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

[SuperMan]

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!"

Problem is that many of these situations happen in seconds...not minutes. There often times will be people standing around outside your view, many with cell phones who are very practiced with taking pictures/videos as has been seen many times. Also in this modern world are surveillance cameras that seem to be everywhere in some areas... These can hang you, help you or even confuse the issue.

I personally like and encourage my students to adopt Flop's philosophy of:

"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."

..my personal problem is that having been a warrior all my life my code of honor will not allow me to sit by and watch others be harmed even if they didn't have the brains to protect themselves...as Lobo said...

"You are correct, the use of reasonably necessary force is generally permissible 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."

Just the Honorable thing to do...Bob

 

[gold40]

All of us would do whatever is necessary to protect our family members and close friends.

The "cloudy" part of this issue is assisting total strangers. While each situation may be different, extreme caution is warranted when total strangers are involved and we are considering use of deadly force. It may not be clear who is the "good guy," and a quick judgemental error could ruin many lives -- including your's and your family's.

Several of the examples above illustrate serious potential problem situations, where it would be easy to make the wrong decision.

Most state self-defense laws require that your life or well-being, or that of a family member, be at risk BEFORE you use deadly force. One cannot legally shoot a teenager that is just stealing the stereo from your call while it is parked in the driveway -- no matter how baggy his pants might be.

Unless my family was in imminent danger, I would likely restrain from shooting.

In my 68 years, including military service, I have never had to point a loaded weapon at another person. I hope to continue that history.

gold40

 

[Crazy K38]

my 2 cents worth is this, family and friends I won't even blink, total strangers, if they are definatly going to die if I don't help then I shoot, if there is definatly going to be serious bodily injury then I am going to put my ninjutsu into action and harm them into cuffs

 

[GatorFarmer]

Most state self-defense laws require that your life or well-being, or that of a family member, be at risk BEFORE you use deadly force. One cannot legally shoot a teenager that is just stealing the stereo from your call while it is parked in the driveway -- no matter how baggy his pants might be.

In several states, one could shoot in that situation. Some specifically allow deadly force in defense of property (aka "Texas law"), others - such as Michigan - allow deadly force to stop fleeing felons where the test is stopping the flight of said felon, not an imminent danger to one's self or others.

 

[WR Moore]

It's rather reassuring that no one jumped on Lobos citation about citizens arrest in the OP. This is a real slippery concept and one best ignored in the public arena. Rice vs US (IIRC) to the contrary, there is no legal or statutory duty of a private citizen to intervene. Following the lawful directives of a law enforcement officer is another matter entirely.

For those with a historical bent, Rice vs US involved an off-duty armed IRS agent who shot an armed robber. In todays legal climate, I doubt even the agents legal status would have prompted the courts finding that citizens have a duty to intervene. Cases where a would be hero screws up are far more common and costly.

 

[Confederatemule]

Well, y'all can call me what you want, but if you ain't my family, good luck.
It is too easy to lose everything trying to be mister nice guy, when no one cares. And they "don't" care. Once you get them out of trouble, you are on your own. The D.A. will tear you apart, and the only person in your corner will be the lawyer you "bought", and, your family.

Sorry if that offended anyone, but, that is how I feel about it.

Here I am new here and already making enemies.

Mule
-----------------------------------
If you want to keep shooting, support the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation.

"I ain't got nowher to go, nothin to do when I git there, and if'n I'da been in a hurry, I'da started yesterdy"...Mule
-----------------------------------

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Here I am new here and already making enemies.

Don't sweat it; you're probably making a friend or two.

It's very unfortunate that in many areas the situation is as you described, and I believe that your choice is correct for those areas. In others areas the altruistic approach is supported by the legal system. I wish there were a national map that could be consulted to learn which was which. I don't think that you can learn much by reading statutes, although I am sure that there are a number of lawyers who know the answers for their own areas.

I, for one, don't think that a person is morally obliged to forego his family's well-being in order to possibly defend someone who wouldn't defend him, wouldn't defend himself, and may have voted to deprive everyone of the means to defend himself. However, if the local legal system doesn't threaten the innocent defender and his family, it would certainly be nice to help out even the stupid, to say nothing of the young, infirm or otherwise defenseless. But it's usually a gift, not an obligation.

Leastways, that's how I see it.