (as was the case in the OP's scenario) pulls a lethal weapon and continues to threaten innocents. But the folks arriving to assist didn't see any of the threat; they saw only the "clinch."
However, at THAT moment, when a person turns out to be holding a knife with blood on it, then everything changes.
Those newly arrived folks have NOT escalated anything beyond "scuffle," by simply coming to help separate the people. They have NOT justified the escalation to deadly force by the person holding the knife, at any point so far.
In the OP's scenario, the person who was holding tyhe knife then left in a car. No subsequent threatening of anyone was done with that knife. From the perspective of the folks who had come to assist, they witnessed no felony attack on anyone. They simply witnessed a knife in a person's hand, and that person leaving by car.
With those facts, could a prosecutor "crucify" a person for crimes? What crimes were committed by folks who came to assist? I think the answer is: none. No crimes, and no intention to commit crimes.
Now, had the guy with the knife decided to actually use it against innocents after the good samaritans came to assist, then that's a new crime by the guy with the knife. New target, new crime. And I'm suggesting that not one of those folks who came to assist is legally required to meekly accept the threatening of their lives by a felon without having the right to defend against that. Even to the point of heading off to acquire stronger firepower to guard against threats to innocent life.
Yes, there's question about "escalation." But simply showing up to separate colleagues in a "clinch" doesn't rise to that level, I don't believe, doesn't make the "clinch" into something worse than a "clinch." A zealot DA might well try to claim that. But I don't think that's enough to make it true.
Ah, well. At THAT point, if that were to occur, then DA might have something to argue about. Depends on the circumstances, I think.... and went to GET your gun (premeditation?).
If anyone were subsequently threatened with that knife, then I think it's clear that folks would have the right to defend against that ... so long as they themselves had not illegally contributed to escalation of the situation from one level to the next. You're right, that would probably be a point of contention with a DA.
Would a person be justified in doing so? I think so, yes. What's being justified by such a person is the defense of innocent life, yes? On that basis, I'd say it's justified.
Consider the recent school campus situation, in which a person (student, staff?) came to assist in a "scuffle," realized it was a felony violent crime instead, then headed off-campus to his nearby car to acquire a firearm and then heading back on-campus to assist. That action was seen for what it was: desire to stop a known deadly, criminal attack on innocents.
Similarly, I believe that heading off to acquire a firearm in such a case would be much the same in need and deed, assuming the person had actually witnessed the knife-wielder to attempt further felony attack on innocents.
But here's the rub. The newly-arrived witnesses had not seen any such thing, thus heading off for a firearm at that point might be hard to justify. I think that would absolutely be escalation. But heading off to acquire added firepower after witnessing violent felonies against innocents, though? I think that is when it's justified, much like the fully-justified example on the school campus I just described.
Depends on the circumstances.
Given what I've read in the article and the OP's description, standing by to be a good witness seems to be the best play. Unless the guy with the knife decided to do anything further, at which point that could be defended against. But not really until then, at least not by the newly-arrived witnesses who had failed to see the earlier acts and hence could not know who's who in the scenario.
A Winston-Salem police officer was shot trying to intervene in a parking lot fight in 2007.
Healthy children will not fear life, if their parents have integrity enough not to fear death.
-TIME DEUM ET OPERARE IUSTITIAM--
If the stabee" had died while everyone stood around and watched when something could have been done to prevent it, would not not set well with me. I still believe in sheep dogs.
As to this occasion, our man probably arrived on the scene too late to be of any help. Thus, his he should be commended for his use of restraint.
Live every day so that you can, with a clear conscience, look all men in their eyes and tell them to go to hell.
Far safer to watch from a distance. Of course, this doesn't stop the problem. Imagine, then, if your own child was in that scuffle ... and being overcome. Sitting and awaiting arrival of the cavalry might not seem so useful, at such a moment.
When I started reading your post I knew you were going to get slammed by most on the board. I live not to far from this area myself and read this in the paper. I think in most cases I agree about " being a good witness ", but that is also hard to do when you are watching someone killing someone else, this I understand. I think if the attack had stopped you should have left well enough alone and stayed out of it. I am also concerned about where your firearm was stored and how easy is it for you or someone else to access without your knowledge. If the attacker had turned on others, I think than yes take action, but if not stay out of it. I agree that your CPL is alot of responsibility and does not give an indidual the right to play LEO or Hero and further more it is your obligation to secure your weapon at all times. In the future I would try to think things threw a little before acting, I am not saying everything you did was wrong. Just slow down and think about the end results. Good luck and stay safe.
In Florida, the law sets 3 elements that cover your situation. Were you:
Let's review your situation...
- in a place where you had a legal right to be?
- meeting force with equal force?
- involved in stopping and immediate forcible felony?
In other words -
- You had a legal right to be in that parking lot, it was both public accessible, and you worked there.
- Using your firearm would have been meeting force with equal force - the other side had a deadly weapon capable of death or serious bodily injury, a knife.
- Attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon-type crimes are forcible felonies in Florida.
- You could have stopped the threat as long as somebody could have been cut by the attacker.
- You have not been disarmed unless you were being immediately arrested.
- Unless and until you are convicted for the some criminal behavior out of this event, you can not be sued.
George H. Foster