Are you responsible [Part 2a]

[.22lr]

All,

This thread is a continuation of “Are you responsible [Part1]”. In this thread, I’d like the community to discuss what risk to innocents we will accept to defend ourselves or a loved one against attack.



The situation is this;

1) You or your loved one are being attacked by an assailant who has shown beyond a doubt that Intent, Opportunity and Ability to cause grievous harm or death.

2) The immediate area is heavily populated with innocent people not involved with the attack in any way shape or form.

3) The chance of striking an innocent person cannot be reduced below 50% due to your current situation. This aspect cannot be changed for this discussion.

4) The risk to others can neither be mitigated nor negated unless you choose not to fire.

5) The choice not to fire will most likely result in the grievous injury or death of yourself or a loved one.

6) The decision to fire will not necessarily save yourself or a loved one



What level of risk to others will you accept in the defense of yourself or a loved one?



Very Respectfully,



~Matt

 

[usaign]

Here is the fatal flaw of this thread. We can sit here all day long talking about responsibility, but during a gun fight you wont be thinking this slowly or have time for discussion. Your time to think and make decisions will be measured in milliseconds. We wont be there to discuss the situation with you.

So the best advice is to try to avoid the situation if at all possible, retreat is always a safe alternative, be a good witness and only use deadly force if deadly force is being used against you or someone else.

The measure of a situation in which to use deadly force, in my opinion, is the following. You have to ask yourself if you are willing to spend your life in prison for what you are about to do. If you are willing to spend your life in prison, then the use of a pistol might be justified. I believe if I were to use my pistol, no matter what the circumstances, I would face trial. Therefore, the use of a pistol on another comes down to only a very few narrowly defined circumstances...

 

[Wildalaska]

Wasnt this book by William Styron?

WilddamnedifyoudoanddamnedifyoudontAlaska ™

 

[fastbolt]

Want to find out the answer to your question?

Just review the applicable statutory & case law for the criminal answer in your jurisdiction. Pay close attention to any wording regarding negligence, or things like "or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection (a wording found in the involuntary manslaughter section of CA law)". It may ultimately be up to someone else ... meaning a jury of your peers ... to determine whether due caution & circumspection were used by you.

Think about the difference between being found guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, by the whole jury panel, in a criminal trial ... to the requirement of only a preponderance of evidence and more than half of the jury panel agreeing to find against you in a civil trial.

Find out what the laws are for your state/locality and learn what they mean. Really mean. Case law can change the meaning of things.

The bullet will stop where it will ... but the buck (responsibility) will stop where the law and court system decides it's going to stop, whether it be criminal and/or civil.

Best to consider the ramifications of our actions and be prepared to make the right choices.

Movies, TV and novels are for entertainment. Real life and consequences are much less appealing.

You can't call a bullet back.

Just my thoughts.

 

[ScottRiqui]

Here is the fatal flaw of this thread. We can sit here all day long talking about responsibility, but during a gun fight you wont be thinking this slowly or have time for discussion. Your time to think and make decisions will be measured in milliseconds. We wont be there to discuss the situation with you.

Agreed, but I still think these discussions are valuable, because even though "no plan survives first contact with the enemy", having a plan beforehand is still worlds better than not having thought about it at all prior to the incident.

When I first started carrying, I decided early on that if I (and my family, if they're there) can leave the scene safely, that's what we're going to do. I may very well be leaving other people to be slaughtered, and I may miss a chance to "save the day" or "be a hero", but that's not why I carry a gun. I'm not a cop, and the reason I carry a gun (and the reason the State issued me a CHL) is for self-defense.

Now if I'm stuck in the situation and can't leave, that means that I and my family are in continued immediate peril, so I may take a shot in that circumstance, even if the bad guy's gun isn't currently pointed at me, but that's only if I/we can't get the hell out, which will always be the very first decision to be made.

 

[TylerD45ACP]

Im glad to see everyone agrees shoot to save yourself or your loved ones no matter what. That however does not mean don't watch your background, I just wonder how easy that is in a stressful situation. Would that be even on your mind as bullets sail your way?

 

[Wildalaska]

Im glad to see everyone agrees shoot to save yourself or your loved ones no matter what.

No everyone doesn't

Simply: How do you know that your blood is redder than the blood of your fellow?


WildwhatwouldjoshuasayAlaska TM

 

[TylerD45ACP]

Well mostly. Obviously I wish no harm to anyone like Im sure most people on this forum do. However, self preservation comes before all else even if it is not a concious decision. I don't mean blast away like a irresponsible person but If your life or loved ones depend on it I would fire as I think most would.

 

[rzach]

will that is why most of us use hollow point bullets and train to shoot only what needs to be shot.if you have time to try to thank about the out come you probably could have left the seen

 

[Retired15T]

My blood may not be redder than that of my fellow, but it isn't my fault my fellow didn't bother to be trained on weapons and get a permit to carry.

I will always defend my loved ones. Whether I die doing so or end up in jail, as long as they are alive, that's what matters to me. I don't think I could ever NOT defend them as I would myself. It would just be my gut reaction to protect them before all others, to include myself.

 

[AZAK]

The situation is this;

1) You or your loved one are being attacked by an assailant who has shown beyond a doubt that Intent, Opportunity and Ability to cause grievous harm or death.

2) The immediate area is heavily populated with innocent people not involved with the attack in any way shape or form.

3) The chance of striking an innocent person cannot be reduced below 50% due to your current situation. This aspect cannot be changed for this discussion.

4) The risk to others can neither be mitigated nor negated unless you choose not to fire.

5) The choice not to fire will most likely result in the grievous injury or death of yourself or a loved one.

6) The decision to fire will not necessarily save yourself or a loved one

Emphasis by AZAK

Given your parameters, just looking at the "odds" alone, it would appear that the only "rational" course of action would be to stop the aggressor.

And I fail to understand how "4)" can exist within your other parameters; unless this "assailant" is on a "personal" vendetta against you and your family and is a confirmed pacifist regarding the entire remainder of the human race/"innocent people".

 

[Wildalaska]

And I fail to understand how "4)" can exist within your other parameters; unless this "assailant" is on a "personal" vendetta against you and your family and is a confirmed pacifist regarding the entire remainder of the human race/"innocent people".

The factual scenario is of course absurd. The alternate question could have been phrased: "are you willing to commit homicide to save yourself?"

What does Judeo-Christian morality say about the scenario? I seem to recall a guy who was willing to give up his own life for everyone else?

Wildandiquotedthetalmudaboveanddontforgetjohn18:11Alaska TM

 

[threegun]

Best to consider the ramifications of our actions and be prepared to make the right choices.

Don't care about the above when the below is gonna happen if I don't act.

The choice not to fire will most likely result in the grievous injury or death of yourself or a loved one.

 

[threegun]

The factual scenario is of course absurd. The alternate question could have been phrased: "are you willing to commit homicide to save yourself?"

This is absurd. Homicide is the willful taking of a human life. In this scenario there is no intent by the defender to take the life of the innocent.

The scenario itself is far from absurd. You keep blasting any scenario that forces an answer to would you risk hitting an innocent to save yourself. If you carry a firearm on the street you may very well be faced with this decision unless in Alaska there is only one innocent person living. Your religious beliefs preclude you from shooting and thats totally fine. Others believe differently.

Bottom line is the scenario make us think. It is not absurd or far fetched. In fact its something those who carry may have to deal with if they ever are forced to discharge their firearm in an Urban environment.

 

[shafter]

An innocent WILL die if I hold my fire.

An innocent MIGHT die if I shoot.

The choice seems rather obvious

 

[CWPinSC]

OK, I'll bite...

The situation is this;

1) You or your loved one are being attacked by an assailant who has shown beyond a doubt that Intent, Opportunity and Ability to cause grievous harm or death.

Understood - life and death situation.

2) The immediate area is heavily populated with innocent people not involved with the attack in any way shape or form.

Understood - not a clear field of fire.

3) The chance of striking an innocent person cannot be reduced below 50% due to your current situation. This aspect cannot be changed for this discussion.

Understood - chance of hitting innocents is great.

4) The risk to others can neither be mitigated nor negated unless you choose not to fire.

Understood - if I fire, I might well hit an innocent.

5) The choice not to fire will most likely result in the grievous injury or death of yourself or a loved one.

Understood - if I don't fire, a family member or I could die.

6) The decision to fire will not necessarily save yourself or a loved one

Understood - nothing in life is certain but death. However, there's a chance it might.

What level of risk to others will you accept in the defense of yourself or a loved one?

For the answer to this, go back to Question #1. At this point, all other points are moot, invalid, non-sequiter, not germaine, they just don't matter.

The lives of my family take precedent over ALL other considerations by a wide margin. Blood IS thicker than water, AND other blood - and I am NOT my brother's keeper. The law of survival makes my life just as valuable. I'm not heroic or noble enough to sacrifice myself for others. A character flaw, I'm sure, but that's the way it is.

The decision to shoot is mine, of course, but I was forced into making this decision in the first place by the actions of the perp. Responsibility flows upwards, and it's his actions that may cause people to be killed - not my reactions.

I must ask a return question...will my bullets over-penetrate that much or is my aim that bad so as to endanger innocents that much?

Bottom line - if he tries to harm my family - he's DEFINITELY STOPPED , regardless.

 

[TylerD45ACP]

^ Tries to harm me or my family bullets are going his way COM. I rather save my wife and child and possibly go to jail then let them get killed and me be a walking ghost. I could not deal with my family hurt as much as myself, either way self preservation and the preservation of dear ones is a powerful emotion.

 

[OldMarksman]

Bottom line - if he tries to harm my family - he's a dead man, regardless.

Figure of speech, I presume...

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Watch the figures of speech. In this debate, we are circling around responsibility to others.

To express a desire to kill as compared to stopping the ongoing harmful event might portray a blood lust that made you act unwisely.

 

[Wildalaska]

Homicide is the willful taking of a human life. In this scenario there is no intent by the defender to take the life of the innocent.

Really? You fire to save yourself KNOWING that your shot could hit an innocent.

I could fit that into a homicide statute.

Your religious beliefs preclude you from shooting and thats totally fine.

It's not religious. Its ethics. Im an agnostic and the absurdity of religious belief does not negate its ethical value or at least the ethical issues one confronts.

Here: You want ethical mud wrestling?

Scenario: Bad guy has your wife with a knife at her throat and tells you he will slit it if you dont fire into the crowd of schoolchildren. You have no shot at attacker.

I rather save my wife and child and go to jail then let them get killed and me be a walking ghost. I could not deal with my family hurt as much as myself, either way self preservation and the preservation of dear ones is a powerful emotion.

So you are killing someone elses kid.

The lives of my family take precedent over ALL other considerations by a wide margin. Blood IS thicker than water, AND other blood - and I am NOT my brother's keeper. The law of survival makes my life just as valuable. I'm not heroic or noble enough to sacrifice myself for others. A character flaw, I'm sure, but that's the way it is.

As are you...

WildchewonthatoneforabitAlaska ™