As Quick As The Flip of a Coin

Textbook result of a "domestic".

ANY cop will tell you, its probably better to jump into a sack of rattlesnakes than to try to "help" when a couple is in a spat. She may have bruises, he may be bleeding from the head, but when you step in they'll BOTH try to stab you. And that's if you're wearing a uniform and badge! Not just average Joe(s) hanging out in a park who interject.

...

Also a GREAT example of the foibles of observation and analysis of a situation. Each of us here sat in comfort at home and soberly read a written account of a situation -- and came out with VASTLY different interpretations of what was going on.

Now, imagine seeing this happen in real time, in the dark, in public, without the benefit of a written narrative to explain it to you and try to contemplate how sure you aught to be of what you think your eyes and ears are telling you.

Sure sucks to find out that you picked the wrong "hero." Or that there were no heroes and now you aren't on the side of the good guys either.

Or that you got shot, stabbed, or jailed for the sake of two miserable cretins who both wish you were dead.

We don't know anything about whether they were trying to do the right thing,
nor do we have enough information to know if what they did was right.
They could have just been irritated at the noise and told them to shut up.
Did you read the article?

Click to expand...

Yes, John. I read the article -- which is exactly why I used the word "abuse."

"According to New Braunfels Police, seven Fort Hood soldiers intervened in a fight
with a San Antonio couple. After the incident, police say the woman gave her
boyfriend a gun from their car and started firing at the soldiers as they walked away.

Click to expand...

"Again, the soldiers did not bring a gun to the fight. The Perp(s) did.

As an aside, I do find it interesting that prevailing attitude is that citizens are now told to shut up and sit back/make no decisions/take no actions to preserve peace and order.

That's "somebody else's job"
"Just let it happen"
(Better yet, dig out the cell phone to film/upload it to YouTube)

What's that oh-so-trite saying? Oh yes....
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Being a citizen it seems -- even in non-armed situations -- is now a spectator sport.

As an aside, I do find it interesting that prevailing attitude is that citizens are now told to shut up and sit back/make no decisions/take no actions to preserve peace and order.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we have plenty of examples, including this one right here, where citizens trying to preserve peace an order ended up instigating gunfire in a public place and someone getting shot. No, they didn't bring the gun. (Actually, yeah, they brought A gun. And used it.) But nobody was shooting (at) anybody until they intervened to help the (what you referred to as a "perp") woman win her argument with her man. Apparently their tender minstrations in preserving peace and order were SO appreciated that she asked/encouraged/demanded the man who's "abuse" they helped her fend off try to murder them.

So, good citizens standing up for decency really did the public a service HERE, eh?

That's "somebody else's job"
"Just let it happen"
(Better yet, dig out the cell phone to film/upload it to YouTube)

Click to expand...

Better yet, call 911, be a good witness, do what you can to ensure the safety of yourself and those in your care, and don't jump in to make a hash of things unless you truly have no choice.

What's that oh-so-trite saying? Oh yes....
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Click to expand...

I think the one you're looking for to describe the situation here is "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Just because you see something you think is "not right" doesn't mean that you can, should, or will make the world a better place by "standing up for social decorum" or whatever.

Am I about to see someone murdered? Am I about to see someone kidnapped or raped? Very little else rises to the level of "I MUST act."

Being a citizen it seems -- even in non-armed situations -- is now a spectator sport.

Click to expand...

Well, since this quickly became an armed situation and as, if the fine lady's man (abuser?) here had been even half of a good shot, we'd have a few dead US soldiers to discuss, maybe that's not a good summary.

Why would I want to intervene on the behalf of someone who would willingly facilitate my attempted murder? If that's what it means to be a good citizen then I will happily continue to be a bad one.

Why would I want to intervene on the behalf of someone
who would willingly facilitate my attempted murder?

Click to expand...

And you know this how ahead of time?

Hmmmm...

It would appear we have a truly separate world-view here.

Those who believe that "the road to hell is paved w/ good intentions..."
...and those who believe that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

We can debate forever, but I'm very comfortable in the world in which my father raised me.

MEHavey said:

And you know this how ahead of time?

Hmmmm...

Click to expand...

Because it's a domestic dispute and I understand statistics.

Besides, in my home state you don't get a pass for good intentions. If you use deadly physical force based on your "best judgement" to intervene on behalf of a third party and you guess wrong then you are on the hook for it. The threshold for self-defense is "circumstances as they appear to be" but for defense of others the rule is "circumstances as they actually are."

I'm very comfortable in the world in which my father raised me.

Click to expand...

You might well have to test the comfort of a prison cell as a result of it.

Intervene if you wish, but just a cautionary comment or two if I may. I have responded to, and intervened in, many many domestics over a period of 30+ years. It is not all that unusual for the "victim" to turn on you at the scene, lie about what occurred between the participants, lie about what your actions were and what you said, bail their significant other out if there is an arrest, recant under oath in court, etc, etc.......ymmv

An argument, and a woman screaming for a man to stop or screaming for help are not the same thing. Soldiers did what they thought was right. And karma probably saved their lives.

Besides, in my home state you don't get a pass for good intentions. If you use deadly physical force based on your "best judgement" to intervene on behalf of a third party and you guess wrong then you are on the hook for it. The threshold for self-defense is "circumstances as they appear to be" but for defense of others the rule is "circumstances as they actually are."

Click to expand...

Not only that, but remember the old adage that "Nobody else can see your halo."

If you intervene when someone is being preyed upon and you really do stop someone from being raped, kidnapped, and/or killed, that's a great outcome.

If you come to the defense of someone in a fight or argument and you end up trading loud words, blows (or SHOTS!) with one or more of the participants, you become a "mutual combatant." Nothing more, nor less, than another "perp" engaged in a fight (or gunfight!) in a public place.

You may be able to argue your case well enough in court to not face a conviction for whatever the damage of that violence turns out to be, but you also may not. The police report will NOT say, "A heroic citizen approached the couple and offered to mediate to protect the weaker of the pair and to preserve public decorum." It will say, "Persons A, B, and C were observed in an argument, which escalated to..."

...

Tom Givens shares a story in one of his videos of what can happen in situations something like this.

One of his students was out one evening and stopped at a local store. A group of men was also there, hanging out and being some flavor of rowdy. The fellow decided to approach them and ask them to move along (or some such). The group got hostile, and the man retreated. The group chased him down threatening him. As he fled, he managed to draw his pistol and in the end shot two of them.

He very nearly spent a long time in prison and was fortunate to squeak out with some minor legal repercussions.

However, the upshot of it was, the man had no authority to make requests or give orders, and he imposed himself into the situation of his own free will. He was seen to have instigated the group's hostility toward him, and therefore damaged his claim to be acting in righteous self-defense. NO, the group did not have the right to threaten or attack him under any circumstances. But in opening that dialog himself, and doing whatever he did to draw their ire, he became more of a "mutual combatant" than a "victim," and therefore his self-defense case was decimated.


Moral of that story seems to be, you can't go around [tick]ing people off and then shooting them if they try to give you a beat-down over it. And getting involved in someone else's domestic squabble is ABSO-friggin'-LUTELY going to [tick] BOTH parties off mightily. If you end up having to shoot someone, the fault is going to land hard on your shoulders.


Always think, "what is my goal?" "What am I expecting to happen?" "What COULD happen: i.e. how bad could this get?" And ... eternally ... "What am I going to DO with this gun?"

Again, same mistakes as assessing the Walmart parking lot shootout.

First, NOBODY dialed 911. I find no mention of it. Seven soldiers who have NO phone on them to communicate? Not hardly. What they did was A S S U M E the role of Hero and collectively INTRUDED into a personal conversation.

The #1 Rule taught to LEO's about a domestic argument is that if you intrude they will BOTH gang up on YOU. Every single time. Police, MP, HP, Agents - no matter what, if you intrude into their argument, they will immediately ally themselves to defeat YOU.

Of course she handed the gun to her other, and he naturally defender HER against a pack of intruders who interrupted their conversation. It's 1AM, who are these guys ganging around for in a public park doing? It's US against THEM.

No patriotism or Do Gooder reasoning at all - seven guys where throwing their weight around because they could. Serve 22 years with them and you learn their reasoning - and where they easily go WRONG for all the right reasons.

No, unless the women is actually being injured or a deadly weapon being used, what you have is a strictly internal fight and you better keep your distance. Exactly why an officer attempts to distract and deescalate, and certainly does not get close until there is backup. Usually with a female officer if at all possible, at which point the two are separated to interview and determine who gets a night in detention to cool off. Even odds if no children involved - BUT - usually the guy gets the handcuffs because "family."

Nope, you have a roving pack of out of control soldiers who have no clue or training getting into a family fight and because of that ignorantly INVITED the reaction.

Domestic? No lethal weapons and she's giving as much as getting? Dial 911 and hope the cop doesn't overstep and get them against him - at which point you might be involved, too. Stand back and stay quiet.

Your first job is to go home to your family, which means you wouldn't have been out in a public park late at night anyway . . .

There are three prequisites for getting involved in domestic disputes I don't possess:

1) a body camera
2) a badge
3) a policeman's paycheck

MEHavey said:

We can debate forever, but I'm very comfortable in the world in which my father raised me.

Click to expand...

My dad gave me two good pieces of advice. Bunch of other stuff too but like everything its open to interpretation.

1. " You can have whatever you can afford " . It was his way of saying no when I asked for anything but I have always taken that to heart . I buy what I can afford. If I cant afford it I dont buy it. If I can afford it I do. Simple.

2. " Stay away from the law. " . Man, theres a thousand ways to take that but I try to live that philosophy. I stay away from the law. I don't do their job and they dont do mine. That holds true especially for domestic disturbances. Sam1911 is 100% right about what happens in domestics when someone, even the law , meddles.

That may not be easy but, as on Flight 93, 3 or 4 people can separate the combatants and diminish or prevent further mayhem.

Click to expand...

Entirely different set of circumstances, and not at all relevant to this discussion. Have you read any replies from experienced LEOs in this thread?

Sorry folks but I agree with Acera and MEHavey. Considering to time difference in start to LEOs arrival, too many people are "standing by" nowadays, most with their cellphones shooting video instead of calling 911.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's really true or just a "truthy" curmudgeonly grump about "young people these days ", but I'll agree people should be calling 911 if violence or even a serious public disturbance seems imminent.

Call the guys who have the authority of a uniform and badge, backup, less-lethal weapons, body armor, possibly on-body cameras, training in all sorts of ways of handling unpleasant people, and the indemnification of your local government backing up their actions and keeping them out of jail or from being personally bankrupted as long as they follow the department policies they've been trained to apply.

You don't have to "apprehend" anybody in a fight, you just need to separate them to keep them from killing each other.

Click to expand...

Which doesn't seem to have any relevance to the situation that we're actually discussing -- you know, the one in which not only was one party NOT killing the other, but in which both parties decided to try and kill the intervening doo-gooders?

We're again conflating an imagined scenario of desperate need with whatever really happened here, and projecting a duty to act where one seems to have been quite inappropriate.

That may not be easy but, as on Flight 93, 3 or 4 people can separate the combatants and diminish or prevent further mayhem.

Click to expand...

So...

...people on a plane in a hijacking, who are the direct, and very shortly to be deceased, victims of about the most violent act imaginable, engage in a desperate last-ditch fight to stop their killers ...

... and that's a lesson to us all to intervene in domestic arguments?




Man, what a stretch.

too many people are "standing by" nowadays, most with their cellphones shooting video instead of calling 911

Click to expand...

I don't recall anyone here advocating not calling 911.

you just need to separate them to keep them from killing each other.

Click to expand...

I need no such thing. I need to go home to the decent people who depend on me. Did it ever occur to you that people yelling at each other in a public park in the early morning hours might not be fine upstanding citizens on either side of the conflict? My family is worth more to me than some random gang banger or meth peddler having a yelling match in the park. Just because one of them is a woman doesn't make her somehow a portrait of virtue.

as on Flight 93, 3 or 4 people can separate the combatants and diminish or prevent further mayhem.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine a more flawed analogy. In the case of Flight 93 the people on board KNEW hijacked planes had been flown into buildings. Nobody seems to have known anything in this case, and given that over 20 shots were discharged into a public place I certainly don't see how any sort of "further mayhem" was prevented. I would argue that their intervention is what furthered the mayhem because nobody was flinging shots until the busybody squad stepped in.

This wasn't the murder of Kitty Genovese.

My self-defense kit includes a gun, a spare magazine, a cellphone, a knife and flashlight. I don't have room for a mask and a cape.

My reference to Flight 93 was merely to point out that 3-4 people are capable of separating 2 combatants.

Click to expand...

Alright, let's say our Fearless Men in Uniform mentioned in the Original Post were to have separated the two [domestic-] combatants. Then what?

Now what? You see where this is going?

Go ahead, finish your fairy tale...

JTHunter said:

My reference to Flight 93 was merely to point out that 3-4 people are capable of separating 2 combatants. Whether or not they should depends on the level of violence involved OR in the "disparity of force".

Click to expand...

And they all died together. Phyrric victory isn't on my list of acceptable outcomes for a stroll in the park.

It's interesting to see the responses of those who have actually had to physically separate a pair, or more, of irate citizens with some sort of relationship (consanguinity or affinity), and those who haven't. Those who have done that for a living, find it the worst sort of business to get involved in off duty, and the one of the most dangerous to do so on duty. Those who haven't done it for a living, seem to view it as sort of a chivalric duty.

One slight change to the scenario and lets see if peoples answers change. What if it was two males engaged in a "disturbance" at 1 am in a park? Who's saying that the resulting 26 rounds fired was the right answer? Shoot I'll even make it easier, two males in a physical altercation at 1am in the park? Who thinks we should run over and separate them, and the resulting gun fire is okay? If the only reason you're going to get involved versus not get involved, is one party to the disturbance is female, you should probably really rethink your answers.

-Jenrick

It was certainly a mistake not to call the police. I doubt the soldiers, who tend to be young, anticipated a possible shoot out. So yes, mistake. On the other hand they were walking away. Which washes away the active participant charge. When the guy was handed the gun and began shooting at people walking away that becomes a separate thing. On the bright side they got lucky and the only person shot was the bad guy who will certainly not be hitting anyone with that arm for awhile.

You know the rule, don't go to stupid places and do stupid things with stupid people. Young soldiers tend to not only ignore that rule but flaunt it. I spent 20 years with young soldiers and they constantly amazed me as I stopped being one and got older.

Elkins45 said:

And they all died together. Phyrric victory isn't on my list of acceptable outcomes for a stroll in the park.

Click to expand...

It IS a tragic outcome but I can't help wondering what was the original target and how many people are alive today because Flight 93 failed to make it to that target.

200Apples said:

Go ahead, finish your fairy tale...

Click to expand...

Not a fairy tale. How hard is it to pull a couple of people apart when you have double the manpower?
I'm not saying that they were right to have intervened but I believe most normal people would try to stop a man who is assaulting a woman.