Would you "Rumble?"

I’ve been seeing videos of elderly Asians on public sidewalks or in a subway car getting attacked by a young male.
I just saw a video of an officer in San Francisco getting beaten up by a much larger homeless man, and a lady riding on a bus whose hair was set on fire by some hooligan.
Other people in these videos appear to do nothing about it.

What would you have done if you witnessed such a crime?
Maybe not brandish, but at least beat enough crap out of the hooligan to slow 'em down for the police to get there?


Of course. Anyone should have a mindset of protecting the community. An armed society is a polite society. Also, evil should be stopped.


Slice em and dice em if you ain’t strong enough. I think this BS about “brandishing” has gone way too far. If a youn man is publicly beating any vulnerable person you should be allowed to pull a gun as long as you’re willing to use it to protect the victim, even if it’s the persons wife, child, parent, etc.


People intervened in the case of the female SF police officer.

I would’ve done the same.


Yes I would rumble. I have a protective instinct. This old boy can still move
[ ONE TIME ] :us::us::us:


I can’t help thinking that if a perp was the least bit concerned that observant citizens would take great pleasure in knocking the snot out of such a miscreant, they’d think twice about assaulting someone.

i can understand how the shock of seeing these things would freeze someone long enough to process the situation, but cold cocking an attacker while still in the act would punctuate the statement, would it not?
OTOH you could draw down on the perp, but the perp being unarmed, how does that play out? He could simply walk away somewhere to change his shorts—your life isn’t in danger unless he pulls a weapon.


I’m surprised “Yellowstone “ isn’t happening no great numbers in some cities.


I would and I have.


I cannot sit idly and watch the innocent be brutalized. It’s one thing if someone stirs up trouble and gets his or her butt kicked. It’s quite another if someone who is minding their own business becomes a target for thugs. I cannot abide by the latter.


The people are the same ones that won’t help even in a horrible auto crash. Had a lot of windshield time because of my job. In every crash where some one needed
First aid no one helped but I always did. One of the best examples was : a boy got hit buy a buss, the boy was squirming in pain, people stood around the boy and watched doing nothing to help and not even calling for help. I got on the ground with the boy and tried to immobilize him from further damage and talked to him to keep him calm. I had to yell at the goddam buss driver to call for EMS. Unfortunately I was on site with other horrible auto accidents and nobody else ever helped. So ya there are people out there that will never help in any situation.


And even worse, they’ll hold up their phones and film it in hopes of getting the next viral video. There’s a new circle of Hell for these people. Too bad Dante is not around to document it.


I’ve forgotten the term, but there’s been discussion of a growing social phenomenon of bystander syndrome, where people stand by and watch but are unwilling to engage. I remember a story years ago about a man who had a seizure and fell into a public fountain. Several people called 911 or took video, but no one stepped in to help and the man died.

I can’t help but think how bad it must be to be one of these random victims getting beaten on the street, to notice that there’s an audience of people taking video, but no one willing to help. What an awful realization, that you can be a random target in a crowded public arena, and not one righteous person will come to your aid. I would rather die alone than to have an audience.


Here is the problem, the law says that you can only act to defend family and those with whom you have a close personal relationship.

I came across this at an attorneys website;

Can Deadly Force be Used if Defense of Others?

Using deadly force to defend others is justifiable as long as the defendant reasonably believed that the force was necessary in that situation. If the circumstances were of a simple assault then using deadly force would not be justified. So, depending on the circumstances using deadly force may or may not be justifiable. In other cases using deadly force is acceptable.

For the law of defense of others, following conditions must be met though not without limitations

  • There should be some relationships between the defendant and the person he was defending,
  • The defendant was not the one who provoked the fight or started the attack,
  • The respondent’s knowledge will be used as the basis of the decision. For instance, if it later comes out that the aggressor was actually a serial killer, but the defendant was not aware at the time, then the new knowledge would not be used as a defense.
  • If the defendant were in the process of committing crime at the time of the incident, then the defense would not apply if force was used to aid another person to resist arrest

Here is the section of law I was looking for. . .

[197.](javascript:submitCodesValues(‘197.’,‘4.7.1’,‘2016’,‘50’,‘67’, ‘id_48f263f3-c635-11e6-a742-84f150336b2e’))

Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:

(1) When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person.

(2) When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein.

(3) When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a spouse, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he or she was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed.

(4) When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

I realize it is not clearly stated, frankly, this remind me of how long ago it was since I was at the academy, or in a sworn position. I suspect I am looking at the wrong section. However, while INAL, if you can not show a prior relationship with the person you are defending, you have a very weak defense.

Again, INAL, however If you attempt to help another, don’t start with Gun. That said, it it turns into a situation of the defense of your person, then you are on more stable ground.

**###### Added ###### **
This is a place where I would like to hear from some of the USCCA Attorneys


Trick is watch your back and, don’t count on anybody.


The only reason I defer to a firearm for self-defense now is due to my 70% physical disability composite VA disability, the raw percentages adding up to 110%. I would never use self-defense unless lives were truly on the line. I even choose not to defend unless it’s my family or me if life and death are at steak. Thanks for your response.

1 Like

That depends on the local laws, which can vary by state and even by city sometimes. Please check your state laws:

Also, be sure to discuss any questions you have with local law enforcement or self-defense attorneys as they will know how the laws in your area are likely to be interpreted for a variety of situations.


Another big issue is knowing who is the good guy in these situations. To bring in a sports analogy, it seems that more often than not the ref throws the flag at the guy responding to another’s foul instead of the guy who committed the first foul and deserved the response.

There are also cases where one person is beating the crap out of another and when someone intervenes they both go after the person trying to help or tell the cops it was all the good samaritan’s fault.

Having said that, if I saw a clearly innocent person being seriously harmed or even just harassed I would do what I could to intervene in a reasonably safe and legal manor. My first responsibility is to get home to my family at the end of the day so I can protect them from the bad guys.


Good Samaritan Laws :thinking:

1 Like

OK, I’ll play the devil’s advocate—How does one go home to one’s family at the end of the day and explain to one’s children, or spouse, that you witnessed and elderly Asian lady, or perhaps a Hassidic Jew, get sucker punched and sustain injuries and you didn’t to anything to stop the attack?


That would depend entirely on the situation for me. Is it one guy doing it? Does he have ten friends cheering him on? Is the woman’s life in real danger? I am definitely going to do everything I can think of to stop the situation. And I’m definitely going to make sure the perpetrators are reported to the police. But my family is screwed if I can’t keep supporting them.

I’m sure in the old lady scenario I would err on the side of getting my butt kicked but I’m not going to intentionally throw my life and families future away for a stranger without a reasonable chance to succeed.

1 Like