Defend a stranger?

Mumbai was a rare event but it happened. For a long time, theorists said the USA was probably safe from home grown events like that.
Click to expand...

After Ft. Dix we started some serious lying to ourselves. I have seen nothing to change that reality. In fact all the recent terrorist shootings are quickly dismissed as "not terrorism related".

These are the same type of lies we told ourselves after the German landings in CONUS during WWII and the balloon bombing campaign by the Japanese.
 
Not to hijack but it might be changing. The investigation of Ft. Hood seems to have indicated that the domestic threat is taken seriously.

But who knows?

Back to the original thread - I still get an avoidance of the issue whether self-sacrifice is mandated to act honorably?

Is it honorable to save yourself and your family, despite what happens to others?

That issue is danced around. It is a mild cliche to say I hope I will act honorably for innocents. Does that mean if the risk is low I will act? Or are you willing to do what the military does at time, throw yourself on the grenade?

Ok - that's my question - you are in the mall. A domestic terrorist appears. He or she throws a grenade into a crowd of people. You are close enough to:

1. Throw yourself on the grenade
2. Duck behind a big marble pillar.

Those who advocate they will take the shot and engage the robber with an element of surprise, will you throw yourself on the grenade.

See, you think you will take robber down - in the grenade scenario you die.

These people are not your unit with that tight group loyalty.

I'm interested as I've studied this kind of behavior intensively and think the processes are more complex than the usual discussion.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
I still get an avoidance of the issue whether self-sacrifice is mandated to act honorably?
Click to expand...

Okay, but I warned you. I told you guys I was going to do away with self-censoring myself...

Yes, I believe in restraint, being honest, and dropping that macho stuff. But, guys, I read the newspapers.

More and more I find a society that expects me to support them. Yikes, a few years back there was a story about a woman who was so slothful she let her fat grow into the fabric of her couch. I suppose my tax money will undoubtedly be bilked and drained for her healthcare, as well.

I have one wife and one hide. I don't want holes in either. 1*

As stated, I walk in "yellow" and it's a good idea. My wife once looked out a group of kids who didn't have the common sense to stay out of the road. She opined, "In the jungle they would be eaten."

And as an American I'm growing tired of it always "being my fault."

If you're too stupid to shake yourself out of 'condition white,' and you do not see the mugger coming, and even if you do you simply beg for life, why should I care?

Touching me is a far different story.

I hope I've answered you. I do wish the world was better, and I try to make it that way. But, there's only so much to give.
 
Glenn poses some interesting questions.

I don't equate intervening to save a life to self-sacrifice. Would I jump on a grenade for a mall full of strangers? No. But I'd duck behind the marble pillar and shoot the terrorist before he could throw another one, if I could.

Would I fall on a grenade to save my family? I'd like to think I would. Would I fall on a grenade to save my Army comrades? That was never a likely scenario, because I wasn't combat arms, but again, I'd like to think I would have.

Will I place myself at risk to save a life? Yes.

I guess my rule of thumb here, is that I would act if, by acting, there was a greater chance of my saving a life than of losing my own.
 
Before I retired there were times that I stepped into harms way to protect one of my Sailors that was going to be hurt if I didn't. Luckily I came away mostly unscathed. Today the only people I would throw myself on a grenade for are my children. I would still yell grenade for the benefit of the strangers as I went behind the pillar, then shoot the attacker if possible.
 
There are certain people I would seriously risk my life for, and some I would be OK with dying for. Random people at the mall don't fit into the last category, IMO. Intervening is a continuum. (Also, I know a grenade's frag pattern is up and out. Hit the ground, and you have pretty good odds. Kick it back and hit the ground, and you have some really decent odds.)

My thoughts usually go something like this:
If the victim is not someone I have a duty toward/care about personally, I will intervene if I think I have a good probability of success AND good odds of coming away with minimal injury.

Now, when the victim IS someone I care about or have a duty to protect, I'll slide a bit further down the cost/benefit scale.
 
I guess my rule of thumb here, is that I would act if, by acting, there was a greater chance of my saving a life than of losing my own.
Click to expand...
Begs the question: a slightly greater chance ? Much greater? Much, much greater?

If I knew that I would not be getting involved in a domestic dispute or something similar (the facts described in the OP's scenario should provide that knowledge); if I were very sure that I would not be getting involved in a dispute involving armed criminals; if I were highly confident that I could shoot without endangering third parties; if I thought I could draw and fire without making myself an immediate target; and if it seemed clear that doing nothing would likely result in death or serious injury to the stranger; then I could see trying.

Otherwise--I'll shoot only to save myself and/or someone I care about.

There's the very real physical risk that Glenn alludes to in his grenade analogy, there's the risk of shooting an innocent party, there's the risk that your intervention will ultimately not be seen as an act of heroism, and there's the risk that your action will come to late to do any good.
 
OldMarksman, there's also the element of "caring." I'm beginning to care less and less, despite the level of risk, or chastisement I might receive from the populace or even my friends.

For example, when reading the morning paper I glaze over and bypass any story where rival banger gangs tear into each other. I'm simply fresh out of sympathy for idiots.

Despite my many failings, I showed up everyday for work. And now just as I hit retirement age and I can kick back a bit, how can society actually expect me to risk injury and a long rehab every time man shows his inhumanity to his fellow man?
 
Glenn does pose some interesting questions in these threads. :cool:

Yes, there are people that I care about enough to "throw myself on a grenade" for. Years ago it was my wife. I put myself between her and a large angry dog. I didn't walk away unscathed, but neither did the dog.

But in the mall, I'd probably duck behind the pillar. While I may owe society something as a citizen, I don't owe my life to a bunch of mall shoppers. But who knows - if that grenade is too close to a group of young mothers with their children I might make a split second decision I won't live to regret.

Like The Tourist, I'm not interested in getting involved in a dispute between gang factions (until it threatens me) or being the solo responder to a group of terrorists intent on causing mayhem. At my age, I'm simply not going to be able to move fast enough or be agile enough to do those things.

No law requires you to put your life in grave danger for another person. Only your own morality & conscience can do that.
 
I'm not going to throw myself on a grenade because I assume that if a BG has one grenade, he may very well have another, and my taking the brunt of the first one does nothing. However, if presented with the opportunity to stop said BG from throwing another grenade, I will act.

In a similar vein, while I won't say Tom Cancy's Teeth of the Tiger is a great book, the hypothetical terrorist mall assaults are food for thought.
Also, what I get from this thread is that many of you will act to protect yourselves and your family when faced with "bigger than me" type violence, but I would note that in Israel, when terrorists used heavy construction equipment to threaten lives, it was individuals, going so far as to take weapons from those who would not act, who stopped those terrorist acts.

Maybe it is easier for me to say these things because I do not have much immediate family to worry about, but you should consider the possibilities that may arise, and steel yourself to act should something occur well beforehand. If you don't, then you do not have the proper mindset, and regardless of whether you are carrying when a BG enters your life or the lives of people next to you, you are still mentally defenseless.
 
A touch of a cliche here also. I know folks who are very well trained and have the proper mindset for use of force. However, they will use force in a manner that maximizes the outcome they want to achieve.

Mindset does not necessarily imply taking a shot as compared to fleeing. Mindset implies quick and effective action for your goal.

That's a subtle difference and I think mindset is overused to imply you must shoot.

Exercises like the NTI or similar FOF situations are designed to channel your cognition and action processing to act - rather than freezing up.

Let's look at two situations - the Tacoma mall and Tyler, TX courthouse. Both civilian participants might have been seen to have heroic mindset but ended up badly as their action plans were flawed. Yes, they were brave but one is dead and the other paralyzed.

It is easy to say that someone who doesn't intervene is not moral or lacks mindset but that is not a real understanding of the issue.

If someone rushes to save your family and dies - do you have a moral responsibility to support that family for a reasonable amount of time? Should the state? Or should you just say "Thanks" to dead hero's kids - He had a good mindset.

Now, I'm not suggesting that one does not help or be heroic. I'm just analyzing the surface analysis or misused terms.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Mindset does not necessarily imply taking a shot
Click to expand...

Careful there, Glenn, or you'll wind up on the 'Group W' bench with me and the rest of the heretics.:D

Several years ago I got absolutely sick and frankly bored with numerous posers declaring their dedication to the "warrior mindset." Like those who claim to be the last of "the real bikers" it is a condition where if youz thinks youz is, youz ain't.

My SIL is a Red Cross nurse who selfishly went into the Pentagon during 9-11 and worked because it was the right thing to do. If you commented on her "courage" she'd give you a blank surprised look.

But I will not risk a paper cut for idiots who make bad mistakes. In a nutshell, I fear getting hurt. Globally, why should an idiot expect to live on the hind teat of society and then expect my blood, to boot?

I think folks should be allowed to "retire from society." Us geezers have paid for their stupid mistakes for decades, and it's time for others to prove this moxey they claim to have and carry the burden.

It's two o'clock in the afternoon. You're just a "Joe Lunchbox" kind of a guy. You've taken the day off to take your wife shopping at the mall, just to spend a quiet afternoon. Three hold-up men dart out of a jewelry store, ready to shoot anyone in their path to an exit through the main thoroughfare, full of mothers and their strollers. Even the 'security' runs and hides.

You square your shoulders because no one else will. You get badly hurt, bad enough to never be able to work again for your family without intense pain. Then the ambulance chasing attorneys start dropping straight suits on you like snowflakes; one of the hold-up men claims your bullet "violated his civil rights." Your attorney tells you to settle to avoid losing your house.

I believe that this is the most likely scenario of the "brave man." No parades, no medals, not even that warm fuzzy feeling. You've become just another statistic for nothing.

Not me, babe. I didn't create the problem, nor do I believe that rubbish that I've become an additional part of the problem because I won't get involved.

I'm retired. I have perhaps one more decade to enjoy the warm sun on my face and the call of the open road. If the idiots wish to gore themselves, be my guest.
 
My analysis is not heretical. :D

I've gone to the NTI three times and taken several FOF courses. All these involve very 'tough' people. All of them emphasize the approach I laid out and the view of mindset. It is to act quickly and rationally. Don't futter around.

That's why FOF is so important. At one NTI incident, I decided to act bravely and was chided - it would have been better to be discrete. At another, I was discrete and the more violent approach was recommended.

I've also been the BG a few times. Interesting how the hero comes to an evil end sometimes.

For instance, I hold up a store and have the drop on the clerk. He hits me. I fall to the ground next to his leg - AND - put five rounds into his leg. Oops.

I am in back of the BG. He shoots the clerk. I tackle him to ground and with my gun - tell him - DON'T MOVE. His hidden backup draws on me and we shoot it out, while I'm restraining the other.

Hey, no one in this thread mentioned the backup crook when you engage the obvious crook?

In another, I'm in the store and the crook pulls a gun. I make like the Flash and out the door and over the hill. I didn't stop to 'observe'. Why - in anothe run, a patron ran out and stopped to observe. The crook ran out and saw him and shot him. Thus, distance is your friend.

There are others - you need to try it before you think that you always will win.
 
Glenn, a real-world, and very sincere question.

Wouldn't all of these bad scenarios you point out been eleviated, or non-existent, if the supposed "good guys" had just minded their own business?

Frankly, the guy who goes to an accredited school like Gunsight Raven or LFI is a rare bird in the vast minority. Let's face it, the majority of handgun owners are more of the "buy a .38 SPL, fire six practice rounds and tuck the thing into a nightstand" sort of guy.

In fact, how many of us would even practice if the targets shot back real hot lead?

Here's a touch of reality. I was in a car wreck in 1987, my right shoulder still hurts, and I didn't sustain a visible bruise or spill one drop of blood. Do you really want to risk catching even one .25 ACP?

Statistically most trained LEOs opt out for retirement or disability within nine months of a shoot out. We are not as prepared as we think we are.
 
It is to act quickly and rationally. Don't futter around.
Click to expand...
Exactly so. That's why mindset and training are vital.

His hidden backup draws on me and we shoot it out, while I'm restraining the other.

Hey, no one in this thread mentioned the backup crook when you engage the obvious crook?
Click to expand...

Guess I should have mentioned it, then. I use several scenarios in our simulators which were developed by California DOJ, in which you are off-duty whan a holdup happens right in front of you. If you intervene, you wind up shooting it out with the second armed gunman that you didn't even know existed. Their philosophy is, remain calm and be a good witness. That's exactly what I will do, unless I'm convinced someone is about to be killed or seriously injured, in which case I'll quickly check my 6 (and 3, and 9, and everywhere else I can) for additional threats.
 
What was that Kenny Rogers song?
You've got to know when to fold 'em,
When to walk away ... and when to run!

The "Warrior" mindset is more than simply methods of engagement. It also includes methods of disengaging and/or avoidance.

Regardless of whether I'm carrying a 5-shot J-frame or a 17 round Glock, if I determine the odds are 2:1 against me, it is the right mindset to say "Not today, folks" and keep out of it. In such arrangements, you have to be good or very good. One of them just has to be lucky.

With that said, if you find yourself in that situation, you do what you need to do in order to survive it. Run, hide, scream like a little girl, escape. You're a poor witness if you're dead (episodes of Fringe not withstanding). Ideally it costs the BGs something too.

A wise street cop once told me that regardless whether it's on the street or in your own home at 2am, don't go looking for trouble. You might find it.
 
I've seen this issue touched on tangentially in this thread, but I'll ask the question outright:

If a firefight breaks out in a public place, and you have the opportunity to leave the area quickly without being observed by the shooter, do you leave, or do you try to engage the shooter? (Think of being at one end of the mall near an exit, and hearing gunfire/screaming from the other end.)

Does your answer change depending on whether you're alone or with your family?
 
This very question was asked after the Utah mall shooting in which an off-duty officer stopped the assailant.

Generally - the consenus is that if you have the chance to vacate the area safely, that's what you do. As opposed to getting killed by police, the shooter or some bystander wielding a brick. If the event occurs at the far end of the mall, then you can help herd the public outside and be their "rear guard" if you're so inclined.

If with family, I think most of us would put the priority on getting the family to safety.
 
It can be justified that you have the right to protect your self with deadly force if deemed necessary, if you truley believe your life is being threatened with deadly force even if you have a ccw or not, using a Firearm or a legal carring knife "Although I dont think I would bring a knife to a gun fight" but its called "Self - Defense". In that scenario you can say that yours and other peoples lifes are being threatened with deadly force for sure, in that situation I do not see my self worried about judges, hand cuffs or police, best saying there is "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6".:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top