If it deescalates then great, I did my job as a citizen/human.

1. I would intervine by getting out of my car, make my presence known, tell them to stop. At this point I am not drawing and my and my families lives are not in immediate threat. This would happen whether I am armed or not, regardless. If it deescalates then great, I did my job as a citizen/human.
2. If either man changes their threat from eachother to me, at the point, it becomes a NEW situation. I am a now reluctant partisipant to me being threatened. I will then have the duty of retreat. Which I would gladly do. Again this would happen whether I am armed or not, regardless.

This is not a criticism of the above post. I hope its a legitimate question.

If you insert yourself into the above situation in any way, are you still a reluctant participant? If you are not a reluctant participant, then aren't you opening your self to prosecution if you draw? Will you be charged with "intentionally pointing your gun at a human being"?

...not your problem, I know. But I am really struggling with this one;

1) am I expected to sit in my truck and watch some douche-bag beat a guy to a pulp and do nothing to help him?

2) What if it was a woman who was getting assulted? Would that change the minds of those that have already "+1'ed?".

...assuming that I am going to see the following answers:

1- Yes - or drive away and don't watch
2- You are taking a huge legal risk

...then what a sad and f-ed up world we live in...sigh...I miss Mayberry.

Joel!

At what point in "doing something" does one give up "reluctant participant" status?

I need to think over this senario a bit more, but one of my first thoughts was that I would break it into 2 parts:
1. I would intervine by getting out of my car, make my presence known, tell them to stop. At this point I am not drawing and my and my families lives are not in immediate threat. This would happen whether I am armed or not, regardless. If it deescalates then great, I did my job as a citizen/human.
2. If either man changes their threat from eachother to me, at the point, it becomes a NEW situation. I am a now reluctant partisipant to me being threatened. I will then have the duty of retreat. Which I would gladly do. Again this would happen whether I am armed or not, regardless.

Yes. The situations where I would intervene (beyond calling something in) where the victim is not known to me are few. While people's standards are different, here are mine:

• No doubt in my mind whatsoever about what's going on. Complete clarity as to who is the victim and who is the aggressor.
• Obvious outcome of great bodily harm if the situation continues.
• Timely response of LE unlikely.
• Ability on my part to intervene effectively.
• Ability on my part to intervene with relative safety.

So what this means is that if there are three guys getting ready to take turns hitting someone on the ground with a baseball bat, I'll try to stop them. Or if someone is shooting up a fast food joint with a Kalishnakov.

...Are you prepared to risk your life, your freedom or your financial future for stranger, and a jerk who steals parking spaces, at that?

That's the decision you have to make, in advance.

That's a big, huge step. I have a family to take care of, so I'm disinclined to take big risks for strangers.

What I was responding to is your two-step thought process: that you would move from a position of safety to one of potential danger in order to attempt to de-escalate an altercation between hot-headed strangers in which you were not originally involved.