# the defense of strangers



## Packard (Aug 24, 2010)

I started a similar thread in another handgun forum and the results were both interesting and contentious.

A member of that forum mentioned in a thread that he would certainly feel free to use his handgun in defense of his wife or daughter. The implication that I drew from that is that everyone else was on their own.
*
Situation (revised from my original posting):*

A man grabs a woman's arm at the elbow. She shrugs off his grip. He pulls a knife and says, "I'm going to kill you, bitch."

*Question:*

You don't know either the man or the woman. You are legally armed with a concealed weapon. Do you come to the defense of the woman?

Does your position change if the victim is a child? Or if it is a grown man?


----------



## berettabone (Jan 23, 2012)

As soon as you see the knife, all bets with him are off..................my weapon comes out, it's up to him what happens next.


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell (Jul 1, 2011)

of course i would "use" my weapon to help a stranger. it is one of the reasons that i decided to carry, it was a conscious decision, one that took me down the same thought path that you bring up here. the bad guy threatening to kill and then making an overt action, either with a weapon or other physical contact makes it an assault at the very least. to use your own weapon doesnt mean that you MUST pull the trigger even if you are ready and willing. 

some things to think about, are there laws protecting good samaritans in the state your are in at the time of the incident? most ccw permits allow"for the defense of yourself and others" but are you in a "stand your ground" state, if so would walking into a situation like this violate the law....

just things i would ponder as i was preparing to start some bad guys very bad day....


----------



## chessail77 (Mar 15, 2011)

A threat to kill and the appearance of the knife would energize a response from me.......JJ


----------



## Packard (Aug 24, 2010)

I agree with you guys. At the other forum I was in the minority (with a few others) on that point. There were a lot of "if it is not kin, I'm not in" and a lot of quoting of Ayoob on how much trouble you can get in when you draw your weapon. For me, the only question is, "Is this the right thing to do?" If it is the right thing to do for your wife, daughter, mother, brother or father, then it is the right thing to do for an innocent stranger.

There was a lot of fear going on in the other forum. I appreciate fear. It is a useful emotion. It warns me of danger. But fear is only information for me to use in making decisions, it does not make decisions for me.

I would have thought that the overwhelming response would be to come to the aid of the stranger. I think there is an unwritten law that the strong are obligated to protect the weak. With great strength comes great responsibilities. And carrying a gun gives us great strength and great obligations.

At any rate that is my operating thinking on this subject.


----------



## papahawk (Jun 12, 2012)

I agree with Berreta on this one


----------



## Haas (Jun 24, 2009)

I'm not sure, to be honest. I was taught to do the same thing you would do if you didn't have a gun on you. That is, call 911 as immediately as you can. I bought a gun for personal protection, not to save the world. 
People miss, all the time. If you drew your gun in that scenario, and had to use it, what if you hit a bystander, or the victim instead of the knife wielding guy?
Too many things could go wrong.


----------



## lamrith (Apr 23, 2012)

I am with the majority (@ the time of this posting) and I would take action. It is the way I was raised, as mentioned the strong protect the weak. If I were to step back call 911 and watch someone get killed, stabbed or kidnapped and did nothing I would regret it for life. I would be so ashamed I would not be able to live with myself or look family or friends in the eye.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Having seen the knife and heard the threat, I believe that my very first response would be verbal, letting him know that there is a witness to his actions.
At the same time, I would unobtrusively grasp my pistol in a firing grip, in preparation for presentation, and I would probably "blade" my body to cover that action.

If he deëscalates and puts the knife away, I would contact a police agency while maintaining observation.

If he threatens me, or starts to harm her, he would start having his bad day.


----------



## lamrith (Apr 23, 2012)

One critical part in my decision making that I forgot to mention would be that I saw the initial contact and exchange between the parties involved. Or at least was aware of my surroundings enough to know that the woman was not the initiator of the confrontation. Women are not the defenseles creatures many tend to assume they are. Many of the recent home invasoins here in WA are perpetrated with Women either invoved directly, or running interference/recon on targets.

If you were to walk up in the middle of this confrontation without seeing the start of it, you have no way to know if the woman tried to rob the man and he pulled out his knife in self defense. Maybe he was trying to detain her until authorities arrived? His choice of phrase makes him sound the agressor, but you never know. (jacked up during a confrontation, so people say the damndest things) 

This is supported by a recent shooting in spokane where the perp was on the ground after being shot screaming to the world that the shooter (A CCW holder) was trying to kill him. Meanwhile a 3rd party ccw holder (that would be you or me) responds to the shooting to find one guy on the ground screaming with another pointing a gun at him. Turned out the perp (who got shot) was trying to sell the guy back his stolen goods and jack him for more $. Perp made a move and the shooter holder thought he was reaching for a gun and beat the perp to the draw.

The OP lays this out pretty clearly to be the man is the agressor and that you see the whole encounter, but food for thought to not rush to conclusions in these sorts of situations if you do not see it from the start...


----------



## berettabone (Jan 23, 2012)

The way you stated the "situation", it wouldn't matter whether the woman was trying to jack him up, sell him back stolen goods, whatever....all you said was, "Man grabs woman at the elbow, she shrugs off his grip. He pulls a knife and says " I'm going to kill you bitch"....It wouldn't really matter what the situation was, or if you were there to see the whole thing or not....any of the above would not be sufficient reason for him to kill her, hence, I would have the exact same reaction.


Packard said:


> I started a similar thread in another handgun forum and the results were both interesting and contentious.
> 
> A member of that forum mentioned in a thread that he would certainly feel free to use his handgun in defense of his wife or daughter. The implication that I drew from that is that everyone else was on their own.
> *
> ...


----------



## rex (Jan 27, 2012)

That scenario is a forceable felony,which in many places is a reason you can use your weapon to defend yourself or others.If a situation happens that I would have to use force or a weapon to save someone from harm,I would feel obliged to do so.


----------



## berettabone (Jan 23, 2012)

I think that one of the worst possible scenarios would be, if you were not there from the beginning, and they both had knives......................


----------



## wjh2657 (Jun 18, 2008)

Packard said:


> I agree with you guys. At the other forum I was in the minority (with a few others) on that point. There were a lot of "if it is not kin, I'm not in" and a lot of quoting of Ayoob on how much trouble you can get in when you draw your weapon. For me, the only question is, "Is this the right thing to do?" If it is the right thing to do for your wife, daughter, mother, brother or father, then it is the right thing to do for an _innocent stranger_.
> 
> There was a lot of fear going on in the other forum. I appreciate fear. It is a useful emotion. It warns me of danger. But fear is only information for me to use in making decisions, it does not make decisions for me.
> 
> ...


If by unwritten law you mean a moral obligation, all such obligations are trumped in court by man-made laws. It has been decided in numerous Supreme Court decisions, going back into the 1930s, that nobody not even LEOs, have an obligation to protect an Individual. I would feel morally obligated to defend another, but I am also well aware that the legal system is not going to back me up. If by stranger, you mean somebody who is willing to testify in court that they felt threatened and would have been willing to take the same action that you did if they could, then fine. If they testify however that they did not believe their life was truly in danger or that for some religious or moral reason they would not have used deadly force to protect themselves, you are in deep peril of lawsuits and serious jail time. You just went from Superhero "Defender of the Weak" to Scumbag "Mad Dog Killer" in one statement. The test in all courts of the justification for deadly force to protect a stranger is whether the stranger would have done the same to defend themselves (case law). No, I am not going to quote precedences, I am not an attorney attorney at trial, GOOGLE case law and see for yourselves. If the "victim" says nothing it will normally be assumed that they would have done the prudent thing and defended themselves. Problem is, they are a _stranger_ and you don't know what they would think or do. In the case of the child or elderly person I would feel morally obligated to act, but otherwise I would have to call it on a case-by-case basis (i.e. victim screaming "He's trying to kill me" definitely calls for 5 COM).


----------



## usmcj (Sep 23, 2011)

My crystal ball is broke, but under the circumstances outlined in the OP, I'd act. Indiana has a pretty decent view on the subject....

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]:
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) *is justified in using deadly force;* and
(2) *does not have a duty to retreat;*
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.


----------



## Haas (Jun 24, 2009)

Man, I gotta say, I understand the "want" to act so you possibly save an innocent life, but it's pretty scary how quickly some are willing to pull out a gun in public where innocent bystanders may be, and start shooting at a perpetrator. No matter how well a state may treat a situation like this, I think WJH2657 spelled it out pretty well, that you could pretty well screw up the rest of your life, and your freedom.
Look at George Zimmerman down in FLA. He wasn't even protecting another, he was protecting himself, in a state that actually has a "stand your ground" law. He claims he was getting his head smashed against the sidewalk, and even has the wounds to prove it, yet he still is on trial, and just might get locked up. And even if he doesn't, he pissed off a large portion of the black community, and will forever have to watch his back for someone taking revenge. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.


----------



## usmcj (Sep 23, 2011)

In Indiana, the "castle doctrine" does NOT authorize, or condone pursuit.


----------



## Dragonheart (Jan 30, 2012)

My gut response is, "Oh yeah, I would be in his face", but with old age sometime comes wisdom and there are just too many unknowns to give a definite answer. Would I stand by and watch someone brutally murdered that I believed to be an innocent party when I had a chance to stop it, I think not.


----------



## Haas (Jun 24, 2009)

Dragonheart said:


> My gut response is, "Oh yeah, I would be in his face", but with old age sometime comes wisdom and there are just too many unknowns to give a definite answer. Would I stand by and watch someone brutally murdered that I believed to be an innocent party when I had a chance to stop it, I think not.


Exactly. If this guy were to start slicing and dicing, I'd put a bullet in him, but until then, it's up the police to decide if shots should be fired.


----------



## Pando (Jul 24, 2012)

Sorry but when someone puts a knife to you and its a dude vs a female its going to lead to rape. Which is worse than murder in 99% of the cases. So instead of having her go through all that why not just have fun and remove that guy. And get a date at the same time!


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Um, yeah...
But the "date" you'll have will be with the arraignment process of the Superior Court.

Although there's no really good reason for anybody to pull a knife on another person who is not armed, there could be extenuating circumstances of which you are not aware.
You need to find out the "why," before you start blowing someone away.

Oh, and, by the way, "removing" someone is not "fun."
Your words bespeak an amazing lack of maturity and responsibility.


----------



## Pando (Jul 24, 2012)

People are different, thinking we are all the same and think the same is ignorant. Why are people in iraq murdering in videos over 50 people for no reason that are completely defenseless. Don't think its immature, learn to understand others.


----------



## Holly (Oct 15, 2011)

Well, I finally decided to read this thread and give my answer.

In *most* situations, I think I would have to do some quick assessments and weigh my options before acting/reacting and defending a stranger. I honestly don't know what I would do.

I will say that I am entirely certain that in any case involving a child, I would defend the child... Always. I would put my life on the line for a child. Any child. Any situation.


----------



## lamrith (Apr 23, 2012)

Pando said:


> People are different, thinking we are all the same and think the same is ignorant. Why are people in iraq murdering in videos over 50 people for no reason that are completely defenseless. Don't think its immature, learn to understand others.


This is not Iraq, this is the US. Iraq is a warzone, not even close to the same universe as being similar to here, and has little bearing on killing being fun. 
Thinking differently is one thing (look at people in this thread act vs dont act) but being flippant about taking a life shows you have no respect for it to begin with. It sounds borderline psychotic and that is not something people want to hear from someone carrying a firearm.


----------



## zhurdan (Mar 21, 2008)

Having been in a very similar position to the OP's scenario, I can tell you that it's not a place anyone should want to be in. Almost any domestic violence incident will result in the woman turning on you when the cops get there. The responding officers to the incident I was involved in (no shots fired, but gun drawn) told in his words "You're one lucky son-of-a-bitch. Your story checked out with hers and brother, that NEVER happens!"

Distance and a verbal challenge while dialing 911 is what they'll get from me until blood starts to flow. (side note, know how to use your phones emergency dial feature if it has one). 

My life was almost irreversibly changed that day and I learned a lot from it. It's not brave or macho and you won't be a "hero". You'll be broke if your lucky and locked up forever if your not so lucky.


----------



## Tuefelhunden (Nov 20, 2006)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Having seen the knife and heard the threat, I believe that my very first response would be verbal, letting him know that there is a witness to his actions.
> At the same time, I would unobtrusively grasp my pistol in a firing grip, in preparation for presentation, and I would probably "blade" my body to cover that action.
> 
> If he deëscalates and puts the knife away, I would contact a police agency while maintaining observation.
> ...


Yes this!


----------



## wjh2657 (Jun 18, 2008)

usmcj said:


> My crystal ball is broke, but under the circumstances outlined in the OP, I'd act. Indiana has a pretty decent view on the subject....
> 
> Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
> 
> ...


Legal jeopardy pertains only to action against the Aggressor (BG) and in no way gives you the right to shoot anybody else. Bystanders hit puts you right back in court. The catch words in this law are "reasonable means necessary". None of the state laws covering deadly force give a clear and unquestionable option to use deadly force to protect another. There is no "License to Kill" here, so if you "007" it, you still have to face a jury if anybody presses charges or sues you. This principle is about to be put to the test in Florida with the Zimmerman trial.


----------



## usmcj (Sep 23, 2011)

wjh2657 said:


> Legal jeopardy pertains only to action against the Aggressor (BG) and in no way gives you the right to shoot anybody else.


 Maybe not in TN.


> The catch words in this law are "reasonable means necessary". None of the state laws covering deadly force give a clear and unquestionable option to use deadly force to protect another. This principle is about to be put to the test in Florida with the Zimmerman trial.


No sir, the catch words are "* justified in using deadly force"* and *"if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony"*.

Right after the Zimmerman incident, there was a fair-sized meeting with the largest gun club in the State, (on whose board I sit) and several prosecutors, law enforcement folks, and and judges. The consensus of that meeting was....



> _ Indiana Law does NOT allow for pursuit. You cannot be in fear of your life or *serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony"*, if you are chasing the alleged perp._


----------



## SMann (Dec 11, 2008)

What Steve said.


----------



## wjh2657 (Jun 18, 2008)

"Maybe not in TN."

Which state allows you to shoot bystanders?


----------



## Haas (Jun 24, 2009)

> Indiana Law does NOT allow for pursuit. You cannot be in fear of your life or serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony", if you are chasing the alleged perp.


This makes sense to me, however, with Zimmerman, his gun was never pulled out until the chasing was over, and there was physical confrontation.


----------



## Maximo (May 26, 2006)

I live in a state where it is lawful to come to the aid of a third party. Should you are not is a personal decision that each person has to answer for themselves. I think I would find it hard to stand aside and watch a fellow human being's life taken because I was afraid of a court battle.


----------



## usmcj (Sep 23, 2011)

wjh2657 said:


> "Maybe not in TN."
> 
> Which state allows you to shoot bystanders?


My response was to this part of your statement.....



> Legal jeopardy pertains only to action against the Aggressor (BG)





> No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.


 remember?


----------



## wjh2657 (Jun 18, 2008)

Read it again. The point is that legal immunity only covers your actions against the aggressor. If any other people are hurt, you are not covered by that immunity. My point still stands and I ask the question again in response to your assertion that the Tennessee law is alone in this matter, which states allow the legal shooting of bystanders?

It isn't just the court action at question. It is the very law itself. If you are not totally legal in your shoot, you are a lawbreaker, better known in everyday language as a criminal. Your actions will always be judged by law not by morals. You may feel good by your actions but society has put you in the same class as the BG and will do its best to get rid of you. We who carry by virtue of a permit/license are governed by the laws of the issuing agency, not by the Bill of Rights or any religious or moral code. I don't like it any better than you do but it is a fact. IMHO, States that do not require paper to carry would be more open to a Bill of Rights or moral interpretation.


----------



## usmcj (Sep 23, 2011)

One more time.... my response was NEVER intended to say that shooting a bystander would be justified... in any State... all better now?


----------



## lamrith (Apr 23, 2012)

wjh2657 said:


> Read it again. The point is that legal immunity only covers your actions against the aggressor. If any other people are hurt, you are not covered by that immunity. My point still stands and I ask the question again in response to your assertion that the Tennessee law is alone in this matter, which states allow the legal shooting of bystanders?
> 
> It isn't just the court action at question. It is the very law itself. If you are not totally legal in your shoot, you are a lawbreaker, better known in everyday language as a criminal. Your actions will always be judged by law not by morals. You may feel good by your actions but society has put you in the same class as the BG and will do its best to get rid of you. We who carry by virtue of a permit/license are governed by the laws of the issuing agency, not by the Bill of Rights or any religious or moral code. I don't like it any better than you do but it is a fact. IMHO, States that do not require paper to carry would be more open to a Bill of Rights or moral interpretation.


Legalities aside it comes down to the local DA and if they are reasonable, and if the county you live in is pro or anti gun owner overall.

We just this week had a local public TV station do a panel and they brought in the local pro and anti gun folks as well as some Govt officials and local media. One was the DA of either the county or city. The Host ran the panel as a hypothecial situation, specifically a mass shooter. (This was all filmed a few weeks before Aurora, but after our Cafe Racer event)

Link to KCTS online video: Guns: Control, Safety, and Rights | KCTS 9 - Public Television Serving Seattle, Central Washington and British Columbia

Scenario: Big street fair, shooting errupts. Pro and Anti gun spokes man both take cover behind adjoining tables. (They do not know each other) The host takes the event in small stages, each big information add or situation change he asks different people thier reaction and questions. As the situation unfolds the pro gun CPL carrier fires and kills the badguy. Moments later the CPL carrier himself is shot by another CPL carrier thinking he was the original shooter. It is also later brought in that the original CPL holder that shot the badguy also hit a bystander.

The DA SPECIFICALLY SAID that she would not prosecute the original CPL holder or the second CPL holder that shot the 1st as they were both acting legally.


----------



## VietVet68 (Jan 10, 2010)

berettabone said:


> As soon as you see the knife, all bets with him are off..................my weapon comes out, it's up to him what happens next.


This would be my reaction also. It's justified because the BG can't be reasoned with but he can see my gun & if he makes another aggressive move he's toast. All the legalities in the world wouldn't stop me from preventing him from proceeding to kill some one. As Shakespeare said " First, let's k--- all the lawyers"


----------

