Do you reverse this example when you have an all black class? Maybe some tatted up Aryan Nation brother beating down a poor middle aged single black mother of 3 coming home from her 3rd shift of the day with a grocery bag. Nothing like emotion to generate logical thinking among your students.
The answer has nothing to do with your ridiculous hyperbole, but rather what does the law say in your state? In Texas you have the right to defend a 3rd person's life with deadly force. That is the only answer that needs to be given by you or any other instructor. The law says you can or can't and then it is the CHL holder's personal decision on what to do. If the law is on his side and he shoots, then his choice is correct for that situation and his state of mind. It doesn't matter if the "offender" is as black as Wesely Snipes and the "victim" is as white as Madonna or vice versa which you probably enjoy twisting around on students that are logical.
Ah Deavis, all that and you completely avoided the question of what would you do. You are wrong in that the correct answer has very little to do with the law and a lot to do with you. The law is the easy part. Kansas allows the use of deadly force in defense of a third party if that person is at risk of death or serious bodily injury. So now that you know what it says what would you do?
I could change the scenario a myriad of ways. I could give you a mall shooting scenario. It wouldn't matter what 3rd party scenario I threw at you though. You stand a reasonable chance of getting it wrong. Not because you're a bad guy. Not because you aren't smart, you seem like an intelligent guy. Not because you don't have the best of intentions, but because you are approaching the situation with the wrong attitude. So far all you've shown me is a steady desire to be the hero of the day. I may very well be wrong though.
Like I said, the law is the easy part, simple memorization there. My kids could probably recite it to you. The art is in deciphering the nuance of the situation. It doesn't matter what the scenario, how are YOU gonna decide who is the bad guy and who isn't in the few seconds you have to make that decision? Better hope you get it right because YOU ARE betting your life and the lives of those who depend on you on that split second decision.
What if it turns out to be two rival gang members? What if the person you thought was the bad guy was really an undercover narcotics officer? What if you get mistaken for bad guy now that you have a gun in your hand? The reason intervening in third party situations is not a wise thing to do, if it can be avoided at all, is because there are so many things that can go wrong and so very few that can go right. Like I said, if you didn't witness the entire situation from it's inception then you most likely don't have enough information to risk using or threatening deadly force. You can't judge a book by it's cover or by reading the last half of it.
It's the same reason responding officers often assume everyone is a suspect when they first arrive at a frantic scene. It takes time to sort out what is really going on. Police buy time to do that by making people yield to their authority until they can take control of the situation and figure out what's going on. You won't have such authority. You won't have the luxury of time. Better to be a good witness and let people who do have authority and time sort it out.
How about some stupid hyperbole in reverse? What happens if one of your students doesn't shoot because of your opinion and it turns out that the black man was robbing her and kills her. Would you turn in your certificate and quit teaching?
Absolutely not. Because at the end of the day if my students aren't dead, in jail, or playing poster boy for the antis on the 6 o'clock news then I have done my job. Reality is that sometimes people get robbed and shot. It happens in the real world. It's not always preventable. Maybe they should have been accountable for their own safety rather than relying on someone else (you) to do it.
I won't tell you that you can't intervene in a third party situation, that's not what the law says. You're right, it is your life, and that of those that depend on you. I will tell you what the law doesn't say though, that it is very, very, very risky to do so. That if you get it wrong the law won't protect you. That if you don't get killed you might go to jail. That if you don't get convicted of something you may get sued in civil court for whatever you didn't spend on a criminal defense attorney. That your employer may fire you because of your actions. That your wife may divorce you because of all the stress. You're right though, sure would feel good if you got it right.
Now, you're not my student, you didn't pay to take a class. This advice may be worth just what you paid for it. That's for you and whoever else to decide. Just make darn sure you think about the risks BEFORE you get into that situation. Truth be told if I saw clear lethal intent, which would most likely mean I already saw someone get killed with my own eyes and there would likely be others, AND I had a clear shot with minimal extraneous risk I just might get involved. It would not be anywhere near my first option. Just make sure your hero story doesn't end poorly for you. That should be your first priority.
I.C.
---:banghead:--