Avenge or Rescue?

IglooDude said:

And which one of them was in the right, merely defending themselves with deadly force, and which one was the original attacker?

Click to expand...

Ah, ah, ah!
Read the hypo:

You're walking around somewhere, late at night. You see one person attack another with a knife. He fights back and loses. The attacker is obviously hurt, looks around, sees you and begins hobbling away.

Click to expand...

This is all we know. Maybe there was provocation; maybe the attacker thought he was justified, but to any casual observer, this is an obvious violent crime. Furthermore, the perpetrator's subsequent action (attempted flight) is consistent with his having committed a crime. (In a subsequent criminal action, the prosecution could introduce this as evidence of his knowledge of guilt.)

Edit: I'm not trying to be a smartass (well, no more than usual) - but when you walk around with deadly force in your belt, you gain a little perspective on employing it, and realize that appearances can be very deceiving.

Click to expand...

Indubitably, and I hope I've made clear that I am far from certain on the legal answer to the question. Also, everything I've ever heard from law enforcement personnel is that they don't want civilians trying to do law enforcement's job: you look out for the victim; we will deal with the perpetrator. I'm quite content to follow that request.

EDIT: cross-posted with Erik.

Erik Mesoy said:

While I thank you for the salient points, this sort post still exasparates me when I realize how much precision I need to get a hypothetical situation across the way I intend.
(Definitely not your fault.)

The OP read "You see one person attack another" and not "You see one person who is attacking another". This was supposed to indicate that you saw it start, and there wasn't uncertainty as to who really started and perhaps the man was defending himself.

And I should have made the tranquilizer gun non-parenthetical to get around things like possible unjustified use of deadly force. Mumble.

Click to expand...

Yeah, CFC OT seems to be the place where hypothetical situations go to die.

It may be particular only to me, but I'm hesitant enough to employ force in circumstances where my wife and I aren't the ones directly threatened, that it almost doesn't matter how you phrased the attacking part, I'd still be leery of shooting someone - and... please don't cringe too loudly, but how do I know that tranq gun has tranq in it and not (say) antifreeze?

In contrition, I'll offer you an alternative hypothetical. You're on a ship, down below. You enter a compartment and a through-hull fitting lets go, hitting the watchstander in the head knocking him to the deck. You realize that you can either drag the watchstander out of the compartment, saving him from drowning, but the flooding is unchecked and might go through other compartments (and possibly the ship); or, you could repair the hole but the watchstander will definitely drown.

Any better?

IglooDude said:

It may be particular only to me, but I'm hesitant enough to employ force in circumstances where my wife and I aren't the ones directly threatened, that it almost doesn't matter how you phrased the attacking part, I'd still be leery of shooting someone - and... please don't cringe too loudly, but how do I know that tranq gun has tranq in it and not (say) antifreeze?

Click to expand...

Off-topic: it's reasoning like this that makes me comfortable with someone like you "packing heat." It's the @#$#@!! Rambos, who say they'll save everyone at the next school shooting spree that get me very, very nervous. ('Cause when the police show up, how do they tell Rambo from Kleibold? Oh, of course: Rambo's topless, and Kleibold's in a trenchcoat!)

In contrition, I'll offer you an alternative hypothetical. You're on a ship, down below. You enter a compartment and a through-hull fitting lets go, hitting the watchstander in the head knocking him to the deck. You realize that you can either drag the watchstander out of the compartment, saving him from drowning, but the flooding is unchecked and might go through other compartments (and possibly the ship); or, you could repair the hole but the watchstander will definitely drown.

Click to expand...

Repair the hole? I think you get the watchstander out, and then you can seal the hatches to that area. If it is a given that the flooding will be unchecked if I do this (i.e., the ship will sink), then I have to leave him to his fate. In fact, if I'm in the affected area and cannot get out in time . . . I'd better learn to hold my breath.

Seems to me (from my extensive movie-watching experience) that this is a situation that the Navy probably has standard procedures for dealing with.

I would most definitely choose avenge. I hate seeing bad guys get away.

Stegyre said:

Off-topic: it's reasoning like this that makes me comfortable with someone like you "packing heat." It's the @#$#@!! Rambos, who say they'll save everyone at the next school shooting spree that get me very, very nervous. ('Cause when the police show up, how do they tell Rambo from Kleibold? Oh, of course: Rambo's topless, and Kleibold's in a trenchcoat!)

Click to expand...

Stegyre said:

Repair the hole? I think you get the watchstander out, and then you can seal the hatches to that area. If it is a given that the flooding will be unchecked if I do this (i.e., the ship will sink), then I have to leave him to his fate. In fact, if I'm in the affected area and cannot get out in time . . . I'd better learn to hold my breath.

Click to expand...

Erik's hypothetical wasn't clear on whether the attacker would attack others, so I deliberately left out what the flooding would do, except to say that simply sealing the hatch behind me wouldn't help. (Or if I didn't say it, I was thinking it loudly.)

Oh, and "repair the hole" includes closing the valve to the part of the sea-chest still attached to the hull.

Or something.

Stegyre said:

Seems to me (from my extensive movie-watching experience) that this is a situation that the Navy probably has standard procedures for dealing with.

Click to expand...

They don't get quite so particular about it, but there is a certain expectation that you may have to sacrifice individuals (including yourself) in order to save the ship/crew.

But in this hypothetical - pretend it is a Liberian-flagged tramp steamer, except that in this case there's actually someone on watch in the engine room.

IglooDude said:

But in this hypothetical - pretend it is a Liberian-flagged tramp steamer, except that in this case there's actually someone on watch in the engine room.

Click to expand...

Well, for tramp steamers, the appropriate procedure was established by Joseph Conrad: you pull a Lord Jim and hope to someday redeem yourself in Patusan.

(That's what you get for asking an English Major. As far as I know, a "sea-chest" is where sailors keep their clothes, or what they say to each other during shore leave when in the presence of buxom women. )

Erik Mesoy said:

I would go after the attacker. Then he won't kill more people. If I save the wounded man, I'm leaving a source of wounded men alone.

Click to expand...

If you divide the number of murders by the number of murderers, is the answer greater than 2?

I'd make a snap judgment about the likelihood that the attacker would kill again if unstopped. For example, if I had gathered from their brief exchange that the two men were brothers with a very personal dispute, I'd figure it unlikely the guy is a serial killer, and I'd help the victim.

Edit: I think the description "avenge" is wrong. It's not about vengeance, it's about stopping the danger.