Intervention

[Kanewpadle]

We've discussed intervening in someone else's business a few times here.

The fact that we look at intervening differently is understandable. More importantly, you need to know your limitations. Should I or shouldn't I? How do I? When do I? What level of force is acceptable under the law?

Lot to think about in a span of mere seconds.

Case in point, today I was working I downtown Seattle. Thankfully I dont go there much but have been many times over the years. I see the stupidist things happen there.

I pulled into an alley looking for a place too park. As I approached the next street I saw a black man in his underwear yelling at someone. As I pulled forward more I could see two white homeless guys yelling back. The black man approached them quickly still yelling. One of the homeless men pulled a knife. The black man had no fear. He walked right up to the knife wielding man. Still yelling. The homeless waved the knife in the black mans face. Then the black man quickly took the knife away from him. Both homeless guys started running with the black man close behind. I don't know and don't care what happened after that. Had work to do.

In less than 30 seconds, I witnessed an event that could have turned deadly. My heart raced. Thoughts ran through my head. Should I help? Who do I help? Do I need my gun? Or should I mind my own business and be a good witness? After a few fleeting seconds, I chose the latter.

If I had arrived 10 or 20 seconds latter and saw the knife in the black mans hands, do I assume that because he has the knife that he's the bad guy? Or because he's black?

My point? You never know. Never assume. Be prepared to think quickly and act accordingly.

Whether you decide to intervene or not isn't the point. But if you do, think quicker than you act.

 

[Rastoff]

I would never recommend intervening unless you know the situation from the beginning.

In the scenario you mention, you arrived after the altercation had started. You don't know who started it or why. Neither do you know who these guys are. Who's the good guy(s)?

It becomes more poignant by stating what you would have seen had you arrived just 10 seconds later. When you arrived, it appeared as if the white guys were the bad guys. Somehow the black guy got the knife and, had you arrived at that moment, he would have seemed like the bad guy. The situation changes rapidly.

Even though you arrived earlier, you still don't know if the black guy had threatened them with some other deadly weapon. Shoot, one of them could have been an undercover policeman (unlikely, but you don't know).

So, be a good witness and call 911.

 

[Kanewpadle]

I would never recommend intervening unless you know the situation from the beginning.

In the scenario you mention, you arrived after the altercation had started. You don't know who started it or why. Neither do you know who these guys are. Who's the good guy(s)?

It becomes more poignant by stating what you would have seen had you arrived just 10 seconds later. When you arrived, it appeared as if the white guys were the bad guys. Somehow the black guy got the knife and, had you arrived at that moment, he would have seemed like the bad guy. The situation changes rapidly.

Even though you arrived earlier, you still don't know if the black guy had threatened them with some other deadly weapon. Shoot, one of them could have been an undercover policeman (unlikely, but you don't know).

So, be a good witness and call 911.

My point exactly.

You don't know..........until you know.

 

[Donn]

Tough as it is sometimes, better not to intervene. Escalate without knowing exactly what you're getting into can sail past the point of no return in no time flat.

 

[cmort666]

Just remember, as in the case of the Spanish Civil War, sometimes there isn't ANY "good guy".

 

[Inusuit]

In the May/June issue of American Handgunner, Massad Ayoob recommends a book titled "Self-Defense Laws of All 50 States" by Mitch and Evan Vilos. I bought a copy. Laws addressing intervention and use of deadly force to protect a third person are different in almost every state. As the OP and Rastoff note, intervention without knowing the exact situation may put you on the wrong side of the law and the situation. As Vilos stresses, "Dude, you are not a cop!" (unless you are of course.) Be a good witness, call 911, watch your 6.

 

[Rpg]

Your ccw doesn't make you Batman or the Lone Ranger.

You saw an altercation with a deadly weapon that did not involve you.

Call the cops: your cell phone is the correct 'intervention'.

 

[amazingflapjack]

I have good guidance from within, and a load of life experience as a reference. It depends.

 

[The Big D]

You did not say...

...but surely hope you DID call 9-1-1.

Be safe.

 

[cjpofd]

Your ccw doesn't make you Batman or the Lone Ranger.

You saw an altercation with a deadly weapon that did not involve you.

Call the cops: your cell phone is the correct 'intervention'.

sounds like good advice in this situation...

 

[Hapworth]

Generally, be a good witness; the proliferation of quality cell phone video cameras you can use while simultaneously calling 911 are a welcome technical advance. And sometimes, rarely, be Superman but know the many risks.

Linked below is an excellent thread on this subject from pistol-forum.com that begins with a detailed and apparently authentic first-hand account from a gentleman who intervened on a domestic violence incident occurring outside his hotel room that led, predictably, to his becoming part of the altercation, being attacked, using a knife to defend himself, and the legal repercussions.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread...sive-use-of-a-folding-knife-in-a-Hawaii-hotel

 

[cmort666]

1. I'm not a cop.
2. I don't want to be a cop.
3. I don't want to do the things that cops do.
4. I don't want to "investigate" crimes or enforce the law.
5. I don't want people to think I'm a cop.

It's not the job of the police to protect me as an individual.

At the same time, it's not my job to investigate crimes not involving me or to "apprehend" anybody.

I will ONLY intervene in a clear cut and unambiguous situation in which an INCONTROVERTIBLE victim is unable to defend themself.

Two men fighting? No.

A man and a woman fighting? No, at least not unless an IMMEDIATE danger of DEATH is present.

Guys with Kalashnikovs, screaming "Aloha Snackbar!", shooting up Santa's Village at the mall? Yes.

When I see suspected crimes or emergencies, I call the police. Now the fact that 2/3 of the times I've done that with the Cleveland PD they've acted like I was somehow imposing on them? That's another story...

 

[Rastoff]

Your ccw doesn't make you Batman or the Lone Ranger.

Dang it! Now what am I gonna do with those masks?

 

[Muss Muggins]

Unless and until the situation impacts the safety of me or mine, I'm out . . .

 

[Kanewpadle]

Dang it! Now what am I gonna do with those masks?

Halloween isn't too far off.

 

[Kanewpadle]

...but surely hope you DID call 9-1-1.

Be safe.

No. Another passer by did.

 

[mauiblue]

In the scenario described above, I would have let those two idiots fight it out. I would get involved if they got into my face and react accordingly. But above all, call the cops as so and possible and have the descriptions of the parties involves etched in your mind.

 

[RSanch111]

Many people seem to get a little "up in arms" when the "cops" get some sort of CPL or firearms consideration that they don't get. This original post is a perfect example of why a retired cop can reasonably have more firearms "privileges".

Why on EARTH would you assume the "black man" was the bad guy just because he was black? And what was the race of the homeless guys? You said "black man" multiple times but the "homeless guys" were just "homeless guys".

Yes, I would intervene in certain situations off duty or as a private non-cop citizen because I like to think of myself as a decent person. But I also have 30 years of decision-making experience and 30 years experience in dealing with people who really don't want to be dealing with the police.

Decision-making and a proper perspective is a lot more important when carrying a firearm than what kind of gun or holster or technical/tactical training you have. That's the difference between experienced cops and most others.

Also, the domestic fight that goes 180 degrees is nothing unusual. Happens to the cops all the time when the "victim" finds out that the cops are operating under a "shall arrest" mandate. Next thing you know, the cops have to fight the "victim" AND the "bad guy".

 

[Hapworth]

Many people seem to get a little "up in arms" when the "cops" get some sort of CPL or firearms consideration that they don't get. This original post is a perfect example of why a retired cop can reasonably have more firearms "privileges".

Why on EARTH would you assume the "black man" was the bad guy just because he was black? And what was the race of the homeless guys? You said "black man" multiple times but the "homeless guys" were just "homeless guys".

Yes, I would intervene in certain situations off duty or as a private non-cop citizen because I like to think of myself as a decent person. But I also have 30 years of decision-making experience and 30 years experience in dealing with people who really don't want to be dealing with the police.

Decision-making and a proper perspective is a lot more important when carrying a firearm than what kind of gun or holster or technical/tactical training you have. That's the difference between experienced cops and most others.

Also, the domestic fight that goes 180 degrees is nothing unusual. Happens to the cops all the time when the "victim" finds out that the cops are operating under a "shall arrest" mandate. Next thing you know, the cops have to fight the "victim" AND the "bad guy".

There are some fair points made here, but you've been unfair to Kanewpadle: he identified the race of the homeless individuals as white, and not only do I not read any indication of blame in his post, but he specifically says he didn't know who to help, if anyone -- which seems to me an affirmation of neutrality in the face of uncertainty.

 

[Retired Chief]

We used to teach cadets (and remind rookies) that when you go into a domestic disturbance, remember, while he may be an axxhole, he's HER axxhole, and she doesn't want him arrested, she just wants him to stop. (Beating her, drinking, running with other women, fill in the blank.) If you want to cuff & stuff HER guy, don't ever, ever turn your back on her. When I was Chief, I had a rule that two officers respond to a domestic. While that sometimes wasn't possible, we did emphasize that domestic disturbances are dangerous grounds, and backup on scene is very advisable.