Do YOU intervene?

[Uncle Billy]

OldMarksman:

I wrote: "Pull a gun = roll the dice, with lives and futures in the pot."

You wrote: "Not too good an analogy, because you have some control over the situation--unlike rolling the dice. The key is to know what you are doing, something that the birds in this story did not."

Almost all of the discourse in this thread is an argument about what civil or criminal laws might jump up and bite the butt of someone who inserts himself and his gun into a situation, and there's no consensus- the laws are different everywhere and interpreted differently in the same jurisdiction. Unless you can get a DA to stand there while you plan your moves and okay them, you're depending on him or her to see it as you do after it's done which is a gamble regardless of how clearly you think you understand the law and if you don't see that it is, you're naive. Pulling your gun is a gamble that you'll get away with it, and if you lose, you lose big, and if you hurt someone and it's made to look like you were wrong (and there will be people who will pursue that outcome because they hate it that "civilians" can carry), then buhbye, I hope there's an early release where you're going. In short, it's a perfect analogy.

OldMarksman: "I live adjacent to a city that has the second highest murder rate in the country; police are dispatched to crime scenes are prioritized, with calls regarding gunshots sometimes being answered four hours after the fact. Parole officers calling 911 are put on hold, and not infrequently.

We are surrounded on two sides by meth country. Meth addicts and producers are bad people--I'd trade them for radical jihadists.

And the two most heavily trafficked drug arteries in these United States converge here."

... then you wrote this:

"The best way to survive a violent encounter is nonattendance"

How does living where you do fit with "non-attendance"? And if "... there is nowhere that one can be assured of being safe", then how is it you go anywhere, if avoidance is your scheme?

If you think that "... never goes anywhere he thinks he might need it" is a workable rule and follow it, then why is it you carry a gun at all, since you'll never go anywhere you'll need one?

Tell ya what- you carry your gun when and wherever you want, following whatever rationalizations you have pro or con; and I'll do the same. That could be said to everyone who has posted here. Some of us won't get into a situation like the OP described, and some of us will. Some of us will enter a situation with guns blazing and come out heros, some of us will enter with guns blazing and come out indicted. Some of us won't get involved with anything other than a direct attack on themselves, or on those they love while they're standing next to them, others will intrude on any situation because they are convinced they can make it come out in favor their sense of what are truth, justice and the American way. Some of us will feel enabled, entitled, enfranchised to act like cops, and some of us don't think a gun in their pocket is the same as a badge in their pocket with agreement on that point being prevalent in the DA's office. My point is that before anyone resorts to ccw, they ought to, for their own good, objectively consider what the potential outcomes might be. That's all. If one of the Rambos out there puts a hole in anything precious to me, I'll do everything I am able to do to get them incarcerated, no matter how hard they plead that "they were only trying to help".

 

[Holman]

MYOB (Mind Your Own Business) call 911 let the Police handle it.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

If you think that "... never goes anywhere he thinks he might need it" is a workable rule and follow it, then why is it you carry a gun at all, since you'll never go anywhere you'll need one?

I prefer to phrase it as "Never go anywhere WITH a gun that you would not be willing to go WITHOUT a gun".

A gun is for freak, random, unpredictable, unavoidable, inescapable events. It is not a safety blanket to allow me passage through otherwise impassible places.

 

[OldMarksman]

Pulling your gun is a gamble that you'll get away with it, and if you lose, you lose big, and if you hurt someone and it's made to look like you were wrong (and there will be people who will pursue that outcome because they hate it that "civilians" can carry), then buhbye, I hope there's an early release where you're going. In short, it's a perfect analogy.

That's focusing on whether the production of the weapon is justifiable. I think it's highly likely that if I pull a gun, the act will be lawful. So a better way to put it is probably "pulling a gun is an immediately necessary act to counter imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm." Or if you prefer, if I do not pull the gun, I'll lose big.

I have a friend who is a former policeman. His attitude is that his gun will come out only if and when he is "about to die." That expresses my attitude fairly closely.

Some of us won't get involved with anything other than a direct attack on themselves, or on those they love while they're standing next to them, others will intrude on any situation because they are convinced they can make it come out in favor their sense of what are truth, justice and the American way.

I stand with the former.

Some of us will feel enabled, entitled, enfranchised to act like cops, and some of us don't think a gun in their pocket is the same as a badge in their pocket with agreement on that point being prevalent in the DA's office.

I stand with the latter.

And I choose to not go somewhere with a gun if I would not go there without one.

But I carry one, and not only if "there's a specific threat or probable specific threat [that I am]... going to encounter."

Prudent, I think. Yes, there are risks involved in carrying one. I think they are outweighed by the risks that would be involved in not having one available.

It's a simple matter of managing risk. The first step is to identify the risks. The second is to analyze them-- assess the likelihood and potential consequences. The third is to evaluate alternative methods of handling the risks (accept them, mitigate them by various means). The last is to decide among the risk management alternatives.

For me, the decision is not to not carry. However, carrying will not change the way I act.

If there's a place I would not go otherwise, I won't go there. If there's "a specific threat or probable specific threat" that I might encounter I'll avoid it. And if I come upon an incident of violence involving someone else I'll use the telephone and nothing else, except under the most extenuating circumstances.

 

[Uncle Billy]

What worries me are those CCW-licensed folks who have taken their CC permit as a license to expand their role to include the functions of an armed police officer on behalf of others. The first post in this thread, for example. It's a blessing no shots were fired; were there to have been, and that's going to happen sometime, it could be immeasurably worse- if someone, directly involved or a bystander, gets hurt or killed wrongly by a CC licensed but inept and uninformed civilian "trying to help" it will be a huge tragedy on a number of levels, including the non-gun folks' attitudes about legal CC.

We don't need any more bad publicity, especially if it comes from "law-abiding gun owners", which now includes those licensed for CC. That phrase has always been the dividing line between us and the BG's; too many illegal incidents from our side of that line weakens that divide in the public's perception of us.

 

[BillCA]

What worries me are those CCW-licensed folks who have taken their CC permit as a license to expand their role to include the functions of an armed police officer on behalf of others.

While that concerns me too, I think the appropriate avenue is education and more education. Whenever someone talks of "jumping in" I always caution them to make damn sure of the facts before even reaching for the carry gun.

In a case here in California not long ago, a man exercising in his garage heard a commotion. When he heard screams of "Kill him!" he grabbed his .45 Auto, exited the garage and assessed the situation. A neighboring family was holding a family gathering. A younger nephew had gone off his meds and then argued with his uncle, stabbing him several times. The family was trying to get the blood-soaked uncle away and the nephew was slashing around with the knife. The citizen ordered the nephew to drop the knife twice, even after the family urged him "Shoot! Shoot!" and "Kill him, quick!" The man fired when the nephew lunged, killing him. Police did not file any charges and the Chief said it appeared the man acted legally, in self-defense and defending others.

Of course, not everything will be clear cut. No one advocates shooting before trying to ascertain what the facts are. Your number one weapon is your brain. And you should spend time on making sure your brain functions as well as your sidearm.

Like Old Marksman, I won't go places with a gun that I won't go without one. I won't go looking for trouble, I might find it. If believe there is a high probability there will be trouble I can't avoid, I'm likely to bring a long gun. And friends with long guns.

Intervention can be done with your voice - Hey you! Stop! Show me your hands!, by making your presence obvious (those 100w driving lights at night for example) and other things - without resorting to your firearm - like calling 911.

 

[A_McDougal]

If you have strong opinions about the law, please take every opportunity to serve on juries. When you do, please remember threads like these - reasonable people can have widely different opinions about how the law should be interpreted. Before you vote to convict, ask "would there be folks on TFL defending this guy?" Look beyond your own experience, knowledge, training, and wisdom, and try to look through the eyes of somebody dumber than yourself when deciding what 'reasonable' is.

 

[Dr Raoul Duke]

But adding a firearm into how one relates to the events and circumstances around them on the mundane daily routine of their lives complicates the issues and adds risks both legal and physical, because carrying a gun has a lot more gravity than many realize at first. If this thread has any value it's probably in revealing just how vague and situational the rules are, and just how uncertain and unpredictable the effects of inserting a gun into situations otherwise avoided would be- the possibility of serious criminal charges and the potential to really harm someone are amplified 100 times with the presence of a gun that's brought forth; the gamble made 100 more times more expensive if the possession of a gun acted as an incentive to get involved in the first place, and none of those effects are predictable. Pull a gun = roll the dice, with lives and futures in the pot.

You know Uncle Billy; I had an Uncle Bill (my Mother's eldest brother), and aside from teaching me how to shoot, chase anything after Walker hounds, work wood, make a farm pay, treat people decently, read the Good Book, keep gasoline and diesel engines running, make and drink whiskey in moderation, and be an all around rational and decent man; most people would not have noticed him. I've been reading your posts for some time and find that I have this thing about agreeing with you on almost all of the things you say. In the current context, I've made my position quite clear. I'd just like to say that I find your mature and reasonable position to be a breath of fresh air among the folks who have never bothered to read the law concerning lethal force, or even question why they they have a CCW in the first place.

Good for you.

Dr. Raoul Duke
Gonzo Forever

 

[scottaschultz]

Posted by A_McDougal: Before you vote to convict, ask "would there be folks on TFL defending this guy?"

With all due respect, if I am on a jury, the absolute very last thing I would do is think about what a bunch of people on an Internet forum would do! The only other person's opinion about how I should vote died 2009 years ago!!

Scott

 

[Uncle Billy]

Thank you, Dr. Duke...

... I appreciate your comments. I often wonder if anyone reads what I post, and whether there's much agreement with what I have to say here. I've had a NY CCW permit for about 45 years and have parsed these issues again and again as the environment regarding guns changed in the society and my nature evolved. I had always thought that there would come a time in the stream of my life where I would finally reach an end point, where I could stop and be what I had become from then on unchanged. I now see that's not only impossible for me, that's undesirable, and when that happens to people or societies, a lot is lost.

You are very fortunate to have had a mentor of the sort of man your Uncle Bill was for you. I think it's every old man's desire to have been able to pass on to young folks what they've learned about things, from diesel engines to moral values, as your uncle did.

 

[OldMarksman]

What worries me are those CCW-licensed folks who have taken their CC permit as a license to expand their role to include the functions of an armed police officer on behalf of others.

I couldn't agree more. BillCA's comment that the appropriate avenue is education and more education is on point.

If I were designing the educational curriculum for this, I would start with two things that were tought in my state CCW class:

• The concealed carry endorsement does not confer any police powers upon a citizen.
• While our state law does provide for the use of deadly force to protect a third person under certain circumstances, there are great risks involved (this would have to be tailored to specific states).

I would add the following:

• Sworn officers have an obligation to engage miscreants for the purpose of enforcing the law; civilians have no such duty.
• When they are actually involved in the performance of their duties, sworn officers may display lethal weapons without legal ramifications; civilians may not be able to do so without risking criminal charges, in the absence of immediate necessity and imminent danger.
• Sworn officers are are schooled in the classification of criminal offenses according to severity, and they are trained in the law as it applies to arrest and detainment, the appropriate level of force to be applied, and what to do under varying circumstances in the event that a suspect attempts to flee; civilians are not.
• Sworn officers have been trained in following approved procedures that thave been appropriately reviewed and approved for legal compliance and tactical soundness; civilians have not.
• Sworn officers can call for backup via radio, and it is likely that they will not attempt to capture a criminal without backup except in a dire emergency.
• Sworn officers are indemnified by their jurisdictions against civil liability, which may prove involve very severe exposure; civilians are not.

Examples of situations that may appear to indicate the need for intervention, but that are not what they seem, should be provided, along with a discussion of the severity of the civil and criminal liability that a citizen may assume by intervening inappropriately. I would advise people to consider intervention only when they know the apparent victims or when it is abundantly clear that not intervening is very likely to result in death or great bodily harm.

The fact that most LEOs will not intervene when off duty should be pointed out and discussed.

I would hope that similar education regarding when the use of deadly force is justified in other kinds of encounters, indoors and out, and when it is not, will be provided also.

It is essential that anyone who carries a gun fully appreciate the fact that "adding a firearm into how one relates to the events and circumstances around them on the mundane daily routine of their lives complicates the issues and adds risks both legal and physical, because carrying a gun has a lot more gravity than many realize at first" and that it involves "the possibility of serious criminal charges and the potential to really harm someone are amplified 100 times with the presence of a gun that's brought forth".

I hate to put it quite this way, but people have done some pretty bone-headed things and gotten themselves into lot of trouble from time to time. That does not help anyone at all. Let's work to inform and educate.

 

[onthejon55]

Yep, and I know people who survived car accidents because they weren't wearing their seatbelt.... But I still wear mine. Why? Well, because there are 10,000 who died because they weren't wearing a seatbelt for every one who survived because they weren't.

In other words, I'm not involving myself and my gun in a stolen purse situation just because somebody somewhere died because they lost their allergy medicine.

The odds of things going very badly for all of us are a whole lot higher than the odds of someone needing the medicine in the bag.
__________________

If you dnt want to stand up for someone who is being robbed then dont. If you see someone choking and do not feel like doing the Heimlich maneuver then dnt. If you see a kid trapped in a burning building and do not feel like risking you life then dnt.

But do not tell other people who feel the need to stand up for others in society that they shouldnt do whats right.

 

[MLeake]

If you want to do what's right...

... just make you sure you know what you are doing first.

It would really suck to intervene, only to find out you took the wrong side based on misinterpreting what you were seeing.

It would also really suck to intervene and cause harm to innocent third parties.

It would also really, really suck to find that you had caused an escalation in the situation, and had effectively voided any right to claim self-defense.

OldMarksman has NEVER said don't stand up for an obvious innocent victim; neither have I, or Uncle Billy, or anybody else. What we have all said is that you had better really understand your state's laws, both as they are written and as they have actually been executed in court; you had better make sure you have a complete grasp of the situation you choose to enter; and, you had better realize that life isn't TV, and that your intervention has a chance of making things worse even if you do understand what is happening.

And OnTheJon55, you still come across as way too eager to draw a gun.

 

[onthejon55]

... just make you sure you know what you are doing first.

Exactly!! In the event that you KNOW someone needs help then I do not understand why some people on here seem so reluctant to help.

OldMarksman has NEVER said don't stand up for an obvious innocent victim; neither have I, or Uncle Billy, or anybody else.

I never said they did.

And OnTheJon55, you still come across as way too eager to draw a gun.

And if I ever need help i hope i have someone more eager to help than you around.

 

[MLeake]

Maybe so...

... but on the bright side, I won't first tell them to F off and flip them the bird. Please grow up.

 

[onthejon55]

... but on the bright side, I won't first tell them to F off and flip them the bird.

Good i wouldn't recommend doing that as stated much earlier.

Please grow up.

Im not the one digging up old posts and past mistakes and throwing them in the face of someone trying to have a discussion about the ramifications of carrying a weapon.

 

[MLeake]

No, you are the one accusing others of having no stomach.

Let me put this to you another way:

Two of my best friends are plainclothes narcotics detectives. An overly assertive reaction to a fight or attempted "kidnapping" or "assault at gunpoint" by a CCW, during an attempt at an arrest of a BG by either of my friends could result in serious tragedy.

So, for me, this discussion is not nearly so theoretical as it may be for you.

Please note also that I already have intervened in more than one situation, when I was sure what was happening, and in those instances I wasn't armed.

And in the example that you don't like me digging up, I probably wouldn't have helped you if I'd seen the whole thing, because I'd know that you had stirred up trouble and created a major legal problem for me. However, I would have stepped in to protect your sister, who was the innocent bystander.

I generally try not to single people out, but you really should not be accusing people of timidity or bad judgment, especially after having so many others tell you the same thing.

 

[onthejon55]

Two of my best friends are plainclothes narcotics detectives. An overly assertive reaction to a fight or attempted "kidnapping" or "assault at gunpoint" by a CCW, during an attempt at an arrest of a BG by either of my friends could result in serious tragedy.

Being a plain clothes officer is very risky, thats why they usually "POLICE" when they are making the arrest.

And in the example that you don't like me digging up, I probably wouldn't have helped you if I'd seen the whole thing, because I'd know that you had stirred up trouble and created a major legal problem for me. However, I would have stepped in to protect your sister, who was the innocent bystander.

If you want to discuss this situation please feel free to start a new thread.

I generally try not to single people out, but you really should not be accusing people of timidity or bad judgment, especially after having so many others tell you the same thing.

since when was i not entitled to my own opinion?


EDIT: well this is getting horribly off topic i believe im done here...

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

But do not tell other people who feel the need to stand up for others in society that they shouldnt do whats right.

"Right" as defined by YOU. There are a good many of is in the world that believe that killing someone over a duffel bag would be WRONG.
On top of that, there are a good many of us who feel that taking the chance of leaving our families fatherless and husbandless because of a stolen duffel bag is equally wrong.

Your attempt to associate killing over a duffel bag with failing to assist a choking victim is assinine at best.

since when was i not entitled to my own opinion?

Since you started telling others to keep their opinions to themselves, which I quoted above. No fun when it's a two way street, is it?

 

[onthejon55]

Your attempt to associate killing over a duffel bag with failing to assist a choking victim is assinine at best.

How? either way if you mess up theres a chance you could be sued for everything you own which is almost the equivalent to going to prison.

Since you started telling others to keep their opinions to themselves, which I quoted above. No fun when it's a two way street, is it?

I give my own opinion. I dnt pretend to be a legal expert or cast doubt on everything anyone says.