Allowed to defend a 3rd party?

Dave_pro2a · Jul 3, 2014

NavyLCDR said:
[
RCW 9A.76.030
Refusing to summon aid for a peace officer.

(1) A person is guilty of refusing to summon aid for a peace officer if, upon request by a person he or she knows to be a peace officer, he or she unreasonably refuses or fails to summon aid for such peace officer.

(2) Refusing to summon aid for a peace officer is a misdemeanor.

**DISCLAIMER! Yes, I know that neither of these statutes require the bystander to do anything more than summon aid.**

Interesting since LEO suffer no legal repercussions for refusing to give aid. "Keep the peace" does not equal "protect individual citizens." When that changes I might feel that law you cite creates a personal obligation.

Real heroes:

Fake heros: http://www.king5.com/news/investigators/Mardi-Gras-killer-reoffends-after-relase-116965123.html

The violence of Mardi Gras 2001 was so fierce, so random, it left people asking -- can this be Seattle? It was Seattle. But even police commanders seemed to be in denial, holding back squads of riot clad officers for hours while the beatings continued.

And now after the fact it comes out that the SPD was also sitting on their hands while women were raped at the Mardi Gras riot. If you have a little google-fu you can find the award winning picture of the sexual assault. Yeah I almost puked on my keyboard in disgust while writing that. We live in an effed up world.

That award winning pic lends a lot more credence to the claim that this man died trying to prevent a sexual assault, as the SPD watched from rooftops:

Anyways, when LEO have a duty to protect me, then I may accept a law requiring me to aid them has some weight.

sudden valley gunner · Jul 3, 2014

Sparky508 said:
I know this thread is getting pretty close to its expiration date, but....

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

― Edmund Burke

+1

davidmcbeth said:
I don't think he had breaking up a bar fight or drunks fighting in mind ...

Probably not, and not what I think Sparky was getting at.

If boys voluntarily get into fisticuffs. Let em go.

Vitaeus · Jul 4, 2014

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

Edmund Burke

"In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority."

Edmund Burke

sudden valley gunner · Jul 4, 2014

Vitaeus said:
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

Edmund Burke

"In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority."

Edmund Burke

I like it!

The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that --- however bloody --- can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave.- Lysander Spooner

It is not improbable that many or most of the worst of governments --- although established by force, and by a few, in the first place --- come, in time, to be supported by a majority. But if they do, this majority is composed, in large part, of the most ignorant, superstitious, timid, dependent, servile, and corrupt portions of the people; of those who have been over-awed by the power, intelligence, wealth, and arrogance; of those who have been deceived by the frauds; and of those who have been corrupted by the inducements, of the few who really constitute the government. Such majorities, very likely, could be found in half, perhaps nine-tenths, of all the countries on the globe. What do they prove? Nothing but the tyranny and corruption of the very governments that have reduced so large portions of [*9] the people to their present ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption; an ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption that are best illustrated in the simple fact that they do sustain governments that have so oppressed, degraded, and corrupted them. They do nothing towards proving that the governments themselves are legitimate; or that they ought to be sustained, or even endured, by those who understand their true character. The mere fact, therefore, that a government chances to be sustained by a majority, of itself proves nothing that is necessary to be proved, in order to know whether such government should be sustained, or not.-Lysander Spooner

Geerolla · Jul 6, 2014

City says cops had no duty to protect subway hero who subdued killer

This man was stabbed multiple times by a serial killer while an NYPD officer watched through a locked door.

Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

509rifas · Jul 6, 2014

Geerolla said:
City says cops had no duty to protect subway hero who subdued killer

This man was stabbed multiple times by a serial killer while an NYPD officer watched through a locked door.

Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

Well I guess he learned his lesson. You know, for nearly dying to protect a stranger. I wonder if they'll take his way of walking due to all the stab wounds as indicative of carrying a weapon and do a stop and frisk on him. After all, a 97% failure rate is considered a successful rate by the NYPD.

sudden valley gunner · Jul 6, 2014

The title of the thread bothers me a bit.

The use of the word "allowed" when talking about a free society.

samadkins29 · Jul 9, 2014

Hey guys, Sorry for taking so long to post back. Been on call for the past two weeks. Anyways, thank you all for the replies and clarification! Ill keep this in mind in case another situation presents itself!

BigDave · Jul 12, 2014

samadkins29 said:
Hi (new here),
Had an incident happen in Seattle over the weekend that left a big burning "what if" question. While walking in downtown Seattle, I came across a fight that had broken out. It evolved pretty quickly into two guys kicking the face in on another guy. I attempted to cross the street but was un-able to do so quickly enough (traffic). The "attackers" (I don't know who started the fight) fled and left this guy covered in blood. I was only armed with my phone at the time and was able to call an ambulance while another party called the cops.

My question is; If I had been carrying at the time, would I be legally allowed to defend the guy getting his ass kicked? For arguments sake, since I'm not going to shoot through traffic, lets say I was able to cross the road prior to the attackers taking off. RCW 9.41.270 - Makes it sound as if I would be intimidating the attackers, and not legally allowed to draw on them.

*I was bar hoping that night, which is why I wasn't carrying*
**Not sure why people in Seattle like to sit and watch. Must have been 10 people on the other side just standing and watching this guy getting beat to death**

On what you have stated here, a simple yes deadly force is authorized.
This is based on the RCW's

RCW 9A.16.010
Definitions.
In this chapter, unless a different meaning is plainly required:
(1) "Necessary" means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended.
(2) "Deadly force" means the intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury.

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

Some say it is difficult to determine the who did what, I differ and take into consideration what are you currently seeing and hearing?
It is what you knew at that point in time when you acted.
It is lawful to use physical or deadly force to stop the threat, if the victim defended himself and continued an assault beyond a threat to him, the roles reverse when viewed by a third party.

Self Defense is to protect life and limb and not jury, judge and executioner.

One mentioned ?(lone wolf) that he was upset that the victim did not file charges, I say you did the right thing regardless of what the outcome was, you did right and can take that to the bank.

countryclubjoe · Jul 12, 2014

Be prepared for possible civil and criminal ramifications.

My .02

Hopefully the majority of us will never be subject to such a situation.

Regards

CCJ

Allowed to defend a 3rd party?

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

Vitaeus

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

Geerolla

Regular Member

509rifas

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

samadkins29

New member

BigDave

Opt-Out Members

countryclubjoe

Regular Member