I know the laws differ, sometimes drastically, by state.

Question, Isn't there even instances in some places where you, the 3rd party, can be charged for not aiding someone in danger of loosing their life?

Sure not trying to start another long discussion just curious. It seems I remember something like this a few years back.

 

Their was the last Sienfeld episode...

But apparently not any law in the US. Moral obligation in some cases, but not law. Some other countries do have such legal obligations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

If there is some US locale which has such a law, I don't know about it.

 

There were some "street artists" enacting a kidnapping here in Florida several years ago. A bystander shot and killed one of them. Apparently they didn't let him in on the joke. They didn't press charges against the shooter.

 

I saw no opportunity to save the 3rd party, and in each case, the camera was too far away for me to have seen it and registered a setup.

When the "assailant" starts chasing the witnesses (and assuming I was a witness), it would then be a case of personal self defense.

Taking the instance where the witness jumps over a brick wall to escape (an excellent decision!), I would draw as soon as I was over the wall. And fire as soon as the assailant was visible over it.

Hopefully, all the "witnesses" in these videos are "in" on the gag. If not, would I defend myself?

 

I saw no opportunity to save the 3rd party, and in each case, the camera was too far away for me to have seen it and registered a setup.

When the "assailant" starts chasing the witnesses (and assuming I was a witness), it would then be a case of personal self defense.

Taking the instance where the witness jumps over a brick wall to escape (an excellent decision!), I would draw as soon as I was over the wall. And fire as soon as the assailant was visible over it.

Hopefully, all the "witnesses" in these videos are "in" on the gag. If not, would I defend myself?

I would go for the gun grab at that range. He turned and ran away from a drawn gun, taking about two-and-a-half seconds to hit the wall. That equals multiple hits.

 

I'm not sure how anyone, especially me, would REALLY react, but if I felt threatened or I felt the other person was in immediate danger, whatever law was on the books would never come into the decision making process. That, anyway, would be my hope.

GeorgiaCarry

 

Perhaps they pranked the wrong person.

Man Involved with Jalal Brother Prank Shot While Making Another Fake Bomb Stunt | UTM News


http://speisa.com/modules/articles/makepdf.php?itemid=2297

 

Australia? Explains a lot.

 

To answer the OP...100%.

 

Maybe I'm being stupid, but in this situation I would draw, aim squarely at the guy with the gun, and yell for him to drop his gun. At this point he's a third of a second away from being shot. If he does anything but drop the gun, he's gonna get it until he drops or until my mag is empty, whichever comes first.

 

He could put a round or two on you before you get the "p" on "Drop".

 

I don't know if I agree with jmf552 wording, it's to much lawyer stuff for me but I do understand taking action on 3rd party being very touchy stuff. You walk in on 3rd party stuff where it is and what it is, not what you think or thought it was. My understanding there would be no difference in whatever you walked into, being LEO arresting a BG or a prank. With 3rd party crap know what you are entering before you jump is my take.

Now with this video, once it comes to bring me into the situation I'd feel threatened and I'd be taking action. Not for 3rd party but for myself. Once the gun was pointed at me and he started after me I'd be shooting on the take off of getting off the X. So about 1 second after I started he'd have at least one round in him with more coming VERY fast until he's on the ground.

 

VA law is one thing, then there are the VA jury instructions.

From: Index of Instructions

With bold my emphasis:

If you believe from the evidence that the defendant was without fault in provoking or bringing on the [fight; difficulty] , and that the defendant reasonably feared, under the circumstances as they appeared to him, that he was in danger of harm, then the defendant had the right to use such force as was reasonably necessary to protect himself from the threatened harm. If you further believe that the defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to protect himself from the threatened harm, then you shall find the defendant not guilty.

The instruction for defense of a 3rd party is similar. The defendant is not held to the knowledge or intent of the apparent assailant or a defended 3rd party, only the apparent use of a gun in an apparent execution, and subsequent chase of the "defendant."

But, IANAL.

 

Aside from the legalities, some people are ok with killing a teenager for being stupid, I'm not.

 

Within the legalities, I am OK with stopping a threat. I am.

A recent post on this forum showed a well-practiced man of the cloth able to draw from concealment and shoot two targets in under a second. If I wait until he draws, I don't have a chance. As I posted above, I think the thief exposing his weapon is a threat and is just cause for me to draw mine. I would then be taking a huge chance by not aiming and firing immediately. Once he brandished, that is a threat independent of the theft. But the law is not necessarily on my side. It might be since this crosses the border between theft and robbery, yet one must still be mindful of reasonable and proportional response.

I would take the smaller risk of drawing and aiming. And if he then goes for his weapon again, it absolutely isn't about theft anymore.

Run, stupid kid, run! And don't come back! Don't stay and draw and take the last remaining choice away from me.

 

Regarding the OP... If I believe threat to my life is imminent, yup, I'm shooting! Everything else is "to be determined"! :wink:

 

I'd send his butt back to allah on a magic carpet ride, courtesy the hunk of Austrian awesomeness in my holster.

 

These pranks are from the minds of warped ignoramuses and there is nothing entertaining or funny about any of them. I don't know what the point of them could possibly be other than shear stupidity and lack of sympathy for the those who have been or whose families have been the victims of Islamic terrorism. They disgust me.

 

Its probably a pretty good idea to consider the [plus-one] scenario. If there is one bad guy, there is likely 2. If someone has one weapon on them, they probably have another as well. The person who tried to harm you moments ago, may try again. As far as the CCW citizen in walmart goes, I consider him a brave man. Concealed carry likely afforded him the advantage of not being highlighted as a threat until he made his move but you should probably survey the scene if your intention is to present yourself as a threat to a badguy. I am not suggesting that the CCW citizen didnt but this situation does reinforce the suggestion that their could be more than one badguy.

 

jmf552,

I am inclined to believe that someone either totally fed you wrong information or it was taken seriously out of context. I am with "AzQkr" in that I would have "dropped the aggressor" where he stood. I do not claim to be a "legal eagle" but have been a LEO for 30 years and I think your information is simply wrong.