Same here. If I KNOW who the real victim is I'm stepping in. We have the "alter ego" law in SC. If a CWP holder believes a third party is in danger of being killed or caused great bodily harm we can legally act on their behalf with deadly force.
Originally Posted by Guantes
Put yourself, better yet, put your child or spouse in that persons shoes. A law abiding CCWer watches as your child or spouse is being beaten to death, KNOWING they are the victim, but won't step in because they don't want to get sued.
If anyone else could stand there and let it happen and then live the rest of their life and sleep at night then more power to you. Not me. My state allows me to do it with deadly force, but even if it didn't, I would still do what i could to help someone in need.
I think that with the criminal/civil protection now available in some areas, things are considerably better than they once were.
While I agree that some choose not to be able to protect themselves, for me, that would not excuse my letting them die if I could prevent it. Old habits die hard.
The FIRST thing you need to know is if deadly force in defense of a third person is legal in your state. Some states it is it legal and some it is not.
Know this beyond a shadow of a doubt BEFORE you respond, not while you are responding or after you are responding.
Then, do the right thing. I understand that your version of "right" may not be the same as mine... but I will not stand idly by and watch someone else get beaten to a pulp and not do anything about it.
As the OP requested, the subject of duty to retreat.
I know our state law says that if the person you defend has met the requirements to use deadly force then you can intervene on their behalf. That means that they:
1. Are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm or sexual assault
2. A person of ordinary firmness would believe they were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm or sexual assault.
3. The person you are acting in behalf of was NOT the instigator
4. The force you use was not more than necessary to stop the threat.
The duty to retreat is prior to the deadly assault beginning, once the deadly assault has begun the duty to retreat is no longer on the table since the threat is immediate and now.
This is how NC looks at it.
Now, as far as intervening, a shot of OC spray would go a long way toward stopping the threat and would show the intent of non deadly force was tried prior to escalating to deadly force. Just my few cents.
Problem is, the OP didn't ask "What would you do." Yes, it would be tough to sit around and watch something like that without doing anything about it for most of us anyways. I think the OP was trying to expose 2 conflicting rules here. 1. You have the right to defend if... and 2. You have the obligation to retreat. Looks like you could get in trouble with one and have it hard to live with yourself following the other. Still too many "If's" though.
I don't believe I've ever heard ANYONE ask "What you you do" :embarassed:
Originally Posted by mprp
It's not my problem until it becomes my problem.
Most states have it written into law that you may defend another person with up to lethal force if they are at risk of GBI or death....HOWEVER...You better know all the details surrounding the incident - READ - Be there from the start, and know the players involved.
You walk into a situation that is already in progress, you do not know who is who, who started it, why it started, or anything other than what you think you see happening.
Very few situations are cut and dried when you walk into the middle of it. Even a group (3ish) of one ethnic people against a single of another, the single may be the initial aggressor getting their just due.
I like the statement as well, however individual "Evil Doers" rarely wear a badge saying they are evil doers.
Originally Posted by Goliath
Originally Posted by Guantes
This totally sums up my opinion on the matter. The bold portion is the real dilemma some will battle with. Unfortunately for me, my constitution wont allow me to turn my back on a fellow human who desperately needs help, so I'd end up trying to give aid if possible; but it would take a situation that I felt warranted my interference.
What you can legally do will vary from state to state. Myself, I will only use my gun to protect myself or my family. Too many thing can have happened before you come upon a situation to know who is really the bad guy and who isn't. The only exception I would make to this is the case of a LEO in need of assistance.
That pretty much sums it up for me as well, though there will always be exceptions. For example, if I knew WITHOUT a DOUBT the person being harmed was an "innocent victim" and I could involve myself w/o endangering third party bystanders ( I might have young kids with me) I would probably intervene, but I'd try using only enough force to stop the attack. I'd also call 911 and be a good witness for potential LEO investigators. I'd also try to render any aid that may be needed until the police/EMS/fire Dept, etc arrive. :hand5:
Originally Posted by archer51
In most states there is NO duty to retreat. The duty to retreat is a minority jurisdiction view just for the record
Anytime one intervenes on the behalf of another, risks are taken--physically, mentally, and liability-wise. It becomes a matter of one's personal morals. Each must make a decision and live with the consequences.
As for those states that require one to retreat--ain't one step back far enough?
Sorry men, I have to many mirrors in my house that I have to look in to just sit by an by a good witness and hope that it doesn't escalate into something that I will regret. Would rather beg for forgiveness than permission any day. Even if they elect not to get a CC, it does negate my duty as a human being to help. I will do my best to assess the situation as quickly as possible and use the appropirate force nessasary to help a fellow person. If not, then what are we saying about ourselves?
Well the above boils it down and I agree.
Originally Posted by claude clay
People will pay a cop to shoot someone for them but won't go armed themselves...
People will put up crime watch signs in their subdivision but won't go armed themselves...
People will go into unsavory areas/situations but won't go armed themselves...
People will talk about truth, justice and the "All American Way" (where are you Superman) but won't go armed themselves...
People want to exercise their rights but won't go armed themselves...
Well, life's tough...life's tougher if your stupid...or, are all of us who choose to go armed stupid...
Sorry but someplace along the line the theory of natural selection "must" take over. I am my brother's keeper in as much as working for laws, ways and means for law abiding citizens to have the tools and rights to use them within their grasp financially and legally. Unless they, the "people", are paying me and I accept the assignment...get your OWN gun and GO ARMED.
Everyone who passes basic screening has the right to carry a firearm, if they choose not to that's their call.
I think it's hard enough to make the call when it's just yourself and an attacker, let alone the confusion of a situation you're unfamiliar with around people you do not know.
Some situations are obvious, others not so much... without reading this whole thread I'd have to say I'll make a good witness but I'm not going to jail and miss my kids growing up because I made the wrong call on a situation that didn't involve me.
Might be selfish, but I'll be alive and with my family.
That said, if it was 100% without a doubt a situation where there was a clear bad guy and a clear good guy and it was a life or death situation, I think I would have to do something after calling 911 (if there's time).
We can sit here and say how great we'll act/react all day long, real life is much different. Truth is, I'd probably be hiding in a corner crying like a baby for all I know.