Are you responsible [Part 2b]

[TylerD45ACP]

I took a little bit, would not say enough by any means because of a cost/distance factor. However, I'll try and help you out with whatever questions you have, so shoot away (no pun intended). OBSERVE, people don't even know your there if you were seriously concerned for someones well being. If I thought a kidnapping of a child was in progress I might follow his car/truck, copy the plates, report to police as I am following him, depending on the situation. USE, even pulling your firearm is a last ditch effort. That doesn't mean every time you pull it, use it. But if you do you have to be ready to engage.

 

[threegun]

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.

Talking and thinking about this type subject is good IMO. Many folks carry without doing so and perhaps will make a less informed decision than we will.

 

[Skans]

I don't like the poll options. Basically, it will be the circumstances that dicstate whether I will get involved in defending a stranger, and how I would get involved.

If I'm standing behind a guy who is getting ready to pull a gun and hold up a Subway sandwich shop, I might prepare to take action if/when he pulls his gun. Or, I might leave....or I might walk outside and call 911 - depends on if I think he's alone or has "friends".

In my opinion, proximity to the threat is the most determining factor of weather or not I get "involved" as in using my weapon. Anything past 5 feet away, it is going to far less likely that I will pull a weapon and start shooting.

 

[Glenn Bartley]

Some of you would opt to call 911 and others have said this is what many people would do - call 911 and observe. Let me ask those of you who gave answers along those lines:

Is one of the reasons that you own a gun because you firmly believe that calling 911 would not result in police arriving on time to defend you and you therefore may need to defend yourself, but now that you are talking about the life of another you expect a timely arrival of police after making a 911 call about someone else facing serious bodily harm or death at the hands of an assailant?

As for those of you telling others there are no moral obligations to enter a fight, are you telling others what are their moral obligations based upon your own conception of morality? If so, why do you imagine yourself qualified to tell others what should be their own standard of morality? As for myself, I would likely feel it a moral obligation to assist a young child I saw being raped, or a defenseless old lady I saw being beaten repeatedly with a club while her assailant was screaming 'die, die die' or while his accomplice was trying to grab the woman’s purse, in fact I would consider it my own absolute obligation to assist by more than calling 911 if possible. This does not necessarily mean shooting but almost assures I would seek to intervene in some manner using force if necessary.

I believe someone mentioned the use of force continuum. There is no need not to go immediately to the use of deadly force in the event you see someone already using that level of force against innocents. For example, if you were walking passed an elementary school, saw a man walk into the schoolyard, then start shooting child after child, and just moments before you saw the children playing blissfully, you would be justified to utilize deadly force to stop him. Would you take the chance then, if it was apparent, because he was reloading and saying something like "die, die, die" he would imminently shoot other children? By virtue of the Use of Force Continuum itself, there is no reason to adhere to each step before arriving at the use of deadly force, in such a situation, to stop the threat. Would I challenge with mere presence, or with verbal commands, or try to stop the threat using soft or hard techniques - I doubt it. I would assess the situation, realize the children are in imminent danger of loss of life or severe injury and I would take what I felt was appropriate action. Would I shoot if there was a chance of hitting others. Quite possibly yes if I assessed the situation and thought my chances of hitting the bad guy were much better than hitting an innocent bystander. I would not take too much time to do so, some situations require quick thinking and fast action.

Does this mean I would shoot someone whom I saw pick up a screaming kid and walk out of a store when the kid was screaming "I want mommy" or help me, help, "this is not my daddy". That is not a shooting situation and if you think it is, well you need to rethink when you would shoot or not. What a situation like that should get is a call to 911 and maybe even an attempt to verbally confront the person carrying off the child, or following the person to make sure the child is not hurt and keeping in contact with the police while doing so. I have done it myself before in exactly a situation I have just described. A child was screaming that the person she was with was not her parent and she wanted her mother. Turns out the person was her father, her very loving, responsible and good father at that. He agreed to await the police when he was confronted by me and others to check on what was happening. The kid was emotionally disturbed and the police were already aware of the family situation because of previous calls on similar instances with the same child.

As for thinking along the lines - how often will I be sure that it is an innocent who is being threatened by serious bodily injury or threat of death at the hands of an assailant - what does it matter if it is only once in your life time. The number of times it may happen is unimportant, what is important is that you plan now as for what would be your practical response if such a situation does present itself.

As for putting the life of another innocent at risk is concerned, take the schoolyard example I just gave. That is not by any stretch of the imagination a far fetched situation. It could happen and in fact does happen all to often in very similar circumstances that school children have been gunned down. Would you take the risk of possibly injuring an innocent third if you had what you had assessed would be a clear shot, from a fairly close distance, from a supported position, from behind cover and the shooter was unaware of your presence? Do you think what I just wrote is bending it to fit my ideas. Think about it. You see a guy shooting little school kids, he is reloading and yelling 'die, die, die, he is preoccupied and does not see you 15 yards from him, what do you do? Me, I would probably seek cover as quickly as I started thinking. As I sought cover I would probably be drawing my sidearm. I would most likely not challenge him unless he was about to pull the trigger again and then only to get his attention away from the children, otherwise why bring his attention to me and place myself at unnecessary risk! If I saw I had a clear shot I would attempt to take it, hopefully from a supported shooting position if possible but from the open is need be. Isn't this just what you train to do if you train in any manner of tactical shooting. Don't you train to assess the situation. Don't you train to move, to seek cover, to draw, to fire and if still necessary, and to do so using any practical support from behind cover if practical? Don’t you train for this to apply to any situation where your use of deadly force is needed and justified?

Now mind you, I am not saying I would respond with deadly force in every situation, especially relative o those where innocents are put at risk by me shooting. The thing is though sometimes you have to weigh one risk against another and then make your decision based on that. In the case of a schoolyard shooter as I described, or even in the case of someone like Colin Ferguson (shooter of people on the LIRR several years ago), I would quite possibly shoot the assailant even though there was risk to others from my shot if only because there was a much greater risk that the bad guy already shooting innocent people would be much more likely to seriously injure or kill them if I simply observed or called 911.

I am not recommending others do this, or that I would automatically do it, but saying this is what I would be prepared to do. If my assessment of the situation had me arrive at the conclusion that such was necessary to stop the threat to innocent third parties.

All the best,
Glenn B

 

[Evan Thomas]

The topic of the thread isn't "Do you have a moral duty to intervene?" but:

What level of risk [to yourself and innocent bystanders] will you accept in the defense of a stranger?

As for those of you telling others there are no moral obligations to enter a fight, are you telling others what are their moral obligations based upon your own conception of morality? If so, why do you imagine yourself qualified to tell others what should be their own standard of morality? As for myself, I would likely feel it a moral obligation to assist a young child I saw being raped...

As Dr. Meyer has pointed out in many threads on this general subject, research on altruism, "pro-social behavior," shows that we tend to confuse our emotional responses to a situation, such as our (perhaps biologically based) drive to protect children, and less altruistic motivations such as our wish to be seen as heroic, with moral imperatives. (For example, see his detailed analysis here.)

You're not, in fact, morally obliged to enter a fight. There are times, certainly, when it would be morally permissible, even admirable, to do so. (If you believe that anyone here has said that he or she wouldn't intervene to help a child who was obviously being harmed, I think you haven't been reading very carefully. In any case, a situation involving a child is likely to be -- comparatively -- unambiguous.) But the point is that you are responsible for all the consequences of your actions, both good and bad, and you do have a moral obligation to weigh both sets of possible consequences before you act.

I think Mr. Roberts summed it up nicely:

The really absurd thing about the "reductio ad waffle house" argument is that it implies you are somehow guilty for the acts of another (the shooter) by not acting; but if you do act and kill some innocent, you are absolved of the guilt because of your intentions.

That pretty much stands on its head every concept of personal responsibility I've ever heard.

To reiterate what has been pretty well beaten to death in the other recent threads on this subject, good intentions don't absolve you from moral, or legal, or financial responsibility for any negative consequences of your actions.

As long as you're willing and able to accept that, you're good to go, as far as I'm concerned.

But the results, so far, of the poll in this thread indicate that many respondents aren't thinking this through very carefully:

I am willing to place my finances at risk (possible being sued) = 0%

I am willing to risk my life and increase risk for bystanders[Vanya's emphasis]. (will risk a gunfight) = 23.08%

Can we say "disconnect" here?

 

[animal]

But the results, so far, of the poll in this thread indicate that many respondents aren't thinking this through very carefully:


Quote:
I am willing to place my finances at risk (possible being sued) = 0%

I am willing to risk my life and increase risk for bystanders[Vanya's emphasis]. (will risk a gunfight) = 23.08%

Can we say "disconnect" here?

Can we say improper structuring of the poll question? … and coupled with too few details in the scenario ?
Total percentage of answers adds up to 100 = one answer to each customer.
I suspect many (most?) of those willing to risk the gunfight are also willing to risk finances and took it as "obvious" that if they were willing to risk their lives as well as those of others, they would also take lesser risks. (I didn’t answer the poll.)

There’s also a quite logical path to explain how "zero risk to personal finances" and "willingness to risk self and others for societal gain" can be compatible. I prefer a different method of assessing personal liability, working directly proportional to the assessment of risk/gain and who is taking the risk vs. who is expected to gain by the action taken … but some think I’m just cracked.

My answer to the poll question would be that I am willing to risk all, plus a few things not mentioned.
But … Whether or not I took various risks would depend upon the assessment of both the situation and my abilities.
This is a separation, but not a disconnect.

It’ operating with an ideal goal, while realizing that the best you can actually do, is the closest approximation to the goal.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Can we say improper structuring of the poll question? … and coupled with too few details in the scenario ?
Total percentage of answers adds up to 100 = one answer to each customer.
I suspect many (most?) of those willing to risk the gunfight are also willing to risk finances and took it as "obvious" that if they were willing to risk their lives as well as those of others, they would also take lesser risks. (I didn’t answer the poll.)

I agree that the poll's construction isn't perfect in this regard, but I do think it's revealing.

It's not at all "obvious" that people who say they are willing to risk their or other people's lives as an act of "altruism" are automatically willing to incur a financial loss. This is another point that Glenn E. Meyer has made repeatedly in these discussions. He has demonstrated over and over that most people's perception of "moral obligation" is very limited: it's easy to say that we all should be willing to risk our own lives to help a stranger; but the people who say this would not be willing, if their lives had been saved at the cost of someone else's, to support the family of that person.

For example:

... I return to my initial analysis - that in many of these moral obligation threads - there is a subtext that we find the use of violence in an altruistic or pro-social scenario compelling and attractive. We think that someone should sacrifice their family's well being for the victim.

However, other altruistic acts that aren't based on violence, aren't attractive. Interesting from the viewpoint of the theories of why people act altruistically. If the goal is to help, then why isn't helping in nonviolent situations equally attractive?

The principle is the same, and I think many of the posts in these recent "responsibility" threads reflect this: several people have said that those who harm innocents in a good cause shouldn't be held financially responsible for that harm. They'll harm an innocent, but helping that innocent afterward, non-violently, isn't attractive.

What the poll actually "proves" is that the results you get depend on how you ask the question. Poll options two and three, "I am willing to place my finances at risk (possible being sued)" and "I am willing to risk my freedom (possibly facing prison)" are, IMHO, just different ways of presenting option five, "I am willing to risk my life and increase risk for bystanders..."

If the poll choices really represent a continuum of risk to the actor, there ought to be a continuum of responses: at least some people would take the "small" risk of financial loss (being sued).

That's not the case: the poll results show a bimodal distribution where the modes are (1) The "first do no harm" stance (or, if you prefer, "the ignoble and cowardly" choice) and (2) The "noble and heroic" stance (or the "fools rush in" choice, depending on your point of view).

Being willing to risk one's life tends to be seen as noble and heroic, so it's no surprise that several people express a willingness to do so. But what outcomes will result in being sued and/or going to prison? Well, they'll most likely be the ones that involve harm to bystanders.

So when the "noble and heroic" choice is couched in terms of its possible negative consequences, such as going to prison, it doesn't look so heroic any more.

No takers for those unheroic options? Hmm.

 

[TylerD45ACP]

You have a point. Everyone, including myself, have misconceptions about how things will pan out. There are an infinite number of outcomes for any given scenario. A plan is just a list of things that don't happen. No way to know what your willing to do until its shoved in your face. Until that fateful day its all speculation.

 

[ncpatriot]

I don't know for certain til the moment happens, but I hope I would be able to help out. I carry a gun for protection of myself and my family or friends. Friends, in my mind, extends to anyone I am able to help. If waiting for the police is an option, it is the best one, but may not be possible.

2 gangbangers someone mentioned? Hopefully they will kill each other. I'll try to get people near me to a safe place and not enter the fight.

A bunch of thugs harassing and threatening an old lady? Call 911 if I have time, then step to her defense.

The child issue hits me too. I've had to manhandle my feisty daughter out of places when she had tantrums. She's a different race than me too, so that would raise suspicions from the start if people didn't know us. If someone pulled a gun on me, I hope I'd set her down and tell the guy the story. At that point, she would likely settle down enough to verify me being her dad. I wouldn't pull mine on him, he was trying to help, albeit too hasty. Best to get a cop or security guard if available, to check things out.

I want to go for another pistol course. Would like to find one similar to the obstacle course thing cops do. Walk down a street, things pop up from nowhere, out of doors or around corners. Is it a thug with a hostage or a kid on a bike? A bank robber running out or a mom with a stroller? That sort of thing would be good training.

 

[TylerD45ACP]

Cool tag BTW ncpatriot not enough people remember Sept 11. let alone the heros of flight 93. I respect your respect for our excellent country. That being said, I would love to do something like your talking about. I took a little training but it was kind of informal and not as professional as I would have liked. Did learn a bit about SD though. I want to get on a course like you talk about and run through that. I really want to do more extensive training but time/cost factor is an issue right now. I still shoot often and practice what I know though.

 

[animal]

No takers. Hmm.

No takers? I was under the impression that I had "taken" up the gauntlet, so to speak. Have taken the chances mentioned … would even go further in some very limited cases, but not for a stranger. I’m definitely not a hero, but quite possibly a fool. Definitely a gambler playing odds when in the middle of bad stuff, and maybe just lucky.

I don’t buy into "continuum of risk". I think each type of risk represents an additional dimension of risk to the act, rather than an increased level of risk.
…. And IMHO, those who do subscribe to "continuum of risk" tend to think in a linear way, rather than considering all dimensions at once. The risk of highest value becomes their focus and they answer accordingly. I think some intuitively recognize "lesser" risks as fitting into a different dimensional set and view them as separate, thus forming opinions of personal responsibility that appear to conflict on the surface.

While I’m in the "alternate dimension" …only masochists should read further
If one considers the interests of society to be in conflict with the interests of the individual, acting selfishly is then in direct opposition to acting for the society and that the morality of an act can be described along a line with selfishness represented as bad and altruism as good….

I consider this approach a fallacy and don’t mind standing much of today’s moral views (which includes personal responsibilities) on their heads. In my view, acting for the benefit of self is separate from acting for the benefit of society, though they do relate to one another. This adds a dimension to the equation of how one should properly act rather than necessarily creating a conflict of interests between self and society. To form the most simplistic graph of their relationship, one would draw an x and y axis in Cartesian coordinates for the interests of each entity. X for self-interest and Y for the societal interest. Each axis has a positive and negative side to represent help or harm, and a point can be plotted to describe an action.

Societal interests, though an society is an entity itself, are only a summation of the interests of each individual (including self) rather than a standard to define good and bad. The good and bad is found in how individuals and entities interact with each other. Due to the multitude of self interests and inevitability of conflict, absolution collapses concerning any action, leaving behind only varying degrees and differing dimensions of guilt.

One can then define one dimension as a culpable offense and another as not, but these definitions are only of value in relation to society … in order to differentiate between maliciousness, negligence, recklessness, involuntary, justifiable, and such. One can also define civil liability and degree of financial exposeure similarly.

The really neat thing is that you can define your own values instead of having society do it for you or take on the values of your chosen religion, as long as they do not directly infringe on the rights of others. The separation of powers between levels of govt. and the people make sense in a slightly different way too. Different jobs defined for different entities that operate in different dimensional sets, basically. Far preferable to destroying the individual in favor of the collective, imo.

Oh yeah, the zero point of the coordinate system might still be said to be one of zero guilt. However, according to my personal view of correct operation, there is an obligation to always act to the best of my ability (including weighing risks correctly) to achieve a good result. Therefore, the zero point effectively does not exist unless I am incapacitated, or am unable to find a way to act positively. Essentially, as long as one is able to make a positive difference, he is obligated to act, and mistakes are inevitable. Responsibility is attempting to limit mistakes to the best of your ability. Justice is us trying to convince ourselves that everything is OK because perfection exists only in hope.

 

[Evan Thomas]

No takers. Hmm.

No takers? I was under the impression that I had "taken" up the gauntlet, so to speak.

Sorry... that was ambiguous. I meant that there were "No takers" for options two and three in the poll, which, as I said, seem to me to restate option five in a sort of unromantic, consequences-directed way...

Didn't mean you.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on ethical behavior... it's always interesting to see how someone who is trying to work out his/her own basis for "how to act" goes about it.

Although I'm an entirely secular person, I'm partial to Rabbi Hillel's remark: "What you yourself hate, don't do to your neighbor. This is the whole law; the rest is commentary. Go and study."

 

[animal]

Hey, no apologies necessary, but the thought is appreciated. Sorry if my post alarmed you.
Yeah, I can see your point about options 2 and 3 linked to 5.
I saw 2 and 3 more as willing to risk the ability to support dependents … with 3 also involving the dire risk of personal honor (defined as following your personal code of ethics and serving as an example to others)
Personal honor is an unpopular notion nowadays, but I value it higher than my own life. It’s value is less than the life of those I love, however. We all see the value in things a little differently, no? … and I don’t deny that you are right in the way you looked at 2 and 3. The different values seen in the same concept build the "dimensional set" in my weird little world.

I like Rabbi Hillel, judging from what little I’ve read by him, but I never cared for that remark except as a reflection of the good in him. Imo, it works well when speaking to a good person or of their good desires, but it fails when speaking to the bad person or bad desires.
I would prefer, "All of the Law describes commerce, the action inherent to the system. By logically dissecting it by the concept of theft, we can find what is valuable. By recognizing it’s written form was for man to follow at the time it was given, we can strip off the veil of language placed by man and see the principles governing that action which have held true for all of history. This, I think, is the Law of God ; explained by the motive of love and it’s ultimate demonstration.", but that’s just me.

Of Hillel quotes, I like, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?". Strangely enough, this might actually be directly on-topic (in principle, at least).

I would respectfully disagree with your self assessment as "entirely secular". IMHO, secular is worldly, or "of nature". If that were true, you would be no more than a sophisticated animal, operating out of instinct and personal desire. I think the first transcendent quality of man may be the willingness to take responsibility and the second, a perceived need for forgiveness of wrongs committed against others. This might show you are reaching beyond what you begin as, to find a code to govern your actions, and define yourself as part of mankind. To those who have found or made such a code, it becomes their god. For those who have a God, it is only a way He speaks to them.
Btw, for simplicity’s sake, I usually refer to myself as an agnostic.

Apologies to all for veering so far off-topic.

 

[won-a-glock]

Interesting question but..

I would agree that you really need more info, and would probably have voted for something closer to 'I'd rally the troops around the victim to help/ call 911 / whatever.'

With what I imagined the density of people around the area from the description, pulling a gun out didn't seem like a smart idea to me (unless the assailant came at you and you decided to club the guy with the weapon)

But, I like these questions, what would you do. Tough to tell but probably good to consider pre-need.

 

[Big Tom]

I voted for the first one. I am not killer either. I dont seek fighting and would hate to shoot anybody. I reserve that as a true last resort if the BG is targeting me and trying to kill me. But I would stay on the Phone with 911. I would wish to do more but know full well what might happen to me (prison, death,etc). Not things I am ready to experience.....

 

[animal]

Big Tom, I know you took a lot of flak lately in another thread. Whether or not the posts were true over there they did display immaturity, imo. This post of yours, however demonstrates a realization of personal limitations and is the first step to maturity. It is the foundation of whatever you are willing to work towards, and build yourself into whatever you desire to be.

Choosing to fight physically is not for everyone, but choosing to fight is. Fighting is nothing more than work. Whether you’re working towards subduing fears, working to provide for a family, or working to make life better for others and yourself, it’s always a fight. We each choose how we fight, whether nonviolently or violently, and as long as we do so to the best of our ability, we become builders and men. jmo

 

[Big Tom]

Animal,

Ya I realized a lot about that night. It taught me to look over my strategy. come up with new game plans, it also taught me that if it came to it I could pull the trigger. But all the while I would never want to have to. I wish to get along with everyone to be totally honest with you, however in the world we live in thats not always the case. I have learned much about guns but much more is still needed. It pains me to know how unprepared I was for that night. But it has made me stronger and my father and I have upped security measures should something else happen. We now sleep with a phone, a light and a shotgun next to us. Just in case.

 

[teeroux]

Heard about a pair of thugs in Baton Rouge that were mugging folks with a tactic of one would pretending to beat the other one and when someone came to help the pretend victim. The pretend victim would get up and help hold up the real victim with a gun.

 

[gatopardo]

I heard

I heard a story of a lady who tried to stop a band of ruffians trying to rob some guys is nice suits, just to discover while she was been arrested for obstruction of justice the ruffian looking people were actually federal agents trying to arrest a band of narcos

The point of the story told by a lawyer is, When you act in such fashion, you are taking on this persons rights and responsibilities, weather that be a criminal or a victim. How can you know? apart from the obvious?

Never assume anything

 

[TheGoldenState]

MY TWO CENTS.

Ill make it short and to the point, so as not to contend with the lengthy insights (lol).

I'm Kind of a big picture guy, in general. If someone i don't know in a situation entirely unknown to me with many unknown variables is at risk i would weigh heavily on my actions.

A Kid getting beaten/raped/kidnapped, you bet your a** im stepping in. a guy reaches over and grabs money from a cash register, mutual fight, mugging, jumping, etc. I most likely would play the role of bystander calling the police.

I am more important to myself and my family then Joe Blow is to me. period. there are so many stories about vigilantes finding themselves beaten, coma, dead, or behind bars for being what i like to refer to as a comic book hero. I will assume little to no risk in most situations as, bad as it may sound, joe blow/jane doe dying or getting hurt, while terrible, is not something i would allow be a factor in potentially negatively affecting me and my family (ie my dying or being sued, etc.)