Self Defense Scenario - Who is guilty? Of What?

[Caine]

Joe was the initial aggressor. Joe's words and actions were aggressive. Joe started the fight.

Joe was being a dip****.
But you don't have the legal right to attack someone because they are being a prick.

So... then, what do you "men" say you would do instead? Tell her "just ignore him?" Tell her, "Come-on, let's get out of here?"

Yes. That is exactly what you are supposed to do.

Tell what you would do in the alternative, rather than just declare Bob a murderer. Each of you men are Bob, what would YOU do? Be precise.

Ask him to stop and then leave. There isn't any drunk asshole worth going to prison or getting your asswhooped for.

And..... Im already married, I don't need to be all "I will fight in your honor m'dear lady!!!" retarded. That **** is overrated.

 

[Caine]

No it's not. It means the person of the "fighting words" also doesn't get to also physically assault the target of those words too. In fact, who first strikes out usually also wins. Fight words are a precursor warning that the person is likely to imminently try to physically assault you. You do not have to let yourself be hit or kicked before you can defend yourself. As the story is told, I also would sense he is a threat of physical assault against her too if he first takes out Bob with a sucker punch, slam or kick.

You don't have to be struck to defend yourself.

Defending yourself from an imminent attack is also defending yourself.

I'd say this attack from Bob was imminent.

 

[Caine]

Suddenly those crying "murder!' have gone silent to the question of what would you do instead if you were Bob? Why is that?

LOL! No response? I guess that is what the "duty-to-run-away" guys might do.

I made those posts DAYS ago..... and I have a job that requires me to be in bed at 11:42pm central time in order to be at.

 

[joko104]

I made those posts DAYS ago..... and I have a job that requires me to be in bed at 11:42pm central time in order to be at.

I do see your point.

 

[joko104]

Joe was being a dip****.
But you don't have the legal right to attack someone because they are being a prick.


Yes. That is exactly what you are supposed to do.


Ask him to stop and then leave. There isn't any drunk asshole worth going to prison or getting your asswhooped for.

And..... Im already married, I don't need to be all "I will fight in your honor m'dear lady!!!" retarded. That **** is overrated.

I do understand what you are saying. Then again you and her have both abandoned the right to be there, possible to ever be there again, and conceded any place he wants to keep you away from he can. You have flee him forever after anytime you may see him. And guys like him that you always have to avoid and flee can add up after awhile. So after a while the list of placed you dare never go to again grows. Other men present learn this nature of you too. So I see your point and situationally agree, and situationally don't - and that may include the location.

This is a good reason to prefer to go to places where you have friends and allies if needed. Maybe they'll take care of it for you. Or maybe back you up. Give up your places of your friends and allies there and maybe in life too can be a great lose.

Nor is it certain walking away will work. That may set him off and more empower him than charging towards him with threats. There is no certainty your way is the way that avoids a fight. It may both more increase the chance of a fight - since that asshole seems to be making it clear he wants a fight with you - and may make it more likely you'll lose the "fight: if he does. Losing the fight might mean after rapidly stabbing you in the abdomen a couple times he's now on top of you slashing your hands and arms while stabbing you in the face with the $9.99 4 inch knife he bought at the corner C-store.

I don't think it is as simple as you optioning not to fight. He has to opt not to fight too, and it seems clear by the story that is exactly what he wants to do. So... with that prospect... do you whisper to her silently "On the count of 3 we both run as fast for the door as possible to the car, I got the key in my hand ready to open the car door. Are you ready to fast as you can? 1...2....)

Do you know how fast one man can charge another? And how difficult that is to stop - especially if it starts when you're looking the other way?

Almost all these what-if senarios assume a slow, steady buildup of people or a man walking towards you or just standing there waiting to see if you strike first. That often is not how it goes.

So instead as you are walking out with your wife, you see him coming at you with the club end of the pool stick - and you don't have one or anything but 1 second to do whatever you are going to do. Now you become the Kung Fu master starting at this disadvantage?

 

[Dragonfly]

I do understand what you are saying. Then again you and her have both abandoned the right to be there, possible to ever be there again, and conceded any place he wants to keep you away from he can. You have flee him forever after anytime you may see him. And guys like him that you always have to avoid and flee can add up after awhile. So after a while the list of placed you dare never go to again grows. Other men present learn this nature of you too. So I see your point and situationally agree, and situationally don't - and that may include the location.

What????? That's such a huge leap into nowhereland it's almost funny.

There's no reason to assume that Joe has specifically decided to target this one girl, for life.
Joe is a drunk in a bar. Tomorrow (had he lived) he might not have remembered anything he said or did.
Hell, he might have profusely apologized to Bob and his girlfriend for being such an idiot. He might have offered to pay for their dinner the next night.

To suggest that if Bob just did the intelligent and civil thing, that it would somehow turn into a mass conspiracy to torment and subjugate him and his fiance for years to come is really out there in crazy-world. Sounds like a made for TV movie plot or something.

Walking away from a drunk in a bar and avoiding a fight altogether does not make you a sissy-pansy and turn you into prey for everybody else to pick on.

 

[joko104]

What????? That's such a huge leap into nowhereland it's almost funny.

There's no reason to assume that Joe has specifically decided to target this one girl, for life.
Joe is a drunk in a bar. Tomorrow (had he lived) he might not have remembered anything he said or did.
Hell, he might have profusely apologized to Bob and his girlfriend for being such an idiot. He might have offered to pay for their dinner the next night.

To suggest that if Bob just did the intelligent and civil thing, that it would somehow turn into a mass conspiracy to torment and subjugate him and his fiance for years to come is really out there in crazy-world. Sounds like a made for TV movie plot or something.

Walking away from a drunk in a bar and avoiding a fight altogether does not make you a sissy-pansy and turn you into prey for everybody else to pick on.

You are making a general assumption for which it is actually the fine details that matter. The OP does not say "...and Bob thinks Joe is just a drunk who won't do anything if Bob just walks out with her and the next day Joe won't remember anything or would feel badly the next day.

Your presumption is that Joe is just a civilized man who is drunk - then you argue from that assumption that is NOT in the OP. The OP has Joe being 100% the verbal aggressor (minimally), for which you assert Bob and her can just walk away with nothing happening while trying to do so. Whether that is accurate or exactly inaccurate is in details not told.

Granted, you and I have core different instincts and views of what is "civilized." More significantly, what is the wise and correct thing to do. Joe being drunk doesn't make him safer, it makes him more dangerous, and if he is so drunk he is acting this way because he is out of his mind he is particularly dangerous. Regardless, you can not make your case on the presumption that Bob can just walk-away even if he wants to without negative (violent) repercussions if he does.

I believe your's is more the "Hollywood movie" view than mine. Drunks being aggressive often will attack if a person the drunk is getting in the face of turns away. In Hollywood, if so the good-guy easily turns and decks Joe. In real life, Joe hits Bob in the back of the head with a bottle. And in real life the bottle doesn't shatter and Bob just had a headache from it the next day. And after the bottle Joe is pulmetting Bob or kicking in Bob's ribs into his lungs and stomping on his face and neck.

I've known and seen a lot of Joes in my life - and is similar circumstances towards other men. Joe's not doing this for the purpose of avoiding conflict - obviously.

 

[Dragonfly]

Whether that is accurate or exactly inaccurate is in details not told.

Right. But you're the one making up some bizarre scenario.

You have no reason to assume Joe is anything other than just harmless drunk and acting the fool.
The OP leans heavily in that direction.

 

[joko104]

Right. But you're the one making up some bizarre scenario.

You have no reason to assume Joe is anything other than just harmless drunk and acting the fool.
The OP leans heavily in that direction.

This is what the OP says of the situation:

Joe and Bob are playing pool at a bar in AnyCity, USA.
They are playing at different tables with other people. Not playing each other.
Being in a bar, everyone is drinking.

Joe spots a very sexy and very scantily dressed female and promptly starts hitting on her.
(1) Over time the “hitting” on the girl becomes lewd and slightly offensive as the girl does her best to ignore Joe.

Turns out the girl is Bob’s fiancé and at some point Bob tells Joe he needs to shut up and leave the girl alone.

(2) Joe does not heed any warnings and keeps making offensive comments and gestures.

Bob’s next move is to rather forcefully and aggressively tell Joe if he doesn’t stop with the harassment Joe’s going to lose some teeth.

(3) Joe, being drunk and rather strong, tells Bob to “F OFF” and says he’s just having some fun with the “skank in the hooker outfit”.

Three times and Joe is standing near Bob with a pool stick, which also is a club. Your assertion is that it is certain Joe is just a nice guy who's very drunk. So in your decision, Bob gets hit in the back of the head with a pool stick club end or pool ball, and Bob falls, hits his head and dies.

Joe is eventually found (probably) and arrested (probably) and convicted (probably). Or maybe not as the witnesses all say the two men were arguing over a woman. Then there was a fight Joe says Bob started. Bob doesn't get to tell his side and Joe's friends are going to back him up. Finger prints show both were fighting with pool sticks. It is a TM/GZ situation in many regards - other than lots of witnesses telling exactly opposite "who started it stories."

Police and prosecutors hate these cases. They'll offer Joe a great deal if he'll plea out. His attorney thinks he can get a not-guilty.

Or maybe he does 4 1/2 years and then out on probation. And Bob's headstone reads "Here lies an intelligent and civilized man."

If there was a bouncer, he would have already been there before the 3rd time. Hundreds of times, I've seen Joes at other men and, on a lesser number of occasions at me. Turning your back to Joe is a mistake. Joe has already worked himself up to a fighting frame of mind or he wouldn't be continuing to escalate it. And we know how Joe is going to fight by the OP. He's going to hit Bob with the hard end of a pool stick. If Joe didn't want to fight, he would have scurried back when Bob came charging towards him.

The mistake Bob made? Announcing his intentions to warn Joe. Bob should have stood his ground (but allowing obstacle distance) or acted towards Joe tactically rather than stupidly. But that is about fight tactics. Most people don't have any. Joe likely does.

Retreating is not an automatic option. It doesn't work like that. Not in real life. Not in a bar Joe's in.

 

[Dragonfly]

Please read OP again. I wrote it by the way. :mrgreen:

At what point does it state that Joe has a pool cue in his hand?

You are making stuff up to fit your neanderthal-like attitude towards an easily avoidable confrontation.

 

[joko104]

The question comes down to who is the aggressor, and who is the defender?

Who can claim self defense, who is the victim, and who is to blame?

Both people were aggressive. Both could have walked away or changed what they were doing.

That seems to be a core difference of opinion we have. If BOTH walked into it and both were aggressive, it would seem your view is that whoever dies, the other one is a murderer. In my opinion, if both walked into it and both were aggressive, then the government no longer has an interest. It's between them.

HOWEVER, you are wrong that it certain both "could have walked away." Bob may no more have had the option of "walking away," that a rape victim could have avoided being raped by deciding to just "walk away" instead of being raped.

Violent assailants don't give that option. And if you wait until they are assaulting you, generally the "fight" is already determined and the assailant can do exactly anything he wants to as long as he wants to. After knocking Bob down from behind, Joe might just pull out a flip-knife and stab Bob 12 times in the back, stomach and face as fast as he can. Maybe Bob will ultimately live, maybe not.

You are just stepping past the extreme degree Joe is making it clear he wants a fight and is escalating to it, ie pumping himself up for the fight that IS going to happen - one way or the other.

Ever see how fast it is if a man bolts at another and starts stabbing him in the back, stomach and face fast as he can? I have. In Hollywood, the good guy blocks it. In real life the victim can't. Far more common was seeing someone clubbed down by a pool stick. Where I worked, they shifted to plastic beer bottles as soon as they came out and had plastic mugs - to eliminate those commonly used weapons by Joes.

 

[Dragonfly]

you are wrong that it certain both "could have walked away."

What is your problem man? You are totally and completely making something up that is NOT there.

God help anyone who might end up with you as a juror on their trial.

Your skills of fabricating something out of thin air are remarkable.

Stop trying to re-write the scene to fit your mindset of "insult my girl - I'll kick your ass".

 

[joko104]

This is a bit different, but the same concept - and in this one the fella with the gun is 100% prepared and knows exactly what is going to happen. Bob's mistake was giving warning, when he wasn't skilled enough to safely do so. He should have diverted until he could sucker kick Joe in the groin, slam his palm into Joe's nose, rammed his fingers into Joe's eyes or slugged Joe in the throat. THEN Bob could "just walk away" safely.

 

[joko104]

What is your problem man? You are totally and completely making something up that is NOT there.

God help anyone who might end up with you as a juror on their trial.

Your skills of fabricating something out of thin air are remarkable.

Stop trying to re-write the scene to fit your mindset of "insult my girl - I'll kick your ass".

Your opinion is simple. Everyone has to pro-actively be vulnerable and defenseless even with all warning signs there. The one who is "fabricating" fantasy is you. A fantasy about Joe. A fantasy about how real fights in bars and in life between men really happen. It is nothing like in the movies, nothing at all.

Yes, I understand prosecutors would absolutely love you. Everyone who isn't a defenseless pacifist and victim is guilty of something.

Yes, the defense would want me on the jury for Bob's trial. My view would be that over and over Joe went looking for trouble - and he found it. Joe got what he was looking for and declaring - a fight. It just didn't go how he wanted it to.

Aggressive words such as Joe was using are the precursor to violence by Joe. That's what his words are for. That's why he's saying them.

 

[joko104]

You are asserting many "justs." Joe was "JUST drunk." Bob could have "JUST walked away." Then form your view on those JUSTS - and they are wrong, based upon your watching TV and rationalizing the result you want.

My wife was very violently assaulted by a man who was JUST drunk and doped up. He did not remember it and even liked her. But he was insane for the alcohol and drugs. Violently insane. For the first 2 days they did not know if she would live, she went thru over a year of internal and external cosmetic surgeries, and there are permanent injuries from it.

The mistake Bob made was tactical, not legal. He should have diverted, sheepishly tell Joe he knows Joe could beat him up and maybe pull out a $20 asking if that is enough - and when Joe looks at the $20 Bob kicks Joe in the nuts as hard at he can. THEN Bob can "just walk away."

The best way to "walk away" from a Joe is to disable him first. Then you, no one else nor even Joe is seriously hurt. Often, that is the only way someone isn't seriously and very possibly permanently hurt.

You're all hung up on opposition to macho-fighting for a woman's honor. That, too, is in your fantasy mind. Joe isn't saying those things to get at her, but a precursor build up to the fight Joe is going to have with Bob. It isn't about the woman to Joe, it's about Bob. Joe is deliberately working himself into a fight tizzy because he wants the fight.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

No it's not. It means the person of the "fighting words" also doesn't get to also physically assault the target of those words too. In fact, who first strikes out usually also wins. Fight words are a precursor warning that the person is likely to imminently try to physically assault you. You do not have to let yourself be hit or kicked before you can defend yourself. As the story is told, I also would sense he is a threat of physical assault against her too if he first takes out Bob with a sucker punch, slam or kick.

You're wrong about "fighting words" and assaulting someone uttering them. You're confusing "fighting words" with "pre-assault indicators." In fact, Bob would be the one giving pre-assault indicators. Not just giving them, broadcasting them throughout the bar with a nuclear-powered transmitter. Notable among the things considered pre-assault indicators are stating an intent to assault. The only person in that bar giving pre-assault indicators was Bob.

And no, you don't have to wait to be struck before defending yourself. This is why Joe was justified in defending himself from Bob's overtly aggressive actions.

 

[joko104]

You're wrong about "fighting words" and assaulting someone uttering them. You're confusing "fighting words" with "pre-assault indicators." In fact, Bob would be the one giving pre-assault indicators. Not just giving them, broadcasting them throughout the bar with a nuclear-powered transmitter. Notable among the things considered pre-assault indicators are stating an intent to assault. The only person in that bar giving pre-assault indicators was Bob.

And no, you don't have to wait to be struck before defending yourself. This is why Joe was justified in defending himself from Bob's overtly aggressive actions.

Like too many on the forum, you are mixing abstract theory upon literal meaning of words with the actual reality of the meaning of Joe's words in actual practice. You don't give any meaning in reality to Joe's words and why Joe is saying them.

 

[joko104]

These messages show why most men should stay out of bars that even may have men like Joe. Most are declaring the thing Bob MUST do in action and body language is for Bob to tell Joe that he thinks Joe is a coward - all talk and no action - and to prove it turn his back to Joe to give "drunk", "strong" Joe a certainty that he could blindside attack Bob - as Bob's way to prove to everyone there that Joe is a gutless coward who won't back up his words.

These are zippy pinhead messages fully detached from reality for lack of experience or grasp of reality. That the thing to do in response to repeated and increasing intensely aggressive insulting words is to make yourself as vulnerable as you possibly can. For Bob to turn his back to Joe, effectively telling Joe "Go ahead you gutless coward, take your best shot. You get the first one for free." The view you can just walk away from drunk strong Joe who has already fixed and increasingly on you is wrong.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Did Bob and Joe ever finish that game of pool?

 

[joko104]

Right. But you're the one making up some bizarre scenario.

You have no reason to assume Joe is anything other than just harmless drunk and acting the fool.
The OP leans heavily in that direction.

No, it "leans" exactly in the opposite direction and you seem to seem to think someone being drunk makes the person "harmless." You are 100% wrong about that.

 

[joko104]

Please read OP again. I wrote it by the way. :mrgreen:

At what point does it state that Joe has a pool cue in his hand?

You are making stuff up to fit your neanderthal-like attitude towards an easily avoidable confrontation.

No, your view of reality of such a situation is naïve. You think you can, in your narrative, just insert out of thin air that Joe is just a tough happy harmless drunk and that he wouldn't hurt anyone, while just asserting the Bob can walk away. In your fantasy view, no one is ever assaulted except those people who don't walk away - that everyone can just safely walkaway

There is no reality in what you assert. That is not how it works with "strong" "drunks" like Joe acting the way you describe. Joe was not acting the way he was because he's the harmless, pascifistic verbally abusive and intimidating only strong drunk in a bar.

 

[joko104]

THE MOST ABSURD, NAIVE AND IGNORANT messages on the forum are people who know NOTHING about violent confrontations (ie "fights") not ONLY posting complete nonsense to support their feel-good political correctness, but to literally want people convicted of murder upon it and to demand innocent people totally expose themselves to violent assault, rape, and murder.

Here is reality. If Bob turned and walked away with his fiancé, and Joe was 20 feet away, the amount of time it would take Joe to hit Bob in the back of his head as if with a baseball bat with the thick end of a pool stick or with a bottle, or to slit Bob's throat with a flip knife in his pocket or be stabbing Bob in the back 3-4 times per second is?

How long would it take for Joe to do any of those things with him 20 feet away and Bob not seeing it coming? Do you have a clue? That is known. 1.5 seconds. And even if Bob was a Marine martial arts trainer, the world champion MMA fighter and with every martial arts black belt there is, Bob dies. Literally never saw it coming.

You have some bizarre view that Joe is engaging in the most verbally offensive words and insults possible at both the fiancé and then shifting it to Bob is because he drunk - and being drunk makes a person non-violent. THAT is as detached from reality and exactly opposite reality as can be in terms of bar room antics.

 

[Caine]

THE MOST ABSURD, NAIVE AND IGNORANT messages on the forum are people who know NOTHING about violent confrontations (ie "fights") not ONLY posting complete nonsense to support their feel-good political correctness, but to literally want people convicted of murder upon it and to demand innocent people totally expose themselves to violent assault, rape, and murder.

Here is reality. If Bob turned and walked away with his fiancé, and Joe was 20 feet away, the amount of time it would take Joe to hit Bob in the back of his head as if with a baseball bat with the thick end of a pool stick or with a bottle, or to slit Bob's throat with a flip knife in his pocket or be stabbing Bob in the back 3-4 times per second is?

How long would it take for Joe to do any of those things with him 20 feet away and Bob not seeing it coming? Do you have a clue? That is known. 1.5 seconds. And even if Bob was a Marine martial arts trainer, the world champion MMA fighter and with every martial arts black belt there is, Bob dies. Literally never saw it coming.

You have some bizarre view that Joe is engaging in the most verbally offensive words and insults possible at both the fiancé and then shifting it to Bob is because he drunk - and being drunk makes a person non-violent. THAT is as detached from reality and exactly opposite reality as can be in terms of bar room antics.

Why are you assuming Joe was the violent one?

He was being a drunk horny retard....... Bob was doing all the threatening.

What reason would Bob have to believe Joe was going to attack him?

Being verbally offensive because your a drunk horny retard and being threatening are two different things.

Why do you keep finding them as one in the same? BOB was being physically threatening.... NOT Joe.

Granted, I will give you that Joe seemed to not have any fear of Bob's threats...... but that doesn't mean he was going to do anything.

Could he? Have situations like that turned violent? Sure.

But turning to violence FIRST isn't self defense. Making threats because someone is horn dogging over your woman is NOT legally excusable under the "Communicating Threats" laws. Acting on those threats because someone won't stop cat calling her is again not self defense.

 

[joko104]

Why are you assuming Joe was the violent one?

He was being a drunk horny retard....... Bob was doing all the threatening.

What reason would Bob have to believe Joe was going to attack him?

Being verbally offensive because your a drunk horny retard and being threatening are two different things.

Why do you keep finding them as one in the same? BOB was being physically threatening.... NOT Joe.

Granted, I will give you that Joe seemed to not have any fear of Bob's threats...... but that doesn't mean he was going to do anything.

Could he? Have situations like that turned violent? Sure.

But turning to violence FIRST isn't self defense. Making threats because someone is horn dogging over your woman is NOT legally excusable under the "Communicating Threats" laws. Acting on those threats because someone won't stop cat calling her is again not self defense.

I'm not going to debate what is "legal." This not only varies state to state and jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but it also can matter who each person is and what witnesses actually say, plus the attitudes of the local police and DA. In NYC it likely manslaughter. Here, likely not - depending on who Joe and Bob are.

Joe was not just "cat-calling" Bob's fiance'. He was increasingly becoming "lewd," calling her a "hooker" and "skank," and the telling Bob to F-Off, continuing to escalate, and the OP states it is clear Joe believes he can take Bob because Joe is "strong."

In that, what is Joe "communicating?" You claim - in effect - Joe is communicating nothing at all. I claim Joe is communicating that he wants a fight with Bob and is escalating exactly towards it.

What is his real alternatives in your view?
1. He and his fiancé can stay facing increasing and constant insults, obscenities and belittlement or
2. He can whisper to his fiancé to go to the bathroom, but then quickly go outside and pull the car to the front door, leaving the passenger car door open. Then when he has a clear shot at the door, make a run for it, and jump in the passenger seat shouting to her "go! go! go!" Thereafter, if in a large city avoid all bars in that area and if a small town to never go to bars again in his own town - and to replace his vehicle.

 

[joko104]

The OP is typical of white-people thinking it seems. It is like a high school philosophy of ethics discuss in which a very narrow facts and assertions are made - EXCLUDING ALL OTHER REALITY - and then forming a perfect utopian society of perfect behavior people and then an ethic/morality out of that. Unfortunately, then some people want anyone who does not fit in or comply with that zippy pinhead sloganism declared to be evil and a criminal.

The OP isn't about reality. It excludes reality.

1. The OP declares people only can communicate in mono-tone, mono-volume verbal words. In the OP, humans are incapable of facial expressions, incapable of body language, and all sound exactly the same. In fact, people do not just communicate verbally in mono tone.

2. The OP is only Joe, Bob and his fiancé are in the club, for which then suddenly other people are beamed in for Bob to push thru. What other people are doing is very relevant.

3. The OP asserts that in the history of the human race, the only fights have been 1 on 1, and that no one, ever, will come to the aid of another. Did Bob have buddies with him and Joe not, for which Bob then was likely well covered if Joe did a surprise assault knocking Bob down? Where friends of Joe circling around Bob and Bob had no pals?

4. The OP asserts that Bob's fiancé is a blind, mute paraplegic who can only hear Joe's words. In fact, she could factor in greatly. If I was in that situation, Joe would more need to fear my wife than I, and I would overall face little risk. If Joe tried to blindside me or did and I was then losing? She would kill him - literally and instantly.

5. That witnesses will tell the truth - assuming they all even know the truth on their memory of what each did and didn't see, hear etc.

6. There is no description of the bar, what staffing is there etc. Some small bars will only have 1 female bartender and no other staff. Is this a tough bar? Or a high class one? What other people are there? A lot of people who might break it up if something did start? Is there a bouncer? 95% of bars don't have one. Etc.

I could keep going down the list.

There are many reasons why I take the position that if 2 men walking into a conflict, the government (we-the-people) should stay out of it. There are so many variables, unknowns and unknowables, to get it right with certainty is all but impossible. Thus, my view is that Joe OBVIOUSLY was looking for trouble and deliberately making trouble. If Joe died as a result of it, that's just how it goes in conflicts between men.

However, as I noted in my initial comment, in my opinion what Bob should do is dependent upon whether Bob realistically believes he can disable Joe from being able to hurt him, anyone else and then even Joe then not more seriously hurt - or not. If Bob can, he should. If Bob can not, he should calculate the most likely successful fleeing by his fiancé and himself.