# Armed bystander in Florida stops attack on pregnant woman



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

*Armed bystander in Florida stops attack on pregnant woman*



> An armed bystander intervened to stop a brutal attack on a pregnant woman at a Publix parking lot in Florida.
> 
> The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office said 27-year-old Cole Joseph Danisment became angry with the mother of his unborn child and began brutally beating her in a Publix parking lot Saturday, punching her in the face several times during the attack, according to a report from WFLA.











Armed bystander in Florida stops attack on pregnant woman


A Florida pregnant woman was being brutally assaulted in a Publix parking lot when an armed bystander stopped the attack by pulling out his pistol on the attacker.




www.foxnews.com


----------



## Javbike (Oct 21, 2021)

What a lowlife piece of 💩


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

Main charge should be attempted murder of the baby


----------



## lz33w7 (3 mo ago)

So in that situation..there is no doubt I’d be fully engaged and probably go into “defense mode” as I hope all of us would….

Question - in that piece of scum didn’t stop…would we have the right to use deadly force or at least harm the perp to get him to stop?

I am being serious here as I genuinely want to learn. Regardless I’m charging the _______r _______r, anything I can do to assist.

Sorry if we aren’t allowed to discuss this here.

Kindly,
Stephen


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

Depending on the laws of the state you are in. Most states says, eminent threat of dead or severe bodily harm. the next part is a reasonable person. It is a call a person would have to make in that time and be willing to face the music afterwards.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

lz33w7 said:


> So in that situation..there is no doubt I’d be fully engaged and probably go into “defense mode” as I hope all of us would….
> 
> Question - in that piece of scum didn’t stop…would we have the right to use deadly force or at least harm the perp to get him to stop?
> 
> ...


Armed or not, I would show that loser a bit about fighting with a man. 
Pussies hit women. Men hit pussies harder.


----------



## lz33w7 (3 mo ago)

Goldwing said:


> Armed or not, I would show that loser a bit about fighting with a man.
> Pussies hit women. Men hit pussies harder.


*__* yes…absolutely.

Kindly,
Stephen


----------



## LostinTexas (Oct 1, 2018)

lz33w7 said:


> So in that situation..there is no doubt I’d be fully engaged and probably go into “defense mode” as I hope all of us would….
> 
> Question - in that piece of scum didn’t stop…would we have the right to use deadly force or at least harm the perp to get him to stop?
> 
> ...


According to the people here, many of the same that are praising this action, you should, would, need to be crucified, you antisocial lowlife scum. Check out some of the comments. All working off a short 5 paragraphs from Yahoo Nooz.
Yahoo
Folks here amaze me at times.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Never trust a guy with a tattoo of a butterfly on him.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

lz33w7 said:


> So in that situation..there is no doubt I’d be fully engaged and probably go into “defense mode” as I hope all of us would….
> 
> Question - in that piece of scum didn’t stop…would we have the right to use deadly force or at least harm the perp to get him to stop?
> 
> ...


Shooting him would be highly questionable, unless you were able to defend your reasoning as to why you felt it was necessary. 

More likely, one would have to physically intervene to stop the assault of the female. By doing that, you are not only taking a risk yourself, but might make the suspect more likely to escalate to the use of a weapon. As in pulling a knife or even a firearm. 

Not an easy equation to figure out. Chances are though, once someone is facing the threat of being shot, that is deterrent enough to stop whatever they are doing. Not always, but most likely. 

Some states have a "Good Samaritan Law" that legally shields an individual in case they come to the rescue of another in harm or jeopardy.


----------



## lz33w7 (3 mo ago)

paratrooper said:


> Shooting him would be highly questionable, unless you were able to defend your reasoning as to why you felt it was necessary.
> 
> More likely, one would have to physically intervene to stop the assault of the female. By doing that, you are not only taking a risk yourself, but might make the suspect more likely to escalate to the use of a weapon. As in pulling a knife or even a firearm.
> 
> ...


I would not shoot him….I’d call the police…but if he is beating on a women, I’m going to intervene.

Kindly,
Stephen


----------



## lz33w7 (3 mo ago)

LostinTexas said:


> According to the people here, many of the same that are praising this action, you should, would, need to be crucified, you antisocial lowlife scum. Check out some of the comments. All working off a short 5 paragraphs from Yahoo Nooz.
> Yahoo
> Folks here amaze me at times.


Can you help me understand your comment better?

Kindly,
Stephen


----------



## crc4 (2 mo ago)

What this discussion and almost all discussions of shootings from someone legally carrying a firearm lead to these facts.

Many people carry guns legally.

Fewer people have a license to carry permit.

Damn few that carry guns have the slightest idea of what the law says about self-defense, have ever given a cursory examination as to what constitutes actionable self-defense, and, should they use their gun, what to say to police after the shooting, how to present themselves to police, and what's going to legally happen to them afterward.

That's scary.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

You left out the ones with the John Wayne complex. A good boot to the head should stop the person depending on if drugs are involved. The last thing you should want to do is to use deadly force


----------



## crc4 (2 mo ago)

Too many people believe:
1. Drag 'em in the house so as to make it legal.
2. Ain't no jury gonna convict me.
3. I'll keep a throwaway gun with me just in case.
4. The lawyer who did my will is good enough for me.
5. Let 'em sue. I'll beat it in court (with the lawyer who did my will).
6. I ain't gonna talk to the police until my attorney arrives.
7. Everybody will see my shooting was justified.
8. My home insurance will cover me.
9. I'm ain't going to waste my time learning about legalities.

And on it goes.


----------



## Fredward (Dec 10, 2016)

crc4 said:


> What this discussion and almost all discussions of shootings from someone legally carrying a firearm lead to these facts.
> 
> Many people carry guns legally.
> 
> ...


I doubt your statement. Concealed carry permit holders in KY are required to take a course on the use of deadly force. When the laws change, they are notified of the changes. Of course, a permit is no longer required, but working in a gun store, the vast majority of my customers have one.


----------



## hike1272.mail (Nov 19, 2021)

lz33w7 said:


> So in that situation..there is no doubt I’d be fully engaged and probably go into “defense mode” as I hope all of us would….
> Question - in that piece of scum didn’t stop…would we have the right to use deadly force or at least harm the perp to get him to stop?
> I am being serious here as I genuinely want to learn. Regardless I’m charging the _______r _______r, anything I can do to assist.
> Sorry if we aren’t allowed to discuss this here.
> ...


If the "good Samaritan" had accurately assessed the situation, he would have acted legally in Tennessee.
The issue raised in the HCL course is that, not seeing the beginning of the incident, the "victim" may actually be the aggressor and the "aggressor" may actually be defending themselves.
The Fox article said that the "good Samaritan" pulled out his firearms and this action, alone, caused the perpetrator to stop his attack on his significant other. The perpetrator confessed to the LEOs which probably puts the "good Samaritan" in the clear. The victim is most likely grateful for the actions of the "good Samaritan".
If the "good Samaritan" had misread the situation, he would be facing "brandishing" charges in Tennessee.

There is NO legal obligation to intervene in this type of situation. It is dangerous to do so.
It is your choice ONLY. Seek the advice of an attorney with experience in defending shooting incident cases. 
Asking questions is good but don't base your life and/or freedom from detainment and incarceration on advice garnered from HandgunForum.net -- that is not the purpose of any forum.

Regardless, The Liberal diatribe against "good guys with guns stop crime" as a myth is shown to be untrue. Good guys with guns can and do stop crime. 
The Liberal diatribe, and found on pro-gun forums, that having a gun does not reduce crime is also shown to be untrue. The "good Samaritan" only drew and aimed his gun and the perpetrator stopped his attack.


----------



## hike1272.mail (Nov 19, 2021)

crc4 said:


> Too many people believe:
> 1. Drag 'em in the house so as to make it legal.
> 2. Ain't no jury gonna convict me.
> 3. I'll keep a throwaway gun with me just in case.
> ...


A Memphis Homicide Inspector told me that "If you shoot an attacker and his is partly outside your house, drag him inside your home."
Whether his advice is valid or a setup, I don't know but he gave that advice to two people and his card.
The point is that #1 may or may not be a point but in Memphis at that time, the LEOs gave that advice.


----------



## crc4 (2 mo ago)

hike1272.mail said:


> A Memphis Homicide Inspector told me that "If you shoot an attacker and his is partly outside your house, drag him inside your home."
> Whether his advice is valid or a setup, I don't know but he gave that advice to two people and his card.
> The point is that #1 may or may not be a point but in Memphis at that time, the LEOs gave that advice.


Most Police officers aren't reliable sources of self-defense laws for civilians anymore than they are qualified to give you recommendations for your personal firearms. That homicide Inspector has given terrible advice. Forensics can easily show where the subject was and where he was moved to. Now, instead of a claim of justifiable self-defense you've opened yourself up for tampering with evidence and will make your claim of self-defense very suspect. A prosecutor would tear you a new one in court. Now you look guilty.

Don't do stupid stuff. Moving a body after a justified self-defense shooting is stupid stuff.

See point number 9 above.


----------



## crc4 (2 mo ago)

Fredward said:


> I doubt your statement. Concealed carry permit holders in KY are required to take a course on the use of deadly force. When the laws change, they are notified of the changes. Of course, a permit is no longer required, but working in a gun store, the vast majority of my customers have one.


The vast majority of those carrying guns may not come to your gun shop. Those that usually frequent gun shops are perhaps more likely to have their permit, but the vast majority of those carrying do not.

Plus, an eight-hour permit course cannot cover all one should know about self-defense laws and affirmative defense situations. Most lawyers are rarely given more than a cursory at best education in law schools. Most lawyers are not qualified to put on an affirmative defense as they are lacking in that specialized knowledge. Criminal lawyers are used to defending guilty people and know how to do that. They fail at representing innocent people in self-defense cases where an affirmative defense is required.

Self-defense laws are far more complicated than 99% of gun owners realize.


----------



## mur.cap (7 mo ago)

paratrooper said:


> Shooting him would be highly questionable, unless you were able to defend your reasoning as to why you felt it was necessary.
> 
> More likely, one would have to physically intervene to stop the assault of the female. By doing that, you are not only taking a risk yourself, but might make the suspect more likely to escalate to the use of a weapon. As in pulling a knife or even a firearm.
> 
> ...


T


crc4 said:


> The vast majority of those carrying guns may not come to your gun shop. Those that usually frequent gun shops are perhaps more likely to have their permit, but the vast majority of those carrying do not.
> 
> Plus, an eight-hour permit course cannot cover all one should know about self-defense laws and affirmative defense situations. Most lawyers are rarely given more than a cursory at best education in law schools. Most lawyers are not qualified to put on an affirmative defense as they are lacking in that specialized knowledge. Criminal lawyers are used to defending guilty people and know how to do that. They fail at representing innocent people in self-defense cases where an affirmative defense is required.
> 
> Self-defense laws are far more complicated than 99% of gun owners realize.


Whichever state you are referring to would have a law of justification. They all boil-down to being justified to prevent deadly physical force or SPI = serious physical injury.
Seems that's been explained here. You have a woman aka a "person" and an unborn child, for all intent and purposes a "person," unless you're a Democrat and don't
define an entity carried by a pregnant woman as a "child"...yet. So how many people do you require in the Peanut Gallery to articulate the reasonable use of deadly
physical force? If you want to wax philosophically, women are protected because they repopulate humanity and therefore you also have a crime here against humanity.
They don't teach that in an eight hour course either.


----------



## crc4 (2 mo ago)

mur.cap said:


> T
> 
> Whichever state you are referring to would have a law of justification. They all boil-down to being justified to prevent deadly physical force or SPI = serious physical injury.
> Seems that's been explained here. You have a woman aka a "person" and an unborn child, for all intent and purposes a "person," unless you're a Democrat and don't
> ...


Whether or not you were justified isn't the consideration. Even if you were it's the DA who decides whether to prosecute. Kyle Rittenhouse was justified. That didn't stop a DA from prosecuting him. Imagine the expense it took to get him found not guilty, not to mention all the personal suffering the poor guy went through.

All I'm saying is your better have your ducks in a row. Depending on 'the law' to exonerate you isn't going to stop prosecution. Commit an error after the shooting in what you say and how you behave makes a big difference.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

crc4 said:


> Whether or not you were justified isn't the consideration. Even if you were it's the DA who decides whether to prosecute. Kyle Rittenhouse was justified. That didn't stop a DA from prosecuting him. Imagine the expense it took to get him found not guilty, not to mention all the personal suffering the poor guy went through.
> 
> All I'm saying is your better have your ducks in a row. Depending on 'the law' to exonerate you isn't going to stop prosecution. Commit an error after the shooting in what you say and how you behave makes a big difference.


----------



## mur.cap (7 mo ago)

crc4 said:


> Whether or not you were justified isn't the consideration. Even if you were it's the DA who decides whether to prosecute. Kyle Rittenhouse was justified. That didn't stop a DA from prosecuting him. Imagine the expense it took to get him found not guilty, not to mention all the personal suffering the poor guy went through.
> 
> All I'm saying is your better have your ducks in a row. Depending on 'the law' to exonerate you isn't going to stop prosecution. Commit an error after the shooting in what you say and how you behave makes a big difference.


Get yourself a decent liability coverage source and re-read your State's Law of Justification so you can explain to the PD why you did use DPF if it was required.
Skip the politics or skip the "carry." We all know the concerns of the 2A.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

What I stated before When Law Enforcement shows up say this, " I was in fear of life, I stopped the traeat, I want to speak to a lawyer." then shut up. Have a cooling off period before making a statement thar will be used against you. You may spend the night but better than a prison sentence.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

tony pasley said:


> What I stated before When Law Enforcement shows up say this, " I was in fear of life, I stopped the traeat, I want to speak to a lawyer." then shut up. Have a cooling off period before making a statement thar will be used against you. You may spend the night but better than a prison sentence.











Don't talk to the police


I think I posted this years ago. This is a great video to rewatch every few years - to remind yourself... Everyone with a carry permit should watch this video (I used to have it as a sticky on the Texas Gun Forum that I used to run):




www.handgunforum.net


----------



## mur.cap (7 mo ago)

tony pasley said:


> What I stated before When Law Enforcement shows up say this, " I was in fear of life, I stopped the traeat, I want to speak to a lawyer." then shut up. Have a cooling off period before making a statement thar will be used against you. You may spend the night but better than a prison sentence.


Also point out any evidence, or witnesses and say you are willing to make a complaint on being a victim of an attack or anticipated deadly assault as happened.


----------



## crc4 (2 mo ago)

Massad Ayoob - 5 Points Checklist after A SD Shooting 

This is the best explanation I know of what to do and why.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

crc4 said:


> Massad Ayoob - 5 Points Checklist after A SD Shooting
> 
> This is the best explanation I know of what to do and why.



He (Massad Ayoob) seems to have fallen out of favor on the 1911 Addicts forum 








Massad Ayoob: The necessity of high capacity magazines.


He makes some very good points, recently near me 4 bad guys with long guns held up a convenient store and put everyone (staff, customers) on the ground and robbed them. Thankfully no one was injured. 0:00 - How important is capacity? 2:00 - Multiple, Skilled Invaders 3:45 - Bad Guys on Drugs...




www.1911addicts.com


----------



## crc4 (2 mo ago)

Shipwreck said:


> He (Massad Ayoob) seems to have fallen out of favor on the 1911 Addicts forum
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not surprised about those that hold the1911 as a religious icon. Many of the old guys who shot 1911s for decades are giving it up in favor of high-capacity 9mm. That's not popular with some of the addicts.

I was the opposite. I held onto my .38 special revolvers as 'good enough' for a decade until I learned more about why I was wrong in my thoughts.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

crc4 said:


> I'm not surprised about those that hold the1911 as a religious icon. Many of the old guys who shot 1911s for decades are giving it up in favor of high-capacity 9mm. That's not popular with some of the addicts.
> 
> I was the opposite. I held onto my .38 special revolvers as 'good enough' for a decade until I learned more about why I was wrong in my thoughts.


No, their point is his latest video and the absurdity of it.


----------



## crc4 (2 mo ago)

Shipwreck said:


> No, their point is his latest video and the absurdity of it.


I've watched it before and found nothing absurd about it. Just watched it again and still find nothing absurd. It's good information.

Not sure why others find it absurd.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

crc4 said:


> I've watched it before and found nothing absurd about it. Just watched it again and still find nothing absurd. It's good information.
> 
> Not sure why others find it absurd.


Well, I didn't watch the video - just read the comments on that thread.


----------



## crc4 (2 mo ago)

It's worth watching. See what you think.


----------



## LostinTexas (Oct 1, 2018)

lz33w7 said:


> Can you help me understand your comment better?
> 
> Kindly,
> Stephen


Same situation, different day. One guy was shoplifting, the other was beating a pregnant woman. . Neither Samaritan probably knew of the shoplifting or pregnant, 19 weeks probably isn't showing, but no matter.
Both BG's were found beating a person. Both Samaritans stepped in. One escalated to shoot, don't know why or if the correct thing to do, but the article doesn't give a clue. The other for better than worse didn't escalate to a trigger being pulled.
One a hero here, the other a dastardly irresponsible villain. Are they really? 
Had the articles not told of the shoplifting or pregnant, would people feel the same? What if the "shoplifter" would have been a strong arm robbery suspect? What if the lady was just a lady? Would anyone feel the same about the outcomes? I'm going with yes.
One a tragic turn of events, or was it really, the other, probably a tragedy averted. One BG cooperated, the other didn't? We just don't know with the information provided.
Lots of judgy people without the needed info. I thought better of this group.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

Armchair quarterbacking doesn't really mean a lot since we were not there at the time things took place. Stories writen or videos shown after only tell or show part of what was going on.


----------

