How should CCW person handle a situation like this???

[Bocephus123]

My thought too, although after that suplex onto the concrete physical intervention on my part probably would have ensued, a nice water-boy style blindside tackle....but I'm also 5'11, 265lbs ex-college ball player who still goes to the gym every morning so my comfortability with hands on intervention of a guy that size is different than most.

That's how men settle things. till the idiot pulls out a gun then you have to shoot him

 

[Bocephus123]

I've seen someone's skull cracked on the pavement and their brain spilling out with the blood. I've seen life leave them before you could hear the sirens on the ambulance.

If it was a loved one, after he had body slammed her and bent over her I would have killed him. It's as simple as that. There is no use in mincing any words about it.

I would not wait for him to pick her up again or for him to bend over her and stick a knife into her liver, or drop a knee on her chest and break her spine. I don't need to see his hands. I'm not in LE anymore. I don't need to issue any verbal commands or warnings. I don't need to know if he's mentally ill or on drugs. I wouldn't care about any of that. He's made his intent known, and I would be in desperate fear of death or great bodily injury to my loved one. I've thought it over. I thought it over for a very long time while I was in LE. It isn't a talisman. I'm not going to threaten anyone with it. If it gets to the point that I as a private citizen feel like me or a loved one is in danger of death or great bodily harm it's going to come out smoking. That's scenario #1.

Scenario #2 is entirely a different situation.

that would be the correct response in my eyes. i think the DA would agree

 

[Matt Giroux]

That's how men settle things. till the idiot pulls out a gun then you have to shoot him

This is very true, and would be one of my previous situations I mentioned earlier, luckily for that specific man and myself in that instance some strongly worded encouragement and a close by brick wall with which to pin his body against the gentleman decided that his pistol was better left in its holster and he was better off to leave the establishment we were at before law enforcement arrived...

 

[mavs]

That's how men settle things. till the idiot pulls out a gun then you have to shoot him

Oh, I guess I missed the part where he pulled out a gun....

 

[Bocephus123]

? not sure what that means. but we used to go down to the creek and settle things like a man. now people are too quick to pull out a gun. always a last resort i was taught.

 

[JR777]

You're allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself or another innocent person from death or serious injury. In either case, the attacker has to have means, motive, and opportunity. Moreover, your actions are judged based on the information you had at the time.

If the woman being attacked had shot him, it's likely she would be in the clear. Being violently attacked by a stranger who is that much stronger than you is a credible threat. Once on the ground, he could have easily strangled her or bashed her head in, so she apparently had every reason to be in fear for her life.

Things go off the rails a little though if you're just a random onlooker turned good Samaritan. Namely because you wouldn't have a clue what's actually going on. This is being reported as a carjacking, so we'll just go with that, but it could easily turn out to be a domestic violence thing, and really had that look to it more so than a carjacking. You would undoubtedly be justified in using force, but I don't know about deadly force. Definitely not a good idea if you don't know what's going on. For all you know it's something domestic and she did something to provoke the attack. Maybe that's her baby daddy and she stole that car from him? Point is, as a rando onlooker you don't have a clue what's actually going on. Now if he starts trying to strangle her or bash her head in, things would change. Or if he pulled a weapon, picked up a blunt object, etc.

So many shades of gray here, but no, as an onlooker, I don't think you would be justified to pull the gun on him, much less shoot him. You would be justified in pulling him off of her, and if he turned on you and overpowered you, then yea maybe. But you still have to convince a jury that they in your position would have feared for their life. You can shoot someone to save your life, but not to avoid an ass whooping, and it's damn near impossible to prove what someone might have done before they actually do it.

 

[Bocephus123]

very true and well put. so many if's! then a public official's interpretation

 

[jakeman]

You're allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself or another innocent person from death or serious injury. In either case, the attacker has to have means, motive, and opportunity. Moreover, your actions are judged based on the information you had at the time.

If the woman being attacked had shot him, it's likely she would be in the clear. Being violently attacked by a stranger who is that much stronger than you is a credible threat. Once on the ground, he could have easily strangled her or bashed her head in, so she apparently had every reason to be in fear for her life.

Things go off the rails a little though if you're just a random onlooker turned good Samaritan. Namely because you wouldn't have a clue what's actually going on. This is being reported as a carjacking, so we'll just go with that, but it could easily turn out to be a domestic violence thing, and really had that look to it more so than a carjacking. You would undoubtedly be justified in using force, but I don't know about deadly force. Definitely not a good idea if you don't know what's going on. For all you know it's something domestic and she did something to provoke the attack. Maybe that's her baby daddy and she stole that car from him? Point is, as a rando onlooker you don't have a clue what's actually going on. Now if he starts trying to strangle her or bash her head in, things would change. Or if he pulled a weapon, picked up a blunt object, etc.

So many shades of gray here, but no, as an onlooker, I don't think you would be justified to pull the gun on him, much less shoot him. You would be justified in pulling him off of her, and if he turned on you and overpowered you, then yea maybe. But you still have to convince a jury that they in your position would have feared for their life. You can shoot someone to save your life, but not to avoid an ass whooping, and it's damn near impossible to prove what someone might have done before they actually do it.

Lots of moving parts if the person being attacked is someone you do not know. I know it's a stretch, but what if he was a plain clothes police officer or federal agent and she was a violent felon that was known to be armed and dangerous, or any one of a thousand other possible scenarios.

If it's a loved one the decision gets a lot easier real quick.

 

[mavs]

You're allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself or another innocent person from death or serious injury. In either case, the attacker has to have means, motive, and opportunity. Moreover, your actions are judged based on the information you had at the time.

If the woman being attacked had shot him, it's likely she would be in the clear. Being violently attacked by a stranger who is that much stronger than you is a credible threat. Once on the ground, he could have easily strangled her or bashed her head in, so she apparently had every reason to be in fear for her life.

Things go off the rails a little though if you're just a random onlooker turned good Samaritan. Namely because you wouldn't have a clue what's actually going on. This is being reported as a carjacking, so we'll just go with that, but it could easily turn out to be a domestic violence thing, and really had that look to it more so than a carjacking. You would undoubtedly be justified in using force, but I don't know about deadly force. Definitely not a good idea if you don't know what's going on. For all you know it's something domestic and she did something to provoke the attack. Maybe that's her baby daddy and she stole that car from him? Point is, as a rando onlooker you don't have a clue what's actually going on. Now if he starts trying to strangle her or bash her head in, things would change. Or if he pulled a weapon, picked up a blunt object, etc.

So many shades of gray here, but no, as an onlooker, I don't think you would be justified to pull the gun on him, much less shoot him. You would be justified in pulling him off of her, and if he turned on you and overpowered you, then yea maybe. But you still have to convince a jury that they in your position would have feared for their life. You can shoot someone to save your life, but not to avoid an ass whooping, and it's damn near impossible to prove what someone might have done before they actually do it.

I completely agree with your assessment and evaluation, and that's the point I've been trying to make. But all of the Roy Rogers and Hopalong Cassidys on here are going to to "take him out" ! hahahaha

 

[John6185]

'They do what they want to do." That is the truth, like it or not. No one deserves to be treated like that woman regardless of color or creed. I would help her by any means within my power.