Posted by JustinJ: But if one doesn't happen by early he isn't likely to just wait around holding his knife until someone does unless his ultimate goal is something along the lines of "death by cop".
He has three choices whether someone points a gun at him or not:
- Let her go
- Kill her
- Force her into a vehicle and attempt to flee
Regarding the last, he can be pursued and stopped, perhaps without bloodshed, perhaps with only the loss of his life, or perhaps worse.
In the event, he freed the victim, but why is as much in question as why he stopped here in the first place. The citizen was certainly not in a position to make him do so. He was, however, in a position to make things a lot worse.
If the victim is not lucky enough to have somebody intervene early and the intent is anything but robbery then it is bound to not end well.
I don't see what that has to do with it.
This incident is also not inside a home so one has reason to suspect it may be something other than domestic violence.
What reason? The man cut her off and threatened her for some reason. Is there any basis whatsoever for assuming that they did not have some kind of relationship?
In spite of your overly simplistic carricature of how an intervening citizen is likely to act, my view is much more about what a man with a knife to a woman's throat is capable of doing.
He is obviously quite capable of killing her or forcing her to leave with him.
How is an "intervening citizen" in any position to prevent that?
At least a hostage rescue has some team has training, protocols, and the equipment with which to proceed.
I'm not sure just how a citizen would go about "intervening" except with unenforceable threats. He cannot use his pistol to shoot safely while the man has the victim, and he cannot shoot lawfully if the victim is killed. Again, the criminal has all the cards.
And again, what does the citizen do if the man says "drop the gun or she's dead"? Call his bluff?
That's a pretty high stakes gamble.