Charles L. Cotton wrote:What if the presumption is wrong and the woman isn't a loss prevention officer and the man was the victim of an assault? What if she was a loss prevention officer, but she was using excessive force? What if you hurt the male assault victim because your assumption was wrong? What if the male assault victim was willing to defend himself with hands alone, until you joined the assault and you got shot?anygunanywhere wrote:"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
In every one of my CHL classes, I point out that when we decide to defend an unknown 3rd person, we are risking that our presumptions are incorrect. Unless you know the people involved AND you saw the events unfold from the beginning, you cannot be sure you know the facts. Well meaning intervention into events can result in innocent people getting hurt or killed, a guilty person escaping, or the rescuer getting injured or killed.
Try to put yourself in the position of an innocent person incorrectly believed to be an attacker. They are already being assaulted and you join with his attacker. If I'm the victim, . . . well it won't go well for either of my attackers, including the would-be rescuer.
There certainly are incidents involving innocent 3rd persons that are clearly warrant a rescuer to get involved, including the use of deadly force. However, not all incidents are so clear and the one described was not.
Chas.
Getting involved with other people conflicts without knowing all the ins and outs seems like a bad decision to me.
I guess when you find out later the person you're assisting was in the wrong, at least you can tell the judge that you didn't want to let evil prevail.
