Pulling a firearm on an unarmed male attacking a female

It depends on the state, but this is definitely protecting a third party in most states (maybe every state), even with a duty to retreat. The best way to defend this is not by saying that the man felt like he was in danger, but that he was stepping in to save the woman’s life.

Edit for clarification: A defense lawyer would say this to a court. You would not say anything to the police.

The situation of a man beating up a woman is particular sketchy. There are good odds that she'd come back a day later and say everything was fine until you stepped in.

Morally justified but your state sucks. Hopefully it would get thrown out but not after plenty of legal fees for someone trying to help someone else. What a shame…

Spicy eye juice time?

My take away is that duty to retreat laws are dumb. In my state that would be 100% justified.

Justified in my state. Duty to retreat is stupid.

That he was charged means one of two things:

1) there are facts you don’t have or are choosing not to share; or

2) the prosecutor isn’t applying the law.

The law is here.

Scroll down to the deadly force section.

As for duty to retreat, doesn’t apply based on the facts in the OP as the law says:

The person knows that the person or a 3rd person can, with complete safety:

Based on the info provided and the injuries reported it’s clear the woman couldn’t retreat in complete safety. And seems she couldn’t retreat at all.

And lethal force can be used:

When the person reasonably believes it necessary and reasonably believes such other person is:

About to use unlawful, deadly force against the person or a 3rd person

And it seems the woman’s life was in danger and the gun owner would reasonably believe lethal force was necessary to stop the assault.

Clearly there is more to the story that we don’t have.

Hypothetically if he intervened physically, and the 300lbs dude turned his attention to the 160lbs, then it would be legal for him to draw his weapon? In a duty to retreat state that is.

He will need a lawyer, but luckily a decent lawyer will be able to get out of this easily. The disparity of force here is a key element. This wasn’t two drunk dudes scrapping on the sidewalk. This was somebody beating on a woman 1/3 their size. This could very easily cause death or serious bodily injury. He’ll almost certainly get out of it.

Where was this?

This is a situation where perhaps pepper spray on the person first, instead of brandishing the weapon, could have saved the individual some grief.

Either way, I am glad that he stepped up to protect the woman. Many people nowadays would have taken their phone out to record instead of a gun to protect.

Ever see videos where a guy is beating a woman then the cops show up and they arrest the guy, then the woman goes after the cops?

Imagine this scenario and you have to shoot the guy, then the woman you’re protecting sues you because you killed her husband.

Same situation with two guys, guy you save sues you because you kill his brother.

It’s a hard situation and you have to decide what your morals will or won’t allow you to potentially risk your freedom and life over, but sometimes calling the cops and being a good witness is your best option. Maybe some OC spray and hand skills if you have them. As far as him being charged with brandishing, that’s just dumb.

Guess it wouldn’t be brandishing if he just shot the guy instead?

Based on what you said this may be a case of police policy over functional ideas.

His defense is "defense of another" so he should be good. His duty to retreat was not in play because "the other" was unable to leave the scene.

Sadly, this is also why so may people simply ignore crime happening and are willing to let women be raped and others be generally victimized.

We have a society terrified to get involved.

I would always recommend that you exercise extreme caution when injecting yourself into the conflicts of strangers; especially if it appears domestic.

Domestic violence calls are some of the most dangerous calls to get involved with due to how volatile and unpredictable they are. It is very rare to get cooperation from the victim, even if they have suffered nasty injuries.

It is also not uncommon for the victim to attack the officers when it becomes apparent that their partner is about to face consequences - and if they’re willing to attack an officer, they’re damn sure willing to attack a stranger; or at least lie about what happened.

Also, as dispassionate as it sounds - you don’t actually know who the aggressor originally was. I’ve responded to my fair share of calls where the party I initially thought was the victim was actually the person I arrested after completing the investigation.

You’re the only one who gets to decide whether to intervene or not. Just be aware that there are A LOT of unknowns and the risks can be extreme.

Hopefully he has a good lawyer because it sounds like that woman was well on her way to being killed or suffering permanent serious physical injuries.

First your buddy needs a good lawyer secondly I know a lot of people in here believe that you should never pull your gun unless the threat is directly against you however you can’t put a price on living with yourself. That girl could have turned out a lot worse and he likely saved her life. Knowing nothing about Maine laws it seems to me that a reasonable objective person (the use of force standard) would have done the same thing. Chances are that the case is going to go to the prosecutor who will review it and likely drop the charges knowing that your buddy will likely win in trial.

I think I heard about this incident on the CC podcast.

It's bullshit he is getting charged given the circumstances, but unless he knew the context of the situation he probably shouldn't have drew/ got involved past calling 911, I think the only way I would have drew my firearm in that situation is if the aggressor was hitting the woman with a baseball bat or some other weapon.

I hope this guys case gets thrown out as it should.

[Image] 

If the person believed the person he was protecting was in danger of their life the use of deadly threat is justified even in Maine when facing duty to retreat. The only time it’s not considered to be justified is when the person without a doubt has the ability to flee. Given the person in question was beaten to the point she has broken bones and missing teeth I’d say with the an actual lawyer that wants to defend his client, this is an open and shut justifiable defense case. If he says he was afraid the woman would not survive the attack and he himself wasn’t able to stop the attack with just physically intervention because of the size of the attacker this would be an easy slam dunk in court for a lawyer IMO. Problem is some lawyers are not real lawyers and just want an easy case, throw a “accept the plea” and move on kind of people. Hopefully he has the right lawyer, with nothing but the defense for himself at the upmost importance of his lawyer.

This story, the Daniel Penny prosecution, and others like it are why women are on their own as far as I'm concerned. Yes, I am carrying a gun and could do something about your boyfriend beating you or that subway zombie menacing you. No, I will not actually be doing anything. You're on your own, honey. Maybe you should have voted better. 🤷‍♀️

Morally to me that’s not a gray area. He did the right thing. That should be legal and duty to retreat is stupid in this case. That situation could’ve easily resulted in her death (but serious bodily harm had already happened so it’s already justifiable?) so it should be justified to draw to protect a third party.

It's also the reason why I carry pepper spray. It's a less lethal option.

Disparity of force, did you have Reasonable Belief the bad actor would cause your or the third party grave injury?

If you ever pull your gun it’s good to dial 911 before the other person does

Used work as a bouncer many moons ago, im not unfamiliar with similar awkward scenarios. Im not gping get into the 'iamverytough' territory or 'what I wulda done'; but do have somd words of caution

I'd be very hesitant to pull my gun on any stranger beating up stranger.

If you walk up on a situation like this, take your tactical pause, let the bimbo get smacked around a bit more it'll probably buff, vibe out their relation, look around for friends/sketchy onlookers, access the safety of the area a bit, dont rush to failure, it really only takes a couple seconds.

Beyond that 'dun draw unless yer ready to shoot' but unironically. If he keeps beating her ass you feel good about making a low probability shot, if he turns towards you etc. Using a gun to break up a fight is honestly a bit silly and one of those situations that calls for intermediary levels of force.

Also keep in mind, especially given the male-female dynamic, there's a not especially small chance if you use any force the victim will take the Abusers side, leaving you in the lurch possibly standing over a dead guy.

I understand if you feel compelled to intervene, I would too, but just because you have a hammer doesn't make everything a nail; its not a binary. Tbh the most practical thing would be to just hit em with ye ol' "hey you there, stop" without revealing your power levels.

Don’t get involved. Call the cops, be a good witness.

Your gun is for protecting you and your loved ones only. Anything else invites a potential world of hurt.

If he’s shot the guy the woman would likely press charges if she could and sue him in civil court.

Our world is that messed up.

Also, never threaten anyone with a gun. If it’s time to shoot, draw and shoot. Otherwise leave it in the holster.

Finally you never know what’s going on in these situations. She could have pulled a gun on him and the big guys was just defending himself with his hands. Unlikely, true. But you never really j ow for sure.

Call the cops, be a good witness.

I would have shot him.

A very similar situation occurred near me a few years ago. However it escalated to the CCW holder firing shots, and killing the aggressor. The CCW holder was released, and the attorney's office stated “Admissible evidence would not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that laws were violated. Therefore, this office is declining prosecution relative to this incident.”

When I started carrying, I was given some fairly straightforward advice by my first instructor. If you believe yourself or someone else is being fatally endangered by another person's actions, whether they have a physical weapon or not, could be justification for use of your firearm.

So it all boils down to judgement for me. If the aggressor appears to have no regard for whether or not they're going to beat their victim to death or seriously maim them, I would consider drawing.

Article on shooting: https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/12/17/man-who-shot-killed-his/

That is ridiculous,that man could’ve beat her to death..he could’ve save her life..regardless he did the right thing,unfortunately;the right thing doesn’t always fall in line with the law

So part of me wonders if this post is just trying to spark conversation and never happened but here it is anyway.

Deadly force can be used in the defense of a 3rd party. Deadly force can also be used when there are other factors in play, such as a major difference in size, or when the person attacking you is trained in the martial arts (and that fact is known to you at the time of the confrontation). The key is that he should have intervened without the gun first. Then if the man attacked him the Deadly force would be justified based on the difference in size. As it is he may be in some trouble legally but he needs a lawyer for sure.

And the BS about not talking to the police is just that, BS. Make your statement if you have nothing to hide, and if you're not confident that your actions were justified then what the hell are you doing carrying a gun anyway, let alone pulling it. That goes back to if you are going to carry a gun you better damn well KNOW when to use it.

Know the law of self-defense. https://lawofselfdefense.com/beginjourney/

Duty to retreat is irrelevant here. 

Duty to retreat means that you have to make a good faith effort to resolve the damger by just fleeing IF you are reasonably able. 

The old textbook example being, when you are threatened in a road rage incident, and you’re in your car, why get OUT of your car and fight, when you could just hit the gas and drive off?

So anyways, 

In this situation, retreating is NOT something you are reasonably able to do. 

The JUSTIFIED defense here was defense of an innocent third party being physically harmed by another person.  

You can’t flee to remove THAT person from danger. 

You can’t throw that person over your shoulder and run away with them can you?

So, drawing your defensive weapon, in order to defend said person if necessary, is a justifiable use case.  

 

That event would be 100% justified in my state, and I doubt anyone outside of Atlanta would even think about bringing the intervening bystander charges.

Shame on those of you who take this moment to tell us how "anti-John Wick" you are. May your families always be protected by bystanders with better morals than you.

So I was in this situation. I witnessed a man run up and start attacking what was assumed to be his girlfriend/partner. The man knocked the woman to the ground and started hitting her. I was in my car right in front of them so I got out of my car very quickly, drew my firearm, the guy immediately stopped. Once the police were there I used my previous EMT training to assist the victim. Nasty knock on the head, broken teeth, brusing and she was pregnant.The cops came by, reviewed the security footage, said I made the correct decision and said i saved her life. I did have to testify in court against the guy.

Probably because it's a duty to retreat state. I feel for yall that don't live in the part of America that's still free

What so in Maine you can't show your carry gun to stop an asshole feom killing another human while you call 911?

Here in Maine I think that's a big no-no. Sure it was the right and good thing to do but even if you're witnessing a murder in front of you, you can't legally do anything about it because of duty to retreat.

Has the guys story been picked up by the news at all?

Don’t care the circumstances, if I can get out of a situation and get home without drawing a weapon that’s the move I’m taking.

I’m not a “good guy with a gun” I’m a guy who has a gun to get home to my family.

I doubt the state will convict the Good Samaritan.

I think this is the Maine law https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec108.html and I think it didn’t happen unless someone provides a link to a news source.

It's not a grey area, it's bullshit.

The person who was being attacked was faced with an imminent threat of grievous bodily injury, and indeed DID suffer grievous bodily injury (lost teeth, broken bones, etc.) which could have easily been much worse.

If the situation is as described, there probably isn't a jury anywhere in the United States that would convict.

But as others have mentioned, there might be additional facts here that we don't know about. In fact, there might be things even your friend doesn't know about that could complicate things (like the woman pulled a weapon on the man).

I commend people here for saying they would help the victim and that’s good and all, but you guys don’t have deep pockets in the event of a lawsuit. The person who you defended will most likely not fight tooth and nail to help keep you out of jail like you would do for yourself. I’m sorry to say that, but some people are seriously delusional in thinking that it’s going to be okay because the law says it was a justifiable defense. Attorneys can and will bend the laws to whatever agenda makes the most sense.

Just trying to look out for someone here who might want to help someone in good faith using their weapon and it ends up biting them in the butt. I would hate for that to be you. Intervene another way if you’re going to, but don’t get physically involved.

Customer is an idiot for jumping into a domestic situation, even if he was doing the right thing.

It’s the experience of everyone ever that you don’t get involved in people’s domestic shit unless you’re family.

Everyone else is just going to get shit on by both people involved, and very likely by the police too when they get involved.

If you aint a cop dont get involved. Simple as that. Yes id feel bad for the woman but in no way would this person get out of brandishing or being the agressor. All they can legally do is call the police and record whats happening without saying anything.

Sucks ass but now the guy could lose his ccw and his gun rights for life and possibly voting rights and cost himself 5 figures or more just for tryin to be the good guy.

I guess not in Maine, but I've been told many states allow some form of "defensive display". Displaying and sometimes even pointing the firearm without firing, and without issuing commands(!), would be considered ordinary force instead of deadly force. That doesn't mean the trial court won't convict you and force you to go to appeals though. And if the defensive display escalates the confrontation and leads to a death, instead of deescalating, that's another can of worms that I'm not aware of at all.

Defense of another is usually good legal grounds. There’s no duty to retreat when defending another because that would just allow the attack to continue. Hope he gets a good lawyer.

Everyone who carries has to accept the possibility that arrest and prison is a possibility. The slogan “A good shoot is a good shoot” is BS. There’s no mathematical formula, it’s a prosecutor and jury that ultimately decides what’s a good shoot. There’s always a non zero chance of going to prison. When you draw your gun, you have to decide whether prison is better than the outcome of not drawing.

Maines ccw laws rely on defenders making big judgment calls off of what is almost certainly incomplete information in an intense situation.

This is a 3rd party issue, where someone else is at risk of injury or great bodily harm.

It's a given here that non-lethal force is allowable and advisable to employ if it could be effective in resolving the immediate threat.

Lethal force is authorized if you feel the victims situation fits these conditions:

1) Injury/harm is imminent and unpreventable 2) The victim is not the instigator nor escalated the fight 3) The victim could not / can not retreat safely

In this situation we know: -Victim was pinned down and could not escape -Victim was undoubtedly the one facing annilation when GGG (good guy gun) arrives on the scene.

We dont know: -if victim instigated or escalated the fight -Prior history / other unknowns

The argument that nonlethals should have been used prior is an angle to consider. But cops aren't switching from non-lethals to sidearms unless they are paired.

GGGs all alone out here in a sketchy, isolated setting. GGG felt that if he didn't have his gun, she or he would die. GGG draws and takes control of the situation.

Depending on the victim's testimony, trial, and all the involved's standing with the man - the defender should be ok, legally anyways. And the Perp should be FUCKED.

I think we are all hoping Perp eats some thick book with a side of SA charge to top off his resume heading into the pen..

Pulling for GGG 🤠😇🥲

Justified in Texas.

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.33. Defense of Third Person

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect;  and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

What is duty to retreat and to hate does it have to do with stopping a potential murder if he accidentally killed her with his bare hands?

Lawyer, but not a Maine lawyer and not a criminal defense lawyer, so I’m just spitballing and this sure as hell isn’t advice for anyone.

As a general matter, defense of self or others is a valid defense (justification) to any charge related to use or threat of deadly force. And attacking someone even with bare hands, particularly involving blows to the head, can constitute an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, which is generally the legal standard. So, I would argue that the defendant drawing his firearm here was justified because it was in defense of a woman who was facing such an imminent threat, as evidenced by her injuries. Duty to retreat shouldn’t apply because the attack was already underway: She couldn’t retreat while the assailant’s hands were around her throat, not until the defendant drew his weapon. It was only because he intervened that she could retreat, and indeed that’s the only reason she’s alive.

It’s possible, even likely, that either there are material facts that we don’t know, or Maine law on the justified defense of others is shit, or the prosecutor is being a tool, or some combination of those three. This sadly might be a situation where the good guy will need to rely on the good judgement of twelve jurors, or perhaps no good deed goes unpunished. But in any event, he can sleep well at night knowing he saved a woman from being beaten to death by a scumbag.

FYI, I always recommend Andrew Branca’s book on the law of self defense to anyone who carries. Unlike me, Branca is an actual expert on this area of the law.

Sounds like communism.

This sounds like even a public defender can get him off. Definitely said to much (he was bigger than me and I feel like if I stepped in he would hurt me) but the guy clearly was beating the dogshit out of the victim and her size compared to the attacker would be more than enough for this to be deamed justified even here in Illinois

As others have said, it depends on the state, in my state it would be 100% justified. But I like what Active Self Protection says which is if yours or someone else’s life is in danger then you’re almost always justified in using your firearm. I would say based off the injuries sustained by the woman, it was a life threatening situation. It sucks that Maine is a duty to retreat state, but in states like that it is smart to carry less lethal options like pepper spray.

Do you mean "charged" as in the district attorney has filed a criminal case, or "charged" as in the male assailant or female victim has filed a civil case?

Seems justified. However I have heard stories of this happening and then the victim sides with the attacker (usually domestic partner, not a stranger in these cases) be careful homie.

He is applying “self defense” on the behalf of the girl, the duty to retreat falls on the “user” of said self defense, in this case the girl. Doesn’t sound like the girl has any ability to retreat from the sound of things, therefore I would argue that the duty to retreat requirement in this case is met as she had no ability nor opportunity to. I agree with his logic that in size and strength, she is in imminent death/bodily harm. Again, he came to exercise self defense on her behalf, there for the requirements to exercise that right is based on her, not him from what I understand, so I think a lawyer should get him square away no problem

Yea I think anytime you draw your weapon in public in self defense or someone else you will automatically be charged with something. Best case scenario the charges are dropped once he goes to court. Hope he has insurance

Regardless of if the person is charged or not, nearly every state has written into their statutes some kind of affirmative defense of justification, specifically if the force they use is to prevent/terminate DPF being used against another person. Wherein they could be charged, but the jury would be instructed that the defense of justification is a valid one. I don't know what particular state you're talking about though.

Should’ve shot that piece of shit. Then it’s the victim’s testimony and his defense attorney against the jury. If that guy is beating on a woman to the point bones are broken and teeth are missing, he either wouldn’t have stopped without intervention or he’s likely to go that far again. In either case, adios pendejo

If this story is true it would be national news and you don't need to redact their name. You'll have millions of dollars in support donated and every guntuber would make it a big story.

It really depends on the DA.
Last year in a couple of high profile self defense cases, one was a security guard that used the perps gun on them during a fight and another was a bodega worker stabbing an assailant. The DA eventually didn't pursue cases against the victims.

https://nypost.com/2023/04/08/wounded-nyc-parking-attendant-holds-no-ill-will-toward-gunman/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/11/us/new-york-bodega-stabbing-murder-charges/index.html

I wonder if the female pulled out a firearm to prevent from being pummeled or to stop the pummeling if she would be charged.

Unsure about your state laws but, in IL it is justified to use your firearm to stop a FORCIBLE felony which are things like rape, assault, attempted murder etc.

Legally he is in for an uphill fight; unless there is video evidence or testimony from witness or the victim.

Take this to court. Tell him to get a good lawyer. Prosecutors and cops aren’t here to do good they are here to fill jails and see people defending themselves or just existing as targets for arrest and harassment. If it’s as you said it’s a good shooting and the court will say so.

Imma say that if a lawyer cannot get this dude free by a jury of his peers, then they're a shitty lawyer. Pretty sure anyone who is a decent human being would see that drawing in this situation was the quickest way of de-escalation.

Defense of a third party. The female was unable to retreat. You acting in her behalf are held to the standard of the victim. She received grievous bodily harm, and it could easy be viewed as "probable" she would have received even more serious injuries without intervention.

In every state I know of (and I don't know them all, but they all generally follow a trend), this is perfectly legal behavior. Doesn't mean you won't be charged. The crux being that the victim was in a justia le situation to use lethal force, as you seen it at the time, and you believed it necessary. At some point, you are going to have to articulate why you believed that, probably in court.

So this is state dependent and I am not a licensed attorney in the state of Maine. Generally, the rights of someone defending a third party are the same as the person being defended, but with the added “flare” of needing to be correct about the threat rather than basing it on a reasonable person. The guys’s best defense will likely come from the woman and her willingness to testify if the guy ends up in court.

Liberals have a completely distorted set of definitions. Brandishing is when you are menacing a person you otherwise have not involvement with. Pointing your weapon at a criminal in process of battering a woman is just common sense defense.

Should of shot him you are allowed to defend others and he could of killed her

Maybe would’ve had a different outcome had he made verbal commands to the perp before drawing, and only drew if the perp began to approach or attacked him. Then the “I feared for my life” would’ve made more sense.

Should have just confronted him without the gun and if it escalated then draw the gun. Unfortunately your state sucks a bit when it comes to self defense.

There must be something not included in this story. It's possible the evidence is 100% what this person claims, but I don't think it's likely. Duty to retreat would only be applicable if the 3rd party he was defending could have retreated with complete safety. From Maine's self defense jury instruction:

https://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/17-A/title17-Ach5.pdf

A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person: A. When the person reasonably believes it necessary and reasonably believes such other person is: (1) About to use unlawful, deadly force against the person or a 3rd person.

However, a person is not justified in using deadly force as provided in paragraph A if:

...

The person knows that the person or a 3rd person can, with complete safety: (a) Retreat from the encounter, except that the person or the 3rd person is not required to retreat if the person or the 3rd person is in the person's dwelling place and was not the initial aggressor;

I've always seen deadly force defined as something close to force likely to cause great bodily harm or death. Head injuries, broken ribs, teeth being knocked out would be great bodily harm in pretty much every state.

Gotta love our tax dollars going to locking up people who did the right thing and hurt nobody.

Anytime something like this happens, be the first to call the cops.

Yeah... in a fair number of states us peasants aren't supposed to protect ourselves let alone defenseless others.

The goal is to remove firearms from the public starting with CCW

NC: sheriff would have fist bumped you, thanked you, and sent you on your way.

It sounds like he should have called police and hoped that poor girl lived. Crazy.

This is why my home will always be in the south.as long as we are shooting to protect our lives or the lives of others,we are protected by the stand your ground law.luckily,Tennessee is a pro 2A state

Sounds like a case study on why we have CCW Attorneys protection/ insurance. I carry CCW safe.