Man shoots another man who is attacking a woman

[DaleA]

A sample size of one (which this is) proves nothing. It's just yet another example of what can happen. In this case a man at a gas station shot another man who was stabbing a woman.

1. The shooter did not know the man attacking the woman or the woman.
2. No one died although both the woman and the attacking man, who was shot, were severely injured.
3. The police let the shooter go home after the shooting and, so far, he has not been charged with anything.
4. The police said the shooter was very cooperative with them.

Again, this 'proves' nothing.

What should you and I do? DOTS! (Depends On The Situation).

I'm just putting this out as something that has actually happened and am not claiming this should be a blueprint or an example or anything else except food for thought. Of course things could have turned out differently but this is how they did turn out---well at least for now.

Here's the link to the article:
https://www.newsweek.com/quiktrip-sh...police-1674291

P.S. I really like the DOTS acronym but it is not original.

[Mike38]

If the shooter witnessed the entire scenario unfold, from beginning to end, I can understand his defense of the woman. If he walked into it half way through, well, that makes it a tough call.

[mehavey]

From the Newsweek report cited by the OP....

> The man—who police did not identify—saw a
> man stabbing a woman and chasing her into
> the Waco QuikTrip,

That's a tough call ?

[OldMarksman]

hat's a tough call ?

Not if it is evident that she did b=not start it.

[mehavey]

So if 'she started it' (whatever that means), one lets the knife attack continue?

Note that simply saying "I don't want get involved" is not a serious option unless you are prepared to watch the woman die. *
Note also that saying "we should call the police" is not a serious option either... unless you are prepared to watch the woman die.

Serious questions to the readers.
(In this situation)... with a 'Zero & One" alternative.




** ever seen the aftermath of someone gutted in a knife attack?

[L. Boscoe]

a lot depends on what city/state you are in. In Berkley CA the shooter would probably be arrested. In most parts of Texas, he wins a medal.

[OldMarksman]

So if 'she started it' (whatever that means), one lets the knife attack continue?

If she had been the initial aggressor, she could not lawfully employ deadly force to defend herself, and therefore, a third party would not be justified in using deadly force to defend her.

That's a basic element of use of force law, and people who carry firearms should know that.

[mehavey]

I'm sorry, that's flat wrong.
So your view is that her only recourse is but to die...
and those about her to allow it to happen?
Please elaborate as to options otherwise.


An aside... ever been in a knife fight?

[eastbank]

not in a knife attack, but saw one happening about half a block away and it was a bloody mess. two black men were in it over a women, no one died, but both needed trandfusions pretty quick to survive.

[BobCat45]

Not a shooting, but this case in London, UK is analogous. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-60154444

Guy was stabbing his ex to death. Other guy saw it going down and used his car to run over the stabbing guy. Cops took him off to jail and he is asking to be "de-arrested" because he was only trying to help.

It would be interesting to see how this plays out, but once it is not "new" it is not news.

[ghbucky]

I have made the decision to carry in order to defend myself and my family. Not anyone else.

One of the things I took away from my CCDW class was that if I am defending myself or direct family, MY perception of the events is what matters.

But, if I involve myself in an altercation, my perception of the events no longer matters. Now it is only what that actual facts are. So if I gun down what turns out to be a plain clothes cop attempting to subdue a woman I am going to be tried for murdering a cop.

No, I've never seen a knife fight to answer the question that keeps being asked (no idea why), and it makes no difference if I have or not.

What matters is this: Am I willing to risk my family's loss of my presence and my income for the rest of my life over something I know nothing about? My answer to that question is 'No'.

If it unfold in front of me? I'll settle for praying I'm never put in that situation.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by ghbucky

If it unfold in front of me? I'll settle for praying I'm never put in that situation.

Life doesn’t work on hopes and prayers.

You said you wouldn’t intervene to protect another. Why then would it matter if it unfolded right in front of you? It seemed you’d already made your choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ghbucky]

Life doesn’t work on hopes and prayers.

I beg to differ.

[mehavey]

Am I willing to risk my family's loss of my presence and my income for the rest of
my life over something I know nothing about? My answer to that question is 'No'.

And so you watch the woman gutted....

As to "However, a third party may not defend another unless he reasonably believes that
the other person was without fault in provoking the attack" (VA Statute)... Somehow I do
not believe a woman slapping a man, who then proceeds to slice her up w/ a knife,
is covered under that prohibition.

But then one must sleep w/ the flashback visions of one's decisions . . .


.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by ghbucky

I beg to differ.

If that’s your mentality, why carry a firearm in the first place? Surely your prayers will keep attackers away.

My point here is being unwilling or unable to consider a possibility, no matter how distasteful it might be, is a serious limitation. I have seen it negatively impact people personally both in their life decisions and in force on force situations. If preserving your life and the life of your family members is your ultimate goal, then you have to accept you may end up watching someone get murdered in front of your eyes. Is it likely? I don’t think so, but it’s certainly possible. I want to add I’m not saying you’re in the wrong for that mentality, but you should be able to accept the implications of that decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MarkCO]

That is a tough one.

My "sitting at my computer thinking about it" answer would be to get cover, dial 911 and use verbal commands towards the knife wielder...if I perceived a person was about to be killed and was not trying to also kill the knife wielder. Turning the attention of someone intent on murder onto oneself is a hard call and I won't ever attempt to make that choice for anyone except myself.

I do fundamentally agree with this:

Am I willing to risk my family's loss of my presence and my income for the rest of my life over something I know nothing about? My answer to that question is 'No'.

[OldMarksman]

I'm sorry, that's flat wrong.

What is your basis for that opinion?

Any assumption that the lady is the "good guy" would likely be based on facts not in evidence. Suppose a small woman with a knife were chasing and stabbing a large man?

In some jurisdictions, a third-party defense can be justified if the actor had had a basis for reasonably believing that the other person would have been lawfully justified in defending themself. "The way things seem" would not suffice.

In other states, only the facts matter, regardless of what the actor may have believed at the time

It is extremely important for armed citizens to avail themselves of the training and education to know these things.

So your view is that her only recourse is but to die...and those about her to allow it to happen? Please elaborate as to options otherwise.

I'm afraid that is not up to me. Lawmen will not pat me on the back if I enter into a conflict unlawfully. My objective is to avoid life imprisonment.

[101combatvet]

Originally Posted by ghbucky

I beg to differ.

[MarkCO]

I'm afraid that is not up to me. Lawmen will not pat me on the back if I enter into a conflict unlawfully. My objective is to avoid life imprisonment.

^Like^

We need a like button.

[101combatvet]

Originally Posted by DaleA

A sample size of one (which this is) proves nothing. It's just yet another example of what can happen. In this case a man at a gas station shot another man who was stabbing a woman.

1. The shooter did not know the man attacking the woman or the woman.
2. No one died although both the woman and the attacking man, who was shot, were severely injured.
3. The police let the shooter go home after the shooting and, so far, he has not been charged with anything.
4. The police said the shooter was very cooperative with them.

Again, this 'proves' nothing.

What should you and I do? DOTS! (Depends On The Situation).

I'm just putting this out as something that has actually happened and am not claiming this should be a blueprint or an example or anything else except food for thought. Of course things could have turned out differently but this is how they did turn out---well at least for now.

Here's the link to the article:
https://www.newsweek.com/quiktrip-sh...police-1674291

P.S. I really like the DOTS acronym but it is not original.

Was the woman good looking?

[mehavey]

if the actor had had a basis for reasonably believing that the other
person would have been lawfully justified in defending themself.

I already quoted that (or the like) right out of the VA statute:

Looking at what was reported...
Unarmed woman, with man actively stabbing her, and pursuing her in to store.

As before, the onlooker who had the means to stop it -- but deliberately chose not to -- lives with the visons at 2AM.

You call . . . .

[TunnelRat]

The instruction I have received is based on the premise that use of deadly force is legally permissible when defending myself or a third person from the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

The question of intervening to protect a stranger has come up on this forum a number of times. Beyond the legal implications (which as pointed out can vary by locality) often the question of a moral imperative is brought up. I’ve seen firsthand in force in force scenario based training where someone’s desire to help ends up causing more casualties than may have occurred otherwise. This is often coupled by many thinking that the presentation of a firearm will yield compliance (for instance, in this story I command the knife wielder at gun point and that will cause him to stop). If you spend some time watching body cam or dash cam footage of law enforcement officers it becomes readily apparent that this is untrue, and it’s untrue of people with generally more authority in our legal system than a private citizen (that is if a person won’t listen to a police officer, I question if they will listen to some random person). People seem to assume rational behavior in people committing a criminal act (i.e. stopping an attack when a gun is point at you), but criminal acts are performed by people who are often not in a rational state of mind (temporarily or regularly).

I can’t tell another person what he or she should do, similar to MarkCO. I can share a small anecdote. An instructor I have taken courses with a number of times shared a story of how he witnessed an altercation between a man and a woman outside of a store while he was with his daughter. This instructor had been a police officer for many years. Being with his daughter and his primary concern being her safety, he called in what he saw and stayed to be a good witness. As the event unfolded (no one was killed) his daughter asked him point blank, “Daddy you have a gun, why don’t you stop him?” That’s an uncomfortable question for any parent when you may end up losing some of the hero image children often have of their parents. But this is reality. That’s why I made the comment earlier. These are questions we really owe it to ourselves to ponder. What are or aren’t you willing to do when carrying a firearm? What is our personal line, not just what is legally permissible but what can we live with? Now obviously each situation is different, but I think it’s better to consider these situations ahead of time rather than wrestle with the moral dilemma during the event and in our inaction potentially lead to more harm to someone else or ourselves.

In those force on force scenarios I mentioned where others were being hurt, a number of people chose to simply run. They weren’t necessarily wrong to do so, and when the people in the class that had chosen to intervene and in the process killed other actors in the scenario watched this on video, they were generally dumbfounded. It had never occurred to them to consider that possibility. At the same time in some of those scenarios, one where a receptionist at a doctor’s office was beaten by a jealous ex, many could see the exit but felt obligated to do something rather than watch a woman be beaten. There were consequences for getting involved, however, and personal risk.

For myself I can imagine a situation where I would personally get involved if legally justified and morally compelled. I’d add getting involved doesn’t always have to involve force. Being a good witness and rendering aid if safe to do so are all ways a person can choose to get involved (and they also carry risk).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mehavey]

TunnelRat: Thank you for the reasoned response.

[OldMarksman]

I already quoted that (or the like) right out of the VA statute:

Looking at what was reported...
Unarmed woman, with man actively stabbing her, and pursuing her in to store.

The ebb and flow of an ongoing physical altercation would not provide a basis for s reasonable belief about whether one participant or the other might be justified in the use of deadly force for self defense.

One would have to witness the whole thing from the beginning, and have some idea of who the participants actually were.

As before, the onlooker who had the means to stop it -- but deliberately chose not to -- lives with the visons at 2AM.

Not in prison.

[MarkCO]

Originally Posted by mehavey

TunnelRat: Thank you for the reasoned response.

Yes, well done TunnelRat