To do the "right" thing or to do the "law abiding" thing

[sleepyhead]

There have been situations whereby I've been forced to do one of two things; the "right" thing to do or the "legal" thing to do. I think back and try and assess what the correct choice of action should have been but it's never as clear cut as black or white.

To put it in an example:
You're walking down an alley to the shops whereby you encounter a man harrassing a woman. She's obviously getting more and more distressed with time. Would you call the police first then try and pacify the situation or would you try to pacify the situation first or would you go approach the man with a physical presence to make him back down?

Of course the above is just an example and perhaps a poorly made up one however I hope the point comes across. If you wait for the police, could the situation become worse? If you charge in could you be in trouble with the law for being overly aggressive in trying to do the "right" thing? Would you even attempt to diffuse the situation and perhaps make it worse?

There are alot of permutations and caveats with the example but rather than be specific and discuss the crude example I am hoping to spark a debate on doing the "right" thing or the "law abiding" thing.

I am aware it is highly situation dependent; ie you wouldn't attempt to stop armed robbers but in that situation common sense prevails and the right thing to do is to call the police, memorise as much detail as possible etc. etc. which falls in line with the "law abiding" thing to do.

[TheAnimus]

I have defused situations, and i've exacerbated situations, saying "no your not going to do x" and making it obvious that as a 6"4 lad your willing to use force can go both ways.

On occasions the police haven't been called when they should have, and they have been called when perhaps there was no need.

Either way, there is never a black and white clear cut solution, its normally best to let the pros handle it, but at the same time they are quite stretched out as it is.

I would hope I've never broken the law either way, thou I was worried at one point I'd be up on assault charges!

[shadowmaster]

Well if it was me, I'd call the police, give details and then see if I could pacify the situation. It also depends on the situation, and how many or how strong the guy is. I'm not going to charge in if there are 10 of them and 1 of me unless I think the victim was in immediate danger. It also might be worth shouting at that guy from a certain distance to draw attention away from the victim.

This is just my belief, but I rather do the right thing first, then the law. 9/10 times though I'd imagine both are the same and it also depends on what you personally believe is the right thing to do.

[Gerrard]

In that situation, call the police first and then "monitor" the situation. Should the need arise for you to intervene, you can then at least say (in court maybe ) that did the law abiding first by calling the police but they didn't turn up in time (or maybe not at all....), and it was necessary for you to try and help. At least you cover you own backside to a certain degree.

IIRC, you work with aircraft engines, so I hope this question doesn't crop up at work.

[Bluecube]

I would always try to do the right thing. Too frequently these days, following the letter of the law is not the right thing to do.

[abaxas]

The problem is that the 'law' has no moral grounding. It's based on control, retribution and revenge. Hence, by doing something 'good' you can easily fall foul of it.

My advice would be to not to think about it, but do what you beleive correct at the time. There probably isnt a right answer, so at least be true to yourself.

[sleepyhead]

In that situation, call the police first and then "monitor" the situation. Should the need arise for you to intervene, you can then at least say (in court maybe ) that did the law abiding first by calling the police but they didn't turn up in time (or maybe not at all....), and it was necessary for you to try and help. At least you cover you own backside to a certain degree.

IIRC, you work with aircraft engines, so I hope this question doesn't crop up at work.

Nope, nothing to do with work. This is purely from personal perspective.

The largest hurdle I find, is what I personally believe is right won't necessariily fall in line with what other people believe is right. It is at this point I come to think that the law is the great equaliser but it is far too inadequate when a situation is shoved in your face.

I agree there is no correct answer to the question.

I personally believe by reflecting on past actions, I as a person can grow and hence this thread about the "right" thing or the "legal" thing.

[Knoxville]

I was faced with pretty much exactly your example scenario five or six years ago on my way back from the pub. I'd walked a friend home as she was more than a bit legless and was nearly home when just up the street between me and the entrance to my road I spotted a saab pulled over in the gutter, hazards on with lots of movement going on in the front seat. As I got a little closer I muted my mp3 player and it quickly became obvious that there was a fight of some sort going on in the front seat but I couldn't tell if it was just a domestic or something more sinister, once I was a couple of car lengths away it was obvious the woman half in half out of the passenger seat definitely wanted out and she made the decision to get involved for me by finally escaping the front seat and running behind me, putting me between her and the mystery man in the car. She was obviously panicked, babbling about how she'd just met him and that I had to stop him because he was trying to rape her. He got out of the car a few seconds later and while I can't use his exact words on here I was told that basically if I didn't walk away I was in for a kicking.

I made my choice and stood my ground, the way I saw it I was going to take a few punches at worst but she'd get a chance to leg it. Luckily the guy was drunk and when he swung it was slow and almost totally off target so I was able to dodge it and land one myself which was just enough to put him on his arse. He didn't stay there too long and once he'd caught his breath he got back up to try the same thing again except the second time it was an even more half hearted attempt so I was able to dodge him again, throw a second punch into his ribs and then put a boot there once he was down. We legged it to a pay phone to call the police as she didn't have her phone but by the time we got down the street to it he was back up on his feet, in the car and away.

At that point I realised calling the police would be a tad pointless as she knew nothing of where they were going, apparently he'd offered her a lift and taken a wrong turn a long time ago and even if she'd known she was too drunk and too terrified to make much sense, she just kept saying she wanted to go home. I didn't get the number plate either so what could I tell them? That I'd punched a man in a silver saab, he'd left and that my reason for punching him had gone home in a taxi as well? At the age of seventeen and being a bit drunk myself that didn't seem like a great plan to me so I called her a taxi and while we were waiting I called the police and said I'd seen a silver saab swerving as if the driver were drunk, told them what road he was on and the direction I'd seen him drive off in.

Was it the legal thing to do? not at all, I wouldn't advise anyone to do the same and I'm lucky it turned out the way it did but in my opinion it was the right thing for me to do given the circumstances and I'd do it again.

[Saracen]

.....
Was it the legal thing to do? not at all, I wouldn't advise anyone to do the same and I'm lucky it turned out the way it did but in my opinion it was the right thing for me to do given the circumstances and I'd do it again.

Well, I'd have said it was pretty close to the legal thing to do, too.

The "self-defence" justification doesn't just apply to defending yourself but also to defending others and, somewhat to some people's surprise, to defending your property too.

So .... :-

- he tried to intimidate you with threats. Given his proximity, that's almost certainly assault.
- he tried to bop you one and you bopped him back. Self-defence, and minimal force.
- he tried again, so not having got the message, you bopped him again and kicked him in the plums for good measure. Then left. Again, pretty much minimal, and certainly (IMHO) reasonably, force.

Up until that point at least, your actions are pretty much textbook legal. Perhaps you could have then called the police, and at least they'd have known to be looking for a wannabe rapist, but given that the woman had cleared off too, there wasn't much they could do about that and, you're right, you'd probably have had to extensively explain the whole thing. The pragmatic thing at that point was exactly what you did.

So I'd say it was the right thing, and pretty much the legal thing. Was it it the safest thing to do, though? Perhaps not. He could have been stone cold sober, armed with a knife and quite willing to use it, on you or on her.

And that sums up my response to the original question - it all depends on the exact circumstances. What's right and legal may or may not be the same thing, and may or may not be clearcut, all depending on the situation. And sometimes, by interfering, you may make things worse. But personally, I'd always call the police first, unless the minute or two of delay could be catastrophic, but frankly, if it's that bad, I'm probably not going to want to jump in the middle of it anyway, so maybe still hang back and call the professionals.

[Gerrard]

The "self-defence" justification doesn't just apply to defending yourself but also to defending others and, somewhat to some people's surprise, to defending your property too.

The Rules of Engagement for us in the UK is a little bit awkward with regards to property and the reasonable force allowed to be used. For example, someone is throwing grenades into a barrack block. We're not allowed to shoot them unless we can be 100% sure that it's endangering someone's life. The fact that it is a barrack block and there's a good chance there might be someone inside isn't good enough, you have to be able to stand up in court and say you knew for definate (ie, someone's at a window). Of course you can detain them, but I personally wouldn't try to apprehand someone with a box of grenades by hand. However, shout at them when they have a grenade in their hand and they turn round to face you, then you can shoot them because they are now endangering yourself (and whoever else is around you). Although, even then, the courts would probably still screw you over because you don't know whether he would throw it or not.

They've tried to make it black and white for us, but as we all know, there are grey areas, especially when under life threatening conditions, which at best might reduce your conviction due to "extenuated circumstances".

[[GSV]Trig]

I'd at least interfere in a situation from the OP, knowing that your being watched and that theres someone around can break up some situations, I'd ask the person that was being picked on or harrassed or whatever if they were ok, talking to the aggressor would most likely get you a simple torrent of abuse so ignore them but be very aware of what they are doing incase there just looking for someone to give a kicking.

Also be aware of what the person being abused is doing, sometimes an arguing couple can go from picking on eachother to both picking on you very quickly and girls will generally fight a lot dirtier than men, there also usually armed where men are not, nail files, nails, shoes etc. and they also seem to have the "people wont hit me I'm a girl" mentality..

[Knoxville]

Well, I'd have said it was pretty close to the legal thing to do, too.

The "self-defence" justification doesn't just apply to defending yourself but also to defending others and, somewhat to some people's surprise, to defending your property too.

So .... :-

- he tried to intimidate you with threats. Given his proximity, that's almost certainly assault.
- he tried to bop you one and you bopped him back. Self-defence, and minimal force.
- he tried again, so not having got the message, you bopped him again and kicked him in the plums for good measure. Then left. Again, pretty much minimal, and certainly (IMHO) reasonably, force.

Up until that point at least, your actions are pretty much textbook legal. Perhaps you could have then called the police, and at least they'd have known to be looking for a wannabe rapist, but given that the woman had cleared off too, there wasn't much they could do about that and, you're right, you'd probably have had to extensively explain the whole thing. The pragmatic thing at that point was exactly what you did.

So I'd say it was the right thing, and pretty much the legal thing. Was it it the safest thing to do, though? Perhaps not. He could have been stone cold sober, armed with a knife and quite willing to use it, on you or on her.

And that sums up my response to the original question - it all depends on the exact circumstances. What's right and legal may or may not be the same thing, and may or may not be clearcut, all depending on the situation. And sometimes, by interfering, you may make things worse. But personally, I'd always call the police first, unless the minute or two of delay could be catastrophic, but frankly, if it's that bad, I'm probably not going to want to jump in the middle of it anyway, so maybe still hang back and call the professionals.

I've never really thought about it as self defence to be honest and I didn't know the term covered defending others or your own property, he gave me the chance to leave and I could have done so I've always seen what I did as more likely to be classed as assault than acting in self defence. To this day I'm not proud of the way I handled the police, it's one of a few reasons that I don't talk about what happened very often but at the time it felt like the right thing to do, being a little older and wiser if confronted with the same situation again I'd take his car keys or attempt to restrain him but it just didn't occur to me at the time. I can only hope that having his plan thwarted and being put down by a seventeen year old was enough to put him off doing it again.

[Saracen]

The Rules of Engagement for us in the UK is a little bit awkward with regards to property and the reasonable force allowed to be used. For example, someone is throwing grenades into a barrack block. We're not allowed to shoot them unless we can be 100% sure that it's endangering someone's life. The fact that it is a barrack block and there's a good chance there might be someone inside isn't good enough, you have to be able to stand up in court and say you knew for definate (ie, someone's at a window). Of course you can detain them, but I personally wouldn't try to apprehand someone with a box of grenades by hand. However, shout at them when they have a grenade in their hand and they turn round to face you, then you can shoot them because they are now endangering yourself (and whoever else is around you). Although, even then, the courts would probably still screw you over because you don't know whether he would throw it or not.

They've tried to make it black and white for us, but as we all know, there are grey areas, especially when under life threatening conditions, which at best might reduce your conviction due to "extenuated circumstances".

Presumably, from the way you phrase that, you're referring to the guidelines you operate under as a soldier? For instance, I was at the Royal Marine training base in Poole recently and, as you'd expect, there were armed guards at the gates. I assume by "Rules of Engagement" you're referring to when you can and can't "engage". I would certainly hope that there are pretty clear guides as the when you can, and when you can't. As I approach armed guards at a base like that, I certainly hope they'd had extensive training in when not to use their weapons.

As a matter of reference, I didn't feel intimidated by those guards, but I certainly didn't get the impression they were anything other than vigilant and could go from "watchful" to "very intimidating" right quick, if they needed to.

It's rather different for for civilians and when they can and can't use force, though. The "rules of engagement", as it were, are essentially ..... "don't, unless it's self-defence, and even then be careful about how far you go, so it's still better not to even if you legally could".

You're right about grey areas, though ,even in a strictly civilian context, and how much force is "reasonable" is about as grey as it gets. Most people know they can use reasonable force, but get them to try to explain what, legally, is and isn't "reasonable" and you find that is where the problem lies. There is a legal outline as to the criteria used to judge it, but it's kept deliberately loose in definition precisely to allow judges to exercise judgement. That means we can't know, in advance precisely where the line will be drawn.

[Saracen]

I've never really thought about it as self defence to be honest and I didn't know the term covered defending others or your own property, he gave me the chance to leave and I could have done so I've always seen what I did as more likely to be classed as assault than acting in self defence. To this day I'm not proud of the way I handled the police, it's one of a few reasons that I don't talk about what happened very often but at the time it felt like the right thing to do, being a little older and wiser if confronted with the same situation again I'd take his car keys or attempt to restrain him but it just didn't occur to me at the time. I can only hope that having his plan thwarted and being put down by a seventeen year old was enough to put him off doing it again.

As I understand it, and I'm not a lawyer, you're not obliged to retreat to avoid confrontation, to avoid being accused of unreasonable force.

It's basically a live-and-let-live situation. If you react to threats by backing off, he's using force, or the imminent threat of it, to intimidate you and that threat, in itself, is assault .... to which you can use reasonable force to defend yourself.

The problem is .... it can be hard provong who did what, who threatened whom, and so on.

In your own home, the default is pretty clear. You have a right to be there, he doesn't, and you can use reasonable force to defend yourself, others or your property.

In the street, it's much less clear. If you get involved in a fight, the odds are that the police will arrive, arrest both of you and sort out who did what later. If the woman has disappeared, and there are no other witnesses, then it's going to come down to his claims that you started it versus yours that he did. At that point, you have a problem.

There is a marked difference between what is legally right in theory, and how it works in practice. Being actually innocent doesn't always stop you from being convicted and even jailed. Mistakes happen, witnesses lie and there have even been a few spectacularly high profile cases (and quashed convictions) where, well, let's just say the veracity of the evidence of some police officers has been called in question by the courts. Being technically innocent is no absolute guarantee of avoiding being convicted.

Generally, avoiding getting involved on a fracas in the first place is a good way of avoiding getting charged, or convicted, with something you didn't do. So ..... personally, if I'm going to get involved in a fracas, I'm going to need to be sure that getting involved is justified, bearing in mind I'm putting myself in the way of not only getting worked over, but perhaps falling foul of legal problems too.

Preventing a rape, IF it's the only way to do it, might be where I'd step in. But if hanging back and calling the cops would do it, that's what I'd do. They're trained for it, are issued with protective (and offensive) gear for it, are paid for it and are in possession of a range of legal powers I'm not, so if I can get them to deal with it, I will. Two youths having a punch-up outside a pub? Nope. I'd call that in from a discrete distance.

In essence, if I decide to act the hero, I know I'm taking both a physical risk and a legal one, so I will ONLY do it if both the circumstances are serious enough to justify it to myself, AND there's no time for other options, like calling the police.

[Gerrard]

Yes, the Rules of Engagement are for when we are on guard. We still have the right to defend ourselves, but as you said, it has to be reasonable. Other than having rifles, we are still bound by exactly the same laws as civilians. The ROE is more of a quick summary to try and make it clearer.

[Saracen]

Yes, the Rules of Engagement are for when we are on guard. We still have the right to defend ourselves, but as you said, it has to be reasonable. Other than having rifles, we are still bound by exactly the same laws as civilians. The ROE is more of a quick summary to try and make it clearer.

I'm a bit surprised the rules are exactly the same, of for no other reason than that the situations you face will be different. But then, I suppose that while the situations will be different, and the acceptable responses might be too, the principle behind them is the same ..... "reasonable" force. The art is in understanding what is or isn't reasonable.

For instance, if an armed policeman has been told a suspect has a gun in a plastic bag, and when they approach and warn, the suspect "points" the plastic bag at them, are they entitled to fire? Sadly, because it resulted in the death of an innocent man, yeah, they are IF they have reasonable grounds to believe it is a gun. Or if they're told a "terrorist" has a bomb and he gets on a tube, are they entitled to use deadly force if they think he's going to detonate it. Well, ignoring the catalog of police cockups that led to that situation in the first place, the officers at the pointy end are entitled to use deadly force to protect themselves and others.

If, when you're on guard, someone approaches you and points a gun at you, what are you entitled to so? And would it make any difference if it turned out afterwards that it was merely a replica, if when it's pointed at you you had NO way to tell it was a replica?

A Met police firearms guy asked me, when I was discussing it some time ago, if he pointed a gun at me, am I going to feel less threatened right at that moment if I later learned it was a replica that was incapable or firing? It might help me later, but when it's pointed at me, the fact that it can't actually hurt me won't help me if I don't know that. His comment was to advise not pointing a gun, replica or not, at a firearms officer, OR at anyone else when a firearms officer is there. I might not like the result. And I agree with him.

Pointing a replica at someone (if they don't know it is) might not actually be dangerous, in that you can't get shot (unless it's been modified to work, or is a reactivated gun that supposed to be deactivated, etc) but the threat from it is the same if you don't know it can't fire. It's certainly not (IMHO) reasonable to expect armed cops, or soldiers, to wait to be shot at first before they can fire .... though I gather your RoE sometimes say exactly that - don't fire first. If so, I don't envy you that one.