Defense of others? - Page 4

Defense of others?

This is a discussion on Defense of others? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Defense of another person jury instructions from NJ. (Yes, NJ does in fact allow self defense. In theory... ) Approved 10/17/88 JUSTIFICATION - USE OF ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 64

Thread: Defense of others?

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Defense of another person jury instructions from NJ.

    (Yes, NJ does in fact allow self defense. In theory... )

    Approved 10/17/88
    JUSTIFICATION - USE OF FORCE
    IN PROTECTION OF OTHERS
    (N.J.S.A. 2C:3-5)

    The defendant contends (he/she) should be found not guilty because (he/she) acted in defense of a third person. Our statute N.J.S.A. 2C:3-5 insofar as pertinent to this matter provides:

    ... the use of force upon or toward that person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:
    (1) The actor would be justified ... in using such force to protect (himself/herself) against the injury (he/she) believes to be threatened to the person whom (he/she) seeks to protect and
    (2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom (he/she) seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and
    (3) The actor reasonably believes that (his/her) intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.

    You must first determine whether the force used by (defendant) to protect (name), the third person, would have been justified if (defendant) had used such force to protect (himself/herself) under the guidelines of the law pertaining to self-defense that I have just given you. **( Approved 8/13/99)

    Second, you must determine whether (defendant) reasonably believed that person whom (he/she) sought to protect would have been justified in using such force in self-defense. In applying this test you are instructed to disregard any finding that the person in whose behalf (defendant) intervened was in fact the aggressor or that no defensive measures on (his/her) behalf were actually necessary, but you may consider everything defendant knew when (he/she) acted, including these same factors if you find that (he/she) knew them.

    Finally, you must determine whether (defendant) reasonably believed these actions were necessary to protect that person.

    In making these determinations, keep in mind the following:

    When using deadly force to protect a third person, the defendant is not obligated to retreat or to surrender possession of a thing to one claiming a right thereto or to comply with any demands being made of (him/her) unless (he/she) knows that by doing so it would secure the complete safety of the third person.

    But, if the third person, whom the actor is seeking to protect is under a duty to retreat, then the defendant is obligated to try to cause (him/her) to do so before using force in (his/her) protection if the defendant knows that (he/she) can obtain complete safety in that way.

    Finally, neither the defendant nor the person whom (he/she) seeks to protect is required to retreat when in the third person's dwelling to any greater extent than in (his/her) own.

    Always remember -- the State has the burden of disproving the defense of protection of a third person beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless the state has convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified, then you must find the defendant not guilty. If, on the other hand, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not have the right to resort to force or deadly force to protect a third person, then this particular defense fails.

    ____

    From CT

    Criminal Jury Instructions Home


    2.8-1 Self-Defense and Defense of Others -- 53a-19

    Revised to December 1, 2007

    The evidence in this case raises the issue of (self-defense / the defense of others). (Self-defense / The defense of others) applies to the charge[s] of <insert applicable crimes> [and the lesser included offense[s] of <insert lesser included offenses>.]

    After you have considered all of the evidence in this case, if you find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of <insert applicable crimes and any lesser included offenses>, you must go on to consider whether or not the defendant acted in (self-defense / the defense of others). In this case you must consider this defense in connection with count[s] __ of the information.

    A person is justified in the use of force against another person that would otherwise be illegal if (he/she) is acting in the defense of (self / others). It is a complete defense to certain crimes, including <insert applicable crimes and any lesser included offenses. When, as in this case, evidence of (self-defense / the defense of others) is introduced at trial, the state must not only prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged to obtain a conviction, but must also disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted in (self-defense / the defense of others). If the state fails to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted in (self-defense / the defense of others), you must find the defendant not guilty of <insert applicable crimes> despite the fact that you have found the elements of (that crime / those crimes) proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has no burden of proof whatsoever with respect to this defense.

    There is a statute that defines (self-defense / the defense of others) and you are to apply that definition in reviewing the evidence in this case and not apply any common or colloquial meaning that you may have heard before. The statute defining (self-defense / the defense of others) reads in pertinent part as follows:

    a person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person to defend (himself/herself/a third person) from what (he/she) reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force, and (he/she) may use such degree of force which (he/she) reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose.

    The statute requires that, before a defendant uses physical force upon another person to defend (himself/herself/a third person), (he/she) must have two "reasonable beliefs." The first is a reasonable belief that physical force is then being used or about to be used upon (him/her/a third person). The second is a reasonable belief that the degree of force (he/she) is using to defend (himself/herself/a third person) from what (he/she) believes to be an ongoing or imminent use of force is necessary for that purpose.

    Deadly and non-deadly physical force1
    The law distinguishes non-deadly physical force from deadly physical force. "Physical force" means actual physical force or violence or superior physical strength. The term "deadly physical force" is defined by statute as physical force which can reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical injury. Under this definition, the physical force used by the defendant need not actually have caused a death or a serious physical injury in order to be considered deadly physical force, nor need it have been expected or intended by the defendant to result in such serious consequences. Instead, what determines whether the defendant used deadly physical force is whether the force actually used by the defendant could reasonably have been expected to cause death or serious physical injury. "Physical injury" is defined by statute as impairment of physical condition or pain, and "serious physical injury" is defined as physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health or serious loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.

    It is up to you to determine whether the defendant used deadly physical force or non-deadly physical force against <insert name of the other person>. You are to make that determination after considering all the evidence. If the state claims that the defendant used deadly physical force, the state must prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. The first question you must resolve, then, is whether the level of force used by the defendant rises to the level of deadly physical force, or is some lower degree of physical force.

    Reasonable beliefs
    Once you have determined whether the defendant has used deadly or non-deadly force, you must then go on to consider whether the defendant justifiably acted in (self-defense / defense of others).

    [<Optional language:>2 The test you are to apply is a subjective-objective test, meaning that it has some subjective aspects and some objective aspects. You must first consider the situation from the perspective of the defendant; that is, what did the defendant actually believe, as best as can be inferred from the evidence. This is the subjective aspect of the test. The statute requires, however, that the defendant's belief be reasonable, and not irrational or unreasonable under the circumstances; that is, would a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances have reached that belief. This is the objective aspect of the test.]

    Each of the reasonable belief requirements of the statute requires you to ask two questions. The first question you must ask is, simply, as a matter of fact, whether the defendant actually -- that is, honestly and sincerely -- entertained the belief in question when (he/she) acted as (he/she) did. The second question you must ask is whether the defendant's actual belief was reasonable, in the sense that a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances at the time of (his/her) actions, viewing those circumstances from the defendant's point of view, would have shared that belief. A defendant cannot justifiably act on (his/her) actual belief, however honestly or sincerely (he/she) held it, if that belief would not have been shared by a reasonable person in (his/her) circumstances, viewing those circumstances from the defendant's point of view. Therefore, the defense of (self-defense / defense of others) has four elements:3

    1. The defendant actually believed that someone else was using or about to use physical force against (him/her/a third person). If you have found that the force used by the defendant was deadly physical force, then this element requires that the defendant actually believed that the other person 1) was using or about to use deadly physical force against (him/her/a third person), or 2) was inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm upon (him/her/a third person).

    2. That belief was reasonable because a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances, viewing those circumstances from the defendant's perspective, would have shared that belief.

    3. The defendant actually believed that the degree of force (he/she) used was necessary to repel the attack. Again, if you have found that the force used by the defendant was deadly physical force, then this element requires that the defendant actually believed that deadly physical force was necessary to repel the attack.

    4. That belief was reasonable because a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances, viewing those circumstances from the defendant's perspective, would have shared that belief.

    The defendant has no burden of proof regarding any of these elements. Instead, the state bears the sole and exclusive burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in (self-defense / the defense of others), a burden it can meet by disproving at least one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. I will go over each of these elements again in detail.

    Element 1 - Actual belief regarding use of physical force by other person
    The first element is that when the defendant used defensive force against <insert name of other person>, (he/she) actually -- that is, honestly and sincerely -- believed that the other person was using or about to use physical force against (him/her/<insert name of third person>). The word "using" has its ordinary meaning, that is, the other person has already begun to use force. The word "imminent" means that the person is about to use physical force at that time. It does not encompass the possibility that an act of physical force may take place at some unspecified future time.

    If you have found that the force used by the defendant was deadly physical force, then you must find that the defendant actually believed that <insert name of other person> was not only using or about to use physical force upon (him/her/<insert name of third person>), but that the other person was either using or about to use deadly physical force against (him/her/<insert name of third person>), or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm upon (him/her/<insert name of third person>). "Great bodily harm" is not limited by the definition of serious physical injury and may encompass other acts such as sexual assault or the threat of sexual assault.4 The term "great" has its ordinary meaning and indicates a bodily harm that is substantially more than minor or inconsequential harm.

    The act of <insert name of other person> leading to the defendant's use of defensive physical force need not be an actual threat or assault. The test is not what the other person actually intended, but what the other person's act caused the defendant to believe was the intention of the other. In other words, the danger to which the defendant was reacting need not have been actual or real. In judging the danger to (himself/herself/<insert name of third person>) the defendant is not required to act with infallible judgment. A person acting in (self-defense / the defense of others) is sometimes required to act instantly and without time to deliberate and investigate. Under such circumstances it is possible to perceive an actual threat when none in fact existed.

    Element 2 - Reasonableness of that belief
    The second element is that the defendant's actual belief about the force being used or about to be used against (him/her/<insert name of third person>) was a reasonable belief. This means that under the circumstances of the case, viewing those circumstances from the defendant's point of view, the defendant's actual belief that <insert name of other person> was using or about to use physical force or deadly physical force against (him/her/<insert name of third person>) was reasonable because a reasonable person in the defendant's situation at the time of (his/her) actions, viewing the circumstances from the defendant's point of view, would have shared that belief.

    Element 3 - Actual belief regarding degree of force necessary
    The third element is that when the defendant used physical force upon <insert name of other person> for the purpose of defending (himself/herself/<insert name of third person>), (he/she) actually -- that is, honestly and sincerely -- believed that the degree of force (he/she) used was necessary for that purpose. This applies whether you have found that the defendant used deadly physical force or not. The question is whether the defendant believed that it was necessary to use the degree of force that (he/she) used to defend (himself/herself/<insert name of third person>) from the attack.

    Element 4 - Reasonableness of that belief
    The fourth element is that the defendant's actual belief about the degree of force necessary to defend (himself/herself)/<insert name of third person> was a reasonable belief. This means that under the circumstances of the case, viewing those circumstances from the defendant's point of view, the defendant's actual belief that the degree of force used was necessary to defend (himself/ herself/ <insert name of third person>) was reasonable because a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances at the time of (his/her) actions, viewing those circumstances from the defendant's point of view, would have shared that belief.

    Exceptions
    <Insert any applicable statutory disqualifications. See Exceptions to Justification: Provocation, Initial Aggressor, Combat by Agreement, Instruction 2.8-2 and Exceptions to use of Deadly Physical Force: Duty to Retreat, Surrender Property, Comply with Demand, Instruction 2.8-3.>

    The state's burden5
    You must remember that the defendant has no burden of proof whatsoever with respect to the defense of (self-defense / the defense of others). Instead, it is the state that must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in (self-defense / the defense of others) if it is to prevail on its charge[s] of <insert applicable crimes>[, or of any of the lesser-included offenses on which you have been instructed]. To meet this burden, the state need not disprove all four of the elements of (self-defense / the defense of others). Instead, it can defeat the defense of (self-defense / the defense of others) by disproving any one of the four elements of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt to your unanimous satisfaction. You must find that the defendant did not act in (self-defense / defense of others), if you find any of the following:

    1. The state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that, when the defendant used physical force, (he/she) did not actually believe that <insert name of other person> was using or about to use physical force against (him/her/<insert name of third person>). If you have found that the force used by the defendant was deadly physical force, then the state must prove that the defendant did not actually believe that the other person 1) was using or about to use deadly physical force against (him/her/a third person), or 2) was inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm upon (him/her/a third person).

    OR

    2. The state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actual belief concerning the degree of force being, or about to be, used against (him/her) was unreasonable, in the sense that a reasonable person, viewing all the circumstances from the defendant's point of view, would not have shared that belief.

    OR

    3. The state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that, when the defendant used physical force to defend (himself/herself/<insert name of third person>) against <insert name of other person>, (he/she) did not actually believe that the degree of force (he/she) used was necessary for that purpose. Here again, as with the first requirement, an actual belief is an honest, sincere belief.

    OR

    4. The state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that, if the defendant did actually believe that the degree of force (he/she) used to defend (himself/herself/<insert name of third person>) against <insert name of other person> was necessary for that purpose, that belief was unreasonable, in the sense that a reasonable person, viewing all the circumstances from the defendant's point of view, would not have shared that belief.

    [<If any statutory disqualifications have been included:>

    You must also find that the defendant did not act in (self-defense / defense of others), if you find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that <insert the statutory disqualifications upon which the jury has been instructed:>

    Provocation: the defendant provoked <insert name of decedent/complainant> into using physical force against (him/her).

    Initial aggressor: the defendant was the initial aggressor in the encounter.

    Combat by agreement: the physical encounter between the defendant and <insert name of other person> was a combat by agreement.

    Duty to retreat: the defendant had a duty to retreat from the physical encounter because (he/she) knew (he/she) could do so with complete safety.

    Surrender property: the defendant knew that (he/she) would not need to use physical force against <insert name of other person> if (he/she) surrendered property to <insert name of other person>.

    Comply with demand: the defendant knew that (he/she) would not need to use physical force against <insert name of other person> if (he/she) complied with the demand to <insert name of demand>.]

    Conclusion
    If you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements of <insert applicable crimes>, you shall then find the defendant not guilty and not consider the defense.

    If you unanimously find that all the elements of <insert applicable crimes and any lesser included offenses> have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you shall then consider the defense of (self-defense / defense of others). If you unanimously find that the state has disproved beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the elements of the defense [or has proved one of the statutory disqualifications], you must reject that defense and find the defendant guilty.

    If, on the other hand, you unanimously find that the state has not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the elements of the defense, [or has not proven one of the statutory disqualifications], then on the strength of that defense alone you must find the defendant not guilty of <insert applicable crimes> despite the fact that you have found the elements of (that crime / those crimes) proven beyond a reasonable doubt [and not consider any of the lesser-included offenses].6
    __________________________________________________ _____

    1 Whether the degree of force used was non-deadly physical force or deadly physical force is a question for the jury. State v. Singleton, 97 Conn. App. 679, cert. granted, 280 Conn. 949 (2006); State v. Whitford, 260 Conn. 610, 631 (2002). If the parties stipulate to it on the record you may instruct the jury that "the parties agree that in this case the force used was deadly." See State v. Wayne, 60 Conn. App. 761, 765 (2000) (court improperly instructed the jury that the defendant, as a matter of law, had used deadly physical force).

    2 It is well established that 53a-19 imposes a "subjective-objective" inquiry on a claim of self-defense or defense of others. This means that a defendant's "reasonable beliefs" must be evaluated from the defendant's subjective point of view, i.e., what he or she actually believed, and from an objective point of view, i.e., what a reasonable person in the defendant's situation would have believed. See the discussion in the Introduction to this section. The basic approach to self-defense thus requires the jury to ask, and answer, four questions: 1) Did the defendant believe that he/she was being subjected to imminent physical harm? 2) Would a reasonable person in the defendant's situation have believed that to be so? 3) Did the defendant believe that the degree of force he/she used was necessary to ward off the attack? 4) Would a reasonable person in the defendant's situation have believed that such a degree of force was necessary? An instruction that clearly guides the jury in addressing these four questions has properly instructed it on applying the subjective-objective standard. Optional language is included at the beginning of this section of the instruction to provide the jury with an analytical description of the standard.

    3 The model instruction takes the approach of calling each of the inquiries the jury must make "elements," analytically similar to the elements of an offense. They may also be labeled "parts" or "components," or simply "circumstances under which a person is not justified in using physical force in self-defense."

    4 See State v. Havican, 213 Conn. 593, 600-601 (1990) (concluding that "the threat of great bodily harm and the threat of serious physical injury are two separate grounds that each justify the use of deadly force in self-defense").

    5 The appellate courts have not addressed the issue of whether the state's burden of proof on a claim of self-defense is best expressed in the positive ("the state must prove that the defendant did not believe….") or the negative ("the state must disprove that the defendant believed…."). Although they have recited portions of trial courts' charges that have stated the burden of proof in both ways; see, e.g., State v. Singleton, 97 Conn. App. 679, 693, cert. granted, 280 Conn. 949 (2006); State v. Peters, 40 Conn. App. 805, 817 (1996); such recitation carries no "precedential imprimatur" with regard to the propriety or impropriety of either approach. See State v. Romero, 269 Conn. 481, 490 (2004).

    6 See State v. Morgan, 86 Conn. App. 196, 205 (2004) (court failed to instruct jury that they should find the defendant not guilty if they found that he was justified in his use of force); State v. Montanez, 71 Conn. App. 246, 253-55 (2002) (jury must be instructed that defendant is entitled to acquittal if the state fails to disprove self-defense).

    Commentary

    If the evidence, if believed, is sufficient to raise "a reasonable doubt in the mind of a rational juror" as to whether the defendant acted in self-defense, then the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on the defense. State v. Edwards, 234 Conn. 381, 390 (1995).

    A defendant does not have to "admit that he intended to kill the victim to assert the justification of self-defense." State v. Miller, 55 Conn. App. 298, 300 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 923 (2000). Furthermore, a defendant is permitted to present inconsistent defenses. Id., 301. Accordingly, a defendant is entitled to an instruction on the defense of self-defense if the evidence warrants it, even if the evidence would also support a claim of innocence because of an unintended or accidental shooting. Id.

    "Self-defense is a valid defense to crimes based on reckless conduct as well as intentional conduct." State v. Jones, 39 Conn. App. 563, 567 n.4 (1995); see also State v. Hall, 213 Conn. 579, 586 (1990); State v. King, 24 Conn. App. 586, 590-91, cert. denied, 219 Conn. 912 (1991).

    As a matter of law, self-defense is not available as a defense to a charge of felony murder. State v. Amado, 254 Conn. 184, 197-202 (2000); State v. Burke, 254 Conn. 202, 205 (2000). This holding is "consistent with the purpose underlying felony murder, which is to punish those whose conduct brought about an unintended death in the commission or attempted commission of a felony. . . . The felony murder rule includes accidental, unintended deaths. Indeed, we have noted that crimes against the person like robbery, rape and common-law arson and burglary are, in common experience, likely to involve danger to life in the event of resistance by the victim. . . . Accordingly, when one kills in the commission of a felony, that person cannot claim self-defense, for this would be fundamentally inconsistent with the very purpose of the felony murder [statute]." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Amado, supra, 254 Conn. 201.

    Self-defense is not applicable to "status offenses," such as carrying a dangerous weapon; State v. Holloway, 11 Conn. App. 665, 771 (1987); or carrying a pistol without a permit. State v. Bailey, 209 Conn. 322, 238 (1988). But see State v. Ramos, 271 Conn. 785, 803 (2004) ("when the item that the defendant is charged with having in the vehicle is an otherwise legal item and did not become a dangerous instrument within the meaning of 29-38 until it was used in self-defense, the defendant may raise 53a-19 as a defense").

    When a defendant is charged with multiple offenses, only some of which self-defense may apply to, the instruction must clearly state that self-defense does not apply to all of the offenses. State v. Davis, 261 Conn. 553, 573 (2002) (self-defense did not apply to charge of interference with an officer, but would apply to assault charges arising out of the same conduct); State v. Wright, 77 Conn. App. 80, 86-87, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 913 (2003) (self-defense did not apply to count charging defendant as accessory).

    A person cannot claim defense of a third party, if the third party had a duty to retreat. State v. Rodriguez, 47 Conn. App. 91, 96, cert. denied, 243 Conn. 960 (1997).



    http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/part2/2.8-1.htm


  2. #47
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    This isn't confusing.

    Just rely on the subjective-objective test and the evaluation of the situation using the ability, opportunity, intent test.

    If you believe someone is in danger from an attacker who has the ability, opportunity and intent to harm them, and you belief is in fact reasonable, you may be allowed to act in that person's defense.

    Note, I said MAY...

    This, of course, relies on your reasonable beliefs, which mean you have to have at least some information about what is going on...so therefore, anyone who already has blanket rules in their head such as:

    "If I see someone grab a child who is struggling and try to put them into a car, I'm going to put a round in the back of that person's head. No questions. No hesitation. Tried by 12 rather than have the kid carried by 6..."

    Or so forth needs to drop the iron rules and start evaluating situations as they come upon them.

    You may get to the shooting part...but you need to have a different thought process to get to that end.

  3. #48
    VIP Member Array tns0038's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,163
    Well, it’s a hard call. On the one hand, I know that I’m looking at $3500 to over $25,000 or more to defend my actions, if I get involved… So it makes me think twice before getting involved.

    But, even knowing this, in the past four years, I’ve got involved twice to aid an officer in uniform, (H2H put the BG on the ground) and once to try and stop a BG from mugging a little old lady.

  4. #49
    Ex Member Array FN1910's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,235
    "If I see someone grab a child who is struggling and try to put them into a car, I'm going to put a round in the back of that person's head. No questions. No hesitation. Tried by 12 rather than have the kid carried by 6..."
    Yup, you just shot his mother and those 12 are not going to believe your story.

  5. #50
    Member Array bigiceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    491
    One of the problems that I see with the statutes quoted comes not from the statutes themselves, but in our own discussion here.

    "A Reasonable Person"

    As more and more people, even here on a forum where the discussion of the defensive carry of leathal and less than leathal weapons is the subject, think it is not reasonable to come to the aid of someone else in trouble, that defense begins to fail. When the answer stopped being, "Of course I will aid someone else in trouble! Wouldn't everyone?" The saddest part is the reasoning is the possible expense. It is coming down to what is another person's safety or life worth to us. I think that is a sad statement on the current status of our country. The lawyers have empowered the evil people to the extent that they can scare us out of doing what is right because of the possible expense. God have mercy upon our country and protect those who are still willing to do what is right.
    But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...
    "Baa."
    LTC(RET) Dave Grossman

    Revolutionary War Veterans Association Shooter Qualification: Cook

  6. #51
    mfs
    mfs is offline
    New Member Array mfs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    The key in all of these hypothetical stories is that you better know the whole story before you go riding in on your white horse to save the day. Just be sure who the BG is before you start shooting.
    I agree. Knowing what is going on is key.

    And it is worth noting that I do not consider myself to be the knight riding in to save the day, I do not consider myself to be heroic or of heroic tenancies, I am not a vigilante, I do not go about my daily business looking for trouble.

    With that being said, I would like to think that I would help someone in need, to the best of my abilities, in accordance with the law.

  7. #52
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by bigiceman View Post
    One of the problems that I see with the statutes quoted comes not from the statutes themselves, but in our own discussion here.

    "A Reasonable Person"

    As more and more people, even here on a forum where the discussion of the defensive carry of leathal and less than leathal weapons is the subject, think it is not reasonable to come to the aid of someone else in trouble, that defense begins to fail.
    It is unreasonable to rush into a situation without sufficient information.

    It is unreasonable to have blanket rules for situations that do not take into account the facts of the case.

    You need to tailor your response to the situation at hand as you reasonably believe it to be.

    Reasonable people don't enter into situations lightly. They observe, even if only for a moment, to determine what is going on before they act - and they only act to the degree it is necessary to prevent loss of life or grave harm, and then only if they can do so safely.

    If you believe that it is reasonable to dive into a situation with only minimal information while armed...perhaps you are unreasonable.

    An emergency on your part does not justify an emergency on my part.

    I may act in defense of another person. I may even shoot someone to save someone else...

    But it will be after I have sufficient information upon which to make my decission.

  8. #53
    Member Array bigiceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    It is unreasonable to rush into a situation without sufficient information.

    It is unreasonable to have blanket rules for situations that do not take into account the facts of the case.

    You need to tailor your response to the situation at hand as you reasonably believe it to be.
    You are absolutely right, and I don't think anyone here was advocating jumping into anything lightly, or without sufficient pause to determine at least a minimum of information. I just hope the definition of a "reasonable person" hasn't degraded to some apathetic bystander taking pictures with their cell phone to post on utube later.

    Reasonable people don't enter into situations lightly. They observe, even if only for a moment, to determine what is going on before they act - and they only act to the degree it is necessary to prevent loss of life or grave harm, and then only if they can do so safely.
    I agree with the safely part. As Patton said heroes don't die for something, they make the other people do it. No heroes here. I don't include financial safety, though. Too many people seem to feel paralyzed by the fear of a law suit. Do what is right. Do what is right.

    I may act in defense of another person. I may even shoot someone to save someone else...

    But it will be after I have sufficient information upon which to make my decission.
    Good, this is what we all really want. A person who brings their brain with them and is not afraid to use it.
    But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...
    "Baa."
    LTC(RET) Dave Grossman

    Revolutionary War Veterans Association Shooter Qualification: Cook

  9. #54
    Ex Member Array FN1910's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,235
    Quote Originally Posted by bigiceman View Post
    You are absolutely right, and I don't think anyone here was advocating jumping into anything lightly, or without sufficient pause to determine at least a minimum of information. I just hope the definition of a "reasonable person" hasn't degraded to some apathetic bystander taking pictures with their cell phone to post on utube later.

    I am afraid that it has.


    I agree with the safely part. As Patton said heroes don't die for something, they make the other people do it. No heroes here. I don't include financial safety, though. Too many people seem to feel paralyzed by the fear of a law suit. Do what is right. Do what is right.

    Amen - A dead hero is still dead


    Good, this is what we all really want. A person who brings their brain with them and is not afraid to use it.
    Your most important defensive weapon is your brain. USE IT

  10. #55
    Distinguished Member Array Agave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    West Tennessee
    Posts
    1,464
    John 15:13 is one of my favorite of the AD passages of the Bible. I am commanded to love my friends. He says that there is no greater love than being ready to die for one's friends. I have nobody else. No one depends on me. Right now, I tread water in society. I'd have to follow that commandment for a friend at this point in my life.

    Anyone else should have tried to get to know me a little better.
    The preceding post may contain sarcasm; it's just better that way. However, it is still intended with construction and with the Love of my L-rd Y'shua.

    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor, Tennessee Certified Instructor

  11. #56
    Member Array bigiceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by Agave View Post
    John 15:13 is one of my favorite of the AD passages of the Bible. I am commanded to love my friends. He says that there is no greater love than being ready to die for one's friends. I have nobody else. No one depends on me. Right now, I tread water in society. I'd have to follow that commandment for a friend at this point in my life.

    Anyone else should have tried to get to know me a little better.
    Agave, if you feel this way should you change your signature? There it says that anyone in need is your friend. I really think that is the way it should be.
    But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...
    "Baa."
    LTC(RET) Dave Grossman

    Revolutionary War Veterans Association Shooter Qualification: Cook

  12. #57
    New Member Array cheetah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    3
    To get specific details about Minnesota law you might check out the forum at:

    twincitiescarry.com :: Index

  13. #58
    Distinguished Member Array Agave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    West Tennessee
    Posts
    1,464
    Quote Originally Posted by bigiceman View Post
    Agave, if you feel this way should you change your signature? There it says that anyone in need is your friend. I really think that is the way it should be.
    You are absolutely right. I guess I recant that last line. I'm going along with Capt. Hoban.
    The preceding post may contain sarcasm; it's just better that way. However, it is still intended with construction and with the Love of my L-rd Y'shua.

    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor, Tennessee Certified Instructor

  14. #59
    Member Array Rebmik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by jfl View Post
    Wait a minute !!!
    This is not a black and white situation.
    Between just being a witness and killing the alleged BG there is an infinite number of shades of gray.
    The situation, my abilities, the environment, are going to play in my course of action.
    If the encounter is a bank heist with number of heavily armed thugs wearing vests, I'm not going to try to be a good witness, I'm going to "disappear".
    OTOH, as one poster said, in some situations just being there or using verbal commands might defuse the problem.

    A little story that happened to us some years ago.
    Coming back home at 2 am on a desert dirt road in the middle of nowhere.
    An old Camaro is stopped in the middle of the road with a young woman bu it, waving frantically. A little farther a car parked unde the trees with several persons hiding behind.
    A typical set-up, right ? Better keep going.
    Well, we didn't. Told my wife to cover me, drew my Glock, keeping it under the tux jacket and went to investigate.
    It was a bona fide emergency, car had broke down, the other had stopped a few minutes before we arrived and the occupants were obviously waiting for us to pass.
    Long story short the girl was in tears, total panic, we took her home to her brother and all was well.
    There was no cell coverage in that area.
    If we had not stopped, and found the next morning in the news that the girl had been raped, injured, killed, whatever ...I would have a hard time living with that memory ... a very hard time.

    We were a little more than a good witness, nobody was hurt, nobody went to court, and we feel good about it instead of having to live with a life-altering memory.

    Back to the original question: there is no answer !!!
    Each case will be different, each decision will be individual.
    I am old, I had a great life, my wife can survive without me, so my risk tolerance is higher than a younger individual with a family to support.
    Death before dishonor !!!
    This is the best answer that I have read so far.

    Your story is a great example. I always stop at such times, always being extremely careful. Will I regret it some time?? Maybe, but like jfl said, I would have a hard time living with myself if I found out something else happened if I didn't stop. That could be my wife, son, parent.....etc.

    Good post.

    Kev

  15. #60
    Member Array Rebmik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by bigiceman View Post
    Yes.

    If that is not your answer, why isn't it? I don't mean that as a slight or a challenge, just a question. When the golden rule said do unto others as you would have them do unto you it didn't mean only if it was convenient or easy. I want to think that if I was in dire straights that everyone else would not shun me just because they were not a member of my family and didn't want to get involved.

    Thirty people on a bus in the Netherlands watched as three young men savagely beat another passenger to death. They beat him because he had the gaul to actually say something to them as they were rude and mean to a passenger on the bus. The passengers stood up for him in return and exited the bus as quickly as possible. 10:1 odds and they all left him to die. I don't care if they are 1:3 odds and I am unarmed. The good people of the world cannot stand by and watch other good people be vicimized. If they do, they are standing on the sideline watching, while they wait their turn.
    Another fantastic response!

    Kev

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Best Defense
    By C hawk Glock in forum Defensive Books, Video & References
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 3rd, 2010, 06:24 PM
  2. Best Defense
    By rachilders in forum Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 15th, 2010, 08:37 PM
  3. LMS Defense Home Defense - Defensive Medical COMBO / Yuba City, CA / March 8-10, 2008
    By Tony Siciliano in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 6th, 2008, 12:55 PM
  4. .38 spl or .357 mag for self defense?
    By Joey in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: January 1st, 2008, 11:13 AM
  5. FN Five-Seven for self defense?
    By skystud1 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: November 6th, 2007, 12:02 PM

Search tags for this page

can physical force be used to protect a 3rd person?
,
see state v. havican, 213 conn. 593, 600-601 (1990) (concluding that the threat of great bodily harm and the threat of s
,
third person self defense
,

what are some elements of defense for someeone who come to the aid of another?

Click on a term to search for related topics.