Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
No, it is NOT irrelevant. Not if the woman you perceived as a "victim" is going to turn on you and file charges against you or sue you rather than thank you for saving her.
|
If you reasonably diagnose the beating being administered as posing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the woman, you are lawfully authorized to use deadly force to stop the forcible felony, regardless of the relationship between felon and victim. If your diagnosis was correct, the woman's body will be replete with forensic evidence in support of your action. If the beating is less serious, you are lawfully authorized to use nondeadly force to stop the assault or to effect a citizen's arrest of the assailant.
When I got my CPL and first carry pistol in 2012, I decided to take a class. It had been a while since I had done serious shooting, and I wanted the relevant law explained. The instructors skipped the law other than to pass on nonsense about Bellvue, WA prohibiting carry with a round chambered (municipalities are prohibited from enacting their own firearms laws). They emphasized it was only appropriate (i.e., wise) to use a firearm to defend yourself or a loved one.
I can understand the legal and financial wisdom of not using force to defend another who is not related, but I believe such choice is immoral if one has the ability to stop the crime. It is sad that in our "progressive" society one can't be shocked if a Soros-bought prosecutor bends the law to bring you up on charges for doing the right thing, but sitting back and allowing someone to die and the felonious assailant to get away would be, I'm thinking, very hard to do.