Defense of a Third Person

[defjon]

I'd like to see it.

 

[Meeks36]

I'd like to see it.

https://www.wect.com/2020/09/11/coroner-identifies-victim-deadly-shooting-cook-out-myrtle-beach/
Here it is.

 

[defjon]

Thanks, Meeks. Prayers for the family.

 

[Meeks36]

Thanks, Meeks. Prayers for the family.

Np & ty

 

[mokin]

Well at any rate the current reaction to those in dire straits in America is to video rather than assist it seems

This afternoon I stopped as I walked into the grocery store to look at some masks in the entry way. As I fondled the goods, an older woman stopped and asked me if I would walk her to her car. This thread was the first thing that went through my head. I agree with the sentiment that inserting oneself into somebody else's business is a bad idea. The second thought was the Boy Scout in me thinking "Here's a chance to do a good turn." I asked her what was up and she explained that a couple of "weirdos" followed her into the store, seemed to follow her around a little and left as she approached the check out. I said "ok", and out we went. She seemed a little shaken and kept her head on a swivel as we loaded the groceries into her car. She left without an incident.

Anyway, all this really sunk in at that moment. What I described is nothing like the scenario described in the OP. I guess the moral of the story is that we don't know what we may get ourselves into. For those of us who carry, that's something we need to keep foremost in our heads.

 

[whughett]

This afternoon I stopped as I walked into the grocery store to look at some masks in the entry way. As I fondled the goods, an older woman stopped and asked me if I would walk her to her car. This thread was the first thing that went through my head. I agree with the sentiment that inserting oneself into somebody else's business is a bad idea. The second thought was the Boy Scout in me thinking "Here's a chance to do a good turn." I asked her what was up and she explained that a couple of "weirdos" followed her into the store, seemed to follow her around a little and left as she approached the check out. I said "ok", and out we went. She seemed a little shaken and kept her head on a swivel as we loaded the groceries into her car. She left without an incident.

Anyway, all this really sunk in at that moment. What I described is nothing like the scenario described in the OP. I guess the moral of the story is that we don't know what we may get ourselves into. For those of us who carry, that's something we need to keep foremost in our heads.

Very few good men would have refused the request.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

This afternoon I stopped as I walked into the grocery store to look at some masks in the entry way. As I fondled the goods, an older woman stopped and asked me if I would walk her to her car. This thread was the first thing that went through my head. I agree with the sentiment that inserting oneself into somebody else's business is a bad idea. The second thought was the Boy Scout in me thinking "Here's a chance to do a good turn." I asked her what was up and she explained that a couple of "weirdos" followed her into the store, seemed to follow her around a little and left as she approached the check out. I said "ok", and out we went. She seemed a little shaken and kept her head on a swivel as we loaded the groceries into her car. She left without an incident.

Anyway, all this really sunk in at that moment. What I described is nothing like the scenario described in the OP. I guess the moral of the story is that we don't know what we may get ourselves into. For those of us who carry, that's something we need to keep foremost in our heads.

You are correct in that there is nothing really like the OPs scenario.

One is inserting oneself into an already-in-progress conflict. The other is not.

Kudos for being a gentleman.

 

[Jack B.]

I only carry to defend myself and my immediate family. If you don't want to protect youself,don't expect me to do it. If I did step in to help you,I think in the end only me and my family would suffer.

 

[Elkins45]

Stay away from stupid people, family or friends, if they're the type to insist on doing stupid things in stupid places at stupid times.

If everyone followed this simple rule the world would be a much calmer place. Sadly there are just some people who are addicted to drama and will either create their own or attach themselves to someone who will.

I only carry to defend myself and my immediate family. If you don't want to protect youself,don't expect me to do it. If I did step in to help you,I think in the end only me and my family would suffer.

Good point. I live in a state with permitless carry. If you wanted a guy to be shot then you should have brought your own gun and done it yourself. It's not my job to defend you, just like it's not my job to wash your dishes.

 

[Meeks36]

https://www.ajc.com/news/suspect-ac...-turns-himself-in/VQU3WUCAHJGA5JBOC6SSMDXD3A/

Another reason to mind your own business. I feel this one on a personal level. When I see a woman or child being mistreated it boils my blood. But I have a wife and two kids to come home to.

 

[Palladan44]

If a deadly threat is present, more directly to the third party than yourself, there is still a deadly threat present.

Dont get involved in 3rd party affairs unless you have no other choice....

In the defense of children, different story. (Moral preferences may vary)

Leave fleeing subjects go.

Lots of different scenarios dictate different actions, no 2 scenarios are ever the same. LOTS to think about. Fine line between being a lawful self defender, and a felony aggressor. Unfortunately.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

This is from the latest of Andrew Branca's Cases of the Week blog posts.

A little guy who worked in a concrete factory started a fight with much, much bigger guy at work.

That was DUMB.

Things unfolded as might have been expected. The big guy got the better of the little guy and was beating the bejeesus out of him.

The little guy's brother, who had witnessed everything from the outset, grabbed something and went around behind the big guy and beaned him.

That might have been understandable, but it was a criminal act. Read on.

It was DUMB

The brother was arrested and charged.

He requested a bench trial, in which the judge acted as judge, interpreting the law, and as jury, judging the facts of the case.

The brother's defense was that he had used force in the defense of a third party.

That can be lawful ...

But the judge said that, because the defendant struck his victim from behind, the act was not lawful.

That was exceptionally DUMB.

The brother was convicted.

He appealed, arguing that the judge, in his role as judge, committed reversible error by ruling that a blow from behind was not lawful.

The appeals court agreed that the ruling had been incorrect.

BUT the appeals court properly ruled that, as the instigator of the confrontation, the little guy would not have been lawfully privileged to defend himself.

For that reason, the brother was not privileged to claim lawful justification in having come to the defense of the little guy.

That's pretty basic.

Finally, there was something that was not DUMB: the ruling of the trial court was upheld.

The ruling was handed down last week.

The brother received a thirty-day suspended sentence. (!)

None of this should have happened.

In many states, a person may lawfully use reasonable force to defend a third party, provided that he has an objective basis for reasonably believing that the third person would be privileged to use force in the defense of himself.

"She looked like an innocent victim" might not cut it at all, though it once worked for Geo. Patton. Things are not always as they appear.

In a few states, if that belief later proves erroneous, the goose of the person who came to the aid of the third party is cooked.

It is particularly imprudent to step into a confrontation unless you know what has already occurred.

Since that's a tall order, it is usually best to elect to defend only people whom you know.

For those who might be visualizing Dirty Harry stuff ("Smith, Wesson, and me"), "reasonable force" may involve shoving a person, grabbing an arm, or using pepper spray.

Under some circumstances, deadly force may be justified. That can include using an aluminum bat or something heavy.

Beyond criminal liability, there is also the risk of civil liability, where the defendant does not enjoy the benefit of a "beyond all reasonable doubt" requirement.

Let's be careful out there!

Going back to the concrete factory: one would hope that, had the beating appeared to have become life threatening, the trial court might have been more sympathetic to the defendant.

Would that have been more likely with a jury trial? I wonder.

The dumb part was requesting a bench trial. Who does that? "Why yes, let me completely discard my constitutional rights, and dismiss the jury." smh I suspect that, with even just one juror who was a sibling, that one juror would, at the least vote not guilty and deadlock the jury. At best the defendant would have been acquitted outright. What juror, who has a sibling, would say that, in the same position with the same knowledge as the defendant, they wouldn't have come to the rescue of his or her sibling? (And that is the crux if the "reasonable man" test.)

 

[Kleanbore]

The dumb part was requesting a bench trial.

Not necessarily.

Who does that?

Those whose defense teams want to remove the emotional component from the decision of the court, and rely only upon the facts and the law.

I suspect that, with even just one juror who was a sibling, that one juror would, at the least vote not guilty and deadlock the jury.

If so, that would lead to another costly trial.

What juror, who has a sibling, would say that, in the same position with the same knowledge as the defendant, they wouldn't have come to the rescue of his or her sibling? (And that is the crux if the "reasonable man" test.)

I doubt that a jury would be sympathetic to someone who had attacked a person from behind after his bother had started a fight.

I'm sure it was that thought that led the defendant to request a bench trial.

 

[redneck]

When I read "beating the bejeesus out of him" I took that to mean the guy was now defenseless and had stopped pursuing the fight. I think that is an important distinction to make and where the details get really important. Would have liked that to be explained more clearly in the original post.

I can't speak to the actual laws everywhere else, but in Ohio the law says you can use deadly force to protect yourself or someone else from imminent death or great bodily harm, and there is no mention of motive or circumstance. I would not intervene with 2 people actively fighting, but if one of them was unconscious and still being beat, or maybe even in some sort of choke they weren't able to defend, I think that would meet the requirements for intervention.

If someone attacked you with a knife and you shot them in the arm and they dropped the knife and sat down on the ground, you have stopped the attack and it would be murder to walk up and shoot them in the head. The first shot was justified, and then the circumstances changed.

If someone punched you in the face, you'd be justified in stopping their attack but when the tables have turned you don't have the legal right to "teach them a lesson" with a continued beating leaving them maimed or dead. So the bigger guy in the story would have started with a justifiable defense but at some point he becomes the attacker.

Obviously you want to be very very sure of the circumstances before you intervene.

 

[Kleanbore]

n Ohio the law says you can use deadly force to protect yourself or someone else from imminent death or great bodily harm, and there is no mention of motive or circumstance.

Only if you have reason to believe that the person would be lawfully justified in the use of deadly force to defend himself.

The person's having started the fight, and not having withdrawn and not having expressed the intention to stop fighting, will negate that justification.

That's what happened here.

 

[redneck]

Only if you have reason to believe that the person would be lawfully justified in the use of deadly force to defend himself.

The person's having started the fight, and not having withdrawn and not having expressed the intention to stop fighting, will negate that justification.

That's what happened here.

An unconscious person can't withdraw from a fight.

A person being choked can't can't express that they want to stop fighting and naturally would be expected to resist being choked while conscious.

At some point a determination has to be made that the fight is over and whichever party is still attacking, is now in the wrong even if they didn't start the fight initially.

 

[Kleanbore]

At some point a determination has to be made that the fight is over and whichever party is still attacking, is now in the wrong even if they didn't start the fight initially.

One person's "being in the wrong" does not justify action by another.

 

[Dibbs]

I'd like to see it.

Yeah. On the one hand, if some gorilla is kacking my brother, I'll take my chances in court, that's my brother.
OTOH, generally, stepping in, for the other guy, is borrowing trouble.
Case in point: Was in my car, pulling away from a place of business, when I heard a loud report. (could have been a gunshot, I don't know) Could have been trouble, I don't know. There were plenty of other people there, when I left.
If I went back, to play sheepdog, was I really going to help anybody ? Highly unlikely. Was I far more likely to get into a major problem, myself ? Probably.

My mantra is- "I'm not Captain America, the FBI, the A-Team, or even Deputy Dawg."

Call me a coward, or call me sensible, they're just nouns and adjectives. I served my time, on the wall, and I owe no one anything.

 

[redneck]

One person's "being in the wrong" does not justify action by another.

If someone is attacked, and gets the upper hand and then proceeds to turn a common fight into murder, 3rd parties can step in. Starting a fist fight is not punishable by death and therefore acting in defense of a person who is getting bludgeoned to death is a defensible action even if that person started the fight.

You started this thread with an ambiguous story about Moe "beating the bejeesus" out of Larry, and then Curly "beaning" Moe. There is no way to make a cut and dried legal argument about a story that is left entirely to the imagination. If both guys are standing up trading punches when the third steps in it is an entirely different situation than if the antagonist is unconscious and being kicked in the head and has clearly stopped being a threat.

 

[Kleanbore]

If someone is attacked, and gets the upper hand and then proceeds to turn a common fight into murder, 3rd parties can step in.

'tStepping in is not at issue.