TexasCHLforum.com

Forgive me if this is posted elsewhere:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12 ... him-a-hero" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hmmm, WWYD?

I was not issued a batman license. Call 911 and be a good witness.

Fortunately this individual did not believe a batman license was necessary in order to intervene on behalf of someone in need.
Some people are wired to intervene and some are not, but to use the "batman license" thing as a excuse suggest that those who are wired to intervene are somehow wrong for doing so. That stance is getting pretty old.

I saw this and the video on 5 News and was torn regarding the legality of threatening deadly force in this situation. Granted the man was hitting the woman but does this warrant drawing down on the guy? I would be more inclined to try to break it up rather than pull my gun which in itself could constitute deadly conduct. This seems to be one of those gray areas and depending on the PD and DA could land somebody in a pile of trouble facing serious charges and expenses. I am interested in what the LEO's thoughts on this would be and how their department would address this type of situation.

Salty1 wrote:I saw this and the video on 5 News and was torn regarding the legality of threatening deadly force in this situation. Granted the man was hitting the woman but does this warrant drawing down on the guy? I would be more inclined to try to break it up rather than pull my gun which in itself could constitute deadly conduct. This seems to be one of those gray areas and depending on the PD and DA could land somebody in a pile of trouble facing serious charges and expenses. I am interested in what the LEO's thoughts on this would be and how their department would address this type of situation.

Not a gray area at all. Use of force was justified to stop the physical abuse. If use of force is justified, then the presentation of a firearm is legal. Pulling the trigger takes it to a whole different level. That would require justification for use of deadly force.

jmra wrote:Fortunately this individual did not believe a batman license was necessary in order to intervene on behalf of someone in need.
Some people are wired to intervene and some are not, but to use the "batman license" thing as a excuse suggest that those who are wired to intervene are somehow wrong for doing so. That stance is getting pretty old.

Agreed. Long before CHLs I had injected myself into situations defending others. I am not a different man now. I suppose that while this guy was caving in her head, some could describe the events in excruciating detail to help out the ME and homicide detectives, being good witnesses and all.

jmra wrote:Fortunately this individual did not believe a batman license was necessary in order to intervene on behalf of someone in need.
Some people are wired to intervene and some are not, but to use the "batman license" thing as a excuse suggest that those who are wired to intervene are somehow wrong for doing so. That stance is getting pretty old.

They don't pay me to intervene in domestic disputes, that is why I pay taxes to the city and state. I let the professionals handle it.

Why would anyone intervene to help some unknown woman? I mean, someone might reciprocate and help when it's the person's own wife or daughter. That's the only time anyone should ever intervene, when it's that specific person's own important person. Anyone else, the heck with them. [/sarcasm]

Good for this guy and for those who would see it and then ignore it I guess being conscious free might have some benefits at some times.

Right2Carry wrote:

jmra wrote:Fortunately this individual did not believe a batman license was necessary in order to intervene on behalf of someone in need.
Some people are wired to intervene and some are not, but to use the "batman license" thing as a excuse suggest that those who are wired to intervene are somehow wrong for doing so. That stance is getting pretty old.

They don't pay me to intervene in domestic disputes, that is why I pay taxes to the city and state. I let the professionals handle it.

Didn't say that you had a responsibility to intervene, but your "batman license" comment suggests that someone who was willing to intervene shouldn't. That suggestion is simply inaccurate and IMHO, inappropriate.
If two infants fell into a public pool and the paid lifeguard could only get to one would you do nothing and let the infant drown because your tax money was paying a "professional to handle it"?

LDB415 wrote:Why would anyone intervene to help some unknown woman? I mean, someone might reciprocate and help when it's the person's own wife or daughter. That's the only time anyone should ever intervene, when it's that specific person's own important person. Anyone else, the heck with them. [/sarcasm]

Good for this guy and for those who would see it and then ignore it I guess being conscious free might have some benefits at some times.

Beyond the discussion of interfering in a physical dispute (I would, but only where one actor is completely overpowering a (weaker) actor, but only by verbal commands and then by force escalation) - getting between a couple in a dispute (physical or not) is inherently dangerous! Do not turn your back on either party.

couzin wrote:Beyond the discussion of interfering in a physical dispute (I would, but only where one actor is completely overpowering a (weaker) actor, but only by verbal commands and then by force escalation) - getting between a couple in a dispute (physical or not) is inherently dangerous! Do not turn your back on either party.

He didn't.

LDB415 wrote:Why would anyone intervene to help some unknown woman? I mean, someone might reciprocate and help when it's the person's own wife or daughter. That's the only time anyone should ever intervene, when it's that specific person's own important person. Anyone else, the heck with them. [/sarcasm]

Good for this guy and for those who would see it and then ignore it I guess being conscious free might have some benefits at some times.

Or the person being abused might take the abuser's side and both attack you.
Its my understanding domestic disputes have the highest chance for injury to police officers and often the victim sides with the BG.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

LDB415 wrote:Why would anyone intervene to help some unknown woman? I mean, someone might reciprocate and help when it's the person's own wife or daughter. That's the only time anyone should ever intervene, when it's that specific person's own important person. Anyone else, the heck with them. [/sarcasm]

Good for this guy and for those who would see it and then ignore it I guess being conscious free might have some benefits at some times.

Or the person being abused might take the abuser's side and both attack you.
Its my understanding domestic disputes have the highest chance for injury to police officers and often the victim sides with the BG.

Since the guy was across the street at the time I really don't think this was of major concern. What would be is that the person being attacked may refuse to acknowledge the assault and then one may be on shaky ground for pulling a gun. Personally that is a reason to be careful if one does intervene and nothing else. Usually when someone uses this excuse they really just wanted to avoid getting involved and the "extra" risk has nothing to do with anything.