Think twice before jumping into someone else's fight

Status
Not open for further replies.
Phaedrus/69

Phaedrus/69

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
2,585
Location
Big Sky Country
I just read a sad story today. A would-be good Samaritan in Texas was shot and killed when he tried to capture a man that had allegedly pulled a gun on a woman. The guy ran off and our hero tried to pursue him but wound up being shot to death.

The man, named Brian Marksberry, leaves behind a wife and two small children.

Those of us that CCW do so for many reasons. Some just want to protect themselves and their family if they have one. Others call themselves "sheepdogs" and feel the obligation to protect others. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Remember when you jump into a fight that's not your own there's a non-zero chance you won't be going home tonight.
 
It seems to have less to do with getting into someone else’s fight than the foolishness of pursuit, especially when police are already on the scene.

Im sure he was a good man, and this is tragic, but it is nearly always a terrible decision for a to peruse a armed criminal, at least for non-Leo.
 
He probably was a good man trying to do the right thing. But the circumstances where a civilian should pursue an escaping felon are few and far between. I can kind of understand the motivation to enter a fight to save an innocent but pursuing someone when the altercation is over...well, the calculus just doesn't work out on that one.
 
A poor decision on the Good Samaritan's part cost him his life and left his wife a widow and his children fatherless. It's not just a matter of going unarmed to a gunfight. The bad guy was running away which meant his victim was no longer in danger. Had the Good Samaritan been armed and won the gunfight, he would have been legally the aggressor.
 
It hurt me to come to this decision, but not long after my first son was born, I realized that my highest obligation was to my family. The legal climate in Southern California contributed to the sad reality that I am going to think very hard about getting involved in somebody else's troubles.

That really is not how life ought to be lived, in my opinion, but it is how things are here and now.
 
In police work - we called it "tombstone courage" and the possibility exists in all of us.... The urge to act needs to be tempered by training and discipline.... An armed citizen that chooses to attempt to go after a someone fleeing is being downright foolish - but it does happen...

Popular culture also hurts us by praising someone that acted on their own to do something dangerous - that succeeded....
 
Phaedrus/69 said:
I just read a sad story today. A would-be good Samaritan in Texas was shot and killed when he tried to capture a man that had allegedly pulled a gun on a woman. The guy ran off and our hero tried to pursue him but wound up being shot to death.

The man, named Brian Marksberry, leaves behind a wife and two small children.

Those of us that CCW do so for many reasons. Some just want to protect themselves and their family if they have one. Others call themselves "sheepdogs" and feel the obligation to protect others. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Remember when you jump into a fight that's not your own there's a non-zero chance you won't be going home tonight.
Click to expand...
As a retired LEO it is too easy to grasp why he did this act that cost him his life.

I became an LEO because I WAS THAT GUY, yes I stuck my nose and body in when I saw a innocent being attacked = more times than I can still remember.

That was one of THE reasons I became an LEO.

And as such I was armed and wearing body armor when I chased armed men ,not that I was bulletproof.

Just one of those "sheepdogs" that feels [ rightly or otherwise ] that this will not happen on my watch.

Blessings on the memory of that brave foolish man,and thank the good Lord for such bazy crastards.

Many become police officers !.

I Grock his actions [ are you old enough to know that one ? ].
 
The carry permit allows us to defend ourselves and our families in case the need arises. We get to CHOOSE whether to defend others. Sometimes it's better to be a good witness rather than a bad participant. Choose wisely.
 
armedwalleye said:
The carry permit allows us to defend ourselves and our families in case the need arises. We get to CHOOSE whether to defend others. Sometimes it's better to be a good witness rather than a bad participant. Choose wisely.
Click to expand...
It appears that this fellow was not trying to defend anyone.

He was pursuing someone.

That's a terrible idea.
 
Kleanbore said:
It appears that this fellow was not trying to defend anyone.

He was pursuing someone.

That's a terrible idea.
Click to expand...

We had a somewhat similar situation in MN some years ago. Purse snatching. Uninvolved permit carrier draws and pursues around the back of the mall. Perp falls and rolls over, draws his own gun and the permit carrier shoots him. THAT was a tangle....
 
I am so done with the "sheepdog" analogy.

We can second-guess this guy's actions 'til the cows come home, but in the end ... he acted. More than 99% of the people out there these days would do. So he died an honorable death. No consolation to his family, but he'll go to Valhalla as a warrior. I'm not gonna criticize him. He thought he had a window of opportunity, may have overestimated his capabilties, but at least he tried.
 
Old Dog said:
he... tried.
Click to expand...
I don't think I would give him any credit for that.

The guy who killed him had committed a crime. That incident was over. The dead man started another incident and lost his life.

What did our dead "hero" have in mind?

Had he caught the "bad guy", and had evidence and testimony supported the reasonableness of his action, he would have been lawful in the use of used non-deadly physical force to detain him.

Even that is fraught with serious risks, legal and physical.

Had the victim for whom our hero sprang into action, who was not longer in any danger, chosen to not testify against the fleeing man, our so called "good Samaritan" would have become the "bad guy".

Worse yet, had the escaping man become the decedent, the "good samaritan" would almost certainly have become a defendant, and probably, a convicted felon.

One wonders what in the world he was thinking.
 
Kleanbore said:
I don't think I would give him any credit for that.
Click to expand...
He was a grown man, and made his own choice.

Critique the outcome all you will; it's pointless to critique the man and speculate about alternative outcomes.

One of the chief problems I see in our society today is that few citizens these days take any sort of a stand against bad behavior or wrongdoing in public. We now tolerate all manner of bad behavior and criminal activity that occurs right in front of us, lest we incur the wrath of the bad actor upon ourselves or offend the gods of political correctness and diversity.

In days of yore, teenagers didn't use foul language in public, lest the nearest adult sternly check them … Residents of one's neighborhood wouldn't drive down the street in the wee hours blasting hard rock or gangster rap and wake everyone up lest the community band together and address the issue … Public drunkenness or being under the influence of drugs, lewd behavior and over exposure of one's flesh was mightily frowned upon and could even result in sanctions from the police or courts … witnessing crimes in progress always resulted in emergency calls, not community members clamming up and telling the cops who eventually respond that "snitches get stitches or end up in ditches."

The man in the story may not have heeded the advice of Dirty Harry ("A man's gotta know his limitations") but he did, nevertheless, man up and try.

I frankly don't care what he was thinking, but I'll at least honor him by not criticizing him after he died taking a stand. More than most folks are capable of these days.
 
armedwalleye said:
The carry permit allows us to defend ourselves and our families in case the need arises. We get to CHOOSE whether to defend others. Sometimes it's better to be a good witness rather than a bad participant. Choose wisely.
Click to expand...

Basic CC training stresses we are not the police. As such, we don't have police backing, support, equipment, training, union, insurance, bonding, communication gear, body armor, permission, or backup. Had this guy not gotten himself killed, LE still would not have smiled upon his actions.
 
Nothing to do with concealed carry as the man was unarmed.
Dibbs said:
Had this guy not gotten himself killed, LE still would not have smiled upon his actions.
Click to expand...
You got that out of the news story?

No matter. Guess everyone can come up with their own justification to never get involved in anything that doesn't concern them. Used to be that everything that happened in a community concerned the whole community.

Not saying I agree with what he did, but again ... he tried. I can give him credit for that.
 
Old Dog said:
i...it 's pointless to critique the man and speculate about alternative outcomes.
Click to expand...
We won't critique the man, but his actions were extremely ill-advised.

Old Dog said:
One of the chief problems I see in our society today is that few citizens these days take any sort of a stand against bad behavior or wrongdoing in public. We now tolerate all manner of bad behavior and criminal activity that occurs right in front of us, lest we incur the wrath of the bad actor upon ourselves or offend the gods of political correctness and diversity
Click to expand...
"Today"? "Tolerate"? "Take any sort of a stand"?

I believe that any person with an understanding of how and why the principals of law were developed and have evolved since the time of Blackstone and before will understand why citizens, or subjects, centuries ago, have not been lawfully permitted to start out against and use force against, much less use deadly force against, someone whose behavior is very objectionable and may be unlawful, and to act as prosecutor, jury, and judge, and to decide upon and mete out punishment themselves.

Those duties have long been left to others, except perhaps in the minds of those who have watched too many westerns, and those who have not really thought through it all.

There is one special condition.. Should a person actually witness a criminal act that is particularly heinous, and have reason to believe that an escaping felon poses an immediate danger to others, it may well be appropriate to take action--at that time an no later. That did not happen here.

Old Dog said:
Used to be that everything that happened in a community concerned the whole community.
Click to expand...
It always has. But the community has long delegated certain duties to specific organizations--to constables, to judges, to juries, to jailers, and to hangmen or their successors.

Woe be the person who thinks he can do all of the on his own.

Old Dog said:
In days of yore, teenagers didn't use foul language in public, lest the nearest adult sternly check them … Residents of one's neighborhood wouldn't drive down the street in the wee hours blasting hard rock or gangster rap and wake everyone up lest the community band together and address the issue … Public drunkenness or being under the influence of drugs, lewd behavior and over exposure of one's flesh was mightily frowned upon and could even result in sanctions from the police or courts … witnessing crimes in progress always resulted in emergency calls, not community members clamming up and telling the cops who eventually respond that "snitches get stitches or end up in ditches."
Click to expand...
That is an entirely different issue.
 
Last edited:
As a curious side note, today I witnessed the first significant criminal action that I have seen in my extraordinarily safe community.

As I was leaving the grocery store parking lot, I saw a man and a woman arguing. The man was much larger than the woman and was leaning in toward her quite aggressively, but I still was somewhat shocked when he threw a big, looping right hand and knocked her down and, I'm pretty sure, out.

I was actually gripping the door handle when I reminded myself that I do not get involved. A significant part of me was disgusted by my inaction. Instead, I took some pictures on my cell phone and then called 911.

The fellow in question looked around confusedly, then tried to help the woman up, and apparently exchanged a bit of conversation with several passersby, who just kept walking. The cops showed up almost immediately, which is par for this neighborhood, and after they had control of everything, I introduced myself and bore witness.

I wonder, though, if this worthless piece of **** had continued his attack after the lady was down, what would I have done? The proper answer is that I would have intervened, because that is obviously the proper course of action.

But the realistic answer is that the best possible outcome would have been him running off, or us jawing at each other until the cops show up. The worst outcome would have been one of us producing a gun and killing the other, or us both producing guns and making holes in everything around us, or some other regrettable idiocy along those lines.

Any of the latter would very likely result in my physical absence from my family, the absence of my financial contributions to same, and quite possibly the loss of our home, our savings, and everything else we hope will contribute to our children's futures.

That is not the way it should be, but it very much is the way that it is. I despise it, and I am ashamed of myself, but I will not trade off my family for the wellbeing of a stranger.
 
Last edited:
I carry to protect me and my family not someone else or their family. If you won't protect yourself don't look at me to do it for you. I'm not going to jeopardize me or my family to protect someone who is not willing to protect them self.
 
To all who say they are glad they did not take action.
Or to those who say you should not take action as your not the po po.
Is there a point at which you would feel required by morals or just the nature of being a human ?.
Man beating a dog,man beating a woman,man beating a child ?.
If you saw what you believed was a deadly situation,AND it's not your "family".
I am of the FIRM belief that I became a LEO [ past tense,retired ] because I could not stand by when it fell under the "NOT ON MY WATCH" thing.
I use a GREAT DEAL MORE hesitation now as I am a good deal older,and not "duty bound" ------------- but there is a line that if I see crossed,I will take action.
 
scaatylobo said:
s there a point at which you would feel required by morals or just the nature of being a human ?.
Man beating a dog,man beating a woman,man beating a child ?.
Click to expand...
That's not relevant, really. In the incident mentioned in the OP, the man who was killed was running after someone who was departing from the scene. There was no one being beaten.

But regarding those hypothetical scenarios,
  • Police officers have departmentally-approved procedures to tell them when and how to do what. I do not.
  • If they follow those procedures, the have some protection from personal liability for civil suits. I do not.
  • Their employers will provide legal representation if and when it is required. Mine will not
  • They are equipped and trained to appropriately use a continuum of non-deadly force. I am not.
And--they are fit. I am not, and I know it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

jahwarrior
  • Locked
defending against multiple teens
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
David904
D
jpruitt
  • Locked
Home Defense (Philosophy)
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
3K
Jaybird78
J
L
  • Locked
Bringing beatdown to a gunfight
Replies
6
Views
908
Old Guy
Old Guy
D
  • Locked
(GA) Man shoots alleged home invader twice
Replies
17
Views
961
GunGoBoom
G
B
  • Locked
"Kids Fighting Chance" video
Replies
7
Views
2K
DadOfThree
D
Back
Top