They may very well have all the safety clauses in them, but I can still see an anti-gun prosecutor going after the law abiding citizen under the guise of vigilante justice, no matter how sick and twisted such thinking is. And the properly stacked jury would probably convict. Ex Seattle mayor Nickels comes to mind.
Defend a stranger?
- Thread starter JonnyP
- Start date
They may very well have all the safety clauses in them, but I can still see an anti-gun prosecutor going after the law abiding citizen under the guise of vigilante justice, no matter how sick and twisted such thinking is. And the properly stacked jury would probably convict. Ex Seattle mayor Nickels comes to mind.
There are paralyzed by indecision people who will do nothing at the time then think of a hundred things they could have/should have done later.
There are not my problem get outta here people
There are panic throw hands up in front of face and scream like a baby people
There are run to the fire and do something people, you generally find these people believe things like "They are their brothers keeper."
Bad guys hate those kinds of people. Grandma was one of those kinds of people and she was 5' nothing on her tiptoes. I was built like a gorilla and trained to be one of those kinds of people. Old and slow now but I still don't think I could throw my hands up and cry or walk away from somebody needing help if Iwas in a position to give it. I might not be as handy but I refuse to be one of those people who think later I coulda or shoulda.
Legally obligated has nothing to do with it. If you cannot help a stranger how in the world could you possibly think you would be able to help yourself if it was you and not the stranger in trouble. For some it is an easy decision and I will not lay awake wondering or worrying about it.
There are not my problem get outta here people
There are panic throw hands up in front of face and scream like a baby people
There are run to the fire and do something people, you generally find these people believe things like "They are their brothers keeper."
Bad guys hate those kinds of people. Grandma was one of those kinds of people and she was 5' nothing on her tiptoes. I was built like a gorilla and trained to be one of those kinds of people. Old and slow now but I still don't think I could throw my hands up and cry or walk away from somebody needing help if Iwas in a position to give it. I might not be as handy but I refuse to be one of those people who think later I coulda or shoulda.
Legally obligated has nothing to do with it. If you cannot help a stranger how in the world could you possibly think you would be able to help yourself if it was you and not the stranger in trouble. For some it is an easy decision and I will not lay awake wondering or worrying about it.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Law of the state I am in be damned. All I have a moral obligation to the state to do is to accept the consequences of breaking the laws, especially when following them runs afoul of my moral obligations or survival interest.
If I am ten feet away from a shooter who is OBVIOUSLY not an undercover LEO I am drawing and firing. Not out of any regard for the clerk either. For shooters that shoot my impression, and sitting in the store making a split decision that is all I have to go on, is that shooters usually keep shooting until everyone is taken care of. If the clerk frozen with fear behind the counter was a threat than I probably am also.
Most convenience stores only have one door to the public which is usually right next to the check out and maybe one in back also. With my family there I am not trying to sneak past the shooter or lead them to a door which may very well be locked. No path to retreat. Of course, I don't actually have a wife and kids.
So, I would likely be frozen in fear except for my bowels
OR
Shooting at the BG, in the back if while he is still looking at the clerk if possible.
"The two most important rules in a gunfight are: always cheat and always win."
"Do something. It may be wrong, but do something."
Last edited:
Pbearperry
New member
You have a duty to keep yourself alive period.
You probably don't have a legal obligation to get involved (I am not a lawyer) depending on where you live.
However in this scenerio the BG is apparently armed and ready to use deadly force or maybe even using deadly force.....
It seems to me that just being present and reasonably close to the BG would place your life in immediate danger. The BG takes a few steps to the isle you are in and its on, not to mention its all too easy for the BG to simply point and shoot through the shelves randomly or otherwise.
Only on tv do thin walls and tables and shelves stop bullets, in real life it just doesnt happen.
For myself I cant stand by and watch innocent people be killed and I would act to stop the BG from continuing to use deadly force. The rounds I have chosen to carry should stop at about 13 inches of penetration and I chose them specifically to not overpenetrate and cause secondary casualties. (Speer GD JHP 230 grain).
However in this scenerio the BG is apparently armed and ready to use deadly force or maybe even using deadly force.....
It seems to me that just being present and reasonably close to the BG would place your life in immediate danger. The BG takes a few steps to the isle you are in and its on, not to mention its all too easy for the BG to simply point and shoot through the shelves randomly or otherwise.
Only on tv do thin walls and tables and shelves stop bullets, in real life it just doesnt happen.
For myself I cant stand by and watch innocent people be killed and I would act to stop the BG from continuing to use deadly force. The rounds I have chosen to carry should stop at about 13 inches of penetration and I chose them specifically to not overpenetrate and cause secondary casualties. (Speer GD JHP 230 grain).
Last edited:
Gary L. Griffiths
New member
I think you mean you couldn't stand by...
I couldn't either. I consider inaction in such a circumstance to be moral cowardice differing only in degree rather than kind to the reprehensible inaction of the many bystanders that allowed Kitty Genovese to be murdered in the streets without even so much as lifting a phone to call the police. I would no more fail to intercede to save an innocent life due to fear of legal consequences than I would fail to attempt to rescue a drowning child for fear of ruining my good suit. But that's just me.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Gary L. Griffiths said:
How about the moral responsibility that I have to my wife and kids?
Will I assist a stranger? You bet. Will I INSERT myself into a deadly situation to do it? No, I will not.
On another note, the cowardice displayed by those who refused to even call the police in the Genovese case is entirely different than not inserting yourself into a deadly situation. Refusing to even call the police is completely indefensible. Refusing to get killed is not.
I have stepped in to prevent what I believed was child abuse, and the Officer that showed up at the grocery store agreed with me. I would like to think that I would do the same if armed response was necessary. But as a previous post stated...you never know until it happens.... about 2 weeks ago in Michigan, I think it was Flint, a guy with a gun was trying to shoot an unarmed woman at a party store. The news video showed about 5-6 people standing at the windows watching this woman fight for her life....I was so enraged I was pacing around the house for an hour! I cannot understand how so many people in my Country have become so passive...so useless....so uncaring about each other. No wonder the BG's feel they have so much freedom to do as they wish. This incedent was the final straw for me, I am scheduled to start a concealed carry class next week.
Gary L. Griffiths
New member
Rationalize it any way you want.
And hope that if your wife and kids are the target of some active shooter, the bystander with the gun standing behind the shooter doesn't feel the same way!
IMHO, we all have the moral, if not legal, responsibility to make our community a safer place by protecting the innocent and eliminating (hopefully, through capture) threats to the public safety.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Gary L. Griffiths said:
Does this victim not have the moral responsibility to protect themselves?
Why does my moral responsibility to someone that I've never met outweigh the moral responsibility I have for, the PROMISES that I made to, my wife and kids?
Peetzakilla -
It's not a question of the victim's moral responsibility. Is it morally wrong for a victim to do nothing in their own defense but except others to stand up and defend said victim? Sure.
But it is also morally wrong to identify a clear and present danger to the legal, social, and moral fabric of your community and do nothing, even with the law on your side, because the danger is not immediate to you.
In states with third-party self-defense laws, the law recognizes unlawful force as a danger not just to the immediate victim, but to the community as a whole. If you shy from that danger when you can legally and morally confront it, how are you and the immediate victim different in failing to meet a moral responsibility?
It's not a question of the victim's moral responsibility. Is it morally wrong for a victim to do nothing in their own defense but except others to stand up and defend said victim? Sure.
But it is also morally wrong to identify a clear and present danger to the legal, social, and moral fabric of your community and do nothing, even with the law on your side, because the danger is not immediate to you.
In states with third-party self-defense laws, the law recognizes unlawful force as a danger not just to the immediate victim, but to the community as a whole. If you shy from that danger when you can legally and morally confront it, how are you and the immediate victim different in failing to meet a moral responsibility?
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
By getting myself killed I would be ignoring the moral obligations I made to my family. Why should I disregard those obligations in favor of saving a person who failed to meet their own obligations?
I mean, don't we call people "heros" because they go beyond expectations? If I'm expected to give my life for someone else then it's hardly heroic. It's just expected.
Are you going to take on the moral obligations to my family if I get killed saving someone? Why not? How is ignoring that moral obligation any different than ignoring the "obligation" to help someone who is being mugged?
Last edited:
About 2 years ago an 18 year-old punk with a pistol attempted to rob a Virginia ABC store, threating the clerk and a line of customers with said pistol. An armed CCW permit holder in the line shot the punk and killed him. The permit holder said the punk with the gun put him in fear for his life, the DA agreed, and the guy walked. I sure would have cheered the guy, if I had been in line....
In the OP example where the guy is already shooting, I would probably draw and go to cover and take a shot if I had one. If the guy just has a gun to the clerks head, i would probably go to cover draw and wait. There is a relatively low probability he is is actually going to shoot on his own. If I shoot at him and miss, or even hit him, there is not a certainty of a stop, I may end up just getting both of us killed. The only real robbery I have had any good information on two guys came in with guns out while the third distracted the owner. Neither the owner nor the clerk had time to do anything, even though the owner was armed at the time. No bystanders in the store. The member of the trio we judged got 81 years.
Peetzakilla -
I wouldn't expect you to give your life to save someone from being mugged. If you are completely unprepared to defend someone, then I guess all you can do is hide.
But, how can you consider yourself prepared to defend yourself and your family if you are unprepared to defend a stranger? If you are carrying a pistol, a knife, a cane, etc. and you are confident you can protect your own in a deadly situation, are you not confident you could protect someone who is unable to defend against the threat? Or are you saying that you are confident in your means of protection but would rather not get involved in someone else's problems? If that is the case, than I think you are missing a moral benchmark just as badly as the "defenseless" victim is.
Or perhaps you would better understand my point with an analogy: You're driving in a snowstorm with your family. You pass a vehicle buried in a snow bank and can clearly see people in the vehicle unequipped to fix their situation on their own. Yes, these people messed up badly by not having an emergency plan. But did you yourself bring an emergency kit for your family's needs, or are you in no better a preparedness situation than the people on the side of the road? And if you did bring a kit, are you going to ignore the plight of those people because they are strangers, or will you help them because you can?
I'm not saying everyone should get a handout regardless of whether they deserve it. But a functioning society necessarily depends on people willing to act to correct a danger to that society, even if it is not a danger to the person himself.
I wouldn't expect you to give your life to save someone from being mugged. If you are completely unprepared to defend someone, then I guess all you can do is hide.
But, how can you consider yourself prepared to defend yourself and your family if you are unprepared to defend a stranger? If you are carrying a pistol, a knife, a cane, etc. and you are confident you can protect your own in a deadly situation, are you not confident you could protect someone who is unable to defend against the threat? Or are you saying that you are confident in your means of protection but would rather not get involved in someone else's problems? If that is the case, than I think you are missing a moral benchmark just as badly as the "defenseless" victim is.
Or perhaps you would better understand my point with an analogy: You're driving in a snowstorm with your family. You pass a vehicle buried in a snow bank and can clearly see people in the vehicle unequipped to fix their situation on their own. Yes, these people messed up badly by not having an emergency plan. But did you yourself bring an emergency kit for your family's needs, or are you in no better a preparedness situation than the people on the side of the road? And if you did bring a kit, are you going to ignore the plight of those people because they are strangers, or will you help them because you can?
I'm not saying everyone should get a handout regardless of whether they deserve it. But a functioning society necessarily depends on people willing to act to correct a danger to that society, even if it is not a danger to the person himself.
carguychris
New member
Stopping to help stranded motorists most likely isn't going to touch off mayhem that could result in myself, my family members, and/or innocent bystanders being killed.
I'm with this person.
Seems like an awfull lot of speculation about numerous different possible
scenarios and every one could require a different response or action with
only seconds to decide.
There may be situations where no attempt to draw and fire would be best
but it's not in what was described in the original post. BG walked in and
started shooting. No mystery to figure out here. No trying to predict what
he's going to do.
Bottom line;
If I could prevent someone from being killed....to hell with the legalities.
If I can get off a shot...BG is going down. No way I could just do nothing.
scenarios and every one could require a different response or action with
only seconds to decide.
There may be situations where no attempt to draw and fire would be best
but it's not in what was described in the original post. BG walked in and
started shooting. No mystery to figure out here. No trying to predict what
he's going to do.
Bottom line;
If I could prevent someone from being killed....to hell with the legalities.
If I can get off a shot...BG is going down. No way I could just do nothing.