Do you get involved

[Crusader103]

I have seen this topic addressed in various forms as part of other posts but I think it warrants further discussion. The following is not so much a question as it is a comment, however discussion is very welcome.

The Dilemma

The decision to carry a firearm carries with it a great responsibility. Of much more concern than the firearm you choose or the holster you carry it in is whether or not you will actually get involved when faced with one or more aggressors. I personally feel that the answer may be varied but can fit into one of several categories (or more than one combined).

Alone or With Family

The actions that we may choose to take can differ greatly depending on whether or not loved ones are present and/or whether they are the target of the aggressor. The decision to get involved in what may be the affairs of another are tempered by your ability to protect any loved ones that might be present. If you are alone, it comes down to whether you are willing to take action in defense of someone besides yourself or not. That may be an easier or harder decision to make.

Is the Situation Really Life Threatening

A quick determination needs to be made before taking effective action. The question must be asked by you because it will be asked later - is the action you are taking necessary to preserve life and limb, or just property, or even just a simple assault not rising to the level of grave danger. Further, is the action you choose to take likely to increase the possibility of innocent lives lost, ie. your 5-shot revolver against multiple armed aggressors in a store full of people. In any event, be sure that it is the actions of the aggressor and not your own that thrust you into the fight.

Take Action Now vs. Tactical Patience

There are times that the first indication of a deadly threat is the sight of a gunman who is possibly already shooting. That would not be the time to hesitate. However, in other cases all of the characteristics of a deadly threat may be present but it is still prudent to take no action.... at least not yet. Just because you are mentally and physcially ready to take action, it may be in the best interest of yourself and others to wait before doing so. Hesitating to take action infers that you should already be in the fight but failed to take action. Tactical patience infers that you are waiting for the right moment.

Be a Good Witness

We can picture scenarios in which we are thrust into action but there are also situations in which you should simply act as a good witness while calling the police if possible. The fact is that not all situations are black and white life threatening situations. There are many more cases in which being a good witness is a better option than becoming directly involved, no matter how good you may be with that weapon.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[kingpin008]

Personally, there are very few situations where I would intervene (carrying or not) in the affairs of others who were not my immediate family or friends. It seems that in most cases, the best course of action is to be a good witness and notify the authorities ASAP. Anything else, and you're walking into a potentially very dangerous unknown situation. Add a gun into the mix, and it's ten times as touchy.

Unfortunately, I think that there are more than a few out there with the "sheepdog" mentality that once they strap on a pistol, they become "keepers of the flock", responsible for saving us all from evil everywhere.

 

[ozarkgunner]

I have one thing to say about being a good witness. "Eye witness testimony is the least accurate testimony." Unless you are documented as having photographic memory or something, the information you provide can be taken in the wrong context, twisted by slimmy lawyer, and countless other ways of being thrown out and dismissed from court. The person or persons account will be clouded by fear, and can be twisted around, especially if their stories don't match. And yours can be twisted around and "full of holes" depending on how much of the "crime" you saw happen, how long ago it was, time of day, distance, and countless other reasons to give the jury "reasonable doubt".
I'm not trying to say eye witness' don't get the bad guy off the streets for a while, but be prepared to get grilled and tried to be made a fool of if put on the stand. Photographic and or video, and crystal clear at that, is the only 99% garantilable way of being a good witness. And that comes from experience.

 

[psyopspec]

A handful of years ago, I was making a late-night run to the video store with my roommate. The store was in an L-shaped strip mall with a large parking lot. As we were walking back to the car, our attention was caught by a group of late teens/early 20s kids hanging out near a car about 100 yards away. There were three males and one female. I didn't really give them any initial thought. However, as we got within 10 feet of my car, the girl screamed. One of the males had grabbed her by the forearms. As my buddy and I (both vets) watched, the man who was holding the female shoved her to the ground. She hit hard, and screamed again.

Being the upstanding young gents that we fancied ourselves, we shared a look and decided to get involved. I opened with "Hey!" just to let them know there were witnesses to what was going on. Two things happened: The three males started toward us, and the female yelled that the man who grabbed her and threw her to the pavement was "just kidding."

Instantly, we knew that this couldn't end well if we stayed. We could get into a fight and lose, we could win the fight then go to jail, or we could get into a fight and someone could get shot (I was carrying at the time). Either way, the moment that the young girl said her tormentor was just kidding, we knew she wasn't going to tell the police that we'd intervened on her behalf. We got in the car, and I hit the door lock as they got to vehicle. We drove off.

Lessons learned:
-If you have a gun, any fight you get into becomes a gun fight.

-Unless I'm actually watching someone getting beaten to the point of death or grave bodily harm, I'm not getting into a gun fight over it. They are completely and utterly on their own. More than happy to call the cops and be a good witness, though.

Note: The reason it didn't seem like a choice to get involved in the first place felt very human at the time. That was someone's daughter, someone's sister; and if it were mine, I wouldn't want some ****** thinking he could get away with physically abusing her.

 

[Crusader103]

right on point

I do find it interesting that it has been proven that eyewitnesses are rarely accurate, even when the situation unfolds right in front of them. I have had that discussion with many prosecutors and defense attorneys. Eyewitnesses are both a blessing and a curse. On basic fact, you know that their testimony can be faulty, but juries love them so when it's in your favor it's great. Let's face it, even if they are wrong it is hard to argue with someone who was standing there and illustrates what they saw to a jury.

As those practicing legal carry, I would like to think that we are generally more aware of our surroundings than those who go through life without true cognizant thought. So it is possible to be a good witness. If you are already aware of your surroundings and living in that modified state of alertness you will be a better witness than the person taken by surprise. So don't underestimate your ability to make good observations and reports.

It is a fine line to follow deciding whether or not you will get involved in a situation. That gun you are carrying does not make you the authority or end all. At the same time, it is hard to not get involved when faced with wrongdoing. True, sometimes that victim is no longer the victim when the police arrive.... this is especially true in domestic violence cases. You can find yourself on your own if you get involved. These things make it all the more important to go over these scenarios in your mind before they ever occur.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[sidheshooter]

I think that there are more than a few out there with the "sheepdog" mentality that once they strap on a pistol, they become "keepers of the flock"...

Put me down in the category of "sheep with a .38" instead.

I got that from Mas Ayoob, and my feeling is that the title of his seminal (if a bit dated) book says it all:

"in the gravest extreme".

If that applies (or comes to apply as a situation devolves), I'm all in. If not, I'm staying with the "call the authorities and make a good witness" people, per above, IMHO.

 

[mljdeckard]

Yes we do discuss this in here, and it always gets heated quickly. There are many who feel like carrying a gun makes them a guardian of society in general, and they have obligation to intervene in situations where they would hope that someone would intervene if it were THEIR wife or daughter.

The REALITY is, it's difficult enough to make sure that the D.A. and the jury will see it your way when you defend yourself. If you defend a third party, you are presuming to know what was going through THEIR head at the time. If what YOU thought and what THEY thought weren't exactly the same thing, you may be in big trouble. I'm not a mind reader. If I become some combination of broke, dead, and imprisoned, I won't be much use to prevent harm from coming to my family.

The circumstances I could see myself intervening might be something like a Columbine/Trolley Square shooting situation. Yes, my FIRST priority is to evacuate my family. I would cover my retreat. Once they were reasonably safe, if I thought that the situation was so bad that the only way to keep people from getting killed was to intervene, and I knew that the police weren't close enough to help, I would examine the option of re-entering the fight. I would try to take something heavier than a handgun. But this possibility is remote indeed. I won't say impossible, because I frequent Trolley Square. It's always impossible until it happens where you live.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Things are quite often not what they seem.
What looks like an abduction could be nothing more than a girl horsing around with her boyfriend--something that I have seen happen on three occasions.
Now that cell phones are available your best bet may be to observe and report.
Now if you must take action to save a life be sure that you know what to say to the 911 operator and how to safely interact with responding police.

 

[Ryder]

I am not going to ignore every violent situation I see as a matter of standard operating procedure. Children, old people, women, and handicap people do not have as equal a chance to defend themselves as we do. A simple "what's going on?" can suffice to clarify the situation. Why would I do that? Because I've been rescued myself in such a way and I believe it is an act of human compassion that needs to be passed along to others.

The aggressor(s) will very likely transfer their attention to you for interfering (note psyopspec's post) but once this happens you are no longer protecting others, you are protecting yourself. Self-defense laws apply, it is their decision to attack you, not the other way around. I have no great worries about defending myself. Been there done that, gave a signed statement to the police (called me in for an interview) and I walked away with no repercussions. I don't seek out such situations but I do not live in fear of them.

The guy who rescued me was a large adult male armed with a golf putter. I regret not hanging around to see if he came through unharmed after they left me for him but then I was only a 13 year old kid and would not have been much help against 4 large teens who had already threatened to kill me multiple times as I stalled them from forcing me into a dark alley. I did not hang around!

We who have the opportunity and ability to defend ourselves against violent criminals should not fear them unreasonably but don't get me wrong, if I see some person neglecting the responsibility to defend themselves it's not automatically my problem. I am quite content to let them learn the error of their ways the hard way... Within reason, but even then my conscience has limitations as to what I am willing to observe.

 

[alohachris]

I'll share this anecdote to give some food for thought.

I was 17 years old and went to see a late movie with my girlfriend. It was a hot summer night, about 11 p.m. when we were walking back to the car. I opened her door, she got into the car and I shut the door. I walked around to my side of the car, opened the door and she starts screaming . She's screaming and thrashing around wildly and I'm leaning in, looking around the car, trying to figure out what's going on. It goes on for a good 30-45 seconds and I'm freaking out & yelling WHAT?! WHAT?! WHAT'S WRONG?!



Finally, the June Beetle that had flown into her hair comes out and lands on the dash.


Now she's screaming GET IT OUT! GET IT OUT! I swat the bug out of the car, and turn to her, still shaking with adrenalin, and start to say ALL THAT OVER A BU --! When I am jerked violently backward by the collar and slammed face down on the trunk of my car. I hear DON'T MOVE! DON"T F***ING MOVE! HANDS OUT! Being preoccupied, neither of us had noticed the police cruiser rolling up behind me.

Cop: MAM! ARE YOU ALRIGHT?!

Her: Ye, Ye, Yes

Cop: DO YOU KNOW HIM?

Her: Yes, he's my boyfriend.

Cop: What's going on here? Did he hit you?

Her: No, there was a bug in my hair.

Cop: A bug?

Her: Yeah, a big bug was in my hair.

Cop: You were screaming like that over a bug?!


Then the officer tells me I can get up, asks if I'm ok, and tells me that he was patrolling the parking lot and the way she was carrying on, thought a crime was being committed. I said I was ok and he sent us on our way.

In the car on the way home my girlfriend was apologizing, saying "I'm so sorry that happened, I thought that cop was going to hurt you." I told her it was alright and that I was just glad she wasn't mad at me for anything. All she would've had to say was "Officer, You got here just in time!".

My point is that judging by the circumstances (Late at night, parking lot, woman screaming, kicking, waving her hands, a man standing over her yelling) you could read all kinds of wrong ideas into the situation.

Think before you leap to the defense of some damsel in distress.

 

[Ryder]

Cop: You were screaming like that over a bug?!

That must have been my mom, she was like that. Didn't have to be in her hair though, she'd scream just at the sight of one if it was ugly enough. Funny because she grew up on a farm but when we moved around to different parts of the country she wasn't accustomed to the local bugology.

(Holy cow, bugology is an actual word according to google )

 

[mljdeckard]

The story my CCW instructor told, I'm careful to repeat it because it turns out that a lot of what he told me in that class was wrong, and I can't credit or verify it, but it will make you think.

(As he tells the story) A guy in Ohio was leaving a bar, as he hits the sidewalk, a ways down the block he hears a couple having a fight. The male says something to the female to the effect of he can take her anytime and anyplace he wants to, and starts to push her back into an alley, with her struggling and protesting. The guy goes to the front of the alley, looks in and sees the guy sexually assaulting the girl, with her struggling underneath. So he pulls out his .45 and blows off the top of his head. As the girl pushes what was left of the guy off of her she yells:

"What the hell do you think you're doing!?"

"I just killed the guy who was raping you!!"

"He wasn't raping me! We were acting out a fantasy, playing a game where he PRETENDS to rape me, and you just killed him!!"

Manslaughter charges.

Now, like I say, I can't verify this story, but think about it. If you start killing people when you don't REALLY know what's going on, it's a good way to go to jail. Maybe it wasn't what you thought. Maybe she won't testify on your behalf because battered victims often don't want to talk about it at all. Maybe she will be mad at you for killing her boyfriend even if it WAS exactly what it looked like. Carry to protect you and yours. Them and theirs are on their own. It's a cruel, unfair world.

 

[Crusader103]

mljdeckard,

If that guy really did that without a "Stop," "Don't move," etc he was really stupid. When possible, you should always verbalize commands as you draw, hold someone at gunpoint, and even while shooting. This serves a few purposes:

#1 It gives the suspect time to stop their threatening actions.
#2 A show of force will often take an attacker off guard and give you an edge.
#3 Perhaps, most importantly, it creates witnesses.

Suppose an obviously threatening person walks towards you at a gas station with a weapon visible in their pants. You yell, "Stop," "Don't move," "Drop the weapon" or anything of that nature. Even if your witnesses are anti-gunners they can't help but testify that you said "Stop" or "Drop the weapon." Continue to give commands after you fire. The funny things about witnesses is that their timelines often get screwed up. They hear gunshots, they hear you yelling commands, but they don't remember which order. Either way they recall it it looks good for you.

How many of you practice giving commands when you are on the range?

All that being said, and as stupid as that guy may be, I think it would be hard to justify manslaughter charges. Even if charged, it is defendable in court.

In most cases, the direction given to a jury is similar to this: "In order to acquit on the grounds of self-defense, you must decide whether the person reasonably believed that they, or another person, was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm." The direction will inevitably add, "It does not matter whether the danger actually existed, only that the defendant reasonably believed that the danger existed."

This direction is the exact reason why officers are ruled justified when they shoot someone whom it turns out had a fake gun. In this case, it would appear that the shooters actions, however stupid, would fit this bill.

For what it is worth, I have presented expert testimony on a similar case.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[Crusader103]

A funny bit about creating witnesses.

The local news was interviewing witnesses after a police shooting. They were shooting the news live and everyone they asked appeared supportive of the officers. It was obvious the news was looking for some poop on the police. They went to this little old lady and asked, "Don't you think these officers, who outnumberd the suspect, should have given him a chance?"

She responded, in her nicest old lady voice, "Well they told him to put his f***** hands up!"

They didn't bleep that one fast enough for the live news feed and I about fell out of my chair.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I'm 25, and I'm currently an MP in the Army National Guard. I also have no family and no significatn other, so I don't really have any other person I'm living or working for. So that being said, yes I would intervene. I personally made the decision to place the lives of others before mine a few years ago. I understand the consequences and have decided that it's worth the risk for me. If someone else has people they care about and who care about them, I can understand them deciding not to intervene.

 

[mljdeckard]

jscott, Those jury instructions are not going to be the same in every state. What you are implying is that the shooter shouldn't have been charged in the first place, but he WAS ANYWAY. Now he is looking at imprisonment, and if he has any money left after paying his lawyer, he will be sued. I'm not going to put myself in the position in the first place. For MANSLAUGHTER, you don't HAVE to prove criminal intent. Self-defense is an AFFIRMATIVE defense. The DA doesn't have to prove that you didn't have a reason to shoot. You have to prove that you did. It doesn't even have to get to court to take every penny you own. If you're SO SURE it should be SO EASY to defend in court, then he would be no-billed by the grand jury and it wouldn't go to court at all.

There is a VERY short list of people on this planet who I will act to protect as if they were my family members. Pretty much lifelong friends who also carry and we cross-train with each others' weapons. Defense of a third party is a plain bad idea.

Those three options you posted will send you to jail. You just said you would draw and threaten without the intent to shoot. If you want to yell and threaten, DON'T DRAW YOUR GUN!!

The standard used to judge police after the fact is not the same as citizens. Police are REQUIRED to use force in certain circumstances. Citizens aren't. Police are required to pursue, question, and detain when a citizen should walk out the back door. Police pursue felons. Citizens don't. The totality of circumstances surrounding the use of deadly force is different for police than it is for citizens.

 

[Crusader103]

mljdeckard,

Did you even read my post?

Those jury instructions are not going to be the same in every state

Where did I say that they are the same in every state? I didn't. I did not say that those jury instructions were the same everywhere. Read the post. I said in almost every case. That is fact. In fact, the jury instruction is based on common law http://law.jrank.org/pages/1469/Justification-Self-Defense-Reasonableness.html You may not have gotten that far in your pre-law class, but you will. Almost every locale has a similar jury instruction. Name a state and I'll find the similar instruction for you if you can't look it up yourself. That's part of my professional job description.

What you are implying is that the shooter shouldn't have been charged in the first place, but he WAS ANYWAY.

Didn't say it. Yes, he was obviously charged, and would likely be in almost every locale. I can't think of a place where he wouldn't he is so stupid. Where did I say he wouldn't be? I said it would be hard to justify such charges, and harder to prove. Yes, he will be raked over the coals and he will be depleted morally, financially, and probably psychologically for doing such a thing. Ultimately convicted, probably not.

At no time did I say this guy was in the right. I think I even started out saying how stupid he was. I then followed that with three reasons why he should have verbalized before acting. Doing so very likely would have prevented the shooting. Did I not follow-up with some advice to give commands even in practice? Geeesh. I think I was anything but supportive of this guy.

For MANSLAUGHTER, you don't HAVE to prove criminal intent.

True, but you have to prove gross negligence and while the law stops short of saying you had to have criminal intent, you DO have to have known that your actions were LIKELY to result in criminal liability. Yes, you have to prove a variation of that in every locale. That is where the sticking point is. I agree that the guy acted extremely stupidly. But unlike a drunk driver who can be convicted of manslaughter because his actions, while he did not set out to hit and kill another driver, were predicated by the gross conduct of drinking and driving, this man did not set out with any predication that would lead to the death of another human being. His actions were not set into motion until AFTER he observed what he believed to be a crime in progress. Therefore, manslaughter does not apply.

Voluntary manslaughter occurs when the defendant kills with malice aforethought (intention to kill or cause serious harm), but there are mitigating circumstances which reduce culpability. Voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offence of murder. The traditional mitigating factor was provocation, however others have been added in various jurisdictions.

"Aforethought" means "planned in advance."

Self-defense is an AFFIRMATIVE defense.

That's true. It is so-called because it can be used in response to a criminal charge. You are not denying that the shooting took place, nor that you are the shooter. You are contesting the basis of the charge. That's the definition of an affirmative defense. While stupid, I think the guy would have a case here as self defense applies to others, not because they actually needed defending but because he reasonably felt they did.

Those three options you posted will send you to jail. You just said you would draw and threaten without the intent to shoot. If you want to yell and threaten, DON'T DRAW YOUR GUN!!

Broken record but READ THE POST. Where did I say I would threaten without the possibility of shots to come? In fact, you should never threaten. You should give commands, two very distinct courses of action. You are absolutely right in one regard, I will not always fire just because I drew my weapon. Doing so would be stupid in its own right. Be prepared to shoot? Yes. Shoot for sure. No.

Which of those three statements do you not like?

#1 Giving the suspect the opportunity to stop their threatening actions? Our case in point, don't you think the "rapist" should have been told to stop before being shot? Henceforth the stupid part that could have prevented his predicament.

#2 Maybe you don't like the idea of stopping the attacker in their tracks before you pull the trigger. In the example I already gave, with the threatening gunman coming towards you. Drawing and yelling "freeze" or the like without firing a shot? Guns are presented, with the real possibility of using them, without a shot being fired, many more times than not. In fact, if you are forced to draw your weapon, the hope is that you will still not have to fire a shot.

#3 Or maybe you don't like creating witnesses? That's it, just draw and shoot. There's no time for talkin'. As for me, I'll draw and yell appropriate commands at the top of my lungs. I want the world to know this guy is about to kill me and I am giving him every opportunity to stop. That sounds stupid to you?

The standard used to judge police after the fact is not the same as citizens.

Actually, that's not true. There is no time that a police officer would be justified in shooting and killing someone that you would not. Granted, they are required to pursue certain suspects and involve themselves in situations that you cannot/should not. They generally don't have the luxury of retreat. But when the trigger is pulled the standard is the same. Imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury to themselves or another. That's it. If they go outside of those parameters they will be charged like anyone else.... just happened to an Everett, WA police officer for an on-duty shooting.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010142020_copshooting27m.html

There are no laws that I know of which state, "A police officer may also shoot..." They are subject to the same laws as everyone else.

If you're SO SURE it should be SO EASY to defend in court, then he would be no-billed by the grand jury and it wouldn't go to court at all.

Again, where did I say it was going to be "SO EASY." Those are your words dude, not mine. However, if his defense attorney can demonstrate that he reasonably believed he was acting appropriately and the jury buys off on it, no, he will not be convicted of even manslaughter. That's not necessarily going to be an easy feat.

No Billed by the Grand Jury? Maybe, maybe not. Convicted, more than likely not. Here's how you can be arrested, indicted, yet not convicted.

Read on if you want a lesson in the law.

You see, there is a big difference between the police arresting someone (that's not a charge), the prosecuting attorney actually filing charges, and the jury convicting them. Each of those three have a different burden of proof to overcome.

The Police- The police may, and in some cases shall, arrest when it reasonably appears that a crime has occurred and that subject of the arrest committed it. This is called PROBABLE CAUSE. This is far from proving guilt or even sufficient to support a charge by the prosecutor. Police officers do not have an obligation to take into account exculpatory information. In fact, they generally will not. That is a decision that is left to prosecutors in making their charging decision.

The Prosecutor- Now the prosecutor also needs probable cause in order to charge a crime but, while not implicit in its requirement, will also take into account exculpatory information and possible defenses before filing a criminal charge. If a prosector does not believe that they can prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT you can bet your paycheck that they will not charge. You see, they only need "probable cause" to charge but generally work with "beyond a reasonable doubt" in their mind because that is what they are going to have to prove in court.

Grand Jury- A grand jury is not required in all states and/or locales. In fact, many states don't even have the grand jury process. If utilized, a grand jury is presented only with the information that the prosecutor wants them to have. Sounds funny, but the prosecutor is under no obligation to provide possible defenses or exculpatory information to grand jurors. Sometimes they do by choice because they want a realistic idea of how an actual jury will decide. In fact, grand jurors can be shown tainted evidence that won't be allowed in the actual court. There is no right to defense cross examination in a grand jury. A grand jury simply hears the factual information that the prosecutor has and decides whether or not a crime occurred and the the defendant likely committed it. For an even more weird example, grand juries often hear a case before a suspect is even identified. Again, the burden of proof to return a TRUE BILL is only probable cause. **This information is based off of a federal grand jury. While most states use this model, it can vary greatly.

Jury Trial- Now we get to the jury trial. To convict, the panel must agree in whole part as a body, without dissent, that not only did a crime occur, but that the defendant committed it. Further, there can be no reasonable doubt that criminal conduct took place on the part of the defendant.

One more point to add. Most states have now adopted another tenant to the affirmation of self defense. If a jury acquits of criminal conduct, and the defendant asserted self defense, they are sent back into the jury room. They make a determination as to whether self defense was the actual reason the defendant acted in such a way (they may have acquitted on other grounds). If they say that the defendant was acting in self defense, the defendant is reimbursed for the full amount of their defense by the state. Further, since a criminal jury, acting with a greater burden of proof, ruled self defense, it makes it much more difficult for a civil trial to rule against the defendant.

Here is reference to such a law in Washington State. Other states have similiar laws. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.110

Please read my post next time. As a pre-law student, you are going to have to be better at reading reports than you are at reading posts. You will learn a lot if you become a lawyer and see the inside of a courtroom. I welcome discussion, but please try not to misconstrue my words. I'll show you the same respect.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[Ryder]

The DA doesn't have to prove that you didn't have a reason to shoot. You have to prove that you did.

Not innocent until proven guilty in Utah? Remind me to stay away from that place!

"It does not matter whether the danger actually existed, only that the defendant reasonably believed that the danger existed."

That is how it works in my state too.

 

[Crusader103]

The DA doesn't have to prove that you didn't have a reason to shoot. You have to prove that you did.

Ryder, I forgot to address that in mljdeckard's post. So much for the Constitution. Good catch. I'll reroute south through Arizona on my way to Nevada this summer.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[mljdeckard]

Not when it's affirmative defense. That's the same in ANY state.

You have somehow outhouse lawyered yourself into thinking that it's a good idea to act in defense of a third party. Neither myself, nor my law professors (who are practicing prosecutors,) nor my attorney agree with you.

 

[Crusader103]

You have somehow outhouse lawyered yourself into thinking that it's a good idea to act in defense of a third party. Neither myself, nor my law professors (who are practicing prosecutors,) nor my attorney agree with you.

You don't read posts do you mljdeckard? Where did you find any hint of my saying that acting in defense of a third party is a good idea? I haven't stated a position on that. The situation would dictate though.

Not when it's affirmative defense. That's the same in ANY state.

No matter how many times you repeat it, it's still not true. The prosecutor MUST ALWAYS PROVE guilt. The Constitution of the United States makes sure of that. In an affirmative defense, you are simply acknowledging the tenants of the crime. You are not giving up your presumption of innocence in having committed a crime. The prosecutor simply would not have to prove you are the shooter or that shots were fired. You acknowledge that much. The facets of the act are not in dispute. The lawfulness of them are. They still MUST PROVE that a crime occurred and/or that your shots were unlawful.

Keep your nose in the law books. You'll get it.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[CombatArmsUSAF]

The one thing I hate about these discussions is that the naysayers always act as though the only tool we have available to us is shooting someone.

How about using your voice? As one poster above noted, just ask "Is everything okay?" or "What's going on?" The affected parties response to those questions should give you 99% of what you need to know in a particular situation.

 

[Ryder]

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2. (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force
may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of
the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death
of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/firearms.pdf

Outhouse lawyering indeed. How do you interpret the above? Oh, you don't, you rely on others to do it for you :banghead:

 

[Shadow 7D]

Once again you prove the adage that every bullet comes with a lawyer, who you have to feed and put his kids through college...

and these discussions bring out the entire magazine's worth of them. If I'm not in fear of my life or the life of my family, I will call the cops and protect my family, I don't have a duty to intervene and would only do so in very limited circumstances, cause those lawyers, are damn pesky, even if I do eventually become one.

 

[Jbabbler]

It always disturbs me to hear people state that they would not intervene to help a 3rd party. Is that really what we have come to in this country? I watched a man attempt to carjack a woman with 3 children in her car. It was broad daylight in the middle of a two lane country road. He was on something and I had just witnessed him plow into two other cars. He jumped out and ran to another car and tried to get in; they were locked in so he ran up to a minivan and tried to get in the door. A woman and her children were in the minivan and she began rolling up her window as he ran up to her car. The woman screamed and he began hitting her 1/2 up window. I made the decision to body check him into the side of the van then detained him until police could arrive. I would hope that someone would do that for my wife and kids. I fail to see how standing there and watching him rip her from her car and drive away with her kids would have been a better idea. I was carrying at the time but never saw the need to draw. I'm 6'3" 220lbs aned my method seemed to get the job done nicely.