CCW - Protecting others if you are not being threatened

[BonnieB]

Folks,

I'm looking for a solution to a hypothetical situation, so now is not the time to pick nits or quibble about details. I'm bringing this up in the Women's Forum on purpose because I don't want to be overwhelmed with irrelevant remarks.

I'm in a rather heated discussion with a friend who is a long time CCW in another state. He is not a LEO, but was one years ago. He does have a hero type personality. He insists that his reason to carry "to protect myself and others" is legitimate in all cases. It's the "and others" part that I have trouble with. I remarked that maybe if he shot someone from CCW, when the threat was to someone else, not himself or a family member, that he might be outside the law and liable.

One scenario would be, he's in the Walmart parking lot, sees some woman being robbed. Clear situation, not a family dispute. Would he be in the right to intervene and possibly shoot the attacker?

My take is that I have no right or obligation to shoot an apparent attacker who is threatening someone else (a stranger, certainly excepting family and personal companions) if I myself am not being threatened.

I'm personally not a hero, not LEO, not obligated to serve and protect. I'd be dialing 911 from the safety of my car.

In Sacramento County people usually say their reason to carry is "to protect myself and my family" and nothing else. So maybe this is a County issue?

Maybe Librarian will hop in with appropriate links. I dug around in the CCW Forum for a while and didn't find any reference to this in a finite amount of time. While no one here can give a legal opinion, maybe someone can point me to the proper code link.

[lewdogg21]

One scenario would be, he's in the Walmart parking lot, sees some woman being robbed. Clear situation, not a family dispute. Would he be in the right to intervene and possibly shoot the attacker?

me to the proper code link.

In my CCW class this type of "and others" was discussed. We were told that we could intervene and IIRC it was for instances of imminent great harm, death, or forcible rape. My instructor did say to be VERY cautious with domestic disputes because it's very possible that the receiver of abuse (typically a woman but not always for the sake of discussion) would recant and claim you were the aggressor and she was never being threatened by her spouse.

I'm not going to spell out all of the Instances but it probably included kidnapping as well. This is what we were told, not my opinion on what it should be so I think this is the type of post you are looking for.

[Montu]

You can legally defend a stranger from what appears to be a life threatening situation. Should you? That's on you.

[Librarian]

As with do many hypotheticals, the facts control, and it may take a jury to decide.

Davy Crockett is supposed to have said, "First be sure you're right, then go ahead". It's that being sure part that is critical.

[Gun Kraft]

My take is that I have no right or obligation to shoot an apparent attacker who is threatening someone else (a stranger, certainly excepting family and personal companions) if I myself am not being threatened.

In California (and likely many other states) you are justified in using deadly force to stop an imminent threat to your life or the life of others. No where does it limit "others" to family members. Try googling "california justifiable homicide". You are correct in saying there is no obligation, but the law does permit it.

[Albs]

PC 197

CHAPTER 1. Homicide [187 - 199] ( Chapter 1 enacted 1872. )

197.
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; or,
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; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, 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 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; or,
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.
(Amended by Stats. 1963, Ch. 372.)

[9mmepiphany]

You seem to be blending two thoughts and therefore your request for a clear answer is a bit confusing.

he might be outside the law and liable.

He would not be outside the law, but he would be (civilly) liable. Bearing in mind that you are always civilly liable when involved in a shooting.

My take is that I have no right or obligation to shoot an apparent attacker who is threatening someone else (a stranger, certainly excepting family and personal companions) if I myself am not being threatened.

While you do have a legal right, if all other legal conditions exist, your obligation to act is a matter of personal ethics and morals.

One scenario would be, he's in the Walmart parking lot, sees some woman being robbed. Clear situation, not a family dispute. Would he be in the right to intervene and possibly shoot the attacker?

Having been in this situation, I can tell you that this is far from clear. That is why it is almost always premature to judge use of force situations on face value.

I can easily argue that same set of observable circumstances from either the Justified or Not Justified side of the argument

[ElDub1950]

"Permissible Use of Lethal Force in Defense of Life and Body The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and (c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime

This is from CA - no idea what Washington says but probably similar.

IMHO the whole situation hinges on the "...provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe..." You just have to hope you're correct in what those 'reasonable people' might think. It's irrelevant who you are attempting to protect.

Here's the full doc. I don't find one after 2013

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf?

[movie zombie]

if the life of the person being robbed is at risk then i'd proceed.
but be very very very careful to make sure that that person's life is at risk: weapon? physically attacked? screaming for help?
what will a jury decide a reasonable person should have done?
call 911?

[BonnieB]

Thanks folks, all good stuff.

The consensus seems to be that a person who is carrying is allowed legally to defend another person, but you better be damned sure that you're right, and that even if you are allowed legally, you could be sued and lose a bundle.

As in the situation where porcupines make love, approach with extreme caution...

Thanks to all for their input.

[A-J]

Thanks folks, all good stuff.

The consensus seems to be that a person who is carrying is allowed legally to defend another person, but you better be damned sure that you're right, and that even if you are allowed legally, you could be sued and lose a bundle.

As in the situation where porcupines make love, approach with extreme caution...

Thanks to all for their input.

This is the part that the anti-gunners don't get. The part where we *think* before jumping in. I've intervened (non-CCW) in the past in domestic disputes that were "clear" in that the guy had already knocked the woman to the ground. In the first instance, I knocked him don then she got up and knocked me upside the head with a purse full of what I assume were bricks. The second time was almost the same, except I had learned from the first time (not enough apparently) and was ready for it.

[9mmepiphany]

I've intervened (non-CCW) in the past in domestic disputes that were "clear" in that the guy had already knocked the woman to the ground. In the first instance, I knocked him don then she got up and knocked me upside the head with a purse full of what I assume were bricks. The second time was almost the same, except I had learned from the first time (not enough apparently) and was ready for it.

Yup, those are losers to get involved in...and I did it professionally for years.

The only situations that are really "clear" are ones of sexual assault on a child.

I've seen cases where a Good Samaritan jumped in to "rescue" an adult rape victim, only to end up being beaten by both parties

[faris1984]

I may only help if many lives in danger if I have the right time.

[jeremiah12]

When I took my CCW class, we were warned about intervening in situations where we did not know the complete story. If you did not see how it started then you do not know what is really going on and you can make a huge mistake and end up shooting the good guy and aiding the bad guy. If that happens, you could face criminal liability. The first rule is to keep yourself safe and out of harm's way. Second, be a good witness.

If you decide to intervene, you are assuming a legal risk so you have to be absolutely sure the actions you are taking are appropriate. The example of a woman being robbed in a parking lot needs more clarification. Is there a weapon being used? What is the weapon? What is the level of force?

If the robber is just grabbing and running, and the woman is in no physical danger, shooting the robber is out of the question, lethal force generally cannot be used to protect property. If the robber is beating her, how can you shoot without hitting her? It will require a physical attack not an armed attack to stop it. Drawing a weapon might get him to realize he needs to stop and leave, but you cannot shoot him if he runs off because he is no long a threat to anyone.

Now, often yelling at the BG to stop it and that 911 has been called and to get others to move towards the BG often will get him to stop and take off. It depends on the attacker.

Take care though if you decide to get involved and you are alone. It is becoming more common, at least in the area I live in, for the BGs to work in groups. One or two will commit the crime while one or more will hang back to provide support if it is needed. So one or two people come to the aid of the victim and all of a sudden a few more bad guys show up and they definitely will be armed and often you will first realize of their presence when they shoot.

So if you intervene, keep your situational awareness and keep looking behind you.

[grantar2]

Perhaps real, perhaps illustrative, still worth noting. Bill Murphy has a similar type of decision story regarding an under cover cop and very pretty drug dealer.

The Answers You NEED To Conquer The Dangers We Face...

The other day our call center received a call from a USCCA member, and his story is too important for me not to share…

You see, he and his wife were doing a little shopping and were walking to their car in the parking lot when they couldn't help but notice a scuffle happening inside a nearby car…

He looked over to see a man and a woman in the middle of a heated struggle, yelling at one another…

Immediately he got his wife to safety and posted himself in a safe position…

With one hand on his weapon and the other on his cell phone he began to assess the threat…

He quickly realized he didn't have enough information...

...but thinking back to his training with the USCCA, what he did know, was that he and his wife were not in immediate danger…

So he did not draw his weapon.

Instead, he dialed 911 and became the best witness he could be, while maintaining a safe distance…

It was then that the woman began driving away, violently dragging the man alongside her car…

The man eventually let go and the woman drove off…

The USCCA member, who was a former combat medic, headed toward the man to make sure he was okay…

Bad guy or not, this man was clearly in need of medical attention...

Well, that's when the man got the surprise of his life…

You see, the man arguing with the woman was an off-duty police officer…

...who was trying to stop the woman who had just robbed the store of $1,000...
(Okay, I don't know about you, but at this point in the story I had some serious goosebumps…)

The police arrived on the scene and took the USCCA member's statement…

The police were not only impressed with the details he was able to give as an eyewitness…

...but the presence of mind he demonstrated...

Knowing when to draw your weapon and when NOT to draw your weapon is a big deal...
Can you imagine if the USCCA member had jumped to conclusions and pulled the trigger on the man stopping the robbery...?

The member later called in to thank the USCCA for all the training he had received from us this past year...

And said without it, he may not've been able to think so clearly during such a high-stress situation…

...and may have made a decision that would have haunted him for the rest of his life...

Well, I'd like to take a moment now to thank HIM, not only for his kind words but for using good concealed carry diligence and being one more responsibly armed citizen in America…

He gives us all a good name...