Would you "Rumble?"

[John292]

In nearly all the incidents I’ve seen on TV—and keep in mind we are only shown one perspective—they are lone attackers appearing to be pedestrians, and likely mentally deranged.
Onlookers appear to be nonplussed though some appear to give attention the victim after the perp leaves.
As far as having a chance for success

1. The perp is focused on beating the victim, not on bystanders and would have to stop his attack before putting up any defense
2. The Good Samaritan in this scenario would have the luxury of landing the first punch/move/whatever

If the Good Samaritan waits until after the perp commits mayhem, then any advantage goes away and the playing field levels out, perhaps even a chance for the Good Samaritan’s survival.

As far as the Good Samaritan’s chance for success in a civil or criminal trail the event will be well documented by cell phone cameras proving the response being commensurate with the brutality of the mayhem the perp is inflicting.

[Blacky]

This getting deep what about ( DUTY TO RESCUE ) Not all states have it. Yours
Might.

[Shamrock]

In the lone wolf perpetrator scenario, where the perp is clearly in the wrong, I am very likely to take action. To make sure I was in the legal right I would probably give up my tactical advantage by telling the perp to stop and either reason with them or shame them before I would take physical action. Unless the perp was using a weapon and creating a clear and imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to the victim. Then I would all my available tools and skills to end the situation ASAP.

I am not a brawler. Haven’t “brawled”since junior high. I am also not physically intimidating by most anyone’s measure. The only physical defense moves I know and have slightly practiced are designed to stop a serious threat as quickly as possible and will likely cause physical harm to the perp. Violence is always a last resort for me.

[Blacky]

What if the person being assaulted in public was your wife and, somebody didn’t help protect her. These people being assaulted also have lives that matter. So in essence you are protecting your wife or family. When you go home to protect your loved ones and they are in the hospital because no one would help them -
: WHATS WRONG WITH THAT PICTURE : this is a general statement not directed to a specific person.

[Shamrock]

I pity the fool who tries to mess with my wife;)
And I’m only half joking there.

But as I said above. I prefer to use my head instead of my fists or other tools unless I have no other option. My first instinct would be to say something like hey I just called the cops. I most likely won’t know what is going on or why and I don’t want to be judge, jury and executioner. So calling the cops may be the best option. But I won’t just walk by the scene of an obvious innocent being harmed. I will do what my skills, opportunities and best judgements allow.

[Blacky]

I understand that old and decrapid or disabled people are limited but I’m singling
Out the people that could but do nothing.

[KillJoy]

If someone tried anything on my wife or kids just note that I was in the Atmy. Prison is easy by comparison. My job is to keep them safe. I might as well die if I fail to protect them. I view family like mafia view theirs. Just don’t do illegal things. Quickest way to make me a criminal is to physically harm my family. My life doesn’t matter.

[John292]

Is forcing an brutal attacker off a helpless victim illegal? Is it illegal anywhere?

[Hasaf]

I agree entirely. Sometime in the past, I seem to recall the USCCA doing an, “ask one of our attorneys,” video. This would be an interesting thing to bring up for a topic.

Ethics aside, (what a terrible way to start a paragraph) I don’t think intervening can be done in a legal manner.

I do see this on the Map that you linked to:

Defense of Person
A person is justified in the use of force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against the imminent use of unlawful force.

A person is justified in the use of deadly force if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.

However, I would be interested in seeing the qualification/Definition of an Eligible/Applicable third person. One should keep in mind that my formal LEO training was in California, and it was almost forty years ago. As such, I am definitely not the last word on the subject.

This raises another question for USCCA

On that map that you linked to, I realize it would be a lot of work, would it be possible to include the applicable penal code numbers so that people can have a better starting point for research?

I do see this (for the state I currently reside in):

[Kansas] 21-5222. Use of force in defense of a person. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3211]
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it
appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to
defend such person or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in
subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to
prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.
(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to
protect such person or a third person.
History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3211; L. 2006, ch. 194, § 3; L. 2010, ch. 124, § 4; L. 2010, ch.
136, § 21; L. 2011, ch. 30, § 7, July 1.

. . . however, I would still like to see how case law has defined a “third person” in this context. After, as is oft’ siad, ‘The devil is in the details,’ (except here it is in the case law).

Again, a good “Ask an Attorney” topic.

[Blacky]

@MikeBKY could you get in on this topic. Give us some direction.

[MikeBKY]

Under Kentucky law, KRS 503.070 allows the use of force for the protection of another:

(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when:
(a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person; and
(b) Under the circumstances as the defendant believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would himself have been justified under KRS 503.050 and 503.060 in using such protection.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when:
(a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person against imminent death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055; and
(b) Under the circumstances as they actually exist, the person whom he seeks to protect would himself have been justified under KRS 503.050 and 503.060 in using such protection.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

The big difference is you can use physical force to defend another person if you believe the use of force is necessary under the circumstances as you believe them to be. If you are going to use deadly force, your belief better be correct.

[Blacky]

Thanks Mike.

[John292]

The reality presented is a defenseless human being viciously attacked by someone younger and larger and stronger.
Not arrested.
Not restrained.
Attacked.
The reality is also one of fractured facial bones

[John292]

“The big difference is you can use physical force to defend another person if you believe the use of force is necessary under the circumstances as you believe them to be. If you are going to use deadly force, your belief better be correct.”

This makes sense. The issue I see is if the miscreant then turns his attack towards the Good Samaritan who is then fearful for his/her own life (say the dude’s on meth) then how would the court then look at the use of deadly force coming into play?
Also, what if the Good Samaritan is able to throw the attacker off the victim, and the attacker hits his/her head on something and is crippled or dies as the result?

[MikeBKY]

Some may remember the fake robbery that happened in Nashville in February. Self-defense laws could protect man who killed prankster during fake robbery
In Kentucky, if the person who shot the fake robber was a bystander and not in the group being approached by the knife wielding attacker, deadly force would not have justified under Kentucky law because, “under the circumstances as they actually exist,” there was no threat.

[Ouade5]

Counter: What if you did nothing, and a mother lost her child to some random crazy person?
Kind of a lose-lose scenario, depending on how the details shake out. But by the time you know the details, it’s too late.

[KillJoy]

@Enzo_T
And that’s how kids end up dead. I’d do everything in my power to stop an abduction if it’s unclear who is who. Wait for the police to figure it out. I’ve been abducted by my father with my brothers when I was little. He ended up returning us peacefully. Mom used to hold us hostage against dad. It’ was messed up. It messed us up. So waiting for legal authorities is best. Let the courts do their thing.

[Ouade5]

@Enzo_T

What if you instead crank up your iPhone and video the guy taking the kid,

Sorry, we’re at a gas station, and the sign clearly says “No Cellphones.”

j/k. I’m only reiterating that the correct answer isn’t always clear, which- I believe- is your point as well. Add to that the stress of watching a child abduction in progress, and the average person’s facilities for deductive reasoning are likely to be compromised.

Fair warning, though, if any of you are ever in a situation that relies on my ability to whip out a cell phone and take a video, you’re screwed.

[BeanCounter]

@John292

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.

This thread has evolved from the two situations mentioned by the OP.

Months preceding the Fauci Scam, I received Amber Alert notifications of at least three cases of custodial battle between two parents where one resorted to kidnapping.
Police eventually found all three kids and arrested the suspects.
With limited information, it’s hard to tell which one is the offending parent. I don’t want to assume that only dads are capable of such acts (believe all women, right).
Pulling a gun in this situation may prove costly.
I would heed the advice of my CCW instructor, “observe and report.”

[John292]

My post wasn’t about pulling a gun, but fighting off an attacker.
Obviously this is escalation and if the attacker were predisposed, he could fight back escalating the situation even further and causing fear for your life( in which case you’d need your weapon.)

If you weren’t carrying, would you still fight?
I’d hope that I would.
These guys did

The purpose is to stop the (unarmed?) perp from committing further mayhem and maybe incapacitate until the police show up.
FWIW because of the effects of gas on the elderly it wouldn’t be prudent to use Mace (see? I learned something from the latest Concealed Carry Magazine!).