Unwillingness to provide a victim help is disheartening

[Citadel99]

I've noticed here and other shooting forums that many armed members are unwilling to intervene to stop a crime against somebody they don't know. I can't tell you how big of a shocker it was a couple years ago when I started on these boards.

The main argument is that there are possible legal reprocussions from intervention. However, from my point of view, there is seldom a worthy excuse for not helping out a fellow citizen who is falling victim to a violent crime. Personally, I have a brother who was assaulted by four guys. One had a knife and slashed him in the face almost cutting off his entire nose--he was also stabbed in the back. Two people, who were unarmed, jumped into the fray and helped my brother out. I am eternally grateful for those guys. They knew that there was danger and the did the right thing--helped out another in need. They weren't cops, just people that saw a person who needed their help and they came to fill his need.

Any able bodied person who could idlely sit by and wait after calling the police to report a rape in process is, to me, utterly unbelievable and unforgivable.

Yes, I realize that there are exceptions. Yes, I realize that some situations are widly out of control. But those are exceptions. I need to be able to close my eyes at night and sleep peacefully. I need to be able to look at myself in the mirror and know I did the right thing. I feel that it's your fiduciary obligation as an American (and yes, I'm writing this from an American perspective) to come to the aid of somebody falling victim to a crime. Hell, you might even make a few others believers in the GOOD of CCW.

Mark

 

[MicroBalrog]

[

I've noticed here and other shooting forums that many armed members are unwilling to intervene to stop a crime against somebody they don't know

The main argument is that there are possible legal reprocussions from intervention.

In Israel, non-intervention could bear legal repercussion. It's called "refusal to provide help" and it's an offense.

 

[TarpleyG]

You are right about everything except this statement:

The main argument is that there are possible legal reprocussions from intervention.

There aren't possible legal issues, there are inevitable legal issues. You must weigh whether the person you are helping is worth spending time, money, and possibly jail time, defending. I know how that sounds but in this day and age of bottom feeders, I must think about myself and my wife first and foremost.

GT

 

[Thumper]

I always have gotten "involved" and will continue to do so, fully aware that it may come back to bite me in the rear.

 

[OF]

I take comfort in knowing that the ones saying they will stand by seem to be in the vast minority. They appear to be rare, at least on the boards.

- Gabe

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

THis is a "depends" question. If I am in a CCW state and am legally armed, there is no doubt that the altercation can be subdued and sorted out. However, if in a non-CCW state, then brandishing a firearm could have serious legal implications (i.e. PRK). Remember, no good deed goes unpunished.

If we are in hand-to-hand mode, then other considerations apply. Will helping the individual put my life in jeopardy? If so, the risk must be weighed. I have a duty to preserve my life: to myself and family. I will not wade into a gang of hyped knife-wielding gangbangers to help someone at my own peril (particularly if I do not know the victim or the circumstances). However, if a guy is beating a woman, then it is in easy call.

Of course, all situations are fluid and threat to life can change the decision-making process.

 

[Camel]

I think a major concern would be that if you walk into a violent situation you have no clue what is going down or what happened before you got there. Is it two thugs mugging someone or two boucers tossing a rowdy drunk? If you intervene when some guy is wailing on his girlfriend is she going to come after you for it? Unless there is imediate threat of death I think it would be smarter and safer to call the police and be a good witness.

The ultimate worst situation being a domestic fight between two intoxicated (or stupid) people where the aggressor decides to hammer you and gets shot then the girlfriend/wife/other person decides to kill you for shooting her lovin' man.

 

[OF]

I am against a federal, nationwide CCW - mandatory reciprocity I could get behind. But FMJ's post above sparked a thought. You know what would be a cool law? Nationwide amnesty from gun-prohibition laws when using a gun to defend yourself or others.

That would be nice.

- Gabe

 

[wingman]

There aren't possible legal issues, there are inevitable legal issues.

Sad as it is the above quote is very true, we live in a new world where
doing anything youself is not admired, the law prefers victims rather
then a hero.

I will use the sad case of the girl just taken and killed in Fl. if you had came along and seen this going down and stopped the crime by using physical
force, you would be in jail, sued, lost your job, perhaps family or all the above.
Do I feel it should be this way, no but unless we have better judges, more
common sense policing it will continue...

 

[idd]

I will use the sad case of the girl just taken and killed in Fl. if you had came along and seen this going down and stopped the crime by using physical force, you would be in jail, sued, lost your job, perhaps family or all the above.

Who would file a lawsuit against you? Please describe the legal theory for presenting such a claim. (There isn't any.)

In jail? For stopping a kidnapping? Where has that ever happened before?

Loss of job and or family for defending a little girl against a predator?




Utter nonsense.

 

[Waitone]

The instant you step into civil court the laws of common sense, decency, and rational thought are suspended. Limits on judgments disappear. The issue becomes what can you convince the jury of and how much is it worth.

There is a good and compelling reason the anti-second amendment types headed for civil court. They could not win in the legislature or criminal courts so they headed to a court where logic and reason are suspended.

If you don't think tort law is out of control, cruise over to www.overlawyered.com and get sick.

 

[Stealth101]

idd.......

I have read numerous cases where people have been sued for defending themselves, this one stands out.......



Http:/www.mothersdefense.com/

 

[saddenedcitizen]

I gotta go w/Wingman on this one

If you intervene and stop (in this case kidnapping)
you could very easily end up in jail if you used
deadly force.
Why did you stop it ?
Did you or do you know either of these people ? No ?
Then why did you shoot the guy ?
You had no idea who he was or what he was doing
and you just shot him.
It'll take some time to sort this out (yep - just
eough time for you to lose your job, car, house
family etc.)
In the meantime, the deceased's family is talking
to the local bottom feeders who will find out how
much you are worth and how much they think
they can get out of you because you ended the
life of this shining example of humanity who
was honest, hard working and loved everyone.
We estimate he would have made about
150K a year for the next 30 years so you owe
the family a gazillion dollars and you can pay over
time for the REST OF YOUR LIFE.
As the previous poster said, civil courts are absolute
proof that alternate universes exist, 'cause they sure
as **** don't operate by the rules in this one.

 

[brookstexas]

Sheep

Pro and Anti gun...

 

[Citadel99]

If you intervene and stop (in this case kidnapping) you could very easily end up in jail if you used deadly force.

Who's to say you have to shoot and kill somebody who is walking off with a little girl out in the open. Hell, the guy will probably run off if confronted. But could you look at the father and mother of that little girl now that she is gone forever and tell them you were worried about a lawsuit??? I know I couldn't...

Mark

 

[wingman]

Utter nonsense.

Best wishes IDD if you go with it and good luck, also have a good lawyer.

 

[Samurai Penguin]

Another Law Idea...

I am against a federal, nationwide CCW - mandatory reciprocity I could get behind. But FMJ's post above sparked a thought. You know what would be a cool law? Nationwide amnesty from gun-prohibition laws when using a gun to defend yourself or others.

Being a Libertarian (and frankly bordering on anarchist), I think we have too many laws in this country already--especially Federal ones. But this thread, combined with QuarterBoreGunner's story elsewhere, puts me in mind of a nationwide law I'd like to see. Cutting out the legalese, the gist of it would be this:

If you are injured or killed during the commission of a crime against another person or property(meaning if your new bong explodes, you still have a case), then you and/or your estate may not sue, either in criminal or civil court. You stepped in the bear trap, don't complain when it takes your leg off.

Whadda y'all think?

 

[FPrice]

"I've noticed here and other shooting forums that many armed members are unwilling to intervene to stop a crime against somebody they don't know."

FWIW, most of the threads I have seen personally on this issue talk about seeing an incident wherein you CANNOT identify the attacker and the victim.

For example, you come across two men fighting (you did not see the start of the fight). One man sees you and cries out "Shoot him!". Would you shoot? Are you sure which is the attacker and which is the victim?

OTOH, if you come across one tiny woman fighting four large men would you assume that the men are defending themselves against violent attack?

Obviously before you intervene with deadly force, you need to know who the attacker is and BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET.

If you can without any doubt identify attacker and victim, then you should intervene and try to help.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Idd, if the kidnapper lives, he'll sue you. If he dies, it'll be his family.

But yeah, I'd have to step in. Lemme tell ya'll a story I've told before.

Some of you know I have a younger sister named Danielle. She's two years younger than me and different in every way. When I met Gunslinger, he told me that after Bush was elected he'd lobby to have me declared a national park. And I'm the palest Irishman you'll ever hope to see, despite being about half Sicilian.

Danielle, on the other hand, is tiny--maybe 120 lbs, now, probably 105 in the story I'm about to tell. She looks like a young girl.

About three years ago, when I was 22 and Danielle was 20, she stopped at a gas station on the north side of Springfield, IL to get a soda at about 1:00 pm. As she walked out to her car, a man called out to her and asked for directions. She approached him. That was a bad idea, I know.

He grabbed her under her arms, lifted her bodily off her feet, and simply took off running toward his waiting car. She tried to fight back, but she was in complete Condition White. It took her a few moments to observe and especially to orient herself to what was going on. She struck him several times, but without effect. Unbeknownst to her, but almost certainly not to her attacker, the gas station had removed the security cameras from that side of the lot almost two weeks before and no window faced that side of the lot, so no one inside could see what was going on.

They were nearly to his car, and she says she actually had time to wonder why none of the cars she could hear whizzing by on a main street were stopping to help her. (A lesson learned.)

Apparently purely by coincidence, a customer stepped out of the store and walked in their direction at that moment. The attacker paused a moment, wondering what to do, but it was all pretty clear. The stranger reacted quickly and correctly, shouting at the attacker and charging him. The attacker was trying to hold Danielle as she was furiously kicking and hitting him, which couldn't have been easy no matter how easy she thought he made it look. The stranger was able simply to run up and blast the attacker in the face with his right hand. The attacker was stunned and let go of Danielle. She immediately bolted toward her car. The attacker made a break for his, and the stranger, perhaps only then beginning to think consciously about what he had done, sprinted to a truck and fumbled with his keys. He shouted to Danielle that she could come with him if she wanted, but she of course refused, being almost in her own car at that moment. The three of them went their separate ways in great hurries.

She drove to a restaurant owned by an ex-state-cop friend and called the police. They treated her like dirt and were incompetent, but that's a story for another time and not terribly surprising for the Springfield Police Department (Official Motto: "Hey, look, we can't fire this cop for not getting out of her car to check the rape call. And besides, the rape had already happened, so it's not like there was any harm done when she drove away and left that rape victim bleeding in her own house. Be reasonable.")


To this day we have no idea who the Good Samaritan was. I asked on local talk radio for anyone who could help us find him to come forward and got nothing. Guy just disappeared. There are only two explanations that occur to us:

1. He and the attacker were partners. Seems like an unnecessarily complicated ploy, but he could have been setting Danielle up to get into his car willingly. Doesn't make much sense when the first guy was doing just fine by simply dragging her to his car. The real reason we wonder is that one known sexual assault suspect who would match Danielle's description had never been known to work without a male partner, so if it was him. . . . .

2. The poor guy had no idea what he was getting into and probably thought he intervened in a domestic dispute or something. He may have been worried that Danielle would testify against him after charges were brought for assaulting the attacker. In a real domestic situation, sad to say, I guess that's a valid fear. It's possible, too, that he's got his own legal problems and doesn't want to meet the police. We will probably never find out.

If he'd had a gun, or if I'd been there with a gun, I like to believe it would have been possible to capture the attacker and therefore put him out of business. What I'd have done if I'd been there has run through my mind more than a few times since, let me tell you.

Anyway, my sister is alive today because someone who didn't know her was willing to put himself on the line. I owe the world one. And honestly, I'm not sure I believe some of you who say you would not get involved. I know the logical arguments are strong on both sides, but when you're watching a man hustle a young girl into a car. . . . . well, I'm not sure Dani's savior intended to get involved, but he did.

 

[OF]

Well said, Don.

- Gabe

 

[pittspilot]

If you defend someone using your firearm, or any other implement including your fists, you immediately step into the defendee's shoes legally.

This means that if they did anything to provoke the incident, that mantle will taint you.

In the case of that girl, you may have been fine.

This goes for the criminal liability.

As far as the civil liability, that can be another story.

What this means to me as someone who has spent the last 3 years exposed to the law on a comprehensive scale.

I am sorry, but I cannot come to help you. The law has created such a high risk to that action that I would be placing my future, my family's future, and quite possibly my liberty at jeopardy to help you. While my heart goes out to you, I have to think rationally.

Now, lets go about changing the damn laws, shall we?

 

[Amish_Bill]

The problem with being a good samaritan...

There's no real way to know what you're walking into. Unless the situation has one person chasing another with a bloody knife, you can't afford to take any situation at face value.

Is Person A shooting at Person B because he is a trying to rob a pharmacist or because he's a cop trying to neutralized a murderer?

Do you hear female screams and sounds of conflict in the next motel room over because there is a woman being raped or because a couple on vacation is into quasi-violent role playing bedroom games?

Is a person dragging a small female, kicking and screaming, into a car because it's their child/family member having a tantrum or because they think they have found an easy victim?

For every one example like the recent 11 year old or the motel gang-up mentioned in an earlier thread, there are going to be many, many examples where intervention or use of force is not appropriate.

Like the police have a Use of Force escalation policy, so should Good Samaritans. Here's a rough idea off the top of my head...

--upon noticing suspicious activity, pay attention for a second. If it looks like a possible problem, but you can't tell, call for backup (911) and provide all the details you can.

--If you can tell enough to know that something's definitely wrong, but there is no hint of immediate deadly threat, step in and see if you can assist. Finding out exactly who is the aggreived party is also a good step. (It would suck to take the side of the 'victim' if they started the issue by whacking the 'perp' with a brick)

--If you see an immediate deadly threat, well... this gets dicey... have someone else call for backup (911) and provide all the details to the cops while you concentrate on the issue.... Anyone involved in Uniform? Anyone yelling that they're a cop? Anyone engaging in 'un-cop-like' behavior? (chasing with a knife, beating with a ball bat, etc)

dangit... This sounded so simple when I started...

Someone else will have to take the Good Samaritan escalation list and run with it. It's getting to complex for me to wade through right now.

Basically.... Should you get involved if you notice something suspicious going on? Yes. Should you always leap into the situation with fists swinging and guns smoking? No.

Since the odds are so stacked in favor of you confronting a guy trying to deal with his 15 year old runaway daughter instead of a serial rapist after a new thrill, I'd rather have to explain to a judge that I hit the girl's father with my pepperspray keychain because I had a reasonable expectation he intended to abduct/harm the girl, but did not shoot him because I did not see a the situation as being deadly at that time.

Very, very complex concept... being a Good Samaritan....

 

[MicroBalrog]

The law has created such a high risk to that action that I would be placing my future, my family's future, and quite possibly my liberty at jeopardy to help you. While my heart goes out to you, I have to think rationally.

So you will risk your life to defend someone, but you're afraid of an assault lawyer?

 

[Amish_Bill]

So you will risk your life to defend someone, but you're afraid of an assault lawyer?

Yep... It's a conundrum wrapped in an enigma and smeared all over with grape jelly. No matter how you look at it, it's a confusing and sticky situation.

 

[Bill Hook]

Http:/www.mothersdefense.com/

The story presented is real, but this site has been popping up with solicitations to send money that can't be substantiated (recently @ gunboards.com). Please don't open your wallet as they request here, without a lot more evidence that this family still needs the money or is even getting any money from the appeal.