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.

[Enzo_T]

And the biggest problem is you won’t know what you don’t know. You could be inserting yourself into a domestic altercation, a criminal act (drug deal gone bad), or worse yet projecting your prejudices and misconceptions into a situation and drawing false conclusions about who the true victim is. Easiest way to end up in jail is acting without having all the information. We live in the Matrix and there is no reality, only perception.

[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.

[Enzo_T]

Just s scenario to ponder…

You are at a gas station and there is a young woman pumping gas into her car with a young girl in the passenger seat, and you just heard the young girl call her mom.

All of a sudden a guy comes running into the scene, yanks the kid through the open open window and brusquely takes the screaming child and starts running with her while the woman looses her mind, starts screaming and physically going after the guy as he’s putting the child in his own car. Do you shoot to stop an obvious kidnapping?

If you said yes, who are you going to shoot? I’ll wait… Oh and the answer is not pull your gun to stop the attacker and wait for the police. That would be VERY illegal in many states.

So after action analysis, how well would it go for you if you acted based on the available information and preconceived notions, AND you then found out that the woman IS the child’s mother but she does NOT have legal custody because she has been deemed an unfit parent (drugs, abuse, use your imagination), and she was trying to abduct her own child and you just shot the father that was trying to get his kid away from the unfit, no-custodial parent who was trying to kidnap her?

If you have a really good attorney, you MIGHT get away with your blunder, but a father is still dead and you left a child without a viable parent. And as a side point, guess how much hay the media will make off this action as they attack every law abiding CCW holder for YOUR actions?

[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.

[Enzo_T]

@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.

A fellow instructor tells the story in his classes of how he came within fractions of a second of shooting what he believed was an armed robber (legal in our state) at a gun store he was shopping in. A young guy (typical urban attire) walked into the store, racked the slide of his Glock and walked up to the counter pointing the gun in the direction of the person behind the counter. As my friend was drawing his gun the young guy asks, “do you have any bullets for this gun?”.

Since the guy’s gun was empty the national headlines would be Pistol Instructor Shoots Unarmed Man. And we know most folks do not read past the headline…

[Enzo_T]

@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.

Counter to your counter: What if you instead crank up your iPhone and video the guy taking the kid, his car, the license plate and take note of his direction of travel when he leaves, immediately call 911 and make sure the police have ALL the pertinent information immediately to make sure they can do THEIR job as swiftly as possible?

If the guys is the father, there’s a win for him and the kid. If he’s a kidnapper he’ll have every LEO in the State looking for him within minutes. There is potential for a win for everyone, unless we act without important information.