Good Samaritan shot while trying to stop a stabbing.

[Lartok]

How do you claim self defense if the aggressor now turned defender is on their back unarmed, hands probably up in a defense attempt to deflect incoming blows, and you are stabbing them from a position of dominance?

Keep twisting the scenario in to the only tiny hole where your view is actually reasonable but realistically, guns are bad mmmk.

[PosPosPos]

Not true. Self defense extends to other people (as weird as it sounds). You would be completely justified in pointing a gun at them, demanding they stop and shooting them if they didnt or they threatened you.

Giving them the time to turn around and shoot you instead, or you get nervous and shoot them when they try to explain the situation.

Guns are bad in the hands of ordinary, untrained citizens.

[TITAN308]

Keep twisting the scenario in to the only tiny hole where your view is actually reasonable but realistically, guns are bad mmmk.

No, not really, I am trying to understand his line of thought from a legal standpoint. Also, his counter-point is a "tiny hole" as you call it.

[Skaiz]

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ot-and-killed/

I wouldn't since you significantly increase the risk of harm both to yourself and the person you are trying to help.

Youre right man. If im walking by a man getting stabbed while im out and carrying, i'll just keep walking. Because that will decrease the risk of the man currently being stabbed and myself.

[I Push Buttons]

Not true. Self defense extends to other people (as weird as it sounds). You would be completely justified in pointing a gun at them, demanding they stop and shooting them if they didnt or they threatened you.

Yes if you got there and knew who the aggressor was and they had a deadly weapon and were going to kill the person you absolutely knew was the victim...

Say the victim pulls out a knife and defends their person, without a word you shoot him as he goes to stab the person who attacked him in self-defense, thinking you are protecting the victim when actually you are abetting the perpetrator...

Your good intentions are 100% irrelevant at that point.

[PosPosPos]

No, not really, I am trying to understand his line of thought from a legal standpoint. Also, his counter-point is a "tiny hole" as you call it.

Except, you are the one trying to justify it, so it doesn't matter who made the tiny hole, only the person trying to grasp at straws to fit into it.

[TITAN308]

Yes if you got there and knew who the aggressor was and they had a deadly weapon and were going to kill the person you absolutely knew was the victim...

Say the victim pulls out a knife and defends their person, without a word you shoot him as he goes to stab the person who attacked him in self-defense, thinking you are protecting the victim when actually you are abetting the perpetrator...

Your good intentions are 100% irrelevant at that point.

Maybe this is my fault, I should have provided clarify when I said "up to and including justified homicide". The idea was you have a gun, you take all reasonable steps prior to putting a bullet center mass. Hence the "up to" wording.

[Taurous]

If the attacker was unaware of my presence I would probably punched his brains out through his eyes, if he was aware, I would probably try to talk him out of it, most likely failing, and I would put 911 in my phone and leave it in my pocket.

Or id run away.

[triplesdsu]

Giving them the time to turn around and shoot you instead, or you get nervous and shoot them when they try to explain the situation.

Guns are bad in the hands of ordinary, untrained citizens.

Fine. Then just pull out your gun and shoot them. I'd give the warning first, but then again im a cop with training. In a situation like this, I wouldnt really blame the person for intervening. You could justify shooting without the warning in my opinion.

[LiiLoSNK]

This article reads like it was written by a blind retarded child.

Also to answer your question:

Either a combination of 1 and 3 or just a straight up 2 and cap the guy in the leg or something. However this ends up panning out, I'm gonna at least number 1 no matter what. I'm not gonna just be a pussy and sit there number 3'ing my lungs out like a massive gaylord. The suspect was 59 years old. 1 swift leg kick would wreck almost any old man.

[TITAN308]

Except, you are the one trying to justify it, so it doesn't matter who made the tiny hole, only the person trying to grasp at straws to fit into it.

If people stabbing other unarmed people and actually being a defender in the attack is a common thing I could very well be wrong.

I have my doubts, but I can't claim it never happens. I'm very careful to try and not speak in absolutes.

[shadowmouse]

"Other" I'm trained for unarmed combat, but part of that training is how to use various things as weapons and I would. That might mean using a jacket like a sarong, or that bundle of keys on a two foot lanyard, or whatever else is handy. There is almost always something handy, and I try to make sure that's the case.

So if firearms did not exist you would enter hand to hand combat with someone armed with a knife?

Yes. He has a knife. That means he thinks he is in control. I'm visibly old and I have an acting background, I do a rather good confused old man. Just because I am not willing to stand by and watch someone get harmed doesn't mean that I'm going to rush in blindly or strike some kind of stance while bellowing out the Wang Fei Hong theme.

[PosPosPos]

Maybe this is my fault, I should have provided clarify when I said "up to and including justified homicide". The idea was you have a gun, you take all reasonable steps prior to putting a bullet center mass. Hence the "up to" wording.

Then there's no problem, because the person holding the gun is professionally trained.

Except, here's the catch - an overwhelming majority aren't and will simply panic in an actual situation.

This is supported by various peer reviewed articles that clearly state that good Samaritans with guns generally use them to aggravate already bad situations and tend to hit the wrong people, cause additional confusion and not prevent grievous injuries anyway.

Only a tiny minority, like about 1 in 20(and this is an incredibly generous estimate), successfully defuse bad situations using guns instead of overtly making them worse.

[triplesdsu]

Yes if you got there and knew who the aggressor was and they had a deadly weapon and were going to kill the person you absolutely knew was the victim...

Say the victim pulls out a knife and defends their person, without a word you shoot him as he goes to stab the person who attacked him in self-defense, thinking you are protecting the victim when actually you are abetting the perpetrator...

Your good intentions are 100% irrelevant at that point.

Which is why my position was to make commands at gun point. If the person with the knife isnt the aggressor, hopefully they have the sense to stop. Even if they were the victim, if you're stumbling on the scene after the fact and the stabbing is still ongoing, they've probably gone past the point of self-defense as the threat is gone. Ideally they stop, you hold them there and the cops sort it out. If they threaten you, they get shot. If they keep stabbing someone who isnt actually threatening them, they get shot.

[Lartok]

No, not really, I am trying to understand his line of thought from a legal standpoint. Also, his counter-point is a "tiny hole" as you call it.

The chance that the person with the knife isn't the bad guy? Not a tiny hole, definitely possible.

From a legal stand point stabbing someone even after you've gained 'dominance' in the fight would actually be easier to claim as self defense in a lot of situations if the a third party that doesn't know jack shit about the situation, just shoots the person with the knife because, knife.

[PosPosPos]

If people stabbing other unarmed people and actually being a defender in the attack is a common thing I could very well be wrong.

I have my doubts, but I can't claim it never happens. I'm very careful to try and not speak in absolutes.

So your point is, for that one time you successfully defuse a bad situation with a gun, you excuse the 19 other occurrences that escalate the situation instead.

Guess when you right wing extremists talk about "not speaking in absolutes", a numerical technicality is what you are referring to.

[Wyrt]

Call the police like any reasonable person would?

[TITAN308]

So your point is, for that one time you successfully defuse a bad situation with a gun, you excuse the 19 other occurrences that escalate the situation instead.

Guess when you right wing extremists talk about "not speaking in absolutes", a numerical technicality is what you are referring to.

Why do you think I am right wing?

[I Push Buttons]

Which is why my position was to make commands at gun point. If the person with the knife isnt the aggressor, hopefully they have the sense to stop. Even if they were the victim, if you're stumbling on the scene after the fact and the stabbing is still ongoing, they've probably gone past the point of self-defense as the threat is gone. Ideally they stop, you hold them there and the cops sort it out. If they threaten you, they get shot. If they keep stabbing someone who isnt actually threatening them, they get shot.

And that in and of itself is an issue in some places... Unlawful detainment, if you tell them to move at gunpoint it can even be considered kidnapping in some jurisdictions.

[triplesdsu]

And that in and of itself is an issue in some places... Unlawful detainment, if you tell them to move at gunpoint it can even be considered kidnapping in some jurisdictions.

There is nothing unlawful about this detainment. You see someone stabbing a person in public, any reasonable person would assume that a crime was in progress justifying a detention. Even in the off chance they were wrong, their acts would still be reasonable under the circumstances and not criminal. Kidnapping is a specific intent crime and "I told them to get on the ground to keep him from killing someone" isn't going to qualify as any type of malicious intent.