Protecting others? would you or not?

[Ron]

[QUOTE=jednp;288612




Laws are there, and lawyers take advantage of them when they shouldn't.[/QUOTE]

I won't quarrel with you that some, but hardly all, lawyers do take personal advantage of laws when they shouldn't.

Ron

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Echo_Four]

I have been thinking about this. In the last thread I was adament about not getting involved because you didn't know the situation. I still believe that if you don't know exactly what is going on, it is best to just cal 911. However, I think it should be noted that you may know the whole story. You may have seen the situation develop. At that point, I would take action to defend a stranger. I understand why others would not. But, I honestly would never sleep again if I didn't and someone was hurt or killed. To protect an innocent, you may have to do something that puts yourself in danger. Some can just sit back and watch, I cannot.

[9mmMick]

http://www.combatcarry.com/vbulletin...ad.php?t=19794

[lowflyer]

As a rule, I will defend others without regard for my own life or livelihood if necessary, but I'm no dummy. I recognize the need to use sound judgment. I served my country with the same conviction. I was one of only a fraction of the population willing to do my part then too so this is not new territory to me.

[mech1369dlw]

If the scenerio is not crystal clear, completely 100% clear, I'm moving out, but if it is absolutely the right thing to do, read my signature.

[stoneypete]

I live in a state where it is my duty to flea unless I'm in my own home and even then I could still end up sued or in jail. Therefore, unless my life or one my loved one's life is in immediate danger and I had no choice I would not draw my weapon.

[OldMick]

I've been advised that I should expect to spend in the neighborhood of $40,000 - $50,000 to defend myself, if I use my handgun to protect the life of a family member or myself. I might not spend that much, but I'm prepared; it sure beats being TU.

Because situations involving others can happen so quickly, and therefore could be easily misunderstood - I'm not sure I want to do jail time, or spend that money for making a bad decision, because I insert myself in a situation I know nothing about.

I would probably err toward making a call to 911 and being a good witness.

[briansmech]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke

using the mall scenario, i'd send whatever friends and family in my immediate vicinity away from the chaos, they know to meet me at the car, but odds are other friends and/or family are scattered, kid at the arcade and whatnot. besides, if i werent there, i'd want someone like myself trying to prevent any of my friends or family from getting killed.

i'd rather someone intent on murder and mayhem with a weapon run up against someone else with a weapon, than those who are defenseless.

someone simply holding someone else at gunpoint isnt cause to shoot. if practical (it never is) i'd position myself on his off hand rear and using the big boy voice, tell them to freeze, drop it, etc. while waiting for that weapon to swing my way.

the accomplice scenario, well, you can NEVER cover all the bases. this isnt likely to happen, but training yourself in being aware of the people around you, all the time, should be ongoing. lets you know if someones feeling you out as a target, if someone thinks you're carrying, etc. i do this any time im out. i like to think i'd pick up on someone in this case, but you just gotta do the best you can and hope god's with you that day.

[ccw9mm]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke

Sure. Though, situations involving others often won't be clear and unambiguous. Granted, that clear cases do occur ... such as a murderer continuing a rampage, an armed robbery in progress, a rape in progress, and so on. Great. Got an unambiguous situation that's turned lethal? Break out Burke and go to town. Otherwise, one is playing lottery with the future of one's family and ability to provide for them, for such blind devotion to "what's right and proper." Honorable, in an academic sense of the word. But it can be the last foolish thing you do, if you don't get it right.

Florida says it simply: [re CHL] It's a license to carry; not necessarily a license to use it. Read: Not all situations are equal, despite one's desire to "do some good."

That said, nobody will be happier than I when appropriate changes in the legal system protect good samaritans from legitimate acts of decency, covering them in situations where they've gotten it "wrong" but had the heart in the right place. It's not one's desire nor action to "do good" that's the problem; it's modern society's inconceivable willingness to crucify those who would do it.

[briansmech]

Defense of Others

In State v. Hays, 121 S.C. 163, 168, 113 S.E. 362, 363 (1922), the Court approved a “defense of others” instruction, as follows:

The right to take the life of an assailant during an unprovoked assault extends to any relative, friend, or bystander if the use of deadly force is necessary to save the victim wrongfully assaulted from imminent danger of being murdered by the assailant, if the assault is malicious and unprovoked and with a deadly weapon, with the apparent malicious intention to take the life of the victim and thereby commit murder, and if such murder is imminent, then any relative, friend, or bystander has the right to take the life of the assailant if necessary to prevent such murder, provided there was no other reasonable means of escape for the victim so assailed, and provided both the person assailed and the person coming to his defense were without legal fault in bringing on the difficulty.

South Carolina has adopted the so-called “alter-ego” rule with respect to the defense of others. In State v. Cook, 78 S.C. 253, 59 S.E. 862 (1907), the Court summarized this rule:

If you intervene on behalf of another, you will not be allowed the benefit of the plea of self-defense, unless that plea would have been available to the person you assisted if he himself had done the killing.

In other words, the person intervening is deemed to “stand in the shoes” of the person on whose behalf he is intervening. If that individual “had the right to defend himself, then the intervening party is also protected by that right. If, however, the party [victim] had no right to use force…then the intervening party will also assume the liability of the person on whose behalf he interfered.” McAninch and Fairey, p. 494.

The “defense of others” rules apply to “any relative, friend or bystanders…” State v. Hays, supra. The same principles of retreat and withdrawal apply as if the individual himself were acting in self-defense rather than on behalf of someone else. If there was no duty to retreat by the person being assisted, there is no duty imposed upon the intervenor

that's what plays through my head when i think of this scenario. the guy standing over the lady with the gun? doesnt fly because:

Use of Deadly Force
State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 377 S.E.2d 328 (1989) sets forth the elements of self-defense in South Carolina. These are:

you must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty;
you must actually believe you are in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury or actually be in such danger;


if you believe you are in such danger, you must use deadly force only if a reasonable or prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have believed himself to be in such danger, or, if you actually were in such danger, the circumstances were such as would warrant a man of ordinary prudence, firmness and courage to strike the fatal blow in order to save yourself from serious bodily harm or losing your own life; you had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing your own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as you did in the particular instance.

[briansmech]

oops, premature postage.

IE, if you walk up on someone simply pointing a gun at someone else, you dont cut lose. hell, you may even wanna keep it concealed, not let on that you're armed, til you're aware of whats going on.

i just think that the CWP whose first response is to run away, is gonna do just that. and personally, i wouldnt be able to live with the possibility that i couldve saved one or more lives.

[Tom G]

The reason people don't jump in and aid people in trouble is sleazy lawyers. Lawyers will take any case right or wrong just to get their big pay day

[briansmech]

for me, personally, my integrity doesnt allow me to base my decisions of such importance by the possibility that a sleazy lawyer will try to sue me.

my rule is, sue the BG before they sue me. call your lawyer, tell him to find out about the BG, if he was supposed to be on medication, was he, his employment history, his life, you name it, and YOU start the case for your "mental damages."

you can bet your sweet a$$ your lawyer can find someone that knew this guy was about to fly off, usually a family member, neighbor, or ex-girlfriend.

very few justifiable self-defence or defence of other shootings actually result in the victim or intervenor being wrongly sue'd, to the best of my knowledge. paranoia of it will work against you.

[ccw9mm]

very few justifiable self-defence or defence of other shootings actually result in the victim or intervenor being wrongly sue'd, to the best of my knowledge. paranoia of it will work against you.

Very few result in the victim losing the judgment. Which has nothing to do with loss. Such lawsuits happen remarkably often, as far as these things go. Speaking with the local D.A. can clarify much.

[Texas Yankee]

Sorry but the reason to be careful about intervening is not lawyers. First, it is that you may not know who is the BG or who is innocent. Apart from going to jail, I would be devasted to find out that I shot the wrong person and killed an innocent. Therefore unless it is very clear who is the BG and who the GG, I am not intervening. Second and particularly in domestic disputes, when you intervene, the "innocent" party may end up attacking you for dealing with her husband. As they say, "No good deed goes unpunished."