Saving "others"..where do you draw the line?

SuperMan

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
4,197
Reaction score
5,365
Location
Rochester, NH USA
The law in most states allows the use of deadly force in defense of "another" when it appears that the other is in fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death.

So besides yourself, who would you use deadly force to save? Your spouse, child, parents, neighbors, another church member, a police officer in dire need, a co-worker...a stranger...

Your thoughts would be appreciated....Bob Makowski
 
Register to hide this ad
You are correct, the use of reasonably necessary force is generally permissable in defense of oneself or another person. In my opinion, there is no line to be drawn. As human beings we share a responsibility to one another, so any time that another person is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death and it is within our abilities to render assistance I believe it to be a duty.

There was no such thing as a police department anywhere in this country for nearly the first century of our history. Each county might have had a sheriff, operating a jail and serving the legal process of the courts. Each state and territory had a United States Marshal, serving the legal process of the federal courts. Generally speaking, the citizenry was expected to respond to crimes and breaches of the peace, taking offenders to the sheriff for further legal action, or providing sworn affidavits to the courts so that a summons or arrest warrant could be issued and served by the sheriff.

The first police departments were formed in the more populous cities. Interestingly, when New York City formed a police department the officers were not permitted to carry firearms (the reasoning was that there would always be armed citizens nearby to assist, should that become necessary). Granted, this did not last long, but it is interesting to note.

Under the United States Code there has always been a Militia Act, implementing the provisions of the Consitution. Historically, the Militia of the United States has consisted of all male citizens from 17 to 45 years of age, and the militia was viewed as having three parts: 1. The popular militia (the whole body of the people), 2. The Select militia (elected and appointed law enforcement officers, states' organized militias, and later the National Guard), and 3. The standing military forces. This law remains the underlying authority for the Selective Service System.

Most state constitutions and bodies of law still contain a militia act, defining who is a member of the state's popular militia, how and under what circumstances the militia could be called into service, etc.

Here in Colorado any person 15 years of age or older can be ordered to assist a peace officer and, should that person fail to render the assistance ordered, that person can be prosecuted for a misdemeanor offense.

Here in Colorado, Chapter 2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (the code of criminal proceedings) specifically states that any citizen may make an arrest for a crime committed in his presence, using such force as may be reasonably necessary to subdue the offender and deliver him to the sheriff.

I imagine that most states have similar provisions in their laws.

Since the use of organized police departments (and other law enforcement agencies) many people have arrived at the conclusion that enforcement of the law is no longer within the scope of any citizen's responsibility. I disagree. By forming a police department and staffing it with members, what we have done is to delegate certain legal authority to those people in order that they may act on our behalf in return for payment of a salary so that the rest of us can better go about our daily lives.

All lawful powers of government are delegated by the citizens. If the citizens did not possess that power it could not be delegated by them. And only the authority to act can be delegated; the responsibility for action remains with the citizen.
 
There is no line for me when my family is involved.

When it comes to "saving" a stranger, I'd do so as long as it didn't put anyone else in danger.

I don't understand this question though... you're Superman.. isn't this common for you? ;)
 
In my opinion, there is no line to be drawn. As human beings we share a responsibility to one another, so any time that another person is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death and it is within our abilities to render assistance I believe it to be a duty.

I think this was very well said.
 
I don't understand this question though... you're Superman.. isn't this common for you? ;)

...yes, but I wanted to see what you "mere mortals" had to say....

I've asked this question a number of times in the Personal Protection classes I run but have never asked for "an answer"...just a food for thought question.

Although Mr. Lobo appears to be a very honorable person not all gun carriers are so noble... Many I know would never involve themselves in the affairs of anyone outside their family let alone a complete stranger. How many people could have come to the rescue of Katie Genovasse in Central Park many years ago and not only did they not come, they didn't even call the police.

There of course is also the question of why bother to put your own life and financial future on the line for a complete stranger who didn't even have the brains enough to carry his own means of defense....and lots more questions...

Thanks for the answers so far...

Bob
 
Thank you, BarbC.

Let me just add this: whatever actions you may take will be subjected to evaluation based upon the "reasonable man" theory.

Given the facts of the situation, as you understood those to be, was the action that you took one that a reasonable man would consider to be appropriate?

If the facts of the situation involve you, as a concealed weapons permit holder, strapping on your hardware and going into the toughest neighborhoods late at night, looking for the opportunity to shoot someone; well, the old reasonable man might take a pretty hard look at you.

If the facts of the situation involve you, as a concealed weapons permit holder, going about your normal business in places that you frequent on a regular basis, and you encounter an armed assault in progress, order the assailant to halt and drop his weapon, and the assailant continues the assault in a manner likely to result in grievous bodily injury or death, and you then put one in his 10-ring; well, the old reasonable man will probably be pretty understanding.

Avoid confrontations whenever possible. Walk away if you can. Run away if you must. When no other reasonable alternatives exist, do what you have to do so that you (and other innocents) can survive.
 
I believe that each and every situation would have to be evaluated on it's own. I can't say that I absolutely would not use deadly force to protect someone I did not know, just like I can't say that I absolutely would use deadly force to protect someone I did not know.

There are plenty of situations you could find yourself in where you may have to make a decision to protect someone you do not know at one moment, knowing full well that at the next moment, it may well be your own life that is in jeopardy. We have to consider that a armed criminal who is hell bent on killing someone we do not know, will probably have little regard for anyone elses life either. When that criminal kills someone else because you stood by and did nothing, then what will you do when he next turns his attention to you or your loved ones?

What it amounts to is that no matter who you are, you will have to cross the bridge when you come to it. I would like to think that I would do what I could to help out someone I knew was innocent or overmatched to the point where it was detrimental, but I would certainly never go around looking for situations to try to be a hero.
 
Appearance of the actors in whatever drama requires intervention, as well as what information - if any - I know about the situation would all play a part. A classic example that I'm fond of repeating was the "woman in distress" who at a closer glance was a cross dressing prositute having a fist fight with her pimp. Considering that "she" was build like a line backer and over six feet tall, "her" much shorter and scrappier pimp must have been a very good fighter indeed. Yes, I actually witnessed that.

Anyway, some situations would be fairly obvious - if a guy is walking around with a bloody axe and a severed head while foaming at the mouth, I probably know who the bad guy is.

Anything that smacks (no pun intended) of a domestic disturbance I'd avoid, since I don't believe anything good will come of involving myself in someone else's mess at home.

I also wouldn't involve myself in anything that looks like criminal on criminal activity. This includes such cases as the pimp and his "girl", since it was none of my business. Same situation if one guy with baggy pants (underpants sticking out, natch) and a white tee walks up to another guy similarly dressed and empties a Hi Point into him.

When I lived in an area rife with such criminal activity, I had few problems precisely because I minded my own business. I had none of the suburbia inspired fantasies of playing the hero or involving myself in things that weren't my concern.

I suppose the real test was "something that shocks my conscience". As noted, criminal on criminal and domestic disputes failed that test. The guy with an axe or someone wearing a clown suit and grabbing a child up into their old van near the playground would meet the test and require intervention.
 
GatorFarmer, I'm staying away from Virginia... the Axe Murderer / child abducting clown capital of the world! ;) joking....

I agree with you statement though. In many situations, the proper action may be simply walking away.
 
Lobo is spot on; we who have the ability to protect ourselves have the responsibility to extend that "protection" to others in need.

To do otherwise is cowardly.

Be safe.

PS:

That does NOT require one's use of a firearm or other means of deadly force.
 
I will defend, myself, my family, my friends, my congregation, the elderly, a fallen police officer, my brothers and sisters in the military and small children. Any able bodied adult, male or female, is SOL. I will not risk my freedom, or wealth to defend those unwilling, or too stupid to defend themselves.
 
Lobo is spot on; we who have the ability to protect ourselves have the responsibility to extend that "protection" to others in need.

To do otherwise is cowardly.

Be safe.

PS:

That does NOT require one's use of a firearm or other means of deadly force.

Big D..your "PS" lost me....could you please explain...

Thanks...Bob
 
I think Big D is refering to the fact that just because we aren't willing to use deadly force to intervene, it doesn't mean we can't at least call the local police, or render medical assistance after the "smoke clears". If so, I agree.
 
As has more or less been said, there's a distinction to be made between "defending" and "interceding". If Gator's hypothetical axe murderer attacks you and your family while you're picnicing, obviously force is not only justified, but called for. One of the crimes which deadly force is justified for preventing in AZ is "arson of an occupied structure --- someone seen splashing gasoline on the orphanage and about to strike a match is a likely target for forceful intercession. Similarly, obvious sexual or physical assaults on children might warrant intervention. But, if it's a domestic dispute or crime-on-criminal, I don't think I want to get involved.

There was an incident here fairly recently involving high school kids in an apparent assault/abduction which prompted witnesses to call 911 and etc. Turns out they were play acting, and staged the incident for a homemade video, as part of a school project or some such. How'd you like to explain to family, friends, cops, prosecutor, and jury how "reasonable" you were when you whacked a teenage thespian honor student who was just goofing around?

Especially in states where it's easy to get a CCW and to be prepared to defend yourself, it's unreasonable for those who refuse to assume that responsibility to expect anyone else, such as you, or me, to come to their defense. I'm not willing to risk financial ruin or criminal prosecution to intercede on behalf of an adult stranger who's already chosen to abdicate their responsibilities for their own welfare.
 
My position? I'm going to get involved provided that by doing so I don't endanger my family.
I too believe that we have a moral obligation to render assistance to those who cannot do so for themselves.

With that being said, I fully respect the positions of those who decline to assist those who place themselves in peril or are unwilling to defend themselves.
 
Big D..your "PS" lost me....could you please explain...

Thanks...Bob

Flop essentially states my point of view in his followup post.

To reiterate: Not every instance wherein a person is in peril necessitates the use of force...or foolhardy actions. Only LEO's and firefighters MUST tread where the fainthearted (or smart!) people avoid.

No one would expect an armed citizen to face off against multiple armed adversaries, for instance, when such actions as dialing "911" may be far more prudent.

And, like the circumstance just the other day when I observed a person acting very dangerously and placing others in potential (not imminent!) peril, observing and reporting is quite functional.

Be safe.
 
This reminds me of the scene in "Dirty Harry" where Harry is talking with the Mayor, and the Mayor asks him about a shooting he was involved, and Harry says he was preventing
an attempted rape.
The Mayor: "Attempted rape? How do you know?"
Harry: "Look, when I see a woman being chased down an alley by a naked man with a butcher's knife and a hard on, I know he's not collecting for the Red Cross!"
However, I would make very sure of the facts before I intervened. I recall a column in "Combat Handguns" in which the following scenario was presented.
You see a woman fighting with a man, loud and foul language, etc.
How do you know it's not:
1. A lover's quarrel
2. She's not a whore who tried to rip him off.
3. She's not the agressor.
 
I think Big D is refering to the fact that just because we aren't willing to use deadly force to intervene, it doesn't mean we can't at least call the local police, or render medical assistance after the "smoke clears". If so, I agree.

You might want to be careful on both those courses of action - calling it in, and rendering medical assistance.

Case in point : A former girlfriend of mine stopped to call the police when a couple was having a slugging match out in their yard. I wasn't with her at the time. Upon seeing her use her cell, the male of the pair ran across the road screaming at her and the female was soon behind, yelling to the effect of "You (censored), better not call the po-pos on my man". In certain areas, being seen calling something in, or giving a statement to officers can brand one as a "snitch" and be someone hazardous to health and well being. That doesn't always happen, but it is something to be aware of.

There have also been cases where those testifying in criminal cases have been marked for retaliation or even murder for doing so. Most states don't really have a budget for protecting witnesses and even the Federal program only comes into effect for major cases and is rather disruptive to one's life.

Not that one shouldn't be a good citizen and do what they think is right, just be aware that doing so might still cause unforeseen repurcussions.

In the latter case, rendering first aid, one might run into civil problems later on, depending on what one tries to do and how qualified they were to do it. In certain situations, an attempted medical intervention might make things worse. The classic example would probably be moving an accident victim who suffered some sort of spinal or neck injury. Thus one might see someone laying on the ground, move them and provide CPR... and end up making the situation worse if what really happened is that the victim fell of a ladder.

Aside from that, any contact with bodily fluids presents a certain risk, and most people don't carry CPR masks and nitrile gloves with them. My wife did used to drive around with a medic's bag in her car - which came in handy at an auto accident - when she was working as an EMT. But lacking proper equipment and training, providing first aid should be approached with caution.

GatorFarmer, I'm staying away from Virginia... the Axe Murderer / child abducting clown capital of the world! ;) joking....

I agree with you statement though. In many situations, the proper action may be simply walking away.

VA is actually rather nice, though the traffic is terrible at times. All the "interesting" stuff happened to me when I lived in Lansing, Michigan rather than here in suburban VA.

Though to be fair, the spate of corpses with missing heads all went unsolved (to my knowledge), thus the implement of choice might not have been an axe...Though natural causes were eventually ruled out six months into one of the cases. That was a good thing, since one should obviously be concerned about all those natural conditions that cause one to lose their head and have it vanish from the scene.
 
All depends on what I think the witnesses are likely to say afterwards.

Will they say "Thank God that man was here to save the day!" Or do I think they'll say; "That man shot that boy for NO REASON!"
 
Back
Top