Houston Neighbor Intervenes In Home Invasion

[AlexanderA]

To hear you tell it, if I see somebody hacking an 80 year old woman to death with a machete while screaming "Allahu akhbar!", I have NO right to intervene on her behalf.

OK. Obviously you would be completely justified in intervening in such a situation. But, carried to its logical conclusion, this thinking means that every armed civilian is an auxiliary policeman. We have to carefully consider the implications of that.

 

[alsaqr]

OK. Obviously you would be completely justified in intervening in such a situation. But, carried to its logical conclusion, this thinking means that every armed civilian is an auxiliary policeman. We have to carefully consider the implications of that.

Back there you claimed the neighbor had broken the law by intervening in the home invasion: You were proven wrong. This line of thinking does not mean that every armed civilian is an auxiliary policemen. Some folks will intervene in such situations and some will not. Frankly i would want the armed bystander to intervene if my wife or child were being attacked.

 

[Deanimator]

But, carried to its logical conclusion, this thinking means that every armed civilian is an auxiliary policeman. We have to carefully consider the implications of that.

Theoretically, yes... the ones who CARE to. They certainly have no more legal duty to protect others than the police, who have virtually NONE. As with police, it's a CHOICE. Some will choose to. Some will not, taking cognizance of their lack of union representation, qualified immunity and presumption of truthfulness and justification..

And what ARE the "implications"?

• That people won't believe in the fairytale of police "protection" of individuals?
• That people won't just stand by while others are maimed and murdered?
• That people won't be able to commit robbery, rape or murder for fear of being shot by a good samaritan (an actual "argument", and one in fact made in recent weeks)?

 

[chicharrones]

Well, I was wrong. The neighbors weren't friends. They were family.

That raises the stakes above just being neighbors.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...sion-ends-with-suspect-killed-by-11131938.php

 

[MEHavey]

The right of self defense does not include the right to intervene on others' behalf

Where'd that come from?
Web site please.

 

[Deanimator]

Where'd that come from?
Web site please.

Everytown?
Brady?
Tides Foundation?

 

[RPZ]

OK. Obviously you would be completely justified in intervening in such a situation. But, carried to its logical conclusion, this thinking means that every armed civilian is an auxiliary policeman. We have to carefully consider the implications of that.

No. Policemen are investigative, custodial and reporting agents to the district attorney(s) and courts. They secure crime scenes, protect/gather evidence and witnesses, file reports, search for suspects etc. A fellow citizen who is not on the payroll of a police department can still intervene if present at the time, and they might even hold suspects for the police. But it is the police who investigate, gather evidence etc, follow up on suspects, make a report and present it to the prosecuting attorney.

 

[AlexanderA]

Back there you claimed the neighbor had broken the law by intervening in the home invasion: You were proven wrong.

The point that I was trying to make (unsuccessfully, it seems) is that intervening in a third-party dispute (altercation, assault, whatever you want to call it) goes beyond the scope of pure self-defense. That is, your life is not directly threatened. The stated justification for carrying weapons -- by civilians -- is self defense, not the defense of others or general policing. What "self defense" is, is defined by state law. Some states apparently broaden the parameters of "self defense," beyond pure self defense, to include situations like the one in the OP. OK. But we have to be careful not to jump into the middle of situations where we may not know all the facts. That's all I'm saying.

 

[MEHavey]

FWIW: (Followup to Post#30 above)

Most all states have a variation of this:

"A person may... use physical force upon another person when and to the extent
he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or
herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use
or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person."

It's called the alter ego defense.
Google it if necessary

 

[Walkalong]

This thread should be moved over to the Legal forum so that we can have some of the attorneys who moderate that forum weigh in and explain how the law works in a situation like this.

And since that is how this one is going.....

 

[Deanimator]

The stated justification for carrying weapons -- by civilians -- is self defense, not the defense of others or general policing.

Interestingly, the mutant family of a deceased holdup man recently made exactly that "argument". They asserted that the good samaritan who shot their relative had neither the right nor the need to defend the store employee whose life he threatened. According to them, the good guy with a gun should have just fled the scene and left the employee to his fate, whatever the gunman chose to inflict upon the victim... so as not to create a risk to their relative... THE ASSAILANT.

This is a repetitious assertion of an apparent "divine right of armed robbers" to rob.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

The stated justification for carrying weapons -- by civilians -- is self defense, not the defense of others or general policing.

Stated by what legal authority?

Random internet posters who found a JD in the bottom of a crackerjack box don't count.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

I think I get what Alexander is hinting at but is not being clearly illustrated.

In this day and age of media, politics, lawyers and such, I'm of the mindset that in general, unless myself or immediate family is directly in danger for their lives I'm going to either call 911 and be a good witness or run away from a potential situation. There's just to many unknowns with a third party intervention in most cases.

Now an obvious "active whatever" situation, if the opportunity presented itself before I extricated myself/family from the situation arose then that's a different scenario.

I ain't no "kitty", but it seems like there some here that might be "looking for a reason".

I understand morals and ethics but unfortunately today's society does not share most of our views. Unless it directly affects me or mine I'm more than likely not going to intervene. Just not willing to take that bet with the world we currently live in.

 

[Deanimator]

In this day and age of media, politics, lawyers and such, I'm of the mindset that in general, unless myself or immediate family is directly in danger for their lives I'm going to either call 911 and be a good witness or run away from a potential situation. There's just to many unknowns with a third party intervention in most cases.

There's a fundamental difference between you CHOOSING not to intervene and the previous assertion that it's universally FORBIDDEN to intervene.

The police have no duty to protect any individual. You certainly have no more duty to do so.

That having been said, it's rarely a crime for me to refuse to stand idly by and watch somebody be butchered like a chicken in a Santeria ritual. It's my choice whether to assume the risk. Any place where that choice is taken away isn't a place fit for decent human beings.

 

[Deanimator]

Unless it directly affects me or mine I'm more than likely not going to intervene. Just not willing to take that bet with the world we currently live in.

Make no mistake, there's a vocal minority who believe that you have no right to defend yourself OR your loved ones. To them, your duty is to throw yourself on the "mercy" of violent sociopaths. If they decide to end your life and those of your loved ones, that's just your tough luck. As far as they're concerned, you and they had it coming anyway.

 

[Acera]

The point that I was trying to make (unsuccessfully, it seems) is that intervening in a third-party dispute (altercation, assault, whatever you want to call it) goes beyond the scope of pure self-defense. That is, your life is not directly threatened. The stated justification for carrying weapons -- by civilians -- is self defense, not the defense of others or general policing. What "self defense" is, is defined by state law. Some states apparently broaden the parameters of "self defense," beyond pure self defense, to include situations like the one in the OP. OK. But we have to be careful not to jump into the middle of situations where we may not know all the facts. That's all I'm saying.

I feel that my carrying of a firearm is not only for my protection but for the protection of those I am with. A number of folks I spend time with are unarmed all the time, I would have no issue in defending their lives as well as my own. I just hope that if my neighbors ever needed my help in that manner I would be in a position to step in and help, and that they would step up and assist me if I was ever in need.

The reason you are unsuccessfully making your point is that it seems a vast majority of use as see it as not a good or valid point. You have been shown your assumption of its legality has been proven false in both your home state and Texas where the incident happened.

Hiding in the closet and cowering while waiting for the government to arrive and help us and our neighbors is not the Texas way. However, the liberals are attempting to make us act that way.


.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

That having been said, it's rarely a crime for me to refuse to stand idly by and watch somebody be butchered like a chicken in a Santeria ritual. It's my choice whether to assume the risk. Any place where that choice is taken away isn't a place fit for decent human beings.

Yes your right, but depending on the situation in which you intervened, and the details discovered afterwards along with the jury/media/etc., it could very well be a big gamble with your fate.

For example, I have no idea what would happen if one drug dealer happened to be hacking up another drug dealer in public and you shot the one doing the hacking, having no knowledge of the details of the situation. But I certainly wouldn't want to be in that position.

If you feel comfortable acting as a vigilante more power to you.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Make no mistake, there's a vocal minority who believe that you have no right to defend yourself OR your loved ones. To them, your duty is to throw yourself on the "mercy" of violent sociopaths. If they decide to end your life and those of your loved ones, that's just your tough luck. As far as they're concerned, you and they had it coming anyway.

I'm well aware of that. I don't at all see how that has anything to do with intervening as a third party in a hypothetical scenario.

 

[alsaqr]

"If you feel comfortable acting as a vigilante more power to you."

Yep, there's that word the anti- gun blissninnies use to describe folks who defend themselves or others with firearms. If you refuse to intervene when someone's being attacked that's OK. However, calling stand up folks who do intervene to protect the lives of others "vigilantes" is beyond the pale.

Would you prefer that a concealed carrier walk away after seeing your loved one being attacked?

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

If you feel comfortable acting as a vigilante more power to you.

Lawful self defense or defense of a third party is specifically, by definition, not vigilantism.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

"If you feel comfortable acting as a vigilante more power to you."

Yep, there's that word the anti- gun blissninnies use to describe folks who defend themselves or others with firearms. If you refuse to intervene when someone's being attacked that's OK. However, calling stand up folks who do intervene to protect the lives of others "vigilantes" is beyond the pale.

Would you prefer that a concealed carrier walk away after seeing your loved one being attacked?

We're talking about intervening in third party situations, not direct SD of one or ones family.

Some of ya'll seem to think we're still living in the wild west, and if we were I'd be more in line with your thinking. But we aren't. If you want to gamble your freedom/life putting yourselves in situations that don't directly affect you than good luck to you. If you feel that adamantly about helping others though, there are plenty of lines of work out there you could take up.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Lawful self defense or defense of a third party is specifically, by definition, not vigilantism.

I agree. But some here seem to think with a vigilante mindset. They do not seem to grasp the possible repercussions of getting involved as a third party.

Point being, in this day and age it's bad enough trying to justify yourself in a direct SD shooting. A 3rd party shooting is just that much more grueling. At least in a direct SD situation more than likely you have a pretty good idea of what's happening. There's no way to know the details/backgrounds in most situations where one would intervene as a 3rd party.

 

[Frank Ettin]

... in this day and age it's bad enough trying to justify yourself in a direct SD shooting. A 3rd party shooting is just that much more grueling. At least in a direct SD situation more than likely you have a pretty good idea of what's happening. There's no way to know the details/backgrounds in most situations where one would intervene as a 3rd party.

The threshold question must always be, "Do I really know what is actually going on?" And if you came in late, there's a real good chance you really don't know what's going on.

1. You might be legally justified in using force in defense of others, but only if the person you are defending would have been justified in using force to defend himself. If not, your act of violence could be a criminal act subjecting you to prosecution, conviction and jail.
   
   
2. So if you are considering using force in defense of someone, are you sure you know what happened? Are you sure you know who the original aggressor was? Are you sure that the person you intend to help is the innocent good guy? If you think you know, but are wrong, you are risking jail and your family's future.
   
   
   • You might think a kid is being kidnapped, but no one is going to be giving you the key to the city for shooting the father taking his kid, in mid-tantrum, outside for a "time out.
     
     
   • The guy you think is beating up an old lady might be a caregiver trying to get a confused and combative Alzheimer patient out of traffic to safety.
     
     
   • You think that a scruffy bum is beating up some guy, but you won't get a medal for shooting an undercover cop trying to arrest a pimp who is resisting. You'll be going to jail instead.
     
     
   • And you certainly won't be getting any congratulations if you injure an innocent bystander in the process.
     
     
   • And if you think you know, but are wrong, you will be shooting the innocent good guy.
   
   
3. If you can't be absolutely sure what's going on, you still don't have to do nothing. But do things that limit jeopardy to you and minimize the risk of making hash of things.
   
   
   • Call 911,
     
     
   • Be a good witness
     
     
   • Take notes,
     
     
   • Take photos,
     
     
   • Let those folks involved in the apparent conflict know they've been seen,
     
     
   • Be prepared to defend yourself if necessary.
   
   
4. There's an adage from medicine which applies here. "First, do no harm."

 

[Carl N. Brown]

AlexandrerA (Virginia): The right of self defense does not include the right to intervene on others' behalf.
That is not how Tennessee self-defense law reads. It includes defense of self, family and innocent third parties.
AlexandrerA: As far as rising to your rhetorical bait, you show me how someone who is was in the backyard of a house and is then encountered "jumping the fence" is not fleeing.
If the home invader is turning with a gun in his hand, how is he "fleeing"? He's a threat. AlexanderA using the phrase "rhetorical bait" ... are you at all self-aware? Stop before you shoot yourself in the foot again.
AlexandrerA: ... carried to its logical conclusion, this thinking means that every armed civilian is an auxiliary policeman ...
Technically speaking, under the power of the county (posse comitatus) the county sheriff could deputize me, even if only to order me to stand down.
Chicharrones: The neighbors weren't friends. They were family.
There you go, bringing background research and facts into an argument about the poetic truth of hypothetical arguments, Commenting on the facts rather than the comments. Tsk tsk. How un-internet. (Love your avatar).
back to AlexandrerA: The stated justification for carrying weapons -- by civilians -- is self defense, not the defense of others or general policing.
The law justifies use of force in defense of self and defense of others, the topic of the opening post.
Did the man in OP defending his family do any of the things that fit the definition of "general policing" (patrolling the public streets, responding to calls of crime in progress, interrogating witnesses, being on the lookout for suspects, arresting suspects and taking them to jail)? Uh, moving the goal post after being caught wrong on defense of others. Tsk, tsk.


And the gangsters who home-invaded the Biệt Động Quân veteran's family, Biet Dong Quan, Rangers of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, trained by American Special Forces and Ranger advisers. Poetic justice.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

As always, great post Frank.