• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Armed Citizen Intervenes

Status
Not open for further replies.
What would you do if you saw an armed man assaulting a women on the street?
Click to expand...

There have been at least one occasion where a CCW holder has helped a damsel in distress, only to find out later that the "assailant" was a plain-clothes cop trying to arrest a female criminal.

Intervening with deadly force can be a big problem if you don't know FOR SURE what is actually going on.
 
Posted by bobmcd: Intervening with deadly force can be a big problem if you don't know FOR SURE what is actually going on.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. You must have reason to believe (and in some jurisdictions, you had better not be wrong) that the person you are defending would in fact be lawfully justified in the use of deadly force to defend himself or herself under the circumstances. Unless you know what happened before you came along, you cannot support that belief.

And there is more to it than that. You may be completely justified, ethically and legally, to intervene to stop someone from attacking another. But then, should the endangered party decide to forgive and forget, as in a case of domestic violence, you may end up holding the short straw, with both parties testifying against you.

It happens. Not a good situation.
 
Kleanbore said:
Absolutely. You must have reason to believe (and in some jurisdictions, you had better not be wrong) that the person you are defending would in fact be lawfully justified in the use of deadly force to defend himself or herself under the circumstances. Unless you know what happened before you came along, you cannot support that belief.

And there is more to it than that. You may be completely justified, ethically and legally, to intervene to stop someone from attacking another. But then, should the endangered party decide to forgive and forget, as in a case of domestic violence, you may end up holding the short straw, with both parties testifying against you.

It happens. Not a good situation.
Click to expand...

So we just walk on by, ignore the screams, pleas for help, smug and secure in the knowledge that nobody can criticize our actions, at least on this web site, where covering one's ass is more important than helping people.

So be it.

But I will point out that in the story that started this discussion, the police praised Matt Dosser for acting properly and quite possibly saving Mohamed Ahmed's life.

I am not advocating looking for trouble, or trying to play the Lone Ranger. But what would you have done in this case? Many seem to be saying ignore what is going on, walk on by, don't get involved.

I understand the natural fear of unjust prosecution by insane public prosecutors, and the possibility of having your life ruined. Look at what happened to George Zimmerman, where he did everything right, and was publically pilloried by a malicious press and prosecuted by an insane prosecutor. And that was a pretty clear cut case of self defense!

So! What should have Matt Dosser done? Walk on by? Ignore it, and read about it in the paper the next day? How do you look at yourself in the mirror after you read about the death of the store clerk after you walked on by?
 
^^^ I agree 100 percent with the exception that I probably would have waited until it looked inevitable that the thugs were going to gain entry or otherwise cause bodily harm to someone. I'm sure most of us are sick and tired of this garbage. The more fear thugs have of us fighting back, to whatever level necessary, the less the dirty little cowards will attack innocent people.
 
Posted by we are not amused: So we just walk on by, ignore the screams, pleas for help, smug and secure in the knowledge that nobody can criticize our actions, at least on this web site, where covering one's ass is more important than helping people.
Click to expand...
Of course not. Use your cell phone.

And if you know that you would not in fact be helping a criminal harm an officer of the law or an innocent civilian, act as you see fit. But things are not always as they appear. It is not about protecting yourself, it is about avoiding the injury of an innocent and/or unlawfully aiding a violent criminal actor.

But if there is any reasonable likelihood that there is any kind of a relationship between the parties, understand the seriousness of the risk that their testimony can send you to jail for a long time.

I was not commenting on the story in the OP, in which it appears that the citizen acted properly. Rather, I commented on bobmcd's wise advice, which pertained to the general case of "What would you do if you saw an armed man assaulting a women on the street?".

The answer given in most training classes is to get behind cover and call it in, unless you know the woman.

It might also help to shout "the police are on their way."
 
To say that you would have read that the store owner would have dies the next morning is conjecture.
 
Kleanbore said:
Of course not. Use your cell phone.

And if you know that you would not in fact be helping a criminal harm an officer of the law or an innocent civilian, act as you see fit. But things are not always as they appear. It is not about protecting yourself, it is about avoiding the injury of an innocent and/or unlawfully aiding a violent criminal actor.

But if there is any reasonable likelihood that there is any kind of a relationship between the parties, understand the seriousness of the risk that their testimony can send you to jail for a long time.

I was not commenting on the story in the OP, in which it appears that the citizen acted properly. Rather, I commented on bobmcd's wise advice, which pertained to the general case of "What would you do if you saw an armed man assaulting a women on the street?".

The answer given in most training classes is to get behind cover and call it in, unless you know the woman.

It might also help to shout "the police are on their way."
Click to expand...
The easiest way for me to think about this is in terms of risk.

It comes down to the level of risk you comfortable assuming in the event you decide to intervene and use deadly force in a situation you may or may not have a clear picture on.

Some things in a story after the fact can't be accurately depicted vs. being the guy, boots on the ground, watching the event unfold. Easy to second guess him...but he was there...we weren't. Sometimes you just know when something is wrong.

It is an individual decision that also requires a certain degree of courage. In addition to possibly killing someone, you could be putting yourself in legal trouble for quite awhile, and even jail time.
 
In reply to Kleanbore:
Yes! By all means, call it in! Just remember the police are minutes away when seconds count!
I understand you are commenting on a different case, but I am commenting on the one the thread is about.

I realize that one should be sure of what is going on, and shouting that the police are on their way is probably a good idea, whether they are or not, but I still have a problem with ignoring a bad situation merely because you fear getting involved, when peoples lives may be at jeopardy!

In the situation involving Matt Dosser, he didn't have to kill anyone, he didn't even have to shoot.

As far as putting one's self in legal jeopardy, we do that every time we step out of the house with our gun. Look what happened to George Zimmerman! We can't let fear of things beyond our control paralyze us, or make us ignore violence against those around us. Civil Society demands that we come to the aid of our fellow man!

Yes! Know the Law!

Yes! Be cautious and use restraint!

But don't walk on by!
 
Last edited:
Posted by we are not amused:... I still have a problem with ignoring a bad situation merely because you fear getting involved, when peoples lives may be at jeopardy!
Click to expand...
Not ignoring the situation is one thing, but you should not stick your foot in it unless you have complete knowledge of the situation. The problem lies in knowing whose lives may be in jeopardy and why.

She who appears for all the world to be an innocent victim may in fact be a violent fugitive, an armed robber or would-be murderer being resisted, or even a person suffering a seizure who, without immediate intervention, may die. Your jumping to the wrong conclusion and intervening on the basis of that conclusion may in fact be what does put the lives of innocent people in jeopardy.

Your concern about doing that should not come from "fear" of "getting involved", and it should extend far beyond thinking about the risk of "legal Jeopardy." You should be concerned about doing the wrong thing and causing serious harm to others through your own ignorance and imprudent actions.

Not that there isn't enough legal jeopardy to go around.

There are very good reasons why all qualified use of force instructors urge that people other than sworn officers, who do not have the option, stay out of third party confrontations unless they actually know what is going on and know what it was that led to the situation at hand.

But even sworn officers dread getting involved in domestic violence incidents and ending up facing accusations from both participants.

In the situation involving Matt Dosser, he didn't have to kill anyone, he didn't even have to shoot.
Click to expand...
That's good, but he may well have had enough first-and knowledge of the station to have justified his doing so, had it become necessary.
 
Yes, by all means... call 911 first if time allows. Then don't be "the one" who fails to stand up if the odds are within reason. Taking cover and calling for help is the honorable and prudent thing to do. Hiding while an innocent person is murdered is cowardly. Then again, my attitude probably partially stems from my poor health and lack of anyone depending on me anymore. Choices... choices. We all make choices and we all live with them.
 
Posted by Mike1234567: Hiding while an innocent person is murdered is cowardly
Click to expand...
How would you characterize taking an action that resulted in serious injury or death to an innocent person?

On what basis, other than appearances and perhaps an ingrained belief that your judgment is infallible, would you distinguish one action from the other, unless you knew the participants, or had witnessed the events that led to the situation at hand?
 
So we just walk on by, ignore the screams, pleas for help, smug and secure in the knowledge that nobody can criticize our actions, at least on this web site, where covering one's ass is more important than helping people.
Click to expand...
This is a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is when a person attempts to make it look like there are only two choices so that the choice that they choose appears to be more attractive than it really would be if all the choices were laid on the table to choose from.

You want to make it sound like there are only two options. Walk away and do nothing, or intervene with deadly force. In reality, there is a complete spectrum of responses between those two extremes.

For example, you could do what I did when I encountered a woman screaming, as if in dire distress and a man who appeared to be accosting her. I immediately called the police and then observed the situation to make sure it didn't escalate to the point of a physical attack. The police arrived very rapidly and once I saw that things were under control, I left.

I didn't have to pull my gun, no one was hurt, and I was able to help resolve an unpleasant situation.
 
It is difficult to tell exactly what actions the witness took other than drawing his weapon and holding it at low ready (unless I missed it). So if he observed 2 angry guys holding pistols and banging on a gas station door while he was walking by and drew his weapon, I can't necessarily fault him for that. At least when the perps looked at him, they could (presumably) see he's holding a gun, and realized there was a witness, and not a good new target (dude has a gun, let's just leave). Those are just presumptions on my part, because it is hard to tell specifics from the article.
 
Kleanbore said:
How would you characterize taking an action that resulted in serious injury or death to an innocent person?

On what basis, other than appearances and perhaps an ingrained belief that your judgment is infallible, would you distinguish one action from the other, unless you knew the participants, or had witnessed the events that led to the situation at hand?
Click to expand...

I appreciate the partial quote without indication of editing. I never stated that my judgment is infallible. I did state that we should wait until we are certain an innocent person is likely to be injured or killed. IMHO, standing by while that happens is no longer "prudent"... it's cowardly. Might I err? Yes... but, in most cases, that's less likely than erring by sheepishly hiding while someone is murdered.

EDIT: I can far better live with a terrible error on my part if I was at least "trying" to do the right thing. Hiding in fear while someone is killed and if we can do something about it... that must be a disgusting and humiliating thing to live with.
 
Last edited:
Posted by Mike1234567: I did state that we should wait until we are certain an innocent person is likely to be injured or killed.
Click to expand...
The question is, just how would anyone ever know that a person who appears to be threatened with injury is in fact an innocent party, without knowing quite a bit about the background of the situation?

As previously pointed out, "She who appears for all the world to be an innocent victim may in fact be a violent fugitive, an armed robber or would-be murderer being resisted, or even a person suffering a seizure who, without immediate intervention, may die. Your jumping to the wrong conclusion and intervening on the basis of that conclusion may in fact be what does put the lives of innocent people in jeopardy."

That "attacker" who wears the proverbial black hat in your imagination may in fact be a DEA agent, or the victim of a violent criminal attack, or a caregiver attempting to save a life. These things do happen and have happened.

Do you really want to aid a felon to escape and/or to injure an innocent person, or contribute to the death of someone facing a medical emergency?

Unless you are aware of how the situation arose in the first place, or unless you know the participants and what they are doing, you will not be able to be "certain" of anything until it is over.

That's why the experts say to use your cell phone and not your firearm unless you know the persons involved, or at least what led to the confrontation in the first place.

I can far better live with a terrible error on my part if I was at least "trying" to do the right thing.
Click to expand...
Really? I couldn't. My having wrongly considered myself to be courageous and chivalrous would not make me feel any better about having killed or injured an innocent person. Nor would it help me with society.

Hiding in fear while someone is killed and if we can do something about it... that must be a disgusting and humiliating thing to live with.
Click to expand...
Do not confuse refraining from perpetrating violence without adequate knowledge with "hiding in fear".

It isn't a matter of cowardice at all. It's a simple matter of not causing harm to innocent persons.

I did mention getting behind cover. The question posed had to do with what to do when encountering an armed man. I don't think anyone would recommend staying exposed under such a circumstance.
 
Kleanbore said:
The question is, just how would anyone ever know that a person who appears to be threatened with injury is in fact an innocent party, without knowing quite a bit about the background of the situation?

As previously pointed out, "She who appears for all the world to be an innocent victim may in fact be a violent fugitive, an armed robber or would-be murderer being resisted, or even a person suffering a seizure who, without immediate intervention, may die. Your jumping to the wrong conclusion and intervening on the basis of that conclusion may in fact be what does put the lives of innocent people in jeopardy."

That "attacker" who wears the proverbial black hat in your imagination may in fact be a DEA agent, or the victim of a violent criminal attack, or a caregiver attempting to save a life. These things do happen and have happened.

Do you really want to aid a felon to escape and/or to injure an innocent person, or contribute to the death of someone facing a medical emergency?

Unless you are aware of how the situation arose in the first place, or unless you know the participants and what they are doing, you will not be able to be "certain" of anything until it is over.

That's why the experts say to use your cell phone and not your firearm unless you know the persons involved, or at least what led to the confrontation in the first place.

Really? I couldn't. My having wrongly considered myself to be courageous and chivalrous would not make me feel any better about having killed or injured an innocent person. Nor would it help me with society.

Do not confuse refraining from perpetrating violence without adequate knowledge with "hiding in fear".

It isn't a matter of cowardice at all. It's a simple matter of not causing harm to innocent persons.

I did mention getting behind cover. The question posed had to do with what to do when encountering an armed man. I don't think anyone would recommend staying exposed under such a circumstance.
Click to expand...

We can never be 100 percent certain... but after observing a situation for some time and we are 99.9 percent certain that we know who is the victim... are we really willing to take no action to help our fellow man? Really? Were those "highly agitated" individuals acting like professionally trained LEOs? I don't think so. No, I don't want to aid a felon... it's about the odds.

So it's suggested that we stand idly by during a situation in which we we're 99.9 percent certain we can help who we believe to be the victim? That's lousy odds. What good are we if we can't stand up for one another? If the odds of coming across a situation lake that in our lifetime is 1:1,000 and the odds of us erring is 1:1,000 then the odds of making that terrible mistake is 1:1,000,000. No wonder crime is rampant.

EDIT: Does anyone have some stats about the percentage of wrong decisions and/or poor outcomes of stepping in to help others?
 
Last edited:
Posted by Mike1234567: So it's suggested that we stand idly by during a situation in which we we're 99.9 percent certain we can help who we believe to be the victim? That's lousy odds. What good are we if we can't stand up for one another? If the odds of coming across a situation lake that in our lifetime is 1:1,000 and the odds of us erring is 1:1,000 then the odds of making that terrible mistake is 1:1,000,000. No wonder crime is rampant.
Click to expand...
Yet, in spite of your carefully applied statistical analysis, all qualified use of force instructors strongly recommend that persons other than sworn officers refrain from armed intervention in third party situations unless they have knowledge of the situation and what led up to it and are confident that their intervention would be lawful in the jurisdiction at hand. This was among the first things said in my state CCW training five and a half years ago.

There is a word for those who employ deadly force to defend someone else under a circumstance in which there is no basis for a reasonable belief that said individual would be lawful justified in the use of deadly force himself. That word is felon.

In some locations, even a reasonable belief would not suffice, should the assumption turn out to be wrong.

And that's before the civil litigants have their day with you.

No we do not suggest that a citizen "stand idly by". But keep your weapon holstered unless you know what is afoot.

This subject comes up from time to time here, and there are always those who claim something to the effect that they would "not be able to live with themselves" if they failed to ride in to the rescue. That's bad advice. Very bad.

There is no room whatsoever for emotion when it comes to carrying a firearm. I strongly suggest that you avail yourself of some expert instruction as soon as possible.
 
Kleanbore said:
Yet, in spite of your carefully applied statistical analysis, all qualified use of force instructors strongly recommend that persons other than sworn officers refrain from armed intervention in third party situations unless they have knowledge of the situation and what led up to it and are confident that their intervention would be lawful in the jurisdiction at hand. This was among the first things said in my state CCW training five and a half years ago.

There is a word for those who employ deadly force to defend someone else under a circumstance in which there is no basis for a reasonable belief that said individual would be lawful justified in the use of deadly force himself. That word is felon.

In some locations, even a reasonable belief would not suffice, should the assumption turn out to be wrong.

And that's before the civil litigants have their day with you.

No we do not suggest that a citizen "stand idly by". But keep your weapon holstered unless you know what is afoot.

This subject comes up from time to time here, and there are always those who claim something to the effect that they would "not be able to live with themselves" if they failed to ride in to the rescue. That's bad advice. Very bad.

There is no room whatsoever for emotion when it comes to carrying a firearm. I strongly suggest that you avail yourself of some expert instruction as soon as possible.
Click to expand...

I really and truly don't intend to be contrary but...

Yes, yes... and yes. It's all about doing our best to evaluate a given situation as carefully as we can and holding back until that last second between life and death of another human being.

I, for one, will not cowar from whatever action(s) I must take at the moment. And I will accept whatever consequences that may come from my error. Again, it's all about odds.

Might I become a felon? Yes, maybe, but I care less about that than standing up to defend defenseless others. Are we really so afraid of "legal consequences" that we cowar from our responsibilities to each other? I'd MUCH rather read that we're far more concerned about hurting the wrong people than worrying about legal issues. Yeah, legal consequences are very important. But... I'll risk serving the rest of my life in prison if I can save another's life. YMMV.
 
Last edited:
I, for one, will not cowar from whatever action(s) I must take at the moment. And I will accept whatever consequences that may come from my error. Again, it's all about odds.

In fact, it ISN'T all about odds.

STAKES matter too.

Do you have a wife? A family? Would you consider seeing them impoverished because of a bad decision on your part 'all about odds?' Would having to do without you for years, or maybe forever, depending on the outcome of the situation, make your family happy?

There are a LOT more aspects to these situations than just odds, and IMHO statistics mean precisely zero in cases like these. Because we are talking about a sample of ONE.

YMMV of course ...
 
it's a tough call.
you gotta' make it based on your gut and your heart.

there is no guarantee the law will support someone if they intervene - it could go against them. so in the end .. you just have to make your own choices. what can you live with, and what can't you live with?

CA R
 
Fred Fuller said:
I, for one, will not cowar from whatever action(s) I must take at the moment. And I will accept whatever consequences that may come from my error. Again, it's all about odds.

In fact, it ISN'T all about odds.

STAKES matter too.

Do you have a wife? A family? Would you consider seeing them impoverished because of a bad decision on your part 'all about odds?' Would having to do without you for years, or maybe forever, depending on the outcome of the situation, make your family happy?

There are a LOT more aspects to these situations than just odds, and IMHO statistics mean precisely zero in cases like these. Because we are talking about a sample of ONE.

YMMV of course ...
Click to expand...

No... wife is gone. Son is gone. Beloved pug is on his last legs. I DID post about that, if you'll read the entire thread... I stated clearly that it DOES make a difference if one is responsible for OTHERS. I already aknowledged that. No one needs me and my health is failing. I'm expendable. So I guess it's on people like me. I'm okay with that. :)
 
Last edited:
This is getting silly!

You can come up with any scenario to "prove" your point.

But basically some people here are arguing that one can never intervene, because, to quote "Unless you are aware of how the situation arose in the first place, or unless you know the participants and what they are doing, you will not be able to be 'certain' of anything until it is over".

That applies to almost any situation imaginable. Perfect knowledge is impossible to possess, in any situation, certainty is unattainable. If perfect knowledge is your requirement for action, then no action would ever be possible.

I am focused upon the actions Matt Dosser used to defend Mohamed Ahmed.

If you want to come up with fantasy scenarios where LEOs masquerade as muggers and rapist, then you can justify anything you want!

I will agree that one must be cautious when intervening, But if it comes to seeing some one murdered in cold blood before my eyes, I will act, and be damned to the consequences.

You can ignore the situation and say what a moral and intelligent person you are, and deplore us stupid Neanderthals, who think we have a civil duty to protect and render aid to others. I know what I will do.

Look, shooting your gun may not be necessary, Matt Dosser didn't. As was suggested, simply announcing the police are coming might be enough. In the scenario presented, if Matt Dosser had done such with out drawing his gun, the bad guys might have simply shot him and then fled, or continued their attack.

I am not suggesting one should charge blindly into the situation, but in the scenario presented to Matt Dosser, what would you have done different?

He didn't draw his gun until he saw that the bad guys were armed. He didn't attempt to arrest them, from the story he didn't even challenge them, he had his gun at the ready, they saw him, and decided to flee.

What if anything did he do wrong?
 
Posted by we are not amused: I am focused upon the actions Matt Dosser used to defend Mohamed Ahmed.

...
I am not suggesting one should charge blindly into the situation, but in the scenario presented to Matt Dosser, what would you have done different?

He didn't draw his gun until he saw that the bad guys were armed. He didn't attempt to arrest them, from the story he didn't even challenge them, he had his gun at the ready, they saw him, and decided to flee.

What if anything did he do wrong?
Click to expand...
Based upon the account in the media, which of course is not entirely complete, I do not find anything about Mr. Dosser's actions to have been inappropriate.
 
Posted by Mike1234567: No one needs me and my health is failing. I'm expendable. So I guess it's on people like me. I'm okay with that.
Click to expand...
The fact that someone may have nothing to lose does not justify his or her putting the lives of innocents at risk.

Should someone believe otherwise, and intend to draw in circumstances other than those in which his own safety is endangered in the gravest extreme, that someone should put his firearm away securely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
some MN press
Replies
1
Views
506
red_oak
R
R
  • Locked
Minnesota Newspaper Poll
Replies
4
Views
529
pbman
P
U
  • Locked
Don't bring a knife to a gun fight
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
The Deer Hunter
T
L
  • Locked
ShotSpotter demo in Minneapolis today
Replies
9
Views
545
Havegunjoe
H
Eagle103
  • Locked
Minnesota: The land of 42,000 gun permits
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Brian Dale
B
Back
Top