RESCUING SOMEONE YOU LOVE

Before one acts they have to think about at least two things, probably more

1. Do I understand what is happening

2. And what are the consequences if I am wrong about what is happening.

In the case of a burning vehicle, building, etc it is pretty easy to know what is happening and even if you are wrong, does a fire extinguisher do all that much damage?

In the case of an injured person again pretty easy to know a person injured but can be difficult for average person to know type of injury. And very easy for untrained or semi trained person to make injury worse.

Now in case of someone who appears to be in trouble you face a real difficult situation. Could be uncover cop making arrest. person you believe is victim could be bad guy, could be domestic and both parties will turn on you. And if you harm someone a law suit is definitely possible and you could lose all your assets and maybe serve time. So if you intervene with a gun or any weapon or just physical force you better be sure what is going on and that it is worth it.

In this case the participants were sure what was going on. The rescue people knew all the parties, there was protective order, a kidnapping was witnessed. And it was worth the risk because this was family.

All these factors are generally not present. But yes, I would intervene with deadly force in a similar situation. But most situations are not so clear cut and justified. And it was in the South not NY, NJ or Mass.

I wouldnt call it taking the law in their own hands. But more of responding to a love ones aid! Best part of this story is she lives to see another day! Everyday we read of repeat offenders of domestic abuse. Seems the system is not working in some case’s! Im just glad rather it be her family or who ever… that they had that “Emergency responce tool”.!

I like Clint Smiths take on fire extinguishers. Spray ’em with the white stuff then hit ’em with the red part.
If you are the first responder and don’t know when help will arrive you’d better be doing something other than twiddling your thumbs.

“Discussion is invited…” That’s almost funny, Mas, you’ve never been one to shy away from discussion. Thanks for your always honest opinion and the chance to discuss.

I believe that the only way to survive today is to be ready to defend your family and yourself at all times

Mas and friends

” Taking the law into your own hands” is what happens when someone acts as judge, jury, and executioner.

Using deadly force as a last resort to defend a family member or an innocent third party, by using deadly force to STOP a felonious attack is “justifiable”. It is not “taking the law into your own hands”.

Such justifiable use of deadly force to protect others is a moral duty of civilized men, and where such actions are punished, society is no longer free- because men can no longer protect and preserve the lives and well-being of those nearest to them. If a man can no longer legally protect something, then he has no claim over it, and the state is the supreme arbiter of who lives and dies, who is defended and who is undefended.

That is a society degraded to the point it is no longer free.

When, for example, the English Crown Prosecution Service says a man must meekly submit and watch his wife be raped, rather than use deadly force to defend against such an outrage; that man is not free but merely a serf , dependent on the state for his very life.

Hooray for the Arceneaux family, they not only had the will to recover their kinswoman, but they were armed, and had the tools at the last desperate moment to rescue her from her would be murderer.

The State of Louisiana ought to give them a medal for public service.

Regards

GKT

What if it’s not a love one? Say your in a store and it’s being robbed. You or CC and able to stop it. What is the right thing to do? Be passive and let it happen or stop it with the minimal amount of force up to and including deadly force if need. What is the right answer to this??

Hello Mas,

I am responding for the first time. I believe your series on the Zimmerman/Martin case answered this question. Yes, ordinary citizens do have the right to enforce law when they witness a crime occurring. Yes, deadly force is justified when there is a reasonable fear of serious injury and death, not only to yourself, but to others as well. There are, however responsibilities that go along with those rights; you must be able to demonstrate that you saw a crime, or had reasonable fear of injury or death. You must be able to demonstrate that you used the minimum force necessary to alleviate the threat, or detain the person you saw commit the crime. In short, I do not believe a citizen enforcing the law under these conditions are “taking the law into their own hands”, I believe they are contributing to the security of the state in which they live, which is the reason given in the 2nd amendment for the protection of the right of the citizen to keep an bear arms. Thank you for your work in this area. I have gained a wealth of information from you, and still have much more to learn.

I think the difference is between:
1. I shot him because he kidnapped her, and needed to be punished.
2. I shot him because he was stabbing her, to save her life.

“Judge, jury, and and executioner”, This phrase has been around for as long as I remember. Have no idea who coined it, but it is prevalent in a lot of discourse when discussing any deadly force encounter. Normally in a manner to cast doubt on the one who survived.

Same with”taking the law into your own hands”.

Fact is anyone that takes action, whether defending themselves, love ones, or a stranger, is going to be second guessed by others. Same applies to giving aid and comfort to an injured person.

I’ve heard it said “every bullet that leaves the muzzle of your gun has a lawyers name on it”, and with that in mind, I believe Mas’s knowledge and advice is why most of the followers of his blog value what he shares.

It behooves everyone who carries a weapon for defense, not just self defense, should know all the statutes and case law involved in justifying you use of that weapon. I know of no state statutes on justifiable homicide that exclude civilians(may be wrong when dealing with some of the misguided states in the northeast) or differentiate between private citizens and law enforcement.

Same applies to helping an accident victim. My state passed “Good Samaritan” laws several years ago to protect folks from lawyers looking for a payday. Even so you should take advantage of any of the free first aid courses available. Not just so you can justify your intervention, but also that you be better prepared to render that aid.

I don’t see it is civilians enforcing the law when they witness a crime occurring. That has all kinds of unsavory connotations to me. However, when there’s no expectation that the authorities can provide timely aid (whether it is for first-aid, fire, or violent crime), those who CAN provide aid have the duty to do so. I think that’s why so many people in my area are gun owners – there’s no expectation that police can assist you reasonably quickly. Am I willing to wait an hour for the sheriff to show up if someone breaks into my house? Could I live with myself if I could have taken action, didn’t, and as a result someone died?

I do absolutely agree with Dennis that those who carry MUST be informed of the laws in their state regarding the use of deadly force. Washington State *does* distinguish between civilians and law enforcement, BUT it does grant civilians the rights to defend themselves in their home or workplace, as well as in public any time they use “reasonable means” when they or others are in “imminent danger” of being the victim of a violent crime.

Where the lawyers get involved is when they argue that you didn’t use reasonable means or that you weren’t in imminent danger.

In the article listed above, the family acted as I would. Not to enforce the laws but to protect their family from injury/death.

[Say you’re in a store and it’s being robbed. You or CC and able to stop it. What is the right thing to do?]

IMHO on the Master’s blog:

I’m preparing a class on that for my CHL association. Short answer: As long as you believe he is going to take the money and run, let him. A shootout in a crowded store is way to likely to end up with dead bystanders.

As soon as you believe he is likely to use deadly force, for instance if he orders everyone into the office to be tied up, shoot him and keep shooting until he’s no longer a threat. Not like TV; don’t warn/challenge him, shoot him in the back if you can, no rules that will place you and other innocents in jeopardy.

Money can be replaced. Shoot to save innocent life.

Mas?

From the article: “In June Bethany Arceneaux filed a protection order against Scott Thomas, after he locked her inside their home and made threats to harm her.”

The obvious reason to file a protection order, to deter the threatening person, obviously failed here. Some may dismiss them as useless.

But there’s another reason to seek an order, and in this case it sounds like it’s working. Count how many times the protection order was mentioned in the article. The order’s presence, the police records backing it up, and the fact the kidnapping grossly violated it all add public and legal credibility to the family’s side of the story.

Sometimes POs deter, sometimes they don’t. Either way, they can be worth the effort.

I expect there is a lot more to this story than has been told.

Is this a trick question?

If you have to “think” a great deal when your loved one or you are in a life threatening situation then either you aren’t in one or all is lost. If you can’t revert to your training you haven’t trained enough the correct way. What goes in comes out in your time of greatest need.

LarryArnold nailed it on both posts.

@Uncle Dave, I’m sure the back story to this would make interesting reading.
About the judge, jury, and executioner phrase — does anyone know the origin? We say it all the time and its very judgmental. As LarryAronold said, this was to save her life, not to take his.

I’ll keep the fire extinguisher analogy handy when discussing gun rights with folks.

As folks have noted, it is a big (fast) decision whether to intervene in what you think is happening, even if life appears at stake. I’ve read of people shooting undercover cops who they thought were perps but were actually on the the job. Sometimes you ust don’t know WTF is going on.

Family yes without the least hesitation. It is our duty to protect them and I will!

Intervening and shooting a stranger harming another stranger, I would revert back to my police experience and quickly access. I would not watch someone being brutally killed and stand there it is just not in me I am not wired that way but it has to be a critical incident that I needed to act.

Sounds like a lot of the commenters are MAG/40 graduates!

If you already have a Plan, you just need to perform the indicated response.

Mas changed my life, too.

Is it the role of someone skilled in first aid “to ward off death and save thr life of the innocent…”?

I always thought they they used their life saving abilities on anyone who was in need without determining their guilt or innocence beforehand.

Mas, If this had been My Wife, Son or Daughter and I new where they were being held no one would have stopped me from going to rescue them. As far as the Kidnapper when I got there the situation and his actions would be what I based my reaction on. If My family member was hurt and needed medical attention and if he let me take her or him then I would let the Police deal with the Kidnapper. If he would not let me take them or was hurting them I would have done exactly what was done in this situation. And if I had to answer to criminal act so be it my family member would be safe. When a person becomes that evil all reasoning goes out the window most of the time and the BG has to be stopped then and there. I hope I never have to be in a situation where I have to make these decisions but I am prepared if I do.

Tommy Sewall,

Don’t know either, but will throw out as a possibility it being coined to describe historic Texas judge Roy Bean. Known as the “Law west of the Pecos” he would regularly hang suspected criminals based on little evidence and without the benefit of a jury. These “trials” took place in his privately owned saloon.

Every family’s nightmare. Thankfully the family was ready when they needed to be.

My question: why did the family know where she was and LE didn’t?

Sean O’Toole, I hear ya. Where the protection of the innocent element comes in is, if the injured party is a clearly identifiable perpetrator who is still dangerous, our duty to protect innocent victims from him exceeds any duty we might have to treat his wounds until he ceases to present a danger. Doctrine of competing harms issues are considered, seen through the prism of the doctrine of the reasonable person.

Dennis,

I tried to find the origin of the phrase, “judge, jury and executioner,” but failed. Judge Roy Bean is a good candidate for the phrase. In a similar vein, I believe he said, referring to a bad guy caught in the act, something like, “We’ll give him a fair trial, and then we’ll hang him.”

As usual Mass, brilliantly said. I love how Mark Walters on Armed American Radio, refers to you as the Godfather of self defense. Nobody says it like you do and with such clarity. Thank you for all your years of service to the firearms community. Taking the MAG 40 class is a priority in 2014.

Mas,

Again, this story will start out——– Years ago, in west Texas, a hunter returning from a deer hunting trip, drove past the scene of a highway patrolman being murdered by the motorist he had stopped on the side of a lightly traveled highway.

The hunter stopped some 150 yards past the scene, stepped out of his pickup truck with his rifle and promptly sent the murderer to his final judgement.

The media apparently thought the hunters actions were unjustified because he himself fired from a position of relative safety and the murderer posed little threat to him.

The media tried in vain to force the Texas DPS to release the name, address, etc. of the good samaritan. The courts kept that information sealed, apparently fearing media persecution of the hunter.

The hunters actions did not save the life of the trooper, but his intervention took place while the act was still in progress.

Some months later the DPS presented the hunter a “Texas Ranger Commemorative” 1911 in appreciation of his actions in a private ceremony. Till this day no one except the hunter and those involved in the investigation know the name of this man.

Thought you might remember this incident and comment on it.

P.S.

Mas.
To refresh your memory, the murdered Texas DPS trooper was Sammy Long, and the incident took place Nov. 21,1976.

It is sick, that in this land of constitutionally protected freedom of the press, one has to go to one of the London newspapers to find out what is going on in America. Some of the London papers report on climate change science holes, Obama scandals, China, etc., that our “free press” won’t touch.

Regarding the rescue, that was what it was, a rescue. How is this any different than if the young woman had been lost in the swaps with gators moving in? Call the police and get all the help one can, and all the help means you too. If a wild animal is about to strike, shoot it. From the account the young woman’s life was safed by the labors of the family. But it goes against the narrative–a knife wielding creep shot, a black creep shot by a black good guy, civilians saving the victim while police look elsewhere (not their fault, just a roll if the dice), etc. And in this case only a gun would have saved her.

Dennis, I do remember that case. Texans who speak of it generally refer to him as “the hunter,” IIRC. Thanks for refreshing the memory!

“And if the law lies broken in front of you, should YOU not take it into your own hands to apply the equivalent of life-saving direct pressure or the agony-reducing traction with those very hands?”

Let’s hope that doesn’t exclude people wearing badges.
http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x568091070/Dad-who-died-during-arrest-begged-for-his-life-cops-take-witness-video

Before the term was demonized, ‘vigilantes’ (ie, vigilance committees) were organized to restore and maintain order in the absence of organized law-enforcement entities.
In fact, one could make the case that police agencies are a codification of vigilance committees.

Rescuing a family member that has been kidnapped by someone that means to maim or kill is not taking the law into ones own hands. They did the right thing. Because they had the information, knew the area, people, terrain etc they were able to respond much faster than the Police. I would guess that the people with information the family got simply would not or were afraid to talk to the police. More and more people just won’t work with the police in our society any more.

Now, if they went on and killed the perpetrators family, friends, known associates, that would be taking the law into their own hands.

The phrase that most sticks in my mind is:

I’d rather a judge punish me for my action than have an officer of the law explain to my family that I am dead because of my inaction.

This is further compounded for me if my inaction directly results in someone not returning home to their family. That is nothing more than shameful cowardice.

Most of the evil that happens on this planet happens because good people do nothing to stop it. It is our responsibility and duty to stop evil when we can. No one is perfect and mistakes do happen but when we become paralyzed with fear of unjust prosecution evil runs unchecked.

God bless the sheepdog.

Dennis, I remember the “hunter” incident. It was during my first year of college in Tyler, TX. I had several friends and fellow bullseye shooters who were DPS patrolmen at the time and discussion of that incident came up more than a few times.

Tom In NM is asking the right question! That is why the back story is a need to know.

Mas,

Numerous media reports over last several months on the so called “knockout game” being perpetrated by young people, usually in groups, preying on unsuspecting older individuals. Possible future discussion on defense tactics, use of deadly force, as they usually don’t display/use any weapon except the element of surprise?

Every man is guilty of the all good he did not do. Voltaire.

Go through life in condition yellow. FrontSight.

I’ve always been uncomfortable with that whole train of thought summarized in that little tagline about “Taking the law into their own hands”. I finally realized why after studying the Peelian Principles of Policing. Consider Sir Robert Peel’s Seventh Principle: “…The Police are the Public, and the Public are the Police; the Police being only [those] members of the Public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every Citizen…”

In light of that, it would not be unfair to say that the members of the press who keep using that tagline – particularly in cases of clearly lawful self-defense or defense of a third person – are, at best, wrong from first premises, yes? I’ll admit, that in my more cynical moments, I suspect that the newscritters are deliberately trying to persuade citizens to welsh on their end of the deal that Sir Robert noted in his Principles…

Folks

The question of whether or not to respond boils down to Morality, Legality, and finally, Tactics.

Is the action I propose to take Moral?

If I hear Kitty Genovese being stabbed and raped on that NYC street in 1964 , is it moral for me to respond? If a man is clearly holding a gun on the 7-11 clerk as she cries and pleads for her life, is it moral for me to respond?

Even more cogent, if I hear Kitty’s pleas, or see the threatened clerk, is it moral for me NOT to respond?

What is the “right” thing to do? Is it moral to use deadly force on a kid running from the store with a package of twinkies? No, it is not – the morality standard requires the use of good judgement, and a properly adjusted moral compass.

Is the action I propose to take Legal?

If a lady and a gentleman are strolling through Hyde Park in London and are accosted by two men who propose to sexually attack her – is it legal for him to use deadly force in her defense? If a rural Texas rancher surprises a man in the very act of raping the ranchers daughter, and the father strikes the attacker with several massive and lethal blows with his fist to stop the attack, is it legal?

In London, the answer is no – the state reserves for itself the application of deadly force. The only legal response the husband can provide is open fists and cries for the police.

In Texas, the answer is “yes”; the Grand Jury took about 3 minutes to return a “no true bill” because the father was ” justified” in using deadly force under Chapter 9 of the Penal Code.

Morality trumps Legality; a law which prohibits the husband from protecting his wife is not just. A law which punishes the bystander who seeks to defend Kitty, or tells me to abandon the clerk to her fate is abhorrent because it compels a citizen to remain passive in response to active evil.

Having examined the questions of Morality and Legality, and understanding that, sadly, they are not always congruent in a given criminal justice system, if someone does something which is moral but not legal, there will be consequences.

Once past Morality and legality, we arrive at tactics – whats the best way to act? Do we merely observe and be a good witness, while dialing 911? Do we unlimber a sidearm and engage the threat to stop the bad action? Do we take cover, do we shoot un announced or give the bad guy a chance to surrender? If we are unarmed do we make the attempt anyway?

This are not cut and dried, and life and death hangs in the balance; in some jurisdictions the question of 10-20 years in the cross-bars hotel also hangs in the balance.

I think an America, where Kitty would not have been left un-aided, where an attempted bank robbery saw the town turn out to defend its banks, where no gentleman worth the name would abandon the shop girl “because I might get hurt”, where a tired hunter is WILLING to attempt to stop a murderous felon as the felon shootes a Texas trooper, I think such an America is a much better place than the alternative.

The alternative is visible in glimpses from the East Coast, or the left Coast, where citizen emergency response is decried as vigilantism, and the political elites want us to be disarmed, discouraged and downtrodden, with no option other than dial 911. They want us to be serfs, not free men and women.

Just some thoughts.

Regards
GKT

Excellent point, Mike Doyle. Thanks.

The thing about this and some prior discussions here which is of concern is this: How far do you go? It is one thing to act or even prepare yourself to act in the gravest extreme to protect yourself or your loved ones or even innocent third parties in immediate risk of harm. It is another to believe that the trustworthiness of law enforcement or the regulation of society has so broken down as to make that a necessity.

Pete Sheppard notes above that, “Before the term was demonized, ‘vigilantes’ (ie, vigilance committees) were organized to restore and maintain order in the absence of organized law-enforcement entities.
In fact, one could make the case that police agencies are a codification of vigilance committees.” But the fact is that if you look at the history of vigilantism that law enforcement was not absent in most cases of vigilantism. It occurred because people did not trust law enforcement, sometimes with justification but more often not. The term became demonized because the vigilantes did not merely act in the gravest extreme, did not limit themselves to self-protection or to just apprehension and surrender to authorities, but chose to dispense rough justice in the form of beatings, lynchings, and murder, wholly without anything resembling fair legal process and, indeed, often with little care or even concern given to the actual guilt of their victims.

I would hope and indeed do believe that anyone who cares about these issues enough to like Mas’ work and to take the time to contribute here would be responsible enough to see the difference between protection of one’s self and others in the gravest extreme and the evils of vigilantism. But what’s being missed is that the machismo and distrust of law enforcement being manifested and sold in the gun rights movement and forums such as this is just one short step from taking law enforcement into one’s own hands. And that is less than a half step from taking justice into one’s own hands.

Dave

WRT taking the law “into your own hands”

In a system of self-government — government OF the people, government BY the people, and government not merely “for” the people the law _is_ in our hands. But like cops, we are obligated to obey the law as we help enforce it — including the statutes and precedents concerning the legitimate use of force.

No, in a self-defense shooting one does NOT make oneself “judge, jury and executioner” — at least no more so than a police officer makes himself judge, jury and executioner when _he_ has to use his gun.

In some societies police, being servants of the rulers, are placed above the people — like knights above serfs. In our society police are civilians subject to civilian law (rather than the tight limits and restrictions of martial law imposed on military personnel). They are servants of the _people_, not servants of the people’s rulers. There were no professional police for the first century of our nation; the first police forces were organized not by the federal government or even state governments but by the households that chose to assemble into a town. When this happened, there were no legal statutes passed or constitutional amendments to remove or limit from the people the right of self-defense.

This understanding gives me an answer when someone asks whether I believe the right to keep and bear arms has _any_ reasonable limits — is there an individual right to atom bombs or nerve gas? My answer is that some weapons are indeed too terrible for individual freemen to possess, and therefore must be limited to those serving under the heavy restrictions of martial law. Where we draw the line may be somewhat arbitrary, but the concept of political equality tells me that permitted weapons must include those types of weapons allowed for _use_ by domestic law enforcement — including the President’s Secret Service bodyguards. (Police may be allowed to _possess_ bombs and nerve gas temporarily — how else could they confiscate it from terrorists? But they cops not authorized to _use_ nuclear bombs or nerve gas.)

One of the last times I took a CPR class the instructor said off the record that, in our liability-obsessed times, this (namely mouth-to-mouth) was a skill required for some jobs, but best kept for loved ones. Strangers and their diseases would be on their own.

When it comes of having to use deadly force in defense of others I would tend to agree with Evan Marshall (see his Dangers of Intervention commentary) unless I’m getting paid to act. Sounds callous, but it’s a matter of being realistic and aware of the environment one acts in. This said, in the heat of the moment few of us know how far we’ll go. But caution should be the overriding principle, I think.

LarryArnold says:
“Sometimes POs deter, sometimes they don’t. Either way, they can be worth the effort.”

From my perspective – if nothing else, Restraining/Protective Orders atleast create a ‘paper trail’. Allow me to explain:
I once dated a girl whose ex-boyfriend was an abusive fellow – emotionally, physically and I’m sure sexually. She finally managed to leave him and end their relationship. This piece of work would then show up at her place of work, harass her with calls/texts. etc. She’d already had a ‘restraining order’ from the local court ordering him to cease and desist. I encouraged her to file charges again (believe me, I tried and looked and looked but there were few other legal options open in the jurisdiction). She had zero desire to face the creep ever again – much less in court. But I persuaded her to do so (and showed up at every court hearing to support her) because our system (at least in the jurisdiction we lived in) had few other legal options. I wanted to ‘build a paper trail’ – official records of complaints/legal actions to show that while never ‘convicted’, the creep was clearly harassing her. It WILL come in use in the future were he to continue his intimidation and harassment.
Yes, it’s an imperfect system but if that’s the only legal option open to you – use it. Use it well. Build up a record. Legally, the victim has nothing to lose.

Alonzo Gomez says:
“One of the last times I took a CPR class the instructor said off the record that, in our liability-obsessed times, this (namely mouth-to-mouth) was a skill required for some jobs, but best kept for loved ones. Strangers and their diseases would be on their own.”
Mouth-to-mouth resuscitation is no longer recommended in bystander CPR. The emphasis from AHA (American Heart Association) guidelines is high-quality chest compressions and securing the airway 🙂

With regards to “Good Samaritan” Laws and what not – be careful what you go looking for. “Imminent peril” still applies in cases. Does this mean you shouldn’t intervene if you find someone else in danger? Not particularly. But be aware of the consequences. I’ve had more than my fair share of “doing nothing more” than calling 911 and waiting for the appropriate response teams to arrive. Sometimes I’ve pitched in to help – always at the request of the responding teams on site and other times, I’ve stood back and given them room to work.

cheers,
Spook (ER nurse)

Good for the family,

the cops in my town are worthless for stopping or solving real crime, but they got plenty of time to stand at 4 way stop signs and look for people not wearing their seat belts.

they are pretty good at murdering innocent people though

http://www.abpnews.com/ministry/people/item/7608-police-defend-killing-of-baptist-pastor#.Up1J08U2jt0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZFlzvt0w7Q

too lazy to finish their training

then get their buddies to falsify documents to make it appear they actually completed their training

http://www.independentmail.com/news/2010/jun/17/stephen-county-deputy-charged-felony-ayers-case/

today, cops love nothing better than killing people, except maybe writing as many traffic tickets as possible.
they are just scum, to be avoided

sadly a generation ago, they actually helped people, now its just a revenue collection and killing machine.

Justin, before you dribble any more drivel in this column, do you even read your own citations? The item you cited says the guy was driving a vehicle at the officers when he was shot. Look in the mirror before you start sweeping your broad brush and calling all cops scum. You’ll have more credibility if you can actually convince folks that you might remotely know what you’re talking about.