Shoot or no shoot?

Do case laws not vary by state?

 

In this situation, I would not shoot nor get involved directly. This mob of 'mad dogs' cannot be stopped or deflected by one person who has a firearm. It is an unfortunate consequence of our 'new America' that the use of force by good, rational people to combat and defend against violence is punishable to the maximum extent by the legal system. While the mob of mad dogs is coddled, sanctified and placated.

Only draw and shoot to protect myself and family from imminent harm;

 

To stand by while witnessing the commision of a felony and having the means to stop and still do nothing is the definition of a coward.
What if we did not have cell phones and cameras what would be your excuse?
I Dont know how I would react but you will not be kicking an honest youg man in the head while he is unconcious and I am around and have a weapon.

 

Billy club would have been a better choice.

 

....
A billy club would have been a better choice to use to wade into a large mob of violent people?



You'd get beaten with that faster than you'd get shot or beaten with your own gun.

 

I have heard this a lot in this thread.
What would you have done? What could have been done?

Tell us what you would have done that would have kept you reasonably safe, would have been effective, would not have exposed you to undue prosecution, and would not have escalated an already bad situation?

 

Attacking no. Defending yes. You would be surprised how cowardly people are when someone fights back.

Who said I have a gun?

 

So what would you have done? tell us.

Same with everyone else who would "do something about it" then go on to chastise those who would act less aggressively.

Here, I'll start...
"I would stand over him in a defensive posture with my stick raised....right up until the brick, skateboard, bottle, etc...came down on the back of my head from one of the 10 people behind me that I couldn't keep track of. Then there would be two defenseless people being beaten. Anyone else who wouldn't do the same is a coward".

Or,
"I moved towards them with my gun drawn but pointed downwards, giving the command to halt, announcing that I am armed. Suddenly an expletive rang out from the crowd, and I heard several shots from somewhere very close by in the crowd...."

Or "I moved towards them with my gun drawn but pointed downwards, giving the command to halt, announcing I am armed. The crowd does not stop beating the defenseless man. I then...."

 

You have innocent/helpful kids getting curb stomped while unconscious and you are worried about escalation?

If you don't want to do anything, don't. You don't have to.

There isn't nearly enough information available to come up with a specific action or reaction, anyway.

 

Then stop posturing that people SHOULD do something specific about it to stop it without giving a reasonable course of action. If you can't come up with something reasonable in a chatroom, what are the odds that you'd be able to come up with something reasonable under stress when confronted with this situation?

I agree, if you could do something then you should, I'm just curious about what actions you think would be so effective.

 

Please see this post from the first page:

 

^^Oh ok, So you'd "do something" even though you can't even begin to say what you'd do, what would work, or what would be appropriate. Not helping is cowardly because there is always something effective you can do.
Ignore general law enforcement advice on the matter of what to do...its Hero Time

Gotcha, you like to make statements about doing things, because they make you feel like you'd be doing something.
You just can't get specific

Sorry, No. There are some situations in which you alone as a single person just can't be effective, and your involvement does far more to endanger yourself than it does to potentially protect anyone else. This appears very much to be one of them.

One person Vs an entire mob is tactically unsound no matter who you are, Warp, and how armed you are. Only a fool would expect to retain the upper hand if things went south, or rather.....not how you envisioned it in your hero fantasy. Then there is the trial where you'd have to explain your actions....but gosh, what responsible citizen would let such thoughts cloud their vision when they could be "DOING SOMETHING".


If you can't admit that in some situations you might be personally powerless to affect the outcome positively, then you have no place deciding to intervene in ANY situation not directly involving you.

 

Welcome to the benjy vortex.

 

Some people are just made to be good witnesses for the cops. Just remember if this ever happens to you, you better hope that someone is around that has a different belief system than you.

 

Please describe what you would have done, then. Describe the actions you would have taken in this case that would have saved the day. Again, all I see here is one side saying, "here is why intervening would have been terribly risky"
And another side saying "Y'all are cowards, but I'm a hero. I would have gone in and.......*crickets*."
Lots of posturing coming from one side, but no explanations or good strategies.

BTW, if I were being beaten in the middle of a large mob and made it through, I wouldn't blame anybody who didn't singularly come to my aid. I don't expect, nor do I want innocent people to commit near suicidal actions on my behalf. Maybe you do.

I don't hear anyone here saying "never intervene". I do see people explaining how problematic it is to interject yourself into violent situations where your life wasn't previously in danger until you made the decision to voluntarily place it in danger....and how dangerous this particular situation would have been to intervene in.

History is full of anecdotes concerning people who wanted to "do something" and ended up being victim #2.

I have seen more than a few rescue attempts that were called off because of extreme risk to the rescuers, in some cases watching the person die in front of them rather than seriously risk the lives of multiple rescuers. Triage is a crappy but real concept. Sometimes it is really just a choice between 1 victim or 2.

 

This is one of the best responses, IMO. Almost every situation is different and must be addressed accordingly. Sometimes it's better to be a good witness. Other times it would be morally wrong to not step in. It isn't black & white.

 

Believe it or not, I once read an article from a fairly mainstream site that said exactly that! The writer was advocating the use of revolvers for Undocumented Carry...

 

And if one realized it a was family member or close friend being assaulted by the mob, would that change their response? I'm not saying that drawing and/or shooting would be the best choice but i would hope that if it were a person i cared for being attacked, bystanders would intervene if capable.

 

In any of those cases, did the shooter/defendant use lethal force based upon a reasonable belief that such force was necessary/justified, when such force was not actually justified (even though what they knew at the time indicated that it was)?

If not, how relevant are those, exactly?

I don't see many details, but on the first one for example I see

"On April 3, 1992, a jury found applicant guilty of first-degree murder in a manner involving torture and aggravated battery"

I'm thinking that with first degree murder and torture there was no reasonable belief that lethal force was necessary/justified/lawful.

 

Yes - at the same point you or I would be. Cops aren't given licenses to kill, despite what many seem to believe. LEOs follow the same use of force laws the rest of us do. The difference is a cop has a state lawyer paid for in the event he does shoot, whereas most of the rest of us don't.

So while it's true that a CHL doesn't make you a cop or a superhero, neither are you legally prohibited from third party defense any more than a cop is. What you SHOULD do is know UOF justification laws in your state, and use that knowledge to make an informed decision, rather than a blanket "I will/won't intervene, ever" decision.

In general, I'm with Warp - but this is a personal decision and there is no right or wrong answer, provided the law is adhered to.

A mob is stomping a guy who's unconscious? That's immediate demonstrable threat of serious physical injury or death, period. Is shooting into the crowd the best option for saving this guy? No.

 

Based on that implication, none of those apply to this situation, as it seems to me (and the rest of us in this thread, near as I can tell) that a person witnessing what happened would reasonable believe lethal force is justified.

In order for the example to be wholly relevant to this discussion, wouldn't the case need to be one where the shooter could have reasonably believed lethal force was necessary, but in fact it wasn't (likely based on things the shooter did not and could not have reasonable known at the time), and thus the shooter was convicted?

Especially since we are talking about a state now (Georgia) where the law simply says the person must reasonable believe, and says nothing about being limited to what the third party could themselves use.

 

Actually, one of the main reasons I choose to carry a weapon for self defense is that I can't and don't depend on others to come to my aid.