petaluma1

Most police departments will ask citizens to not intervene, especially if a weapon is involved.

catocony

Also, at least in the US, while the good Samaritan probably wouldn't face charges themselves for assault, there are plenty of personal injury judgements where you end up paying the mugger. If not under attack yourself, unless you're defending your child or a family member, you could end up paying in a civil suit if you harm the attacker.

Castoreum

Depends. The state I fly out of has a stand your ground law and allows us to intervene if another is being assaulted that explicitly makes me not liable. (And in fact, I can even go after their estate for the costs of therapy I'd probably need afterwards).

Good samaritan laws apply to medical stuff (ex: using the AED) not self defense.

As long as you don't use disproportionate force (basically don't hit them once they're immobile) you're clear stepping in self defense wise.


It's true that "Run, hide, fight" is the typical advice:

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/fi...t_card_508.pdf

But if someone is actively trying to murder TSA agents and penetrate the perimiter, I think it's reasonable to step in.

Keep in mind we're discussing an airport. How do I know this person doesn't have flight training, and could kill many many people if they breach the perimeter? Or has a bomb or something and want to get near fuel tanks etc.

It's a unique situation - if I saw someone in trouble elsewhere my first instinct would be to call 911 and give a detailed description.

But if I'm putting on my shoes and see someone pull out a weapon at the airport, yes, I'm going to try to tackle them.

chollie

One of the very real risks with a pax getting involved is that the pax can get mistaken for a 'bad' guy.

I can think of two episodes in the last couple years where an undercover plainclothes officer stepped into an unfolding situation and got shot by unformed police who mistook the undercover officer for one of the bad guys.

No one will mistake a TSO or an airport police officer in uniform for a 'bad guy'.

Boggie Dog

I think it is pretty simple. If someone forces their way through a TSA checkpoint then let them. That will minimize immediate injuries. Police will respond and take the person into custody. A person with a bomb would cause more damage by activating the device in the checkpoint line so I think that is a non-starter thinking they want to get past TSA. Getting on an airplane isn't going to happen either. All doors to the ramp are locked. As soon as a call goes out about a breach any open doors will be closed.

Sounds like some just want to make more out of this than needed.

chollie

Letting the offender go through also lessens the very real chance that the individual in question is a diversion and a real 'bad guy' will use the diversion to take something nefarious into the sterile area. Unless they use dogs to search the publicly accessible areas in the sterile area, they can't be sure they've gotten anything explosive, and the chances of them finding non-explosive working parts for something bad during a terminal sweep seem pretty low to me.

If the ramps are immediately sealed and the ordinary exits blocked, there's really nowhere for the bad guy to go.

WillCAD

Actually, that's not true, at least not universally. Emergency exist from terminals often empty onto ramp spaces. I've seen such exits in several airports, and in 2016 the insanely stupid false alarm at JFK caused pax to flee in panic, including onto the ramp and other secured areas.
https://www.apnews.com/b4098c2769f94415960413c854385e85

I agree that letting the offender go seems like a good choice, but as you said, finding anything they might cache in the secure area before the cops apprehend them is a difficult proposition.

On the other hand, I can't agree about sealing the ramps, at least not at airports with emergency exits that empty onto the ramp as at JFK. Sealing the ramps means sealing emergency exits, which is the last thing you want to do in an emergency; you'd risk far more lives than you'd protect. There are plenty of examples of people dying in stampedes even when the exits are open, but if they're sealed, the ensuing panic, not to mention the danger from actual attacks or fire, would be as effective as a bomb.

My gut feeling is that when there is a breach or attempted breach at a c/p, the most immediate response is best, even if it is brought to bear at the c/p itself. Certainly, there is always a risk that a bad guy might go kaboom if TSOs or cops intercept them in or near the c/p, but is that risk really all that much greater than if the bad guy kabooms in a food court, at a crowded gate, or aboard a full aircraft?

gsoltso

I think the main difference I see in this case, was that the individual was already involved with more than one TSO in a physical manner. I am neither condoning, nor chastising over the event, merely pointing out that the individual was assaulting folks as he went through. That may be applied as mitigating factors in any kind of proceedings moving forward.

It has reached a point in our society (at the risk of derailing to OMNI), that the *smart* thing to do in a situation like this is step back, put your hands in your pockets and claim "my name is Bennett, and I'm not in it" - or if you want to be consistent with the current trends, take out your phone and video the whole thing from the side. I can see both sides of this scenario, and I am not willing to come down against folks on either side of it. Some folks are just not geared to walk away from a situation like this - they have spent a life as LEOs, Military, Public Works, Medical fields all around "good people"and feel a strong urge to defend or at least end a possible threat as best as they can. I am sad to see that it has become more socially acceptable (or even worse, REQUIRED by societal norms) for us to stand by and watch someone take a beat down, without intervening to prevent someone from getting hurt.

catocony

Stand your ground allows you to defend yourself if you wish; there's no obligation to retreat. However, that doesn't allow you to interject on someone else's behalf. You're not exactly defending yourself if you're initiating contact with someone who isn't a direct threat to you. If you hit someone to stop them from hitting someone else, and they are injured, you might end up being sued for personal injury. It happens frequently. LEOs have immunity; random citizens do not.

Castoreum

Depends on the state, but as I previously said pretty much all of them allow you to step in to prevent an assault. Feel free to provide a citation of specific states where stopping someone who is committing battery is a crime.

catocony

Here's the explanation on defending others in Virginia:

"In Virginia you are allowed to defend not only yourself from harm, but also other persons in certain circumstances. Virginia's rule is that you step into the shoes of the person he/she defends. Therefore, if the person being defended would have been justified in using self defense, the third party defending that person is as well. However, a third party may not defend another unless he reasonably believes that the other person was without fault in provoking the attack."

So, there are two things that can get you into trouble. One, deciding on your own if the other person being assaulted would be justified in using force to defend themselves AND that they did not provoke the attack in any way.

So no, you cannot assume either of those things, especially the second since that's a very wide area in the "who provoked who" argument. Then there's the idea what is justified in the first place.

Justifiable Self-Defense (Without Fault)
Justifiable self-defense is the purest form of self-defense. For self-defense to be considered justifiable, you cannot provoke or instigate the attack or use excessive force.

Excusable Self-Defense (With Fault)
If you were an aggressor or provoked violence, you may claim “excusable” self-defense under certain circumstances. However, you must either retreat or abandon the conflict and announce a desire for peace before you can claim self-defense. Again, you can only use reasonable force to protect yourself.