Here’s the situation, a delivery guy comes into my store, sees an employee that he’s got an issue with, sneaks up behind him and starts beating the crap out of him. Other employees (two to be exact) try to break the fight up, but the attacker is a pretty big guy (built like a basketball player) and he just kinda shakes them off. What would happen if I took a frying pan and hit the attacker over the head with it? Would there be a difference if I just hurt him vs doing some real damage? If the victim had done it, it would be self defense, but if I’m not being attacked, what kind of trouble could I get into for doing such a thing.
This really did happen a few days ago, I watched it all happen as I called 911, the owner of the store (my dad), and the delivery guy’s boss. It was all over by the time I was done with the 911 call, but if it had gone on I would have had to step in somehow. We don’t have any pepper spray, so that woudn’t have worked. I’m not really sure what I would have done.
Actually the guy is lucky he didn’t get himself stabbed. The person he was attacking and the person next to him that was trying to wedge herself between the two of them both had knives (they were cutting fruit). On purpose or by accident, he’s lucky he didn’t wind up in the hospital.
I am not a lawyer, but I think the idea you are thinking of is “defense of a third person”, and (depending on the state), it is perfectly legal if the attack is unprovoked, and you (or the victim) have a reasonable fear of imminent danger or loss of life, limb, or eyesight.
If you gotta break up a fight–especially if the one getting whooped up on is a family member–I think you’d be okay. But if you go beatin’ on 'im when he’s already down, that’s taking it beyond defense.
Tripler
Look up “defense of a third person” in your jurisdiction.
Well, the victim is not a family member, he is, however, one of my employees. Not sure if that makes a differnce. As for unprovoked, that’s a toughie. There is some very bad blood between the two of them. The victim and the woman standing next to him are dating, the attacker and the woman used to date, they have a kid together, and were living together for about three years. It’s messy. To paraphrase Chris Rock, I’m not saying he’s right, but I don’t blame him. But like I said, this particular fight was, more or less, unprovoked. Nothing was said immidiatly before hand, and the victim didn’t even know he was in the building.
And yeah, all I’m curious about is stoping the fight, not hitting him when he’s down. All I’m curious about is what would have happened to ME, if I had used violence to stop the fight. I’ll look up what defense of a third person, but I do intend to ask one of our local police officers next time they stop in.
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or
apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions
and by the same means as those under and by which the person
is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent
unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably
believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged
to act in self−defense and that the person’s intervention is
necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
of one’s property.
And there we go. So, if I understand this correctly, I could (especially since the victim was not in a position to defend himself, with his back to the attacker and basically pushed into a corner) act on his behalf and do what is neccesary to stop the fight. In this case, I think hitting him over the head with the nearby frying pan would have been justified. If I was being attacked in such a manner, and could have reached the frying pan, I would have clocked him over the head with it.
IANAL, but something tells me that bashing someone in the noggin with a metal object could have some rather unintended consequences depending on how hard you hit him and what happens afterwards. If you’re not a grand master of Pan Fu you could perhaps end up killing or permanently damaging him leaving yourself open to at least a lawsuit. Better IMHO to have as many guys as needed to jump on him and restrain his arms and legs until the cops show up.
Not much to add but I will tell you that if one of my vendors sent a person to my place of business and they assaulted an employee of mine, that guy would be fired if the vendor wished to keep doing business with me.
He’ll (the attacker) will probably lose his job over this I assume. The thing is not only do we do a fair amount of business with that company, but the owner of that place and the owner of our place (my dad) go back a loooong way. The’ve been friends for as long as I can remember.
Oh, and not that it matters, but the attacker used to work for us as well.
I still can’t beleive the attacker didn’t have the common sense to do it after he was off of work. At least that way he wouldn’t be jeoperdizing his job, at least not as much. Even less so if he had waiting for the victim to be out of work as well.
use of a frying pan to disable requires careful deliberation, there are many factors to consider here. how heavy is the pan? how sturdy? aluminum or cast iron. how hard to hit him with the pan in hand in order to disable or stun? do you wait for a shot at the back of the head or the front? or do you just whack him over the head any old place thats available…just remember “Frying pans dont kill people, People kill people”
ok seriously I would have picked up the pan and tried for a whack right on his forehead with the flat of the pan, hurts like a mother and with probably stun him right out of the fight with his eyes watering, baring that just dont hit him with the edge, that would concentrate all the energy into a much smaller surface and be a lot more likely to break a skull.
Here’s another question: suppose that after the unprovoked attack, the attacked employee gets the upper hand and starts wailing on the attacker. At this point, all the original attacker is doing is covering up while his victim beats on him. Under the “defense of a third person” statute, would you be legally justified in knocking the original victim of the assault over the head with a frying pan?
Actually, a little while ago I walked past that area and changed my mind. Our frying pan is pretty big (12" maybe) and heavy. Not cast iron heavy, but heavy none the less. I think I would sooner grab the thin walled aluminum pot. I don’t think I would have wanted to kill him, just enough to make him leave. Oh, and based on everyone position it I probably would have hit him somewhere on the back/top of his head since he was facing away from me.
I would think that if that happened (and given the fact that about 4 other people saw the entire thing happen) that the original victim gaining the upper hand would simply be self defense…provided he stops as soon as the original attacker gives up or shows signs of attempting to give up.
In our situation, that wasn’t going to happen. The attacker is probably about 35 years old 6’6" maybe 250# (built like a basketball player), the victim is 20 years old 5’6" and probably about 150-170 somewhere. He’s build like an average high school kid. Without a weapon there was no way he was gaining the upperhand in this fight. Especially since he had his back turned to the attacker the entire time and was just trying to defend himself.
Honestly I think that if you ever expect something like this to happen again, get a tazer. Much safer than pulling an old cartoon trick out of nowhere and perhaps killing the guy.
ETA: Oh yeah, what if the pan thing doesn’t work the way you wanted and instead you now have this Shaq like guy whupping you instead for smacking him in the head?
Tasers are NOT non-lethal. They are less lethal than guns! There have been deaths from use of tasers, just as there have been deaths from use of mace. Amnesty International has expressed concerns about their use, and so have other civil liberties organizations.
This is almost completely state dependent. My home state of Louisiana is the most liberal state in the U.S. in terms of self-defense laws and even property defense. Lethal force to protect home, business, family and property is generally allowed if the person in question is committed trespass with the intent to harm people or personal property. I have known two people that have killed intruders under those circumstances and they didnt even get arrested.
The other concept is a citizen’s arrest. This is recognized in most states and allows victims or bystanders to physically detain people by force until the police arrive. How that plays out with a frying pan depends on the state. In Louisiana or Texas, you wouldn’t be in any trouble. In Massachusetts or New York, you may go to jail and the jury will decide.
Exactly, I do recognize the potential for a tazer causing death, however I suspect that the rate of death due to high voltage low amperage electrical shock is somewhat less than that of heavy metal objects applied strenously to the skull.
Fair enough then. My problem is with the overuse of the phrase “non-lethal” with taser in a sentence. It isn’t wise to promote the idea that tasers aren’t lethal, it leads the less intelligent to think they are harmless, and can be used in pranks and the like. Like that idiot paramedic (I think he was?) who used the defibulator paddles on a co-worker and killed her. I hope I’m explaining my thought process well enough.
I see where you’re coming from, but there’s a mile of differance between a tazer and a defib machine. Tazers aren’t a joke and should only be used in situations where one feels threatened but not justified in the use of deadly force, or in jurisdictions where a more potent self defense weapon isn’t legal or where the carrier isn’t comfortable with the responsibility and escalation that introducing a gun would entail.
IMHO the OP would be entirely justified in tazing the attacker in the story as described, but I’m not cool with the Tom and Jerry solution.
I have no interest in investing in a tazer or stun gun. If anything, I would pick up a caninster of pepper spray. But in the amount of time it would have taken me to figure out what was going on, find the pepper spray, get back over there, and do my best to hit the assailent as much as possible and everyone else as little as possible, it was all over. The whole thing probably lasted under a minute.
As for the guy turning on me, that was the BIG reason I chose to hang back, watch the situation unfold and call the police. As I mentioned to someone else, I have no interest in doing something that could get me arrested or hurt over someone elses drama. OTOH one of MY employees was being attacked in MY store. I feel some obligation to protect them to the best of my ability. I’ve done it before, but it’s usually just loser ex-boyfriends that are hanging around causing trouble, nothing has ever become violent before.
Hopefully the rest of the crap that plays out between these people happens off premesis when I won’t have to worry about making these decesions.
Well, a lot of different approaches can be justifiable depending on the exact nature of the fight. If there is reason to believe that the attacker will kill or seriously injure his victim, any response up to and including lethal force is justified in order to save the victim’s life. The precise legality of this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but here in Washington State at least, it’s quite permissible to use lethal force in defense of other persons, provided you have reason to believe such force is necessary. (RCW chapter 9A.16)
Just an interesting side note, but there are places where exactly the opposite is true; for example, in Bellingham, Washington, it is completely legal to carry a firearm, but it is illegal for civilians to possess tazers or any other “stun guns.” :dubious: