Using your weapon to protect someone else

[melD]

A recent incident near my home has caused me to ask this question. If you look outside and someone is getting the tar beat out of them, is it legal to use your weapon to discourage or stop the attack?

Scenario would be something like look outside see attack, dial 911 while grabbing weapon and heading outside, keep weapon at side muzzle down while telling the bad guys to cease attack while 911 dispatch is on phone.

I just don't think I could stand there looking out the window while some poor human is getting beat to within a inch of his life.

Hopefully I will never need to know the answer to this, but always nice to know just in case.

Thanks
Mel

[Rule10b5]

In Pennsylvania, you may use force to defend another under certain circumstances. See http://members.aol.com/StatutesP8/18PA506.html

I would not advise it, unless the person is a family member or a close friend AND you are certain of the facts giving rise to the perceived need to use force. Given how easy it is to misunderstand a situation, and how final deadly force is, I would suggest you avoid it in all but the most desperate (and rare) of circumstances.

[brewguy]

Originally Posted by Rule10b5

In Pennsylvania, you may use force to defend another under certain circumstances. See http://members.aol.com/StatutesP8/18PA506.html

I would not advise it, unless the person is a family member or a close friend AND you are certain of the facts giving rise to the perceived need to use force. Given how easy it is to misunderstand a situation, and how final deadly force is, I would suggest you avoid it in all but the most desperate (and rare) of circumstances.

I think at this point the circumstances are irrelevent. Even if it is a cop nearly killing a person you should stop it. The assumption here is you are not witnessing a fight but a beating.

If you make yourself visible and they continue that is a good sign of their intent.

[Rule10b5]

Originally Posted by brewguy

I think at this point the circumstances are irrelevent. Even if it is a cop nearly killing a person you should stop it. The assumption here is you are not witnessing a fight but a beating.

If you make yourself visible and they continue that is a good sign of their intent.

I'm sorry, but you're incorrect, both as a matter of law and fact. The circumstances are always relevant, and jumping into what appears to be a "beating" is never a wise decision from a legal standpoint unless you're sure of all the facts. I've tried more than a few cases -- trust me on this one.

But, hey, it's a free country, and your choice. I always need more business.

[brewguy]

Originally Posted by Rule10b5

I'm sorry, but you're incorrect, both as a matter of law and fact. The circumstances are always relevant, and jumping into what appears to be a "beating" is never a wise decision from a legal standpoint unless you're sure of all the facts. I've tried more than a few cases -- trust me on this one.

But, hey, it's a free country, and your choice. I always need more business.

I'm not sure of the circumstance your refering to but I'm assuming you mean someone defending themsleves?

So if someone attacks me and I take their bat and start to beat them with it. they are on the ground and I am smashing their head with it. Someone shouldn't stop me?

Can you please give and example of when why you should not intervien?

[Zef_66]

Originally Posted by brewguy

I think at this point the circumstances are irrelevent. Even if it is a cop nearly killing a person you should stop it. The assumption here is you are not witnessing a fight but a beating.

If you make yourself visible and they continue that is a good sign of their intent.

I know in most circumstance if I or my family members were ever put in danger, I would shoot with deadly force. If I was ever put in a situation like is described above, I would fire a warning shot, then shoot to maim, not kill, I believe.

It is so hard to say how you would react in different situations.

[Mtbkski]

Originally Posted by Rule10b5

I would not advise it, unless the person is a family member or a close friend AND you are certain of the facts giving rise to the perceived need to use force. Given how easy it is to misunderstand a situation, and how final deadly force is, I would suggest you avoid it in all but the most desperate (and rare) of circumstances.

(I"m just stirring the pot) What if it was your wife being beaten and raped outside my house, should I go out and help her, or mind my own business??? I mean, I don't know you. I don't know her. Should I go out and help her????

I know, I know.... This is a tough call. I have gone over this one repeatedly in my head trying to come up with a good solution... And I can't come up with a solid answer. Here is what I have decided. "I will decide, when it happens, and let what I see and hear help me to decide if I should do something or not".

I'm not sure I could live with myself to read in the paper how the person was beaten to death in front of my house for $20 in his/her wallet, and I did nothing.

Hey, it may be my father, or daughter that you run out and save one day. Or vice versa.

This is a tough one and I'm sure the SWHTF now

[Mtbkski]

Originally Posted by Zef_66

I know in most circumstance if I or my family members were ever put in danger, I would shoot with deadly force. If I was ever put in a situation like is described above, I would fire a warning shot, then shoot to maim, not kill, I believe.

You fire your firearm to make the BG stop what he is doing. Be it family member or guy on the street. You fire to make the BG stop what he is doing. Not to kill him. Not to wound him. Not to maim him. You fire your firearm to make him stop what he is doing. Get that in your head now. No warning shots. (where did that round go. Into the innocent lady down the street walking her dog)

If in the process of attempting to make this individual stop what he was doing, you maimed, wounded, or kill him. That is a byproduct of your actions. It isn't what you intended to do. Your only trying to make him stop what he is doing. If you have to fire your weapon several times to make him stop. That is what you do. But you fire your weapon to make him stop what he is doing and you keep firing till you have made him stop

You need to get this in your head now.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Zef_66

II would fire a warning shot, then shoot to maim, not kill, I believe.

warning shots are generally considered a bad idea and potentially open you up to legal ramifications.

you shouldn't shoot to maim or to kill. you should shoot, if you have to, to *stop* the threat. you should aim for center-of-mass. you will not be able to shoot nearly as well in such a stressful situation as you can while at the range.

(a wise man once said something to the effect of "a 1 inch group becomes a 4 inch group and a 4 inch group becomes a 12 inch group when you are shooting under the stress of a real situation". aiming for COM provides the best chance of actually hitting what you intend to hit even if your groups open up.)

It is so hard to say how you would react in different situations.

that is very true.

[rant on]

it's really sad that in today's america the legal system is overwhelmingly set up to discourage people from helping each other in times of greatest need. seems many people would like to see the story of kitty genovese repeated over and over again. however, that is the way it is.

when thinking about whether or not to intervene in a situation involving someone else, you owe it to yourself to realistically assess the possible legal ramifications to yourself.

i'm not saying don't help...just be aware of the realities of doing so. personally, i'd rather rot in jail or end up dead than have to look at myself in the mirror everyday knowing i just let someone else be raped or murdered when i could have done something about it.

but don't think that the legal system will be behind your actions....there is, disgustingly, a good chance the legal system will come after you even if you did the right thing.

[/rant off]

[Rule10b5]

Guys, it is not a tough call by any means. I say this as an attorney, and I have yet to meet one who disagrees with me: If it isn't your fight, stay the hell out of it.

Before you use deadly force, you must be absolutely, positively certain that it is warranted.

Assume you see what appears to be a guy on the ground being beaten with a bat. You draw your gun, point it at what appears to be the aggressor, and order him to stop. He doesn't. You pop him.

The police show up, and it turns out that it was a mugging gone bad, they guy on the ground was the mugger and had a gun he was trying to get into play, while the guy with the bat was the "victim" who was lawfully using deadly force to defend himself against a mugger with a gun.

Congratulations, you go to jail. Your family loses the house when you lose the civil suit (and trust me, you will lose this one).

Or the woman who is down on the ground screaming her head off about how the guy beating on her is trying to kill her. You pop him. I absolutely guarantee you that it'll turn out to be a domestic, and the second she calms down you're no longer the hero, you're some bastard with a gun who murdered the love of her life and the father of her 4 kids.

Congratulations, you may not go to jail, but you're going to lose the civil case, and at a minimum spend tens of thousands of dollars on a lawyer.

People, I can't stress this enough, this thread is a perfect example of why you need to get training.

And I'm not talking about a one day "Get your Florida Permit" class. I'm talking about a REAL, multi-day class that focuses not on the shooting and carrying aspects of firearms, but on the law of deadly force. I strongly suggest that anyone who carries take a course by Mas Ayoob -- 90% of LFI is classroom work on deadly force and what to do afterwards.