[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Revo09 wrote:
I mean, honestly, what do you do? Does anyone know with certainty what the legal repercussions are for stepping in and helping this guy? If I step in, choke this guy out, do I go to jail for assault, eventhough it was the “right” thing to do?
This is generally a too difficult and complex topic to address within the confines of a thread post. It’s easier to explain in person. However, I will give you some VAGUE GENERALITIES.
As everyone will usually say, the laws differ in each state. However, GENERALLY SPEAKING, you can use reasonable and necessary force to protect person and property. “Reasonable” and/or “necessary” is a judgment call to be addressed by the police, DA, a grand jury and then ultimately a jury…worse case scenario.
GENERALLY, if you use the least amount of force necessary to protect persons or property, you will be ok. To use your example, choking someone out is actually a dangerous maneuver…with the popularity of MMA now on TV, everyone seems to think choking someone out is a routine thing. It’s not.
It’s inherently dangerous. You can damage thier trachea. They can throw a clot. You can hold it too long and cut off oxygen to the brain. Believe it or not, choking someone out is fairly extreme and can result in serious injury and even death.
I honestly cannot think of a situation sitting here now where I think it’s reasonable to choke someone unconscious. You MMA wannabes better be careful about that crap. It all works out on TV (so far), with a ref and rules, but that isn’t real life.
Other restraints, if you know how to apply them, would be more appropriate for the attack shown in this thread. Of course, if he then attempts to attack you, you are within your rights to use reasonable and necessary force to defend yourself.
Finally, no state law is going to spell out expressly what is “reasonable” or “necessary”. Your actions will be judged/weighed against the situation that was occuring.
There are just too many variables to consider and things like the size of your attacker and your reasonable fear for your safety or life are relevant and specific to the situation - there is no “text book” examples, real life doesn’t mimic a text book example. The local DA could see it one way and the jury another.
So put it this way. It’s best for you to AVOID a physical confrontation. If you’re being attacked, you do what is necessary to protect yourself, within reason, making sure you go home that day, and worry about the rest later.
I’d rather err on the side or going home to my loved ones with the brain cells intact rather than doing some legal analysis. If you’re in a position to intervene, whether professionally or as a good samaritan, you better use the least amount of force necessary to accomplish the task.
I’m not even going to broach the subject of deadly force. If you use it, you better well have had the reason to do so. If you’re trained to use it, you know under what circumstances you may do so.
I would have felt very comfortable, legally speaking, immediately restraining the fat boy such that he was no longer a threat to the person that was attacked and releasing him when he was no longer a threat. If he attempted to get back to the obviously injured and vulnerable man, additional restraint would have been reasonable.
If he attempted to attack me, after witnessing what he had just done to the victim, it would be perfectly reasonable to strike him first. I said strike him, not beat him up. I didn’t say bust his windpipe, martial art web sites aside. I would strike him, retreat a bit and see if he continued.
If he continued, I’d escalate it. My absolute honest to goodness impression is that I could end a physical confrontation with that man with a good leg kick or two. That is an example of using the LEAST amount of physical force to protect myself.
To the contrary, loading up and striking him in the jaw, nose, temple, head etc is possibly asking for legal trouble…and who needs that (I’ve been there)?
The bottom line - whatever you do, understand that you may be in court one day defending WHY you did it. And believe me, you want the terms “reasonable” and “necessary” on your side.
There is a force continuum so to speak and you’d be wise not to proceed up the dial any quicker than absolutely necessary.
EDIT: None of the above contradicts my original replies that I believe it is rightful and ethical to intervene. I’d hope such a man or men were present had it been my son or brother that said something stupid. [/quote]
Interesting, thanks for the reply.
I guess I shouldn’t have used the term “choke him out” because it could be taken literally. In my head that came out as “restraining him.”
Any idea if his size is also taken into consideration when defining what is “reasonable?”
