Question for the Sheep Dogs

This sounds like a mutual combat situation, as evidenced by the fact that she was cussing him back with equal vigor and vitriol. Had you gotten more directly involved, she might well have turned on you. A situation like this is risky even for trained sheepdogs.

By this time I got in my car, and attempted to call security and ask them to check it out. Security didnt answer the phone, and by that time I had lost interest and left.

Click to expand...

I think you did all that can be reasonably expected of you.

First I would have set my MP3 player to play "We need a hero"
REALLY loud. Then I would sneak up behind the guy, rack my slide (for dramatic effect) and in my best Billy the kid voice said, "Yoo-hoo I'll make you famous"

Then I'd go for a donut

Don't forget the coffee with that donut, Treo...

None of your business. A domestic squable that if you interferred they both would have turned on you...Go for the coffee and donuts with Treo and me...

Call the police, stick in an Inner Circle CD and skip to the song "Bad Boys", grab some popcorn and a soda and watch the latest episode of "Cops" from the front row.

In such a situation, remember that she has chosen to be with him. The behavior that you saw was not new...it has been ongoing. Yet...she chooses (albeit for reasons we may never understand) to be with such a man. If you had stepped in, she may have turned on you. In America, there are always other options for her. She chooses not to exercise those rights. She is not a victim.

Lone_Gunman,

Donuts, coffee, and cool background music aside, I'll try to give you a serious answer to what I believe is a serious, well thought out question.

As you described the situation, no one was being injured and it was all "mouth fighting" which may explain why you lost interest. It may also explain why you chose to call "Security" rather than the Police.

At this point in the escalating argument you described, a police officer (a sworn, trained, socially sanctioned sheepdog, if you will) would have had a duty obligation to step in and see that the altercation ended without violence, and that no harm came to the child. The cops should have been called by someone.

But, from the tone of your post, I feel that your question is not directed to those of us who make our living as sworn LEOs but rather at those armed civilian folks who feel that they fit the definition of the term "sheepdog" and so believe they have at least some responsibility to their fellow man. (And let me say that while I understand the reservations many have about those folks, I can't help but admire their heart and mindset tremendously.)

If I were an armed civilian (who happened to consider myself a sheepdog) and not LEO, in the situation you described, I would have dialed 911 and reported the matter to the police and kept my distance. That still fits the very loose definition of sheepdog as it is interpreted by some posters I've read in other "sheepdog" threads on THR. You saw someone in distress, possibly in danger and took steps (in this case calling the police) to help.

I would not try to intervene physically at that point. My experience tells me that, to finally deescalate the situation, even the police will probably have to "establish the territorial imperative" with the guy in your scenario and maybe even the woman. Such is the nature of these things.

My experience also tells me that for a civilian to physically interfere would be likely to escalate the situation and you might well find yourself attacked by at least the man and very possibly the woman as well. You could get hurt or worse and still accomplish nothing. Therefore my answer to your question, in short form, is "I'd call the cops and stay in the background."

Now, Lone-Gunman, let's raise the stakes. You come upon the same situation you described. You call the police, report what you are seeing and wait for them to arrive. But as the altercation escalates, the man knocks the woman to the ground and begins to kick her as she tries to protect her child.

As a non sworn citizen, self described sheepdog or not, what would you do at that point.

Respectfully,

DarkSoldier

NH RSA regarding this topic: FYI

New Hampshire's RSA with regard to this.

627:4 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. –
I. A person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person, and he may use a degree of such force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if:
(a) With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, he provoked the use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person; or
(b) He was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but the latter notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, non-deadly force; or
(c) The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law.
II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:
(a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
(b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
(c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or
(d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling or its curtilage.
III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he knows that he and the third person can, with complete safety:
(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he is not required to retreat if he is within his dwelling or its curtilage and was not the initial aggressor; or
(b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or
(c) Comply with a demand that he abstain from performing an act which he is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the actor has provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter.
(d) If he is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting him at his direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, he need not retreat.

hso,

Forgive me. Could you explain what you meant by "Hunting over a baited field."
I fear that, in my ignorance, I have missed the joke.

Respectfully,

DarkSoldier

So sheep dogs, what would you have done? The concern was this guy was on the verge of beating the woman he was with.

Click to expand...

The following reasoning is why I do not consider myself a "sheep dog"...

1. Unless her legs don't work she can probably avoid getting beaten.
2. If you thought she was about to start beating him, you wouldn't feel the need to get involved would you? I believe in equal opportunity; women have just as much right to get beat on as men do. Don't be a sexist.
3. I carry a weapon, and therefore I must cover my a$$ legally. I do not get involved in ANY situation that could turn physical unless someone's life needs saving immediately. I can't risk escalating the situation because I can't support my family from prison.
4. It's none of my business.
5. I don't really care about some strangers' domestic issues.

So there.

I can't answer for the "sheep dogs" out there. All I would've done differently is called the police instead of security.

DEMYOBABAOYS...

Don't escalate, mind your own business, and be aware of your surroundings.

"Be a good witness" (that exact quote is the correct response for your entrance interview with an LE agency btw)
Call police and explain situation.
Be a good witness, unless you need to step in and protect life or limb.

and with domestics- the best rule is DON'T GET INVOLVED (with the one exception above of course)

Two wolves

A "sheepdog" would have let the two "wolves" fight it out. It's what "wolves" do!

I think I know what hso means, and I am wondering where all the chest-thumpers that pop up in the other recent sheep dog threads are tonight.

Click to expand...

Working.

Based on your description of these people as "trashy looking," I'm going to say that what you witnessed was Life As They Know It. The ugly little dramas probably recur regularly, and they would undoubtedly become hostile towards any strange, decent-looking busybodies who try to interfere. Don't bother trying to save them from themselves; they don't want it.

There is another very small possibility -- that they are a team of thugs (kid included) trolling for a victim. They see a Decent-Looking Citizen come along, and then start their play. Citizen gets in range, they both pounce, roll the guy for his wallet and watch, and vamoose to the pawnshop and repeat as needed.

Stay out of these situations, and only call the cops if you really believe it's serious.

Lone_Gunman,

I think you just hit on the heart of what this whole sheepdog controversy is all about in your last post. Most of us want to do the right thing, the moral thing, when we are confronted with these situations, but we know that all choices have a price attached.

Maybe the sheepdog analogy causes so much controversy simply because, as we make our life choices, that analogy (whether we view it as positive or negative) provides us with some needed justification for doing what we decide to do, some comfort in feeling that our choice is the correct one.

Maybe the only wrong answer to Lone_Gunman's question is to be disrespectful of choices made by others, whether they be self described sheep dogs who see themselves riding to the rescue or just good citizens who choose to engage only if they and theirs are threatened.

It is so easy for someone like me who is trained and experienced in handling precisely this kind of escalating situation to sit back and pontificate about what an average citizen, armed or unarmed should do, or should not do. It is also all to easy for those who are not LEO but are good, honest, intelligent, competently armed citizens to sit back and tell others, who would make different choices, they are wrong.

It seems to me that if you are not sworn LEO, there are no really wrong answers to the "what if" question. There are only choices and the consequences that go with them. Yet many of us, having decided on our own strategy, are determined that those who would do otherwise are wrong, or are heartless or cowards for not engaging, or are dangerous wannabe cops or Rambos if they do engage.

The Sheep dog thing isn't anything new. It's just an age-old argument with a new name courtesy of Col. Grossman, whose work has provide us all with some incredible resources. I'll wager that in the days before internet forums, this same controversy was raging in precinct houses, barracks day rooms, bars, living rooms, at local gun clubs, and before that, in Sheriff's offices in old cow towns, and around Texas Ranger campfires, with pretty much the same results.

Maybe it's time to stop de-constructing the "Sheepdog" analogy and start taking a long hard look at ourselves, at who we really are, what we expect of ourselves and others, and how much respect we are really and honestly willing to give to those who disagree with us.

As for me, those good folks who are man or woman enough to make a decision (regardless of what the decision may be) and live with the consequences of that decision, will always be deserving of respect.

Respectfully,

DarkSoldier

No crime committed, unless you know a cop who would stretch far enough to cite them for disturbing the peace. THAT would make everyone happy and improve their lives I'm sure.

You can't save the world. This doesn't strike me as a good place to start trying.

Are you seriously asking whether I would put my life in jeopardy to protect someone from getting yelled at?

Get real.

If my wife ever found out I had done anything so irresponsibly stupid, I would have to deal with her yelling at me. And then who would protect me?

Now if he pulled a gun and shot her and was about to shoot the kid...

That might be a different story.

I would feel more of an obligation to render assistance, the greater the threat of death or serious harm, the younger and more helpless the victim, the less the victim was responsible for instigating the situation, and the closer the victim is to being friends or family of mine, and of course the better my chances of being able to safely make a difference.

Do I know what I would do in any particular hypothetical situation? Of course not. No one does really. Even those who claim to only look after number one, might find themselves acting where later they say they can't believe they did that. And those that dream of playing the hero, may may find themselves hanging back. And what one does one time may not be what one does the next.

Who can say? I pray that I never have to face the situation.

But I dislike the implied ridicule of people who hope that they would be willing to put themselves at risk to save another's life.

Trailer trash shouting
Sheepdog hears his duty call
Dogs roll in feces

Ilsa says she would not even look out the back of her Jeep.... Not even if one of them was wrapped in bacon.

She advises the best thing to do is go to Brookshires, purchase 30 pounds of soup bones.........

stay away from this, nothing good will come out of it for you. Like a previous post stated, she is willingly there, albeit unfortunate for her, it is none of your business.

In my experience,if you stepped up to the plate,and if you got into a fight with the dirtbag, his wife would most likely either assault you or testify against you in court.It happened to me dozens of times when I was a cop,so i doubt being anyone else would make any difference.