Armed Good Samaritan Stops Savage Beating of Mother in Front of Her Three Kids

In Kansas City, Missouri, last Saturday, a kind-hearted stranger saved a woman from a violent attack and may have saved her three kids, too.

The Good Samaritan, Benjamin Seadorf, was with his own four children at home when he suddenly heard a woman’s “blood-curdling scream.”

“She definitely was in fear of her life,” Seadorf recalled. “She was screaming at the top of her lungs, profusely bawling. She just kept screaming, ‘Help me! Help! Somebody, please help me!’ over and over again.”

That was all Seadorf needed to hear. He ran out the door with his legally possessed 9mm handgun and went in the direction of the screams. The view of what happened is blocked by a car in the video, but according to the police report, Seadorf approached a parked car and found Alarick Williams violently grabbing the mother of his three children, beating her unconscious and shoving her forcefully into a car. Their kids were all in the car while this was happening. Allegedly, this all started because the woman had asked Williams to drop her off at her cousin’s place.

“As I get close to the vehicle, I noticed her top’s ripped off,” Seadorf said to reporters. “Her bra’s halfway off, and her pants were halfway off because he kept grabbing her.”

Seadorf walked up to the car and told Williams to get out of the vehicle and on the ground. Williams put the car in park and complied, giving the police time to arrive and arrest Williams, who is now being charged with two counts of domestic assault. The officers also thanked Seadorf for what he did.

For his part, Seadorf seems shocked that no one else in the area attempted to intervene. He feels that what he did was a fulfillment of moral obligation, not something that should be extraordinary.

“Society doesn’t want to get involved now days, and it’s sad,” Seadorf remarked. “We need to help each other more.”

No charges are being filed against Seadorf for using the threat of lethal force to stop this violent act.

comments

  1. avatar L says:

    We just had another story of an ex-boyfriend stabbing a girl in front of *her* kids too. What the hell is wrong with people? This woman was lucky someone was there to help, seems like more women nowadays need to start packing because there won’t always be someone to help.

    1. avatar Elaine D. says:

      @L

      DV situations are really dangerous, not only for the victim of the abuse but also for anyone trying to intervene.

      Because the victim (who can be of any gender, I’ve worked with men who were the victim as well) not infrequently has a strong trauma bond with the attacker, ie Stockholm Syndrome type stuff, it’s not uncommon for someone trying to stop the attacker to get attacked by the victim. Strange but true. Abuse victims in DV relationships often have untreated PTSD as well and can have reactions that are just as unpredictable as the person doing the beating.

      Abusive relationships are strange animals. A self defense tool is really only useful to a victim if that victim has decided that they are FOR SURE getting out of this and leaving. Otherwise it’s just as likely that they will turn it over to the abuser without even being forced, or that it’ll get taken away from them.

      Trauma bonds are a very strange thing.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        ^ This.

        As Elaine D. stated, if you intervene in a domestic violence attack, that victim can turn on you in a heartbeat and you could suddenly find yourself facing two attackers. Even worse, both people could claim that you threatened them without legal justification and the police might put you in jail as a result!

        My strategy and my suggestion to readers: do not introduce any physical or deadly force into a domestic violence situation unless one party is bludgeoning, stabbing, shooting, or landing deadly punches/kicks to the other party and the other party is debilitated to the point that:
        (1) they are no longer able to attack you, and
        (2) they are injured so grievously that it is obvious you were justified for introducing deadly force.

        1. avatar RF says:

          The article mentions “savage beating”, a situation can go from a verbal argument to someone bleeding to death on the ground in seconds. If you see a “savage beating” either you go or you don’t. I don’t wait to have flies in my bathroom to flush the toilet, your choice.

        2. avatar RF says:

          A “savage beating”, which implies the victim is at risk of great bodily harm, legally justifies the introduction of the amount of force necessary to protect the victim and to stop the aggressor.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          RF,

          I simply described in detail what I would call a “savage beating”. I made it a point to mention that strikes with the hands and/or feet have to consist of life-threatening blows as opposed to harshly grabbing, shaking, slapping, and/or hitting a person in a fashion to intimidate or express dominance.

          I make that distinction because it could be easy to jump-in prematurely: if you see a woman screaming in response to a man who is yelling at her, yanking her around, and slapping (or lightly striking) her, you are not legally justified to use significant physical force, much less lethal force.

          If you want to intervene verbally, that is fine.

        4. avatar Buford says:

          “Unjustified” may mean different things in different jurisdictions,
          Here in indiana (a no duty to retreat state) it would easily be justified, as proven about 3 weeks ago when a neighbor saw another neighbor and her daughter being physically abused by the mothers boyfriend,
          The neighbor saw what was going on, went to the aid of the woman, drew his pistol and put himself between the assailant and the woman and her daughter, he then instructed the assailant to stay put untIL Leo’s showed up, the assailant hesitated a moment then started advancing on the hero, the hero shot and killed the assailant, DA. determined self defense and no charges are going to be filed, so what determine “unjustified and justified” depends on your state’s laws and local jurisdictions laws,

      2. avatar Tommy says:

        I have years of experience as a patrol cop, and the overwhelming majority DV related calls I have dealt with did not involve any physical violence in progress (meaning it was still physical when I/we arrived). I never had a victim turning physically against me or a fellow officer. I know it can happen, but the risk of it actually happening is often exaggerated.
        Nowadays you have more chances to face a suicide by cop situation, than a victim of DV trying to jump you. When someone is being butchered you have no way to know whether this person has made the decision to end this DV situation or not, unless you are familiar with these subjects and the situation, the victim has already filed for an injunction/court order, etc. You are not going to ask the person who is being punched, kicked, choked, if she had enough of this and if she wants to end this abusive relationship.

        1. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @Tommy

          That’s good to know. I do wonder if the fact that you wear a uniform imposes a certain amount of order on the scene that a neighbor or passerby can’t expect to have to their advantage.

          I guess I’ve just seen it too many times where a neighbor or someone close by intervenes in a DV situation…the attacker goes to jail for a little bit…the victim continues to have contact, forgives the attacker, reconciles, drops charges, the abuser moves back in…and now Good Neighbor has someone living two doors down who does not have their best interests at heart.

          I sometimes work with DV victims but I make it clear that I can only help them if they have decided to exit the situation, otherwise they will need to go to a shelter. I have just had too many close calls where the client got brainwashed by the abuser into stopping coming for help because the abuser started suggesting that I was the cause of their problems. This could make me a target for the abuser. That’s a pretty common dynamic. The good news is that the victim often surfaces a year or two later ready to leave and at that time I’m able to help them out.

    2. avatar Bear Market says:

      Yuge mental health issue in the USA. Cops, firefighters and medics know a bit more than the average person how many nutjobs are actually out there.

    3. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

      … This all circles back to a previous post I’ve contributed,

      *Mind Your Own Business*

      More than likely (with most) domestic violence instances, the original victim and the actor will kiss and/or make-up, and at a later date, perhaps generate a repeat performance. Let’s not forget these children and whatever they have inherited biologically, or from witnessing ‘this’.

      This behavior is not something that just started. If any, what have the other family members done to mitigate this? If nothing else get the children out of the way or report the behavior. Let me guess, the family decided to …

      *Mind Their Own Business?*

      I will remain that b*tcH who will not intervene in another victims violence, unless said victim(s) are of *my known biological camp*, or adolescents. None of that 2nd/3rd cousin b^77Sh*t, There are exceptions for both those groups for which I will walk away.

      Not sure why anyone, with intent, (excluding a LEO) would want to be in/on the news regarding any aspect of a DGU involving an unknown third party/persons.

      You may want to prepare yourself for something like this within your own ranks; forget about a third-party.Worry about the front lawn . The physical threat is only the beginning. Fill-in the blanks …

  2. avatar Michael Buley says:

    “For his part, Seadorf seems shocked that no one else in the area attempted to intervene. He feels that what he did was a fulfillment of moral obligation, not something that should be extraordinary.”

    Agreed that it is our moral obligation and responsibility. Especially in light of how very few people feel this way any more.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      I don’t know why he was so surprised; it has been this way for decades. There was a famous case in NYC where a woman was attacked and raped right outside her apartment building. No one called 911. The shocking thing was that the attacker came back multiple times, beating and raping her, until he finally killed her. Not one person called the police or intervened, even though dozens heard the attack. This”I don’t want to get involved” attitude is sadly common behavior in large cities.

      1. avatar Marty says:

        Yup, but that’s a New York thing, It happens in other places, but no ways near as much as NYC.

        1. avatar rt66paul says:

          I remember hearing screams of children “being disciplined”, when I was a kid. Now I was beat as a kid, but this guy used to beat his kids black and blue and the screams went on for 20 min.
          No one ever said anything, even after seeing these poor kids the next day with bruises on arms, neck and legs.

      2. avatar Jeremy D says:

        Ah yes, the bystander effect. “i wont intervene because im sure someone else will”

        It NOT just a new york thing either

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Yes, as shocking as it may be, the New York Slimes lied about the entire case.

      3. avatar RF says:

        In small towns some folks also focus way too much on unbelievable b.s, and they forget about the basics. There is good and bad everywhere, good Samaritans, cowards, and pos everywhere.

  3. avatar Yarbles says:

    That Ghetto Demon could easily have killed her. There or later.

    This Scott Mason dude is a Socialist Coward. Probably gets his money from the Socialist and Unconstitutional HHS or one of Soros’ NGOs.

    Direct intervention was required and Mr. Seadorf took the required action.

    Personally, I don’t hold persons at gunpoint waiting for the Police. This can be dangerous for many reasons.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      [holding persons at gunpoint while waiting for the police] can be dangerous for many reasons.

      I share your sentiment.

    2. avatar RF says:

      So you shoot them, or you don’t intervene?

  4. avatar GS650G says:

    Quite a few people here would have done nothing. A few would have pulled.out the phone and shot video.
    I would if told the MFer to try that with me, please.

    1. avatar RF says:

      And it is probably a lot of the same warriors always trashing cops on TTAG. They have probably dreamed so hard about some crazy action during which they were the hero….that they believe it. How many would shake so much they would struggle to clear their holster? You don’t know it until you face the music.

  5. avatar Aaron says:

    INCONCEIVABLE! Nancy Pelosi assured me that the good guy with a gun is just a myth…

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      You keep using that word [inconceivable]. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      1. avatar smartazz says:

        It is a synonym for unbelievable. It fits perfectly in his/her sentence.

  6. avatar ROBERT Powell says:

    it is good that you did help her, most people any more would turn and run, don’t get involved. others would have pistol whiped the man good, it gives a lot of satisfaction but it can cost you very much for the gratification.. the common sense move works best.

  7. avatar CTstooge says:

    Sallah: “Domestic violence. Very dangerous. You go first.”

  8. avatar sambert says:

    “Society doesn’t want to get involved now days, and it’s sad,” Seadorf remarked. “We need to help each other more.”

    Considering that you are very likely to get prosecuted or sued for using your gun to protect a third party, its no wonder that no one wants to help.

    Im not going through that for someone unwilling to defend themselves with their own gun

    1. avatar Bear Market says:

      If you see a defenseless victim taking a nasty beating, you don’t have the time to think about all that. That’s a good debate in front of a computer, with a cup of coffee or a beer, but a person using this logic under such circumstances (“savage beating” of a mother…), in the street, that would be trying to defend cowardice, massive brain fart, incapacitating fear, etc. Either you do or you don’t, the minimum acceptable is definitely making sure 911 has been called. I would need therapy if I witnessed something like that and I somehow decided to not intervene, because what if it was a loved one and someone who could have didn’t?

    2. avatar James A. "Jim" Farmer says:

      I understand your reasoning here. Unfortunately for generations our corrupt criminal
      injustice system is run by deceitful crooked lawyers and other scum!

  9. avatar atavistic says:

    Sheepdog

  10. avatar Kendall Matthews says:

    Pretty sure in a lot of states the good Sam would have caught some legal heat.
    I would have intervened, but shut my mouth and split asap, due to my state.

  11. avatar Skp5885 says:

    Why was his 9mm “registered”. Was it full auto? Dumb ass journalist.

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      COME ON SKIPPY…Obviously you didn’t read the article. It says nothing about the firearm being registered. It says legally possessed. As to why that is even mentioned falls into two rules of thought. Letting the reader know the firearm was legal as a point of information. The other purpose is a tactic of the gun grabbers to use the fact the gun was legal. To show that legal guns kill and are just as dangerous as illegal guns. Thus all guns are dangerous and need to be taken out of the hands of everybody. Regardless of the nature of the use. Keep Your Powder dry…

  12. avatar former water walker says:

    I’m happy it turned out OK…what would I do? Dunno but years ago when I was younger and very strong I DID intervene in Chicago. More than once . Unarmed too. Now I don’t think I’d be intimidating. I’d have to shoot the bastard😖

  13. avatar possum says:

    I would assume Mr. Seadorf( if that’s your real name) that the reason no one else intervened was their blood was curdled to the point of immobility

  14. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Well, Mothers Against Only Some Violence is all over this, I see. Oh, wait…

    And Little Hoagie(*) poster-childing to Ban All The Things. Oh, wait…

    DiFi will be using this to support another go at anti-gun laws any last-minute now. Wait for it… Wait for it…

    I am getting tired of the saturation coverage on this. Saturation absence, I meant.

    The ads write themselves: “Any gun restriction is worth it, if it allows only one more savage beating to continue. Something must be done!”

    I am unsure, though, why no saturation promo. There was violence without a gun? The gun present actually stopped violence in progress? Um, I’m gonna go with both.

    (*) I have tried. I have really, really tried to lay off Camera Hogg McClueless collecting his cheap fame on the bodies of his claimed friends. But, I just can’t any more. He’s a grown-up now, choosing for himself, and to be a public figure. Sorry. Full-time, traveling agitator — I mean “activist” — with his own perma-possee — I mean “squad” — and a lifetime supply of Bloomie-bucks… no more just a traumatized kid.

    His inner truth name is “Little Hoagie.” If you happen to hear that Elton John song every time you see the twerp, now, well … my work here is done.

    1. avatar Al says:

      So true. This is one of the few sites where us gun enthusiasts can be ourselves without some shrill Millennial crybaby whining at us.

  15. avatar 22winmag says:

    It’s dangerous to get in the middle of a domestic.

    It’s suicidal when its a BLAK on BLAK domestic!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email