Shoot or no shoot?

[JRH6856]

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

In this case, a Kroger employee already took action and became victim #2. Next person would have to settle for being #3.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Warp: 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?

You are correct in your assertion that the case would hinge upon what the defendant knew at the time, except in two states that I know of. And what that means is that if a reasonable person, knowing what the defendant knew at the time would have believed that deadly force had been immediately necessary, and if the defendant had in fact believed that it had been...

But in the case of defending a third person, there's more.

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.

The law in Georgia, and to my knowledge, everywhere else, places some other limitations on the lawful use of deadly force. Did the defendant initially provoke the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant, or was he attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony, and so on. Same things apply for the third person.

In states, evidence supporting a reasonable belief on these things might suffice. In others, no.

Reach for the cell phone before drawing the gun.

 

[Warp]

In this case, a Kroger employee already took action and became victim #2. Next person would have to settle for being #3.

Was the Kroger employee armed? What did they do?

You are correct in your assertion that the case would hinge upon what the defendant knew at the time, except in two states that I know of. And what that means is that if a reasonable person, knowing what the defendant knew at the time would have believed that deadly force had been immediately necessary, and if the defendant had in fact believed that it had been...

But in the case of defending a third person, there's more.

The law in Georgia, and to my knowledge, everywhere else, places some other limitations on the lawful use of deadly force. Did the defendant initially provoke the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant, or was he attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony, and so on. Same things apply for the third person.

In states, evidence supporting a reasonable belief on these things might suffice. In others, no.

Reach for the cell phone before drawing the gun.

So (in Georgia) is it based upon what you reasonably believe (as judged by peers if necessary) at the time, or is it based on whether or not the third party would be able to use that force? The statute seems to say the former, and I'm not seeing that the case law you references changes anything.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...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...

Which still begs the questions of why, how, and whether their explanations would be convincing.

One problem is that with the particular incident referred to by the OP, we know, based on hindsight and information available now which might not have been apparent to a witness at the time, that some thugs were beating up some innocent folks. Sure it looks like someone should have intervened, but that's based on what we know now -- not necessarily on how things might have appeared to someone who had just come upon the incident as it was unfolding.

So tomorrow you turn a corner and see one man knock another man to the ground. On what bases would you decide that (1) the guy on his feet is the thug beating up an innocent man; or (2) the guy on his feet is defending himself against a thug?

...where the law simply says the person must reasonable believe,...

And you're basing that on your interpretation, in a vacuum, of a few words in a statute. But until you find a Georgia court of appeal decision applying those words in a defense-of-another case, your interpretation doesn't mean much.

In the defense-of-another cases I cited, the court of appeal didn't consider reasonable belief. Understanding how these things work, that leads me to conclude that the defendant didn't even raise a question of his reasonable belief.

And in any case, your mistake in a defense-of-another incident necessarily means that you hurt or kill an innocent person in order to help someone who doesn't deserve your help.

Whenever this topic comes up, a bunch of the participants seem to assume that they will magically know who the good guy is and who the bad guy. But how will you know?

...as judged by peers if necessary...

What makes you think you'll be judged by peers?

Nothing in the law of the United States entitles you to a jury of your peers, i. e., people belonging to the same societal group, especially based on age or status, as you. You are entitled to an impartial jury (Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States).

(The notion of a "jury of one's peers" comes from Magna Carta and was indeed intended to refer to being judged by one's equals. Magna Carta was forced on King John by the feudal barons to protect their interests. Their first concern was that they be judged only by nobles of similar rank. And indeed until relatively recently, a British noble charged with a crime was entitled to be tried in the House of Lords. The last trial in the House of Lords was in 1935, and the trial jurisdiction of the House of Lords was abolished in 1948.)

 

[Warp]

So tomorrow you turn a corner and see one man knock another man to the ground. On what bases would you decide that (1) the guy on his feet is the thug beating up an innocent man; or (2) the guy on his feet is defending himself against a thug?

I'm surprised you are posting this.

1. This was not one man on one man.
+
2. This went beyond being 'knocked down'.
=
3. That is simply not comparable to the incident from the OP of this thread. Why are you completely changing the subject to something totally different?

Or do you really think that one man knocking another man down is equivalent to kicking an unconscious person who is down on the ground in the parking lot?

And you're basing that on your interpretation, in a vacuum, of a few words in a statute. But until you find a Georgia court of appeal decision applying those words in a defense-of-another case, your interpretation doesn't mean much.

Laws and statutes don't mean much until you can support them with a court of appeals ruling?

In the defense-of-another cases I cited, the court of appeal didn't consider reasonable belief. Understanding how these things work, that leads me to conclude that the defendant didn't even raise a question of his reasonable belief.

And in any case, your mistake in a defense-of-another incident necessarily means that you hurt or kill an innocent person in order to help someone who doesn't deserve your help.

Whenever this topic comes up, a bunch of the participants seem to assume that they will magically know who the good guy is and who the bad guy. But how will you know?

Is it possible for the guy kicking an unconscious person lying in the parking lot to be the "good guy"?

What makes you think you'll be judged by peers?

Nothing in the law of the United States entitles you to a jury of your peers, i. e., people belonging to the same societal group, especially based on age or status, as you. You are entitled to an impartial jury (Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States).

(The notion of a "jury of one's peers" comes from Magna Carta and was indeed intended to refer to being judged by one's equals. Magna Carta was forced on King John by the feudal barons to protect their interests. Their first concern was that they be judged only by nobles of similar rank. And indeed until relatively recently, a British noble charged with a crime was entitled to be tried in the House of Lords. The last trial in the House of Lords was in 1935, and the trial jurisdiction of the House of Lords was abolished in 1948.)

Then replace with "impartial jury", for purposes of my statement the specific verbiage or even difference there doesn't change anything, per my intent anyway

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Or do you really think that one man knocking another man down is equivalent to kicking an unconscious person who is down on the ground in the parking lot?...

The point is to think about what you might know of about an unfolding situation and how you know it. A lot of folks in these discussions seem to believe that they are clairvoyant.

...Is it possible for the guy kicking an unconscious person lying in the parking lot to be the "good guy"?..

I don't know. Do you? How? How close are you? Do you know the person on the ground is unconscious? How do you know? How long have you been observing the event?

We know now that in this incident one person was kicking a person who was on the ground unconscious. We know this from information put together in the course of investigating, after the fact, the incident.

...Then replace with "impartial jury", for purposes of my statement the specific verbiage or even difference there doesn't change anything, per my intent anyway

But it does illustrate that you apparently don't know as much about the law as you think you do.

 

[SEE IT LIKE A NATIVE]

The thing about mobs is that none of them want to be the first one to be shot !I would have to do something ,or never look my kids in the eye again or face myself in the mirror ! This is one of the few times I might think of drawing without shooting immediately.! I am thinking ,drawing standing over the victim and shout ,"the next one is getting shot " see who wants to be first ! Kevin

 

[silicosys4]

Is it possible for the guy kicking an unconscious person lying in the parking lot to be the "good guy"?

It is if you don't see the gun under him that he fell on after tried pulling it on the man who's kicking him unconcsious in leiu of a better option.

Your life, your legal defense, your option. Make all the assumptions you want.

 

[Warp]

The point is to think about what you might know of about an unfolding situation and how you know it. A lot of folks in these discussions seem to believe that they are clairvoyant.

I don't know. Do you? How? How close are you? Do you know the person on the ground is unconscious? How do you know? How long have you been observing the event?

We know now that in this incident one person was kicking a person who was on the ground unconscious. We know this from information put together in the course of investigating, after the fact, the incident.

But it does illustrate that you apparently don't know as much about the law as you think you do.

How do you know the person was unconscious. Were you there? Did you see it? Or is it just because the media told you so?

But anyway...I guess your point is that may not know what's happening even when it's happening right in front of you, and that is always going to be some degree of risk because of that.

 

[silicosys4]

The thing about mobs is that none of them want to be the first one to be shot !I would have to do something ,or never look my kids in the eye again or face myself in the mirror ! This is one of the few times I might think of drawing without shooting immediately.! I am thinking ,drawing standing over the victim and shout ,"the next one is getting shot " see who wants to be first ! Kevin

And its a mob. You get cold cocked from behind. Or you get shot by one of the people in the crowd that also has a gun.
Then what? They have your gun and you re victim #2....or #3
How did that help?

 

[Warp]

Yes...it is possible something could go wrong.

I do believe we all know that.

 

[silicosys4]

Yes...it is possible something could go wrong.

I do believe we all know that.

No. It's PROBABLE something could go wrong, given the circumstances.
the odds of you helping are very low in comparison to your odds of being the next victim, or in front of a jury soon thereafter depending on your choices as presented if you decide to aggressively confront an angry mob armed and alone.

 

[JRH6856]

The thing about mobs is that none of them want to be the first one to be shot !I would have to do something ,or never look my kids in the eye again or face myself in the mirror ! This is one of the few times I might think of drawing without shooting immediately.! I am thinking ,drawing standing over the victim and shout ,"the next one is getting shot " see who wants to be first ! Kevin

That might be an effective action.

But another thing about mobs is that they form a crowd from which one or more armed persons may fire a shot more or less anonymously in the heat of the moment. One person can't keep track of all members of the mob at once, so the proposed action places you in a very vulnerable position IF one or more member of the mob is armed.

Is there another action you might take that might be safer for you and still be effective?

 

[Fred Fuller]

Warp,

Are you an attorney, specifically a criminal defense attorney?

Do you have a criminal defense attorney's card in your wallet, and have you ever talked to one in preparation for making decisions about what to do regarding armed self defense?

Have you spent a few hours sitting in on murder trials in your local superior court?

 

[Warp]

No. It's PROBABLE something could go wrong, given the circumstances.
the odds of you helping are very low in comparison to your odds of being the next victim, or in front of a jury soon thereafter depending on your choices as presented if you decide to aggressively confront an angry mob armed and alone.

The ONLY way you are going to make it happen is if you, on your own, cow 50+ people who suddenly don't believe in strength in numbers and none of whom is armed.
Good luck with that.

I would wager there aren't 50+ people there willing to get shot over what they were doing. Possibly that number is 0, or darn close.

Warp,

Are you an attorney, specifically a criminal defense attorney?

Do you have a criminal defense attorney's card in your wallet, and have you ever talked to one in preparation for making decisions about what to do regarding armed self defense?

Have you spent a few hours sitting in on murder trials in your local superior court?

No, No, Yes (well, not current local, previous local)

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I guess your point is that may not know what's happening even when it's happening right in front of you, and that is always going to be some degree of risk because of that....

That's the core issue. A lot depends on how certain you can be about what is going on so that you can make good decisions.

It's that "being certain" business that's the potential trap. Folks have been absolutely certain about a lot of things in a lot of contexts and still been wrong. But if you shoot someone and you're wrong about those facts you were absolutely certain about and upon which you base your claim of justification, you'll quite possibly be going to jail and also will be living with having injured or killed an innocent person.

So ask yourself how easy or how hard it is for you to be certain about something. So ask yourself how many times you've been certain about something and discovered that you were wrong.

To be sure, sometimes you can be certain. Say some guy breaks down your front door and is running with an upraised knife towards your wife. That'll be something you can be certain about. Or three guys are struggling with the violently resisting 12 year old daughter of your neighbor while ripping off her clothes and dragging her into the bushes. There's another example of at least near certainty.

On the other hand, a man and woman in the shadows across the street look like they're pushing and shoving each other. What's that about?

Second, some folks seem to be setting up false dichotomies -- as if your only choices are charging out with guns blazing or hiding behind a dumpster. That of course is nonsense.

As far as not really understanding what's happening in front of you, there seems to be lot of evidence that often eyewitnesses get things wrong. The unreliability of eyewitnesses is well studied and well known, at least in the context of testifying as to what they think they saw. See, for example the article "The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony" as published in the Stanford Journal of Legal Studies.

In any case, suddenly seeing a shocking, violent incident can cause substantial stress. We know how stress can cause altered perception including tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, an inability to accurate estimate distances, or mistaken perception of the rate of the passage of time.

Simulator or force-on-force training is an excellent way to learn to understand how we might know, and not know, under stress what is happening.

 

[silicosys4]

I would wager there aren't 50+ people there willing to get shot over what they were doing. Possibly that number is 0, or darn close.

How much would you wager? $50? $100?
Your life, your future, and future of your family? Would you wager that?

Yea, because NO unarmed large mob of people has ever overrun a single armed person before.
What odds do you factor in that there wasn't someone in that crowd that didn't have a handgun and wouldn't have used it against you, knowing they are pretty anonymous in a crowd?
Sure.
Pure Fantasyland.

 

[Mainsail]

It would be an interesting study to gauge the responses and compare them to a person's military service, if any.

People who served in the military as operators, and their reaction,

vs,

People who served in the military as support, and their reaction,

vs,

People that never served who would watch another human being get murdered even though they had the means to assist.

 

[Warp]

How much would you wager? $50? $100?
Your life, your future, and future of your family? Would you wager that?

Yea, because NO unarmed large mob of people has ever overrun a single armed person before.
Think there wasn't someone in that crowd that didn't have a handgun and wouldn't have used it against you, knowing they are pretty anonymous in a crowd?
Sure.
Pure Fantasyland.

See, the thing is, I'm not thinking about this solely and entirely based upon only what is best for me with no consideration for other people.

Pure Fantasyland? If you say so.

 

[benEzra]

I'm sure this varies by state, but in my NC CCW class, I was taught that in this state using deadly force in the defense of another is only justified if the person you are defending could have also justifiably used deadly force. So, based on NC's other self-defense laws, if person A gets in person B's face and initiates a confrontation, and it escalates to the point that eventually person A is getting beaten to death by person B, you *cannot* lawfully intervene, as person A could not legally use deadly force if the attack on them is the result of a fight they themselves started. The thing is, as a bystander, you don't necessarily know what's going on unless you were there from the very beginning and saw the whole thing, so I'm not sure there is one right answer here. Maybe the circumstances are such that someone could intervene in some way, but at least in this state it would be risky unless you knew the situation very well.

There's also the sad fact that, regardless of how the law *should* treat those who defend innocent victims from violent assailants, in this country in 2014 you may well be destroyed for attempting same. It's one thing to sacrifice your livelihood, freedom, and future to defend a stranger if you are single; it's quite another if you have a family who depends on you. So be very, very, very careful.

 

[silicosys4]

It would be an interesting study to gauge the responses and compare them to a person's military service, if any.

People who served in the military as operators, and their reaction,

vs,

People who served in the military as support, and their reaction,

vs,

People that never served who would watch another human being get murdered even though they had the means to assist.

K,
Your strategy? What would your actions have been?
and are you an "operator"?

 

[silicosys4]

See, the thing is, I'm not thinking about this solely and entirely based upon only what is best for me with no consideration for other people..

I see no posts in this thread in which people have indicated they would make a decision based solely on what is best for them with no consideration for other people. The fact that people are in here to discuss it means they acknowledge the seriousness of the situation and the potential harm that could come to those being beaten.

I have seen people discuss the dangers of intervening, and the wisdom and odds of such actions, and potential and probably outcomes.

You have yet to put forth any kind of a realistic approach or strategy that would help to mitigate the huge risks involved with intervening.
Do you have anything to actually say?

We get that you'd "go for it" and you think we should to. So tell us...how should we go for it to alleviate the huge risks involved with intervening?

Or are veiled personal attacks and chest thumping all you have left at this point?

I said it before. If you can't come up with a good plan sitting in your armchair in front of your computer, you think you are going to save the day and make all the right decisions in the heat of the moment?

 

[Mainsail]

So tell us...how should we go for it to alleviate the huge risks involved with intervening?

Your whole life is a risk. If you can look at yourself in the mirror after watching someone murdered and your only concern was what it might have cost you to help, well, we come from different places. I know I could not. If it was your wife that was getting her head kicked in, you would wish someone with the means to intervene would do so. To say otherwise is the wickedest of lies.

Someone needs to close this thread ASAP.

 

[silicosys4]

Your whole life is a risk. If you can look at yourself in the mirror after watching someone murdered and your only concern was what it might have cost you to help, well, we come from different places. I know I could not. If it was your wife that was getting her head kicked in, you would wish someone with the means to intervene would do so. To say otherwise is the wickedest of lies.

Someone needs to close this thread ASAP.

Yea. absolutely. this thread is done, unless you can come up with something to actually back up that moral millstone you are trying to hang around peoples neck.

Like a good plan.

If my wife got her head kicked in in the middle of a mob, I'd absolutely hope someone with the means to intervene would do so. However I would also be forced to acknowledge the fact that my wife just got her head kicked in by a MOB....and there very likely wasn't anything any one person could do about it without getting their head kicked in as well.

You know who I'd be mad at? The mob that just kicked my wife's head in, and made a response by a concerned individual nearly impossible

Hey, if you've got even a half decent way to go about saving someone from a mob without getting your head kicked in, escalating the situation into a gunfight, or ending up in front of a jury, lets hear it.

I'm hesitant to intervene because I don't know of one and can't envision one. Help me, teach me, so I can have this ability.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If you can look at yourself in the mirror after watching someone murdered....

Exactly what is happening? How do you know he's being murdered? How do you know he isn't about to shoot a thug who is trying to kill him? How will you look to yourself in the mirror when you discover that you just helped a thug kill an innocent father and husband?

A lot of folks are operating on the assumption that they will magically know who the good guy is and who the bad guy is. Maybe sometimes you will; but recognize that sometimes you will not or can not, and have a plan for that.