Domestic Assault in Public: A Case Study

[Urban Trekker]

This happened last month in my town:

Hampton Papa John’s employee killed trying to help co-worker being assaulted

DeShawn “Shawn” Powell was working as a Papa John’s pizza driver on July 22 when he headed out at 7:20 p.m. for what he thought would be a routine delivery. But near the side door…

www.dailypress.com

I saw this article on my Facebook news feed, but refrained from commenting on it because I knew but I would have been perceived as trolling.

TLDR, a man witnessed another man beating his girlfriend in the parking lot. He stepped in to try to protect her, but the boyfriend pulled out a gun and shot him dead.

Of course, the comments are going to be full of people praising him for his deed. I didn't want to be that guy expressing disagreement with what he did. I know, because I've done it before on articles about similar situations.

I think this is a better place to do it.

I'd really like to think that this is only a mistake that someone who grew up in rural areas all their lives would have made.

I'm of the mind that if a man has the nuts to beat a woman in public, it's probably because he's packing. That said, I would not get involved unless I was armed myself. And even then, I might still think twice. You have to ask yourself whether or not what is going on is worth anyone losing their lives over.

Surely, everyone on Facebook is a badass that would have gotten involved whether they were armed or not; and you'd better not be that guy who takes a different position.

I think that as men, it's in our instinct to protect a woman in danger. But that hard wiring existed long before the gun was invented. If I was there with the guy who got involved, I likely would have asked him to stay put and call the police. Protecting someone from getting a black eye is not worth your life.

Thoughts? Would you get involved, and would it matter whether or not you were armed?

 

[CB Jones]

“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”

 

[Urban Trekker]

“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”

So you would say that preventing her from getting a black eye would be worth your life?

 

[CB Jones]

So you would say that preventing her from getting a black eye would be worth your life?

I've worked 23 years in law enforcement...so I am used to the risk.

Another qoute I love....

This innoxious and ineffectual character, that seems formed upon a plan of apology and disculpation, falls miserably short of the mark of public duty. That duty demands and requires that what is right should not only be made known, but made prevalent; that what is evil should not only be detected, but defeated. When the public man omits to put himself in a situation of doing his duty with effect it is an omission that frustrates the purposes of his trust almost as much as if he had formally betrayed it. It is surely no very rational account of a man's life, that he has always acted right but has taken special care to act in such a manner that his endeavours could not possibly be productive of any consequence.

 

[Urban Trekker]

I've worked 23 years in law enforcement...so I am used to the risk.

Another qoute I love....

This innoxious and ineffectual character, that seems formed upon a plan of apology and disculpation, falls miserably short of the mark of public duty. That duty demands and requires that what is right should not only be made known, but made prevalent; that what is evil should not only be detected, but defeated. When the public man omits to put himself in a situation of doing his duty with effect it is an omission that frustrates the purposes of his trust almost as much as if he had formally betrayed it. It is surely no very rational account of a man's life, that he has always acted right but has taken special care to act in such a manner that his endeavours could not possibly be productive of any consequence.

This is just stuff that sounds nice. But in reality, a man is dead; when no one would have been had he not gotten involved. That's the bottom line.

 

[CB Jones]

To me, this is just stuff that sounds nice. But in reality, a man is dead; when no one would have been had he not gotten involved. That's the bottom line.

No the bottom line is a person stood up for what they thought was right....instead of solely thinking of what is best for himself.

It is sad that he was killed but I'm guessing he felt it was the right thing to do and I respect him for that.

 

[drop bear]

I did intervene about a month ago. Helped take a bow and arrow off a meth head.

And hopefully saved a few guys.

Just because there is risk doesn't make what you do wrong.

 

[Urban Trekker]

No the bottom line is a person stood up for what they thought was right....instead of solely thinking of what is best for himself.

So give me a straight yes or no: is preventing her from getting a black eye worth your life?

It is sad that he was killed but I'm guessing he felt it was the right thing to do and I respect him for that.

It likely never occurred to him that the boyfriend had a gun, which is why he acted. And for all we know, she's probably going visit her boyfriend in prison, put money on his commissary, and testify for him in court. This was second degree murder, so he'll probably get a sentence that she can ride out.

 

[Urban Trekker]

I did intervene about a month ago. Helped take a bow and arrow off a meth head.

And hopefully saved a few guys.

Just because there is risk doesn't make what you do wrong.

I don't think this falls on the plane of "right versus wrong." I'm not going to say that what the guy did was "wrong," but I will say that it wasn't a good idea.

The other thing you have to consider: if you're going to risk your life, what is at stake?

I don't know if the guy with the bow and arrow was totally strung out on meth at the time, or how dangerous he would have been with that bow and arrow.

Risking your life to save another life is one thing. Risking your life for something less than that just isn't a good idea.

 

[drop bear]

I don't think this falls on the plane of "right versus wrong." I'm not going to say that what the guy did was "wrong," but I will say that it wasn't a good idea.

The other thing you have to consider: if you're going to risk your life, what is at stake?

I don't know if the guy with the bow and arrow was totally strung out on meth at the time, or how dangerous he would have been with that bow and arrow.

Risking your life to save another life is one thing. Risking your life for something less than that just isn't a good idea.

If a co worker was getting flogged by some guy. I would probably jump in there as well.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I don't think this falls on the plane of "right versus wrong." I'm not going to say that what the guy did was "wrong," but I will say that it wasn't a good idea.

The other thing you have to consider: if you're going to risk your life, what is at stake?

I don't know if the guy with the bow and arrow was totally strung out on meth at the time, or how dangerous he would have been with that bow and arrow.

Risking your life to save another life is one thing. Risking your life for something less than that just isn't a good idea.

And how, exactly, are you going to know dangerous the situation is? I am unaware of any way to predict if that person will stop before the other person is fatally injured.

 

[Urban Trekker]

And how, exactly, are you going to know dangerous the situation is? I am unaware of any way to predict if that person will stop before the other person is fatally injured.

Tell you what: if you and I are standing together behind a barbed wire fence and witness such an act taking place, you and I can place a bet on whether or not he's going to kill her. I'm fairly confident that by saying he's not, I'm going to win that bet.

The fact of the matter is, he had a gun. If he had any intention of killing her, it wouldn't make sense for him to beat her to death with his hands. He only pulled out the gun when it was time to face another grown man.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

I generally support dont get involved, the cornerstone of self defence and in its purest form is, dont get involved unless it effects you. Then moral framework generally expands that to where it expands that based on your own morals. (it becomes muddled on domestic issues)

Domestic issues really do tend to turn nasty, and you have little context as to why they are happening in the first place, so if you find it obligtory to intervine its best you know what your getting in for. And contacting the police is normally the best answer.

All the cavites and loopholes for normal third party intervention present themselves with the added dynmic of its a literal internal affair of two people and highly personal.
For all intents and purposes, the female could have done somethign to cause the anger, or struck first, or the reverse could be true.

If you do intervine, youd need to be able to physically control two people, or gather enough people to, or be very good at wordplay and not relaying emotion to trigger any sort of reaction. You also have to when restraining watch out for the second party hitting the first, or yourself, as its pretty common for third parties to be attacked by both people if you intervine as far as i can tell(and have been told), and i have seen enough videos of females starting something, and sneaking in hits when security etc detains the male under some moral obligation or something i dont share.

You also have to have the legal right to actually intervine in the first place and then prepare some form of legal defence in case you get arrested and charged for doing it. Or keep in mind you may be arrested and charged and convicted of a crime.

Addendum: Id probbly not get invoved for a clear answer, although if i was armed and laws allowed it, id probbly shoot somone trying to fatally injure/kill somone else. Or at least hold them up. (plus your a witness, so could turn on you)

 

[Urban Trekker]

I generally support dont get involved, the cornerstone of self defence and in its purest form is, dont get involved unless it effects you. Then moral framework generally expands that to where it expands that based on your own morals. (it becomes muddled on domestic issues)

Domestic issues really do tend to turn nasty, and you have little context as to why they are happening in the first place, so if you find it obligtory to intervine its best you know what your getting in for. And contacting the police is normally the best answer.

All the cavites and loopholes for normal third party intervention present themselves with the added dynmic of its a literal internal affair of two people and highly personal.
For all intents and purposes, the female could have done somethign to cause the anger, or struck first, or the reverse could be true.

If you do intervine, youd need to be able to physically control two people, or gather enough people to, or be very good at wordplay and not relaying emotion to trigger any sort of reaction. You also have to when restraining watch out for the second party hitting the first, or yourself, as its pretty common for third parties to be attacked by both people if you intervine as far as i can tell(and have been told), and i have seen enough videos of females starting something, and sneaking in hits when security etc detains the male under some moral obligation or something i dont share.

You also have to have the legal right to actually intervine in the first place and then prepare some form of legal defence in case you get arrested and charged for doing it. Or keep in mind you may be arrested and charged and convicted of a crime.

Addendum: Id probbly not get invoved for a clear answer, although if i was armed and laws allowed it, id probbly shoot somone trying to fatally injure/kill somone else. Or at least hold them up. (plus your a witness, so could turn on you)

What you read about in this story is the worst case scenario around here.

The most common thing that happens? You jump in and try to protect the woman. And then the woman you were trying to protect joins her boyfriend, and they both end up kicking the $#!+ out of you.

And while you're laid up in the hospital, they're in his bedroom having the hottest sex while laughing about what they did to you.

In truth, I think all men have that "hero complex." We just have to know when to keep it in check.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

What you read about in this story is the worst case scenario around here.

The most common thing that happens? You jump in and try to protect the woman. And then the woman you were trying to protect joins her boyfriend, and they both end up kicking the $#!+ out of you.

And while you're laid up in the hospital, they're in his bedroom having the hottest sex while laughing about what they did to you.

In truth, I think all men have that "hero complex." We just have to know when to keep it in check.

As far as i know, Males are only programmed (either genetic or behavorally, or mix of both) to look after females, so wed only truely have one towards females/maybe family memebers. In a similar vein Mothers have it towards their offspring.


Also, it really annoys me when people half arsed interject, they are either fighting you, or are doing such a bad job at restraining they just make it more detrimental to yourself. You know what i mean with the videos you see were someone just grabs one parties arm, while they are actively still fighting with another person and the other persons not restrained in any manner. I know you dont exactly want to punch somone you like in the face, but thats probbly the best thing you can do if they pull that **** on you. (i dont always, or usually know who is who in those videos, to see if its in the second persons group coming over to fight)

the only truth in these matters is pretty much, who ever has the best weapon tends to win, so try to keep the best weapon on hand.

 

[CB Jones]

So give me a straight yes or no: is preventing her from getting a black eye worth your life?

There is no straight answer. In that situation you do not have some pre-cog ability to determine what the outcome of events will be.

But if one of my co-workers was being attacked....yes I would help them. And if I was being attacked I would expect one of my co-workers or friends to step in and help me.

In the end, everyone has to make those decisions on what they feel they need to do and most of the times it's not whether it's the right or wrong decision but instead it's what the feel they need to do.

 

[Urban Trekker]

There is no straight answer.

There is, and you're not going to give me one. Here's why:

If you say "no," then that would mean you conceded to my argument. You're not going to do that.

If you say "yes," then everyone knows it's a lie that you're going to get called on.

It's okay, you don't have to answer it. Your refusal to do so says enough.

 

[Urban Trekker]

As far as i know, Males are only programmed (either genetic or behavorally, or mix of both) to look after females, so wed only truely have one towards females/maybe family memebers. In a similar vein Mothers have it towards their offspring.


Also, it really annoys me when people half arsed interject, they are either fighting you, or are doing such a bad job at restraining they just make it more detrimental to yourself. You know what i mean with the videos you see were someone just grabs one parties arm, while they are actively still fighting with another person and the other persons not restrained in any manner. I know you dont exactly want to punch somone you like in the face, but thats probbly the best thing you can do if they pull that **** on you. (i dont always, or usually know who is who in those videos, to see if its in the second persons group coming over to fight)

the only truth in these matters is pretty much, who ever has the best weapon tends to win, so try to keep the best weapon on hand.

Truth. And here's another thing you have to consider:

Let's say the immediate scenario goes exactly how you wanted it to. You successfully kicked the boyfriend's butt, and you walk away patting yourself on the back. You're a big man now, right?

Wrong.

Odds are, that's not the first time that he's beaten her. She didn't leave him those other times, so do you think she will after the beating that you cut short?

And here's what makes matters worse: you publicly humiliated that man on her behalf. So do you think he's going to let that slide when they're alone together?

And you don't even have to put hands on him to get that result. If you're a really big dude, and you punk him in front of everyone; same thing. Maybe even worse, since to most men, that's a bigger ego bruise than getting your butt kicked.

That's why I say call the police. They're the professionals that are trained to handle this, and the result is more likely to be that the boyfriend or husband will be moved to a place where he can't retaliate against the woman.

Edit: My apologies if I'm preaching to choir.

 

[Steve]

There is no straight answer. In that situation you do not have some pre-cog ability to determine what the outcome of events will be.

But if one of my co-workers was being attacked....yes I would help them. And if I was being attacked I would expect one of my co-workers or friends to step in and help me.

In the end, everyone has to make those decisions on what they feel they need to do and most of the times it's not whether it's the right or wrong decision but instead it's what the feel they need to do.

What if the person doing the attacking was one of your co-workers? Would you help the other guy?

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Odds are, that's not the first time that he's beaten her. She didn't leave him those other times, so do you think she will after the beating that you cut short?

Thats not even accounting if its not the males fault to begin with. Being beligerant and victim are two diffrent things.

And then you have the mental health dynamic of they could have just snapped, or some action snapped them. And lets be fair, it is how you put it "kicked their butt", i dont think i have seen a single incident of this resolved with a third party restraining (not accounting police, or somone not in uniform with said obligiation) them, it ends up in a fist fight, or something else like that.

Tangent, it always amuses me how one of the Tenents of TKD is "attack beligerants" or something to that effect, i dont think i need to explain the issue with a tenent preeching extreme predujuice towards fighting parties. (or at least its one of the 5 in some or tradtioanlly)

Frankly, we are sort of defanged as well, we accept some things as nomral and fine that arent the best, you have full right to personal space, a complete stranger violating it, is cause for alarm and interception using force. Now there are some logical acceptions with caviates, like if you go to a semi busy place, people coming close is accepted by going there, but the diffrence would be giving people space at every oppertunity or not.