Are you responsible [Part 2a]

How much risk to others is acceptable?

  • My life and the lives of those I love are more important to me than the lives of strangers [shoot]

    Votes: 42 85.7%
  • It would be immoral to risk the lives of others to save myself or those I love [don't shoot]

    Votes: 7 14.3%

  • Total voters
    49
Yea thats what I got too "he's a dead man" I take as stopping the threat. The goal is to stop the threat immediatley, yes it may require using deadly force. But your intent (at least my intent) is not to set out to kill this person that is there causing the threat, but to stop them immediatley. If you can you should get your family and yourself out of the house. If forced to defend yourself stop the threat as fast as possible, which is COM hits followed by 1 to the head if not stopped. No one should think about it as trying to kill the intruder but instead stop him. However, the most effective way to stop the threat will most likely kill them, but that should not be your goal. Stopping the threat is.
 
Thats a messed up Scenario Wildalaska obviously I could do nothing in that situation. I really don't care for even considering it.
 
Thats a messed up Scenario Wildalaska obviously I could do nothing in that situation. I really don't care for even considering it.

Then why would you even carry a gun? Or post what you posted?

WilditsthehardquestionsthatmakelifestrangeAlaska ™
 
Its no win, first of all. The Psycho is going to probably kill my wife anyway if he wants me to shoot at kids, which is a sickening thought. So I wouldn't do what he said OBVIOUSLY, and I would start running towards where ever he was to get a shot on him. I would try as hard as I could to get to him and stop him from hurting my wife in time. I really don't know what else I could do, thats a tight spot.
 
Nope, no running towards the attacker, no extra facts, you made a blanket statement before so take the scenario as it is.

Choose who dies.

WildtoughonehuhAlaska ™
 
WildtoughonehuhAlaska said:
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.
The wife gets a say in this, too. If she wants you to fire at the schoolchildren, you probably married the wrong person. :cool:

Each of these scenarios stipulates that you are faced with a choice of which "innocent" life to protect, that of a family member or a stranger. But, Wild, your responses to the initial scenario ignore the phrase "or a loved one." If you're not only defending yourself, but another (presumably defenseless) person, then:
shafter said:
An innocent WILL die if I hold my fire.

An innocent MIGHT die if I shoot.

The choice seems rather obvious
Just so. But this is a completely different calculus from the choice to shoot and risk killing an innocent in order to save oneself alone. If that's the choice, then you're quite right:
The alternate question could have been phrased: "are you willing to commit homicide to save yourself?"
No, absolutely not. What gives me the right to decide that my life is more valuable than that of a stranger who is, ummm...
from Rule Four
...behind the target along the trajectory of the bullet.
Speaking of "religious texts" that one might interpret to mean "Don't shoot"... ;)
 
Last edited:
Things are not that simple and clear cut. Id go after him, its the only option, my wife is already in serious trouble if this were the case. You can choose for yourself, I'm not speculating on that one anymore.
 
Things are not that simple and clear cut.

No sir, you and other made it clear cut....

"My life and the lives of those I love are more important to me than the lives of strangers"

Good. That was on the scenario set forth. Im giving you a different one.

Kill the innocent or your wife dies. Choose.

Cant choose? Then maybe reconsider your vote?

WildandvanyaireadstaugustinelastnightshoulditosshiminAlaska ™
 
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.

Simple wild, shoot her in a spot that will allow the bullet to reach him.... saw it on tv


Stop and think about what is going on and you may get killed. No time to think you must react fast. Get training or try to stay away from known bad areas. Go camping at a nice lake, go see a movie, whatever but stay out of bad areas and try to reduce the ideas running thru your head.

Shoot a school kid? No, I would shoot the wife........as described. What the heck it is a fantasy anyway...
 
Maybe I did make them seem a little more clear cut then they are. I was just trying to make the point that I would defend my family to the best possible ability. If that mean taking an acceptable risk I would, however your scenario gives one something to think about. That situation you describe my wife would probably die, unfortuantley. It seems to me though she would die anyway thats why Im saying I would go for him because at that point its the best option.
 
This thread reminds me why it is such a good thing to take FOF training with well planned scenarios.

It's easy to take about such but when a BG surfaces in a mixed group of uknowns makes you think. Such practice also aids in quicker evaluation of the situation and chosing action.

The first step in FOF is FIT (flee in terror :D)

I remember an Insights class, where my groups was outside playing with cars but another was in house. Suddenly, we here a shot and the door of the house flies open and a herd of big guys come lumbering out. The Instructor laughed and said - Well, that's a major hauling of tush (:D).

Cracked me up.

In another, an altercation in a bar broke about and I as an innocent was shot - bah. The sims rounds hurt. In the inner thigh.:eek:
 
The first step in FOF is FIT (flee in terror )

I used that before myself, it's what I call the "Sir Robin" tactic:

"When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin"

It saved the day on several occasions.:)
 
Wild, Now your scenario is absurd. Its so far down the ladder of possibility that the devil himself could be your neighbor.


There is a big difference between "could" and "will". Firing at the attacker "could" result in someones death vs willfully shooting and killing someone to save your significant other as dictated by your scenario.

While everyone wants to insure that every round fired in SD is done so in a way that only the bad guy is injured, it is simply not possible to predict this in the nano second available prior to firing. In the urban environment with hard building materials (ricochet), congested streets and stores, and even moving vehicles it is certainly possible to injury or kill an innocent who isn't or wasn't in the direct line of fire at the moment of discharge. Using your logic you simply cannot fire if there is a chance of injuring an innocent. No need to carry it seems.
 
Posting scenarios such as WA did is an old scholarly, religious, philosophical technique to test the extremes and limits of some blanket statement.

Thus, it's legit. Is it likely probably not but it does cut through some of the things we see here.

It is common in the research and discussion of morality. Then, sometimes whacky things happen.

A less extreme example is the famous ticking bomb. You are against torture and then there is a guy who knows where the ticking bomb is located.

That's the idea.
 
I did make a blanket statement yes, I should have elaborated more. I mean in a reasonable scenario. Yes my wife would probably be dead but like threegun said the BG is gonna get it. Although, I think WildAlaska's comment is something to think about. You have to watch your background and I plan on taking many more courses in SD, and pratical application of those "reflexes".
 
Last edited:
Still going, huh? ;)

I see the wording of the offered options in this thread topic as obviously contrived and placed at extremes. Sometimes a situation may seem to offer only extreme choices to someone, someone overwhelmed by events and feeling unable to exert some control over the course of events, while another person may see an alternative.

Training and experience can help prevent someone from experiencing the adverse effects of perceptual lag in a chaotic situation and being overwhelmed by events, events which may seem to an unprepared person to be occurring faster than they can perceive and understand them. It can also help bring training to the forefront of someone's mind and perhaps help them from succumbing to allure of making poor snap judgments and choices.

Keeping the mind active in a crisis situation means keeping the mind's reasoning abilities in play, instead of being 'frozen' and 'unable to think'. Keeping the rational mind in action. Possibilities, and actions which can open up new possibilities, which may be apparent to a prepared and trained individual may remain beyond the grasp of another person who has never been trained to operate in such a situation.

Some of the more interesting training I've attended in recent years, albeit within the context of LE training venues, has not involved trigger time, per se, but has discussed and stressed the importance of newer training venues, including properly done FoF and discussed the importance of how training the mind and will is just as important as training the gun hand.

Seeing options and possibilities where they may not be apparent to others experiencing the debilitating effects of hormonally induced fear response and the virtual shut down of rational thought.

Seeing how to make possibilities for alternative courses of action where others overwhelmed by the situation may not be able to see them. Having the will and mind, as well as the 'tactical awareness', necessary to bring about a 'better choice' which doesn't present an unnecessary increased threat to the life of the innocents around us.

Simply put, a Pyrrhic Victory isn't a victory.

Especially not if the aftermath presents a devastating and tragic effect upon the subsequent future lives of the loved ones intended to be 'saved' in the first place, and definitely not upon the innocents (and their families) who may suffer death or serious bodily injury in some sort of 'acceptable compromise'. Pyrrhic victory. Not.

If this is some random philosophical exercise about some contrived hypothetical situation and desired exchange of learned sounding discourse, then fine. People enjoy debating all sorts of things.

If this thread topic is something intended to suggest a course of action in an actual situation, though, then maybe some folks ought to reconsider why they're wanting to go about lawfully armed in the presence of their fellow citizens, and to what extent they're willing to endanger their fellows, and their fellow's families, in actions which might be considered at some future time as recklessly endangering others once a criminal and/or civil action is pursued.

If you're going to ask these questions, you might also consider that at some point it may be your family who becomes the strangers in the phrase "the lives of strangers". Does that affect your answer? Do you want it affect the answer of someone else when it's your family?

As a working cop I always had an echoing thought that the lives upon which I might have an effect, for good or otherwise, could just as easily be the lives of my own family. Or that at some other time another cop might have occasion to be looking at my family in the same way during the course of his/her activities. I still feel the same way every time I wear a weapon in public as a retired cop.

Being lawfully armed means assuming and accepting responsibility for one's actions. I can't remember hearing "I just didn't have a choice in that situation!!" often being effectively & successfully used as a defense.

I don't pretend to have the definitive answers folks. Not even close. I'm also not intending to single anyone out who has participated in this (or the other) thread. It's just that the comments and discussion has evoked enough of a response in me that I thought I'd share my thoughts. That's all. Just share. I can't make the decisions for anyone else. I can barely presume to hope to make the right ones for myself.

Stay well.

Best regards.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top