went grocery shopping - witnessed violent domestic abuse

[CraigRT]

I dare someone to try something like that here. I guess things are different in small towns. Here if you were to even raise your voice at a woman in a public place you would have all the guys around all over you.

I've heard of that being a difference between large and small towns.
I think part of that also is in small town environment lots of people know one another, or at least know who one another is. In this situation, no one knows anyone whatsoever. I think that has a lot to do with it.

 

[Magusigne]

You shouldn't get an assault charge. It is defense of an innocent. You could even say you felt threatened by him and decided to defend yourself.

What if she was a shop lifter...the stroller didn't really have a baby in it, just several hundred dolllars worth of Ipods and the man was an undercover store security officer attempting to wrestler her to the ground.


...step in...Assault charge.

 

[feralkid]

I already posted, in my state it would be a good shoot in defense of a 3rd party. The kidnapping/rape aspect makes is automatic.

When are you going to just shoot someone, already?

You drool over it constantly, just get it out of your system and post from prison.

 

[marvdmartian]

Meh, you should have at least said something to distract the dude from hurting her. Why such a casual bystander?

Armed police officers don't even like messing around with domestic violence cases, and an unarmed civilian is at an even greater disadvantage. No telling what the abused wife can suddenly do, if she feels as though her man is being threatened. Definitely NOT something to get involved in, personally.

However, if your camera phone takes video, you could have a Youtube sensation on your hands! :thumbsup:

 

[alkemyst]

Armed police officers don't even like messing around with domestic violence cases, and an unarmed civilian is at an even greater disadvantage. No telling what the abused wife can suddenly do, if she feels as though her man is being threatened. Definitely NOT something to get involved in, personally.

However, if your camera phone takes video, you could have a Youtube sensation on your hands! :thumbsup:

Yeah, today's cops are mostly worthless and we accept it. My buddy left here to go to another county where the cops are more active against gangs and the like...around here they will literally wait for the commotion to end and the 'perps' to leave prior to coming in usually.

They will they attempt to get statements and hunt these asshats down later on.

It's a sad state of affairs.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Wait, was he using a stick thicker then his thumb?

 

[Iron Woode]

wtf where did she work?

she worked at a Petro-Canada gas station.

 

[spidey07]

When are you going to just shoot someone, already?

You drool over it constantly, just get it out of your system and post from prison.

I'm just trying to show that the law is on the side of somebody who wishes to potentially save somebody's live or prevent a kidnapping or grave bodily injury.

For the record, I wouldn't have shot or drawn on them. To much can go bad and it gets "iffy" on defense of 3rd party from a legal perspective. The law in my state is much different on that aspect then defense of yourself or family member/somebody you know.

 

[Paladin3]

Wow, so much ignorance in this thread!

First: It is 100% legal in the U.S., if you reasonably fear for someones safety, to stop an assault on them using a reasonable amount of force. Nobody goes to jail or gets successfully sued for that.

Second: Using more than the reasonably necessary amount force to stop an assault is illegal. It makes the person playing macho good Samaritan now guilty of assault. The case cited of the guy who found his girlfriend being sexual assaulted didn't just stop the assault, he then beat the guy up after he was no longer a threat. Force can only be used to stop the assault, not a second longer! If you decide to shoot an attacker to stop them, you better be able to convince a jury that it was the appropriate amount of force to use.

Third: Unless you are unable to control your temper, no person should be afraid of helping a woman being attacked. Citing that you would have done something but you were afraid of being sued makes you a douche, unless others were already rendering aid.

Forth: The case were the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the lawsuit against the Good Samaritan was because the woman trying to "rescue" her friend panicked, overreacted and did far more harm than good when she drug her from the car, which was NOT on fire. The court basically said that if you are rendering aid you had best do only what is reasonable and does not harm the victim any further.

Conclusion: There is no law in the U.S. that forbids using reasonable force to protect the safety of you or another person. The key is you have to be reacting to a creditable threat and only use a reasonable amount of force in response. All you guys stating otherwise are trying to champion incidents where too much force was used in response. You can't legally beat a guy half to death, even if you catch him raping your girlfriend. All you get to do is stop him. Unless you are in Canada, then I don't know what you get to legally do.

 

[Iron Woode]

Wow, so much ignorance in this thread!

First: It is 100% legal in the U.S., if you reasonably fear for someones safety, to stop an assault on them using a reasonable amount of force. Nobody goes to jail or gets successfully sued for that.

Second: Using more than the reasonably necessary amount force to stop an assault is illegal. It makes the person playing macho good Samaritan now guilty of assault. The case cited of the guy who found his girlfriend being sexual assaulted didn't just stop the assault, he then beat the guy up after he was no longer a threat. Force can only be used to stop the assault, not a second longer! If you decide to shoot an attacker to stop them, you better be able to convince a jury that it was the appropriate amount of force to use.

Third: Unless you are unable to control your temper, no person should be afraid of helping a woman being attacked. Citing that you would have done something but you were afraid of being sued makes you a douche, unless others were already rendering aid.

Forth: The case were the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the lawsuit against the Good Samaritan was because the woman trying to "rescue" her friend panicked, overreacted and did far more harm than good when she drug her from the car, which was NOT on fire. The court basically said that if you are rendering aid you had best do only what is reasonable and does not harm the victim any further.

Conclusion: There is no law in the U.S. that forbids using reasonable force to protect the safety of you or another person. The key is you have to be reacting to a creditable threat and only use a reasonable amount of force in response. All you guys stating otherwise are trying to champion incidents where too much force was used in response. You can't legally beat a guy half to death, even if you catch him raping your girlfriend. All you get to do is stop him. Unless you are in Canada, then I don't know what you get to legally do.

I live in Canada.

I explained about detaining someone against their will.

Self-defense here is a Constitutional right (defense of the person) but there are so many regulations for it that it makes it almost non-existent.

Very few people have the right to carry guns. There is no CCW permit for citizens.

our laws can be quite different than in the USA.

 

[Paladin3]

I live in Canada.

I explained about detaining someone against their will.

Self-defense here is a Constitutional right (defense of the person) but there are so many regulations for it that it makes it almost non-existent.

Very few people have the right to carry guns. There is no CCW permit for citizens.

our laws can be quite different than in the USA.

In Canada, Section 494 of the criminal code allows for "ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT BY ANY PERSON" as stated below:

Anyone may arrest without warrant(s)
(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence;

Even in Canada you can stop a guy who is assaulting someone. No, you can't necessarily shoot them, but I don't know why you would want to, or why the Canadian CCW rules keep being brought up.

All I'm trying to say is the there is almost no place in the sane world where it is illegal to stop someone engaged in the act of assault on another indivudual, provided you use reasonable force in doing so.

 

[spidey07]

I live in Canada.

I explained about detaining someone against their will.

Self-defense here is a Constitutional right (defense of the person) but there are so many regulations for it that it makes it almost non-existent.

Very few people have the right to carry guns. There is no CCW permit for citizens.

our laws can be quite different than in the USA.

Well that's really the point. Your laws prevent you from doing something about it. In the states the law has your back (to a limit). Depending on state.

 

[bhanson]

Now *that* is fucked. I can actually fully understand opposition to "Good Samaritan" laws. In the previous case the attempted assistant may have caused significant harm and a law suit is justified. It's no different Joe Badass shooting an innocent assuming the victim to be a burglar or whatever. But how can you sue when you willingly go out of your way to help? Their decision, their problem. I hope they fail and that their injuries are truly crippling.

I see this completely opposite of you.

I think the opposition to the "Good Samaritan" law is MUCH worse than the two guys suing the lady that attempted suicide. Law should heavily favor allowing someone to step in and help. Unfortunately yes, in some cases more harm will be done than assistance, but in most cases I think people will be doing good. In the cases where harm is done I believe there must be SIGNIFICANT evidence showing negligence in order to have a case.

Now in the suicide case I actually see a little bit of merit. I probably wouldn't sue in the same position myself, but the logic is definitely sound. If we assume in society that in a position of needing help that we would prefer someone to assist, then attempted suicide in a non-committal way where bystander aid would endanger them then yes, that is negligence.

 

[Lithium381]

Aren't guns illegal in canada?

lol. criminals don't care about the laws.....same as here in the US.

 

[Iron Woode]

Well that's really the point. Your laws prevent you from doing something about it. In the states the law has your back (to a limit). Depending on state.

we also have no property rights in Canada.

Guns are not illegal here; just heavily regulated. You cannot use one for defending your property here. Some people do it anyway, but they may end up getting arrested if someone reports it.

This is why I say the laws here are very different than in the USA.

 

[Red Dawn]

I already posted, in my state it would be a good shoot in defense of a 3rd party. The kidnapping/rape aspect makes is automatic.

And give you your long awaited chance to shoot someone

 

[alkemyst]

we also have no property rights in Canada.

Guns are not illegal here; just heavily regulated. You cannot use one for defending your property here. Some people do it anyway, but they may end up getting arrested if someone reports it.

This is why I say the laws here are very different than in the USA.

So if you use a gun you dont report the incident?

 

[mugs]

never heard of that. Seems like American football players would have dozens of charges after every game. Sack the quarterback? Unlawful confinement. Block the linebacker? Unlawful confinement. stupid laws are stupid.

You consistently amaze me with your stupidity.