TexasCHLforum.com

In other threads I have read a few comments to the effect that "I got a CHL to protect me and my family, and noone else." I personally do not subscribe to this. Certainly it is prudent to be reasonably sure of the situation before acting, but I think a blanket policy of refusing to intervene on someone else's behalf is...poor policy, to put it mildly.

In the following article, there were people who intervened in a dispute, but apparently unarmed and clearly ineffectively. It took a man with a gun to halt an attack -- and being a state that largely keeps its citizens from being usefully armed, the man had to be a police officer, who was of course too late to do any real good.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200806 ... QB2O0.html

Police: Officer kills man who beat child to death


Jun 15, 7:24 PM (ET)

TURLOCK, Calif. (AP) - A 27-year-old man was fatally shot by police as he kicked, punched and stomped a young toddler to death in front of horrified motorists who tried to stop the attack on a dark country road, authorities said.

Investigators on Sunday were trying to establish the relationship between the suspect and the child they say he killed Saturday night. The Stanislaus County coroner said the boy appeared to be between 1 and 2 years old based on his size, according to county sheriff's deputy Royjindar Singh.

"It's been a long night of wondering, 'Why?' - not only for the officers and the passers-by who stopped and tried to help out, but for anyone. Why would somebody do this?" Singh said.

Singh said the coroner does not plan to confirm the identities of the suspect and victim until Monday. Because his injuries were so severe, the child will have to be identified through a blood or DNA test, he said.

The suspect had a child's car seat in the back of his four-door pickup truck. The truck caught the attention of an elderly couple at 10:13 p.m. Saturday because it was stopped in the two-lane road facing the wrong direction, Singh said.

As they got closer, the couple saw the man brutally beating the toddler behind his truck and throwing the child on the ground, according to Singh. Two or three other cars stopped, an unusual number to be passing through the remote area surrounded by a dairy, a cow pasture, a cornfield and a farmhouse, he said.

"What we got from witnesses is he was punching, slapping, kicking, stomping, shaking," Singh said. "They tried to intervene and get involved, but their efforts really didn't have an effect. The suspect was engaged in what he was doing. He just pushed them off and went back to it."

A sheriff's helicopter responding to emergency calls from the area landed in a cow pasture at 10:19 p.m. carrying a Modesto police officer who shot the man to death after he refused an order to stop beating the child, Singh said.

Paramedics tried to resuscitate the toddler, who was not breathing when they arrived. The boy was taken to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

No children within the dead boy's age range have been reported kidnapped or missing in Stanislaus County, Singh said.

The incident happened on Bradbury Road about 10 miles west of Turlock, a city located about halfway between Sacramento and Fresno.

After reading this, you would be hard-pressed to convince me that never intervening on another person's behalf is a morally correct decision.

I believe the law (Texas) to be very clear on this issue...

In my analysis, and laymans terms for a situation like this, you are required to reasonably determine that force or deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission (or continuation) of an act like this...The fact that you may be licensed to carry a firearm is a moot point...

You're moral line in the sand is a personal reference to just where you decide to step in and intervene, and it is a personal one... I, and no one else, should tell you where that line should be...You just have to take a hard look at yourself, and ask the ultimate and personal gut-check question...

Put yourself in this situation, and that you drove up and are observing this...

Are you going to immediately determine that drawing your pistol and shooting that person doing this to this child is an act to "stop" them from continuing, or, and this is the tough and brutally honest part of the question for you...Are you going to shoot that person, to punish them for doing this to that child???

Just shooting from the hip on this one...Pardon the pun...And in no way am I trying to make anyone feel uncomfortable...

I think this example is poorly chosen. I think any sane individual would determine that 1) a 1 or 2 year old child does not pose any threat to a 27 year old man, 2) that this example is CLEARLY a situation where someone should intervene. I don't think no one on this forum advocates a BLANKET POLICY on defense of third person. I myself advocate a stay out of unless you are 100% sure of the situation. What if the situation you described was slightly different. What if the couple drove up and saw the 27 years old guy fighting another 27 year old guy. Would you be so quick to tell people that it is their duty to intervene in this situation (other than by alerting the local authorities)?

BigBlueDodge wrote:What if the couple drove up and saw the 27 years old guy fighting another 27 year old guy. Would you be so quick to tell people that it is their duty to intervene in this situation (other than by alerting the local authorities)?

Absolutely; Peel's 7th principle is pretty clear: "Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence." You don't have to start by cracking skulls, and I'm pretty sure the guy couldn't have continued his attack very effectively if all of the bystanders had actually put a real effort into restraining or removing him. In the original scenario, one has to wonder why nobody just grabbed the kid and took off, perhaps letting the others distract and/or subdue the assailant long enough to do this.

BigBlueDodge wrote:I think this example is poorly chosen. I think any sane individual would determine that 1) a 1 or 2 year old child does not pose any threat to a 27 year old man, 2) that this example is CLEARLY a situation where someone should intervene. I don't think no one on this forum advocates a BLANKET POLICY on defense of third person. I myself advocate a stay out of unless you are 100% sure of the situation. What if the situation you described was slightly different. What if the couple drove up and saw the 27 years old guy fighting another 27 year old guy. Would you be so quick to tell people that it is their duty to intervene in this situation (other than by alerting the local authorities)?

I think it is a great example as is yours, because its all about that line. Drawing that line is a slippery thing. I do know that most of us will draw the line somewhere between your example and the original post. Although at your example I would call 911, and perhaps verbally interfere.

Honestly, helping someone in need is the right thing to do.

I have helped folks and I have opted not to when conditions or "the feeling" was not right.

Sometimes, the situation will not be right and there is not a thing you can do to help but maybe call 911 and be a good witness because....

I do not have the hard facts, but lots of LEO are killed and injured in domestic disputes and criminal acts in progress.

I did not obtain my CHL to help anyone else outside my family. I obtained it to help me and mine. If ever the opportunity presents itself where I can help someone else, I will make a decision then and there. I placed myself in some pretty sticky situations for 12 years doing the fire fighter and paramedic thing. I have a pretty well developed sense of doing what needs to be done.

I would rather not make the 10 oclock news zipped up in a body bag and I have no illusion that I am adept at resolving deadly conflicts.

Anygunanywhere

Me too anygun.
My Flag says "Don't Tread On Me"

Let's reiterate a principle that most people have stated and almost everyone can agree upon:

This is a personal decision which we all make for ourselves.

I do have one piece of advice for you to take or leave:

It is best to decide NOW, in the comfort of time to reflect what types of situations you will avoid and which ones you will enter. It is best to at least outline this ahead of time because in the moment you will likely not have the leisure to ponder or dally if you will be effective or if you will slow your natural impulse to do good.

It's dangerous -- in many ways. There is no requirement to assist others legally.

For me, it goes like this though:

I will not watch someone be murdered, especially a child (but that example was further out than any I can imagine and feel I would have intervened there without a firearm or knife, even against a larger and stronger opponent); nor will I watch someone be raped, or tortured, or mauled to the point of permanent severe injury. (I will however let the criminal take a car or the money. )

Neither will I watch such violent, nor turn away if I can prevent it. I will call 911; I will shout; and ultimately I will shoot if that is the only way to prevent it. I have no need to be a hero, but I refuse to be a coward.

This is my choice -- I make it consciously and freely in the hope that I will have the courage and judgment to act upon this choice; for if I allowed such things then I would not be the man I wish to be.

I will not judge you for another choice -- but I would judge myself forever were I to knowingly allow these things when it was within my power to prevent them.

I would be ashamed.

For now, I plan to learn the situation; what actions I can and will take to stop the crime without becoming intimately entangled in a misunderstanding. And if in the moment, I cannot find a way to help then I will NOT be ashamed or guilty, but I will do my best to understand the situation and to find a way prevent such violence.

I plan to help with the least amount of force that the situation demands, but when force is necessary I plan to use DECISIVE FORCE rather than stand around trying to figure out what to do in the moment when it is becoming rapidly too late to do anything useful.

That is my choice and my plan. I made that choice consciously long ago, not by accident nor default.

Make your choice and make it now, with a cool head and a compassionate heart. Compassion for yourself, your family, and those you might choose to help or not.

Don't wait -- make a conscious choice and have a careful plan, and a backup plan....

The example you gave is one of those situations that anyone can figure out. There is no discussion; a man attacking a toddler is wrong. No one has to wonder if the toddler provoked it. No one has to ask whether or not the toddler had a weapon or threatened the man's wife or children. No one's imagining that the toddler attempted to car-jack him. The toddler isn't in a street gang or part of a terrorist sleeper cell.

This one doesn't really matter whether or not the attacker was a parent of the child, as could be argued in a case where a parent might attempt to reclaim a child lost in a custody battle. The OP's post detailed a violent attack on a child, which is illegal AND deadly regardless of the adult's status, and abuse this violent and severe would have to be dealt with immediately by anyone with the physical power to do so in order to preserve the child's life. (Sadly, this wasn't done.)


Many of us have chosen not to intervene on behalf of third parties for the fact that we realize that we do not have all the information necessary to do so. We also lack the appropriate training to determine who's who. The scenario you posted does not require training or a knowledge of antecedent behaviors in order for us to act.

Welcome aboard sir, & I to you for such good forethought.

If you are sitting in a classroom with a gun or knife in your briefcase, backpack or other conveyance and some guy comes in shooting people, would you refrain from taking action until you were 100% sure of the situation? Some incidents, like the toddler being violently beaten to death and Virginia Tech are surely no brainers.

casingpoint wrote:If you are sitting in a classroom with a gun or knife in your briefcase, backpack or other conveyance and some guy comes in shooting people, would you refrain from taking action until you were 100% sure of the situation? Some incidents, like the toddler being violently beaten to death and Virginia Tech are surely no brainers.

the VT shooting , like the OP are CLEAR situations, what is otherwise being discussed, are scenarios which you might come across during the "middle" of ,

which you would not be able to immediately determine who the aggressor or victim is.

I agree with the idea of not acting hastily in areas which have no clear GG/BG visible .

OTOH, if you are witnessing the action from the beginning, that determination can be made much more quickly.

The VT shooting and this baby beating in California have one very important thing in common. They both happened where most of the good guys are not allowed to bear arms. There's also a cultural cancer where fighting back against bullies and criminals is discouraged.

tarkus wrote:The VT shooting and this baby beating in California have one very important thing in common. They both happened where most of the good guys are not allowed to bear arms. There's also a cultural cancer where fighting back against bullies and criminals is discouraged.

Almost everyone likely agrees -- and probably everyone would agree there are cases just as far on the other side of the scale as to be certain we would keep on going, maybe calling 911 but not taking any overt action. These might include but cases where there is no practical way we can help, even though it is clear we want to do so, and cases were we are sure there is no way to sort out the bad guy from the victim. The scenarios are easy to invent, from the simple fact that we don't all take up patrolling the ghetto looking for attackers to the cases where a happy couple is role-playing in the park, to a drunken or drugged up neighborhood couple fighting with each other in the street.

So, we would likely all avoid some situations. But, at the same time we know that some crimes are so obvious, so heinous, that we will help stop them.

The key: Figure out where our own limits extend and stop. Figure out at least in a general way how we will help, what risks we will take, in the obvious cases, and how we will deal with a case where we pretty much know that personal involvement is a bad idea.

Separate the cases. Decide our own risk limits. Do that coldly and logically now, instead of when we are gripped by an overwhelming desire to stop someone's pain, or (and maybe even at the same time) a legitimate fear that is nearly as paralyzing and makes use just want to avoid the situation.

Just as we run self-defend and home defense scenarios -- we need to run intervention DECISION (not the actual help so much) scenarios so have plans for avoidance and involvement and when to do each.

BTW: I won't watch someone drown nor burn in a fire if I have the power to stop it either. But that is just me.

My short answer...

If I saw an adult beating a child to what I perceived was "to death"...as this obviously was. I would make every attempt within my power to secure their breathing privilages...to put it nicely!