Jack Ryan
Ultimate Member
Damn, I better watch myself from now on. I like to check out the ladies as much as the next guy.
if the question was more geared toward if the man was able to carry a concealed weapon would the circumstances be different? in this case i think fire arms would have only exacerbated the incident due to the man was blind sided and the attacker could have taken the weapon. with extensive self defense training the man might have stood a better chance but there is also the other side to this argument, if the attacker was able to carry a concealed weapon would he have used it?
A bystander may have been able to help. I know you are not supposed to play vigilante, but i someone is in mortal danger and I can intervene with my gun, I would do so. I would rather do the right thing and deal with the consequences later.
In this case, the attacker would have been a prohibited person. I would imagine that most people in their 40's committing this type of crime are prohibited. You don't get through that much of your adult life with such poor judgement and a bad temper and not get to meet the po-po on multiple occasions.
The law in MD permits you to use lethal force to defend the life of another if the person being aided could have used lethal force to defend his own life.
If anyone remembers OKellys (formerly JJ's), he also worked there on and off at the door and bouncing.
The law in MD permits you to use lethal force to defend the life of another if the person being aided could have used lethal force to defend his own life.
Although if you are leaning over the frozen foods looking for fish sticks and someone suddenly smashes your face into the freezer and starts beating the shit out of you, going for you IWB Glock may be a tad difficult......Maybe it's just me, but it seems that if the person being aided could aid themselves then they wouldn't need me to aid them.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that if the person being aided could aid themselves then they wouldn't need me to aid them.
Good to know, Esq. I carry daily, and have wondered about that. I could never find much on it, but my google-fu is not strong. It wouldn't change what I would do, but it makes me more comfortable.
Yes , there have been retail establishment succuesfully sued over providing suitable security precautions to patrons. But it is usually for known hazzards , and judged for reasonableness , and compared to other similar establishments. Usually involving poor lighting , blind spots , disrepaired fencing , or improperly screened and supervised employees.
The situation described here of a spontanious attack by one patron upon another patron would be unlikely to have any liability against the store.
Here is the case. It is worth a read. Personally, I would regard coming to the aid of others as legally risky because one seldom has all the facts in that situation. For example, you would not want to unknowingly come to the aid of a criminal who is being arrested by a plains clothes LEO. OTH, sometimes it is obvious.
Here is the jury instruction (from Lee, attached):
Defense of another person is a complete defense,
and you are required to find the defendant
not guilty, if all of the following four factors are
present:
(1) the defendant actually believed that the person
defended was in immediate and imminent
danger of death or serious bodily harm;
(2) the defendant's belief was reasonable;
(3) the defendant used no more force than was
reasonably necessary to defend the person defended
in light of the threatened or actual
force; and
(4) the defendant's purpose in using force was
to aid the person defended.
The tricky part is 3, of course. Use of deadly force against an unarmed person is fraught with legal peril. See Cobin attached. A good casei is also Lambert v. State, 70 Md.App. 83, 93, 519 A.2d 1340, cert. denied, 309 Md. 605, 525 A.2d 1075 (1987) (while general self-defense rule precludes use of deadly weapon against unarmed assailant, account must be taken, among other things, of respective size of defendant and assailant and violent nature of unarmed attack);Tipton v. State, 1 Md.App. 556, 562, 232 A.2d 289 (1967) (where defender uses deadly force against nondeadly attacker, original attacker becomes defender).
You would have to apply these factors very quickly at this sort of Acme situation. Risky.
Thank you for the references. I think this is a topic that you need to discuss on a case by case basis, but I'm certain that there are certain circumstances which would make it clear that someone is in danger. When we get CCW in MD, it will be something that anyone who chooses to carry may be faced with and should consider. We train and think about defending ourselves, but need to consider what we would do if others are in danger as well.
To the initial question of Acme's liability, did they do something a reasonable person wouldn't have done, or did they fail to do something a reasonable person would have done? I don't see it.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that if the person being aided could aid themselves then they wouldn't need me to aid them.