Tased a man today

all it takes for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.

NHCGRPR45 said:

all it takes for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.

Click to expand...

Or, for people to keep feeding the troll.

eye95 said:

We seem to be getting a lot of stories lately of folks inserting themselves into a situation before force is required, prompting a hostile response, and being then compelled to threaten or use force.

Had I been in this situation, I would have called 911. I would not have intervened unless and until there appeared to be threat to life or limb.

What was witnessed, before intervention, was at worst a simple assault. Once the full facts of the situation were known, it could turn out to be no crime on the man's part at all. Although this is highly unlikely, it is possible and, if true, it means that the man was prompted to assault the interloper, leading to the tasing, which might otherwise not have been necessary.

I hope that folks that OC don't see themselves as needing to insert themselves in every fracas that erupts. Personally, I won't insert myself into a situation unless I am sure that there is a threat to life or limb. Time permitting, I will always call 911 first.

Click to expand...

The question that has yet to be asked is: "Was he being brave and going to her aid because he was armed? Or was it because he was being a good citizen?" NOBODY that open or concealed carries should feel the need to insert themselves into a situation because they're armed. You should be asking if you would have come to her aid if you weren't carrying or before you started carrying a firearm. That question alone tells you about a person's character and exactly why they carry. Just my opinion.

I carry my handgun, and a few other assoted "goodies", for my own personal protection and the protection of my wife and two daughters.

I am in no way OBLIGATED to use my resources to step into and attempt to intervene in someone elses mess.

My carry permit does not make me an automatic security guard, protector, guardian or LEO. Hell, I'm a CO at a county jail....and even that doesn't give me the right or make it my responsibility to apprehend every criminal or step into every domestic situation I come across.

Let me make this abundantly clear....

I CARRY AND TRAIN IN SELF DEFENSE TO PROTECT MYSELF AND MY FAMILY. I AM NOT HERE TO ACT AS SUPER HERO TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.


Period.

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Whatever his motivations, he should not have intervened if the level of "assault" was as minor as he had described it and if he had zero information on what precipitated the "assault." He may have read the situation completely incorrectly, inappropriately escalating the situation, becoming the aggressor himself.

Sounds like there's a lot of people here that would rather hear about a woman being pushed in front of a train by an abusive boyfriend, rather than intervene. It wasn't the first time he'd been physical, and it won't be the last, but at least it didn't escalate any farther this time.

confedneck said:

Sounds like there's a lot of people here that would rather hear about a woman being pushed in front of a train by an abusive boyfriend, rather than intervene. It wasn't the first time he'd been physical, and it won't be the last, but at least it didn't escalate any farther this time.

Click to expand...

Wow. It seems like you know more about the events than the OP. Impressive.

Folks, please reread the original post.

and it seems like you know more than everyone else, or at least you would have us believe as such.

I understand the OP may or may not be true. I also understand, and very clearly so, that there are battered women killed every day, and most times, people witnessed the previous attacks, assault, or knew about it, and did nothing. You can be that person, but as someone who has already stuck up for a handful of females in that girls' position, I refuse to stand idly by and hope he's just mad that she forgot to cut the crust off his pbandj.

confedneck said:

and it seems like you know more than everyone else, or at least you would have us believe as such.

I understand the OP may or may not be true. I also understand, and very clearly so, that there are battered women killed every day, and most times, people witnessed the previous attacks, assault, or knew about it, and did nothing. You can be that person, but as someone who has already stuck up for a handful of females in that girls' position, I refuse to stand idly by and hope he's just mad that she forgot to cut the crust off his pbandj.

Click to expand...

I presented my opinion. I did not present additional "facts" that were not in the original post, as you did--giving the impression that you knew more about what happened than the person it happened to:

It wasn't the first time he'd been physical, and it won't be the last, but at least it didn't escalate any farther this time.

Click to expand...

If the above were known to be true, that might change my opinion. However, it wasn't.

Moving on.

You can believe what you wish, however it's a FACT that women who are abused often end up dead.


Moving on.

eye95 said:

We seem to be getting a lot of stories lately of folks inserting themselves into a situation before force is required, prompting a hostile response, and being then compelled to threaten or use force.

Had I been in this situation, I would have called 911. I would not have intervened unless and until there appeared to be threat to life or limb.

What was witnessed, before intervention, was at worst a simple assault. Once the full facts of the situation were known, it could turn out to be no crime on the man's part at all. Although this is highly unlikely, it is possible and, if true, it means that the man was prompted to assault the interloper, leading to the tasing, which might otherwise not have been necessary.

I hope that folks that OC don't see themselves as needing to insert themselves in every fracas that erupts. Personally, I won't insert myself into a situation unless I am sure that there is a threat to life or limb. Time permitting, I will always call 911 first.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I must totally disagree with your post entirely (except for the part where you said you would call 911 first. +1)

There are two arguments going on here.
1.The gentlemans argument, and..
2. "intervene means prompting a hostile response" argument.

1.A woman is clearly being assaulted and you would not intervene? Ok. I can maybe go with that, however I might have to strip away your man card.

2. Now the part about you saying "inserting themselves into a situation... prompting a hostile response".. I have to take away your logic card. You also use the phrase "step in" a lot in this thread. The OP simply asked the man to stop from 12 feet away. PERFECTLY sensible response to a woman being shoved around, HE DID NOT place his hands on the man. The man then came at him aggressively. You are somehow saying this is something that every man should do once asked to stop assaulting their wife?
Is that what you would do? Come at the man who simply asked you to stop? No? Then why on earth is the OP "prompting a hostile response"??? Oh, because the guy shoving the girl around has the potential to GIVE a hostile response? So by that logic, if someone asks you to do something, you better do it because that person has the potential to give you a hostile response if you don't do what he asks? Hmm.


Don't insinuate that just because one asks someone to stop assaulting a female that they are somehow "prompting" a hostile response. No, that is not what one is doing. I know you probably will not agree with this or come to terms with it, but with your statement.. you are criminalizing good samaritans. You are saying that every good samaritan should know they are only escalating a situation by intervening, which is in itself, is making the original act of aggression by the bad guy, ok. Evil always wins when good people do nothing.

Or who knows, maybe you think its ok to swing a woman around and rough her up a bit? Maybe this is where your argument stems from? I surely know if I thought it was ok to do that, I would tell the OP to mind his own damn business. Fortunately, my parents taught me different. Any physical act of aggression towards a woman is simply wrong. This although, sort of coincides with the first argument.

Now, back to the first argument, I personally believe it is a gentlemans obligation to ask the man to stop physically harrassing his wife or girlfriend. Now this gentlemans argument can EASILY be debated with no winning side. Which is why I rather like this quote from a movie. Two men are about to board a helicopter to safety when one man goes back, placing his own life in danger to rescue his wife but another man tries to stop him who's wife is also in the same life-threatening situation. The man whos trying to go back to save his wife says to the other man, "Don't ask me why I can't leave without my wife and I won't ask you why you can". If a man thinks physically pushing and pulling a woman does not merit a verbal statement to stop, then I won't say you are wrong... but you better not tell me I'm wrong for doing such thing. To each his own.

eye95 said:

MamaLiberty wrote:
And I don't recall anyone saying that he shouldn't have shot the man.

My point was that you hyperbolically stated that any abuse was a threat to life or limb. To point out the folly of this statement, I asked that folks consider what would happen if (in the most general of examples, not this case specifically) someone (anyone) shot a person for simply having shoved a woman. Likely, he would have gone to prison. Clearly, not all abuse constitutes threat to life or limb.

IMO, the original poster's story did not illustrate any threat to life or limb. Therefore, he should not have stepped in.

Click to expand...

And I don't recall anyone saying that he shouldn't have "went on a killing spree of every man who fit the description of the abuser." So I am going to go ahead and use it in my arguments to try and negate any one else who argues with my opinion.

The way you counter someones point is like listening to nails on a chalk board. I clearly used valid points in my argument just like the other user, however I totally welcome your "ignoreland", or whatever variation you used on the other user. I would love to help you exist in a world where your opinion is eventually the only opinion available to your own eyes.

rscottie said:

eye95 wrote:

Now, if he had not laid his hands on her at all and it was just an argument, then I would agree with you, but he was starting to get out of hand. You can believe that because multiple people had called 911.

.

Click to expand...

+1

The woman was not in any immediate danger. Reread the description of the "assault."

Intervention was a total overreaction.

You have each said your part, and I doubt we're going to come to a conclusion of getting the other to agree, so why not just agree to disagree about what should have happened?

Nope. When someone makes it sound as though some major assault was going on, I will continue to refer folks back to the original description of the conflict, which is best described as a "tussle," the full context of which is totally unknown and which is best not escalated.

I don't care for the implications about the character of those of us who would have taken considered action in the event we were to observe the incident as described.

So, no, I won't "agree to disagree," which, to me, is not just an oxymoronic, but a just plain moronic, thing to do.

eye95 said:

Nope. When someone makes it sound as though some major assault was going on, I will continue to refer folks back to the original description of the conflict, which is best described as a "tussle," the full context of which is totally unknown and which is best not escalated.

I don't care for the implications about the character of those of us who would have taken considered action in the event we were to observe the incident as described.

So, no, I won't "agree to disagree," which, to me, is not just an oxymoronic, but a just plain moronic, thing to do.

Click to expand...

How exactly is "agreeing to disagree" an oxymoron? An oxymoron would be a statement that included contradictory terms. You would be agreeing, in a sense, to disagree at the larger subject at discussion. It's not that hard to figure out. Obviously you two disagree with each other, and have both made your points. Where are you expecting to go from him? What is your mission? To make others agree with you?

As I have stated repeatedly, I rarely expect to change the mind of the person to whom I am posting. I hope to give those who read, but do not post, a chance to make their own rational decision.

In the case of this thread, continually reminding folks to reread the first post will hopefully make them see how foolish it was for the OP to intervene in a relatively minor tussle, turning it into a full-on assault--which could have resulted in charges against the interloper.

The problem is that, without challenge, someone might duplicate the actions of the OP, but with predictably disastrous results.

Moving on--until someone tries to make the assault, as described in the OP, sound like a life-threatening situation in dire need for a good tasering again.

eye95 said:

As I have stated repeatedly, I rarely expect to change the mind of the person to whom I am posting. I hope to give those who read, but do not post, a chance to make their own rational decision.

In the case of this thread, continually reminding folks to reread the first post will hopefully make them see how foolish it was for the OP to intervene in a relatively minor tussle, turning it into a full-on assault--which could have resulted in charges against the interloper.

The problem is that, without challenge, someone might duplicate the actions of the OP, but with predictably disastrous results.

Moving on--until someone tries to make the assault, as described in the OP, sound like a life-threatening situation in dire need for a good tasering again.

Click to expand...

In your opinion, what is "threat of life or limb"? A punch to the face? A shove to the ground? Pulling a weapon? Using a weapon? There becomes a point where intervention may be too late, and physical damage has already occurred. I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather intervene in a situation that appears remotely out of hand, and use appropriate steps, such as a verbal command, and, if necessary, physical force, than to stand on the sidelines and wait for major bodily harm to be done, and then know in my conscience that I didn't do a thing about it, because I thought it was just a little "pushing and shoving" (because pushing and shoving is so normal to see in public every day). I mean, honestly, who would not agree that it's completely acceptable to say "Hey man, knock that off!" when witnessing such an incident happen? In many cases, that could end it right there, because the perp is aware that someone is taking it serious.

Some people are men, other people are mice. Plain and simple.