Are you responsible [Part 2b]

[.22lr]

The situation is this;

1) You have come upon a stranger is being attacked by an assailant who has shown beyond a doubt the Intent, Opportunity and Ability to cause grievous harm or death.

2) You believe the stranger to be innocent and the assailant to be criminal.

3) The stranger (the one being attacked) appears unarmed.

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

5) There is a unknown risk that a innocent bystander may be hurt, but this risk is hard to quantify.

6) The choice not to fire may result in the grievous injury or death of the stranger.

7) The decision to fire may place you and those around you (innocent bystanders) at increased risk. (a gunfight)



What level of risk will you accept in the defense of a stranger?



Very Respectfully,



~Matt

PS: I realize these options are not perfect and that my style may not appeal to all. I will say this, it is worth everything you paid for it and if dissatisfied, I will give a 200% refund. Seriously, if you don't like it, just change the channel.

 

[Wildalaska]

a stranger is being attacked by an assailant who has shown beyond a doubt the Intent, Opportunity and Ability to cause grievous harm or death.

And does this question include the undisputed knowledge that the stranger is an innocent and the attacker is operating in a criminal fashion?

WildotherwiseitsanexcersizeinfutilityAlaska ™

 

[Evan Thomas]

2) Your only knowledge is that one person is attacking and the other is being attacked.

So the "attacker" could be, oh, a Good Samaritan, maybe even a Hero , coming to the aid of person #3 (whom I can't see just now), who was attacked by the person who appears to be under attack...

Why would I risk making a situation which I know nothing about worse?

Not just no, but heck no. I'll call 911 and be the best witness I can, but it's not remotely a good idea for a civilian to try to intervene with force in completely ambiguous situations.

 

[.22lr]

Vanya,
I apologize for changing the question after you had posted. Wildalaska pointed out the issue, and after this week, I don't think my insomnia addled brain should be anywhere near a keyboard...

Once again apologies,

VR

Matt

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Done this in FOF - you have no idea of the preceding events. The classic is the undercover cop with a gun who gets shot. This has happened a few times.

Without absolute certainity - don't engage. Even if you have that, you have no moral obligation to enter the fight.

It also depends on the circumstances of the participants. I just missed a sexual predator beating an 8 year old with a tire iron to stuff her in a duffle bag to kidnap her. Others intervened.

Pretty clear on what to do, if you had the ability.

I also saw a bunch of racist scum starting harass an older woman of color. I was probably going to help this woman but she managed to flee into a store. I called the law.

I saw gang member fighting a gang member over a woman. Bye, bye.

The question doesn't consider the force continuum.

I know that with a sample of highly trained individuals carrying firearms - being asked if seeing a woman being assaulted, how would they act - almost none will shoot immediately. Most call the cops and observe.

In FOF at places like the NTI - about 50/50 on actually entering the fray. Even then they usually challenge. Surprising, you then get into a gun fight. Ouch. Unlike the internet, you take sims rounds. Your hits may not hit something vital. And wow, a surprise backup for the BG.

 

[BlackFeather]

And what if something changes, such as a knife being drawn or possibly a gun and there are children in the immediate area that have frozen in place since the fight erupted?

I believe it was December of 2008 and those two gang bangers opened fire on each other in a Toys r us. If you could have interrupted that because of innocent bystanders would you have?

Just trying to be the odd one...

 

[sakeneko]

What Glen said. I *might* be willing to risk up to my own life, but not that of innocent bystanders, in a case where I was certain or nearly certain that the person being attacked was innocent. Usually I wouldn't be that certain, however, and if I weren't, chances are very good that my involvement would take the form of quickly taking cover, calling 911, and being as good a witness as possible.

For example, in the situation Glenn Miller mentions, if I saw a clearly preadolescent girl being violently attacked by somebody I recognized to be a known sex offender, and was confident that I could intervene with a good chance of success without putting other innocent people in danger, I would do so. I've been that child, except that I wasn't in public and my attacker hadn't been tried and convicted of hurting other children. :/ I couldn't stand to live in my own skin if I stood by and let that happen to another child.

But that's an extreme situation. How often would I know that the attacker was a sex offender? How often would I be sure enough about the nature of the situation that intervening with deadly force was the right thing to do. (Not often.) How often would I be *able* to intervene with a certainty that other innocent people wouldn't be put at risk (gunfight), or that I could improve the situation for the person being attacked? The truth is, not very often.

I don't have the desire or the skill to play superhero (or mall ninja).

 

[TylerD45ACP]

I would most likely observe and respond with what I though to be the right choice. 911 most of the time. The scenario with the 8yr old I would have to intervene if it was possible, I simply could not stand by. Hopefully most of the time a 911 call will do the trick. The firearm is a last ditch effort, thats why we carry in case we need it. Thats the whole point, I dont want to use my firearm until absolutley necessary. Like the saying goes " Its better to have a gun and not need it, then to need a gun and NOT have it .

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

In the case I report - and I am not Glenn Miller - the BG was beating the kid with a tire iron and trying to stuff her in a bag.

But what if you saw a grown man pick up a crying little girl, sling her over his shoulder and stalk out the door of the market?

That was me and the issue was I wouldn't buy another lousy My Little Pony - so the daughter freaked. So shoot me?

Once with the daughter, I was at the magazine rack, holding her little hand. I said : Give me a kiss, darling.

The woman next to me, turned and good thing she was not from the Internet as I would have been shot. Then she saw my kid and I could see her chagrin.

If two guys get into a knife fight - and I see kids - I would YELL - RUN FOR YOUR LIVES (a guy from the internet might start shooting)

 

[TylerD45ACP]

LOL a guy from the internet might start shooting. Beating a girl with the tire iron is alot different than you even grabbing a crying daughter. If I really thought something was suspect I would just observe but not start shooting. If people would shoot that fast they shouldn't have a gun .

 

[Sixer]

If the "stranger" looks like he is literally getting beaten to death... I'm stepping in to try and break up the beating.

I would NOT introduce a firearm into the situation.

Of course you are putting yourself at risk by taking any non-passive actions. I just can't stand to see these or similar situations end badly for a truely innocent victim while people casually walk by and turn a blind eye.

I see this garbage on the news all the time... someone is getting beaten within inches of their life and all the while people are passing by with their heads to the ground.

I know that innocence can't be assumed... but by stepping in and at least attempting to break up the situation, you are really helping out both parties.

A) The "stranger" may actually get to see another sun rise.

B) The person dishing out the beat down may not get charged for murdering someone in public

 

[TylerD45ACP]

Sixer that Chuck Norris thing is HILARIOUS. I cant stop laughing and my family is looking at me strange.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Vanya,
I apologize for changing the question after you had posted.

'S fine. I see no reason to edit what I wrote... especially as "belief" (in this case, that I know who is doing what to whom) is a very tricky thing.

If I thought I could do so effectively, I would be most likely to intervene to help a child -- otherwise, there are too many unknowns, and the chances of my doing harm (including to myself, by my decision -- my life is a priori no less valuable than anyone else's) are too high. (And Dr. Mill... er, Meyer's comments about the kid thing are well taken, as well. Even there, it's trickier than we might think.)

And lest we forget, calling 911 and being a good witness is a form of intervention. Many people can't even manage that.

 

[markj]

) You have come upon a stranger is being attacked by an assailant who has shown beyond a doubt the Intent, Opportunity and Ability to cause grievous harm or death.

Be carefull, very carefull. Years ago I came upon a group of men physically holding a teen boy on the ground, boys face was bloodied. I got out of the truck and gathered up the men and got them off that boy, cops show up, turns out the boy was attempting to run away from a juvie house and the men were capturing him. Good thing I didnt hurt any of them men or I would have been arrested.

Not everything is as it seems, be carefull or have a lot of money for lawyers if you want to play hero.

 

[markj]

But what if you saw a grown man pick up a crying little girl, sling her over his shoulder and stalk out the door of the market?

Truck stop in western nebr, a trucker picked up a small girl and took her for a ride in his semi returning a lot latter to be arrested for kidnapping and later sex assault. A couple saw her taken but didnt call 911 until after the parents realized kid was gone and called for help. Was a Bosselmans truck stop.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Shows the ambiguity - you would have drawn on me?

I seeing the threat to my and my child might have taken the risk to shoot you up.

It's a problem, isn't it. BTW, I have seen people draw and beat drawn guns. There's a trick to it.

 

[Kjackson35]

Yell "I called the cops!" or "I'm calling the cops!"?

If I were some good samaritan ringing a bg's bell for whatever reason and somebody yelled that at me, I imagine I would be like "whoa whoa wait! You got it all wrong here." (While doing the whole showing of hands because I'm innocent routine) Or if the attacker is the bg, maybe they will run off. If that doesn't work then...better luck next time I guess.

Yelling at a bg and reporting them to police might just tick them off, so maybe get a slight head start on running the heck out of there in the midst of yelling.

 

[animal]

No offense intended, but I don’t to see a major point to this series of posts beyond getting it across to responders that they need more information to be sure of making a correct decision than what is provided in the OPs … or ... to serve as a sort of Rorschach test to determine the expectations of the responders.

IMO : People are filling in the details in their mind to fit what they expect the situation to be, and justify the actions that they are prepared (or think they are prepared) to take. Some of the "draw" or "shoot now" responses might be entirely justified if the details of the responder’s mental picture of the situation were known. Likewise for the "run away" ones.

In my view of personal morality (which is separate from yet linked to societal obligations), the principles that should be followed (such as protecting self, protecting innocents, do no harm, promote good, and such) are absolutes. However, we are faced with the problem of attempting to follow an absolute goal from a finite perspective. We can rarely fully assess the right or wrong of action due to both internal and external limits on ability. Also, due to the appearance of conflict between absolute principles that arise in real situations, and that are inherent to a multifaceted world, there is rarely a "perfect" choice in reality and sometimes inaction is the correct action.
There’s always risk involved in any action Sometimes priorities appear to conflict and lead to either partial win or no win situations where questionable trades had to be made. Generally, I’m for taking action and accepting the consequences. Others may decide it’s better to choose submission to fate and claim innocence through their personal inaction. If that’s how they deal with their conscience, it’s their personal choice and I don’t question it for them. For me however, the "innocence of inaction" is only in the imagination, since inaction was a choice itself.

All we can do is attempt to act correctly to the best of our ability, governed by recognition that we sometimes do not have ability, with the object of achieving the closest approximation to the absolute goals.
Well, it's seemed to work for me, anyway.

 

[Frank Ettin]

When you come to the aid of another, you step into that person's shoes. If he would not have been justified in the use of lethal force, neither would you be. So as Glenn Meyer wrote

...Without absolute certainity - don't engage....

Call the cops. Take pictures with your cell phone. Shout. Be a good witness.

But

...But what if you saw a grown man pick up a crying little girl, sling her over his shoulder and stalk out the door of the market?...

...saw gang member fighting a gang member over a woman...

no one is going to be giving you the key to the city for shooting (1) the father taking his kid, in mid-tantrum, outside for a "time out; or (2) an undercover cop trying to arrest a pimp who is resisting. You'll be going to jail instead. And you certainly won't be getting any congratulations if you injured an innocent bystander in the process.

 

[Elvishead]

I'm sorry I didn't read all these post's, but can somebody including 22lr, tell me if he had, or has some type of SD training? I have questions to on the moralities of SD, but I took some SD training, and am looking for some more legalities on the subject.