Using Force to Defend Another Person

[Craig_AR]

But, even if one individual starts an altercation, with another individual, but the individual, who started it is on the ground.and the other guys friends jump in and he's now on the ground outnumbered, can I intervene to save his life?

In general, in virtually every state, you can be legally justified in using force to defend a third party if that third party meets all of the criteria for justified self defense: innocence, imminence, proportionality, reasonableness, and avoidance. If you do not know absolutely for sure that the other person has all five of those criteria, then you are assuming a high level of legal risk (not to mention physical risk) by intervening with force.
As pointed out above, you can use non-deadly force to defend agains a non-deadly force attack; you may be legally justified in usng deadly force if the attack is with deadly force.
Your hypothetical incorporates one basis for deadly force: disparity of force (many against one).
However, it also incorporates a tragic assumption found in society, and reinforced by movies and tv, that the one apparently losing the fight is the victim and deserving of defensive support.

As @Kleanbore has been recommending on THR for years, please get Andrew Branca's book, Law of Self Defense (he will send it to you for the cost of shipping) and read it, or take his online course on this topic.

 

[JeffG]

My assumption is that firing a gun defensively will wreck my life.

^^This. Given that assumption, that I agree with, there is precious little I will get involved in. I am armed for my self defense. Obviously my wife, or my children would be included in that plan. If I am in a group of potential targets in an active shooter scenario, I would be likely to shoot, but by and large, I would do that for me.

 

[Old Dog]

Interesting this thread has become resurrected after so many months.

And yet, my attention thus became called to this early in the thread statement:

My assumption is that firing a gun defensively will wreck my life.

So one is then compelled to ask, how would you then feel if firing your gun defensively saved your life, the life of your wife or one of your children's?

This seems like a good thread topic, I'm a little surprised it didn't gain more traction and go on a bit longer (while other seemingly more boring or less thought-provoking threads drag on too long).

 

[.38 Special]

Interesting this thread has become resurrected after so many months.

And yet, my attention thus became called to this early in the thread statement:

So one is then compelled to ask, how would you then feel if firing your gun defensively saved your life, the life of your wife or one of your children's?

This seems like a good thread topic, I'm a little surprised it didn't gain more traction and go on a bit longer (while other seemingly more boring or less thought-provoking threads drag on too long).

As though it was a necessary trade-off, honestly: "I may have wrecked my life, but you still have yours to live". And of course I'll be hoping like hell that our good Sheriff's department in this county will be on my side. Ultimately, though, it's the horror stories that should be our guide: good men have been ruined over righteous defensive shootings, and it's a mistake to believe that you won't be one of them. In 2023 America, the best bet - in my opinion - is not to use your gun if you have any other acceptable options.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Other people have the same right to arm themselves, train, practice, and CCW, just like I do, however most don't. I'm not going to jump in to be somebody else's personal body guard.

Those that don't carry have deliberately chosen to put their personal safety in the hands of police. I'll call 9-1-1 to put their personal safety plan in effect, and they can wait however long it takes for police to respond to rescue them.

I do have exceptions for children, the disabled, and the elderly.

 

[Beck]

"Virtue Signaling" implies insincerity, while true virtue certainly does not.

Those of us with a healthy sense of empathy and compassion would experience genuine inner turmoil and regret were we to fail to intervene to help someone in peril.

The narcissist or sociopath wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

 

[pbearperry]

Sometimes it is difficult to figure out who the good guy is. Unless you witness everything from the very start, do you really know?

 

[Kleanbore]

"Virtue Signaling" implies insincerity, while true virtue certainly does not.

What does "true virtue certainly" mean?

Those of us with a healthy sense of empathy and compassion would experience genuine inner turmoil and regret were we to fail to intervene to help someone in peril.

All of us are upset by violence. But that "someone in peril" may be a rapist, a murderer, a carjacker, a kidnapper, or an arsonist being apprehended by law enforcement, and intervention would not be a good thing.

 

[Jim Watson]

I remember the Old Days when a common plaint was "Why didn't somebody HELP?"
Now it is worse, we can either be worried about prosecution for helping too vigorously or too busy videoing somebody being victimized.

 

[Kleanbore]

thanNow it is worse, we can either be worried about prosecution for helping too vigorously or too busy videoing somebody being victimized.

I would worry a whole lot less about prosecution about protecting a violent criminal.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

There are people in this world who I am prepared to risk my well being to defend.

The list is short.

My primary responsibility is to those who I am responsible for. Think: wife, child, etc. As a husband and father, when I step into a bad situation I am also putting their well being at risk.

I do my best to not put myself in situations that jeopardizes those priorities.

I was recently faced with a decision to come to the aid of a family that is very close to our family. I didn't want to go. The situation could have turned bad quickly.

I discussed the situation with my wife. What we arrived at was "if we are not going to help these people, in their time of need, then who would we help ever? If we ever need help, how could we possibly ask anyone to show up?"

So: no, in general, people are on their own for their defense.


But then: yes, there are people in this world we should be prepared to defend in spite of consequences.


Know who those people are and stick to that list.

Threads like these are important reminders and help to solidify ideas and concepts like these.

 

[Old Dog]

Right on cue, a news story quite germaine to the topic:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/armed-go...y-knocked-out-elderly-man-restaurant-bathroom
Did the hero of this story stop and elderly man from being beat to death? Quite possibly.

A few interesting elements to this story, and hopefully follow-up will reveal that the man had no other reasonable options.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Right on cue, a news story quite germaine to the topic:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/armed-go...y-knocked-out-elderly-man-restaurant-bathroom
Did the hero of this story stop and elderly man from being beat to death? Quite possibly. ...

Except a story about a specific incident in which intervening with lethal force appears to have been appropriate does not mean that doing so would always be a good idea.

 

[Kleanbore]

Right on cue, a news story quite germaine to the topic:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/armed-go...y-knocked-out-elderly-man-restaurant-bathroom
Did the hero of this story stop and elderly man from being beat to death? Quite possibly.

A few interesting elements to this story, and hopefully follow-up will reveal that the man had no other reasonable options.

It appears that this one changed from reasonable intervention using non-deadly physical force to armed self defense after the perp turned on the armed citizen and knocked him down.

Justified? Well, the shooter was on the floor. We'll see.

 

[Old Dog]

Except a story about a specific incident in which intervening with lethal force appears to have been appropriate does not mean that doing so would always be a good idea.

I saw no one in this thread who has suggested that intervening with lethal force would always be a good idea. Indeed, we have flogged that deceased equine mightily, with all the salient points having already been made.

The only thing we can say "always" about is that not always is it until the outcome of a lethal force incident is determined can we say whether or not an individual's intervention was a good idea.

 

[Kleanbore]

Here is a good legal analysis of another recent incident.

 

[Beck]

What does "true virtue certainly" mean?

All of us are upset by violence. But that "someone in peril" may be a rapist, a murderer, a carjacker, a kidnapper, or an arsonist being apprehended by law enforcement, and intervention would not be a good thing.

Looks like you misread a word in my reply. I said Certainly with an "L" not certainty. No worries... it could happen to anybody.

Let's try again...

"Virtue Signaling" implies insincerity (on the part of the signaler), while true virtue certainly does not." (imply insincerity).

I could have worded it differently, like so; "Virtue Signaling" by definition is not genuine. It is not sincere.

Anyway, I was differentiating between "Virtue Signaling" and a genuine sense and expression of virtue, for example, someone who is trying to set a good example in the role of mentor. Or simply using a bit of hyperbole to drive home a strong sense of right and wrong that they honestly feel.

On the other hand there are a lot of vets that have come back from war who are very conflicted, having a hard time living with themselves for things they did, or things they failed to do. I know a few of them.

This is indeed an important topic, especially in these times we live. Who are the bad guys? How do we tell who is who? Even a uniform and a badge is no sure indication.

Police officers have been dealing with this since at least Columbine. When you come on a scene you have to sort it out. In most cases police officers sort it out quickly. In the case of Robb Elementary School in Uvalde Texas the police sorted it out by waiting until 21 innocent people were dead. That's one way to do it... it's not the right way.

Take another example, Eli Dicken, the 22-year-old civilian hero of the greenwood mall shooting in Indiana. He could have grabbed his girlfriend and ran. Something inside his heart told him that wouldn't be right. So with no SWAT training, much less police training of any kind, the young man intuitively and expertly took down the shooter with his handgun, potentially saving many lives.




So what is the lesson here? I say more knowledge, more training for police and civilians.

Others may say run away and mind your own business. That has been expressed in this thread. I've seen victim blaming in this thread as well. I find some of these attitudes to be exceedingly troubling.