hypothetical situation

Pax, there are some valid issues with your post. Hopefully you don't deem this reply as an affront, but your post can lead some to be put on the defensive.

First off of the three 'experts' you referred to, at least two of them had posts that were a little 'pushy' themselves(and they started that way first). As for someone who fell off the roof at work, the bones probably occured because it was a fall and an accident(by an expert at the job during their profession:D...sorry, had to throw that in). I'll take it that maybe this is who you were referring to in the below quote since that would be more accurate than if you were referring to something else:

Speaking of loud voices, there sure seems to be a lot of emotionalism in the thread. I'll grant it's an emotional topic, but it's hardly helpful to be nasty to each other over it.
Click to expand...

It is questionable at best for you to decide who are the experts in this thread being we are all on the internet and there could easily be others. You can of course decide who you want to listen to, and I enjoyed reading your post and have others on TFL. I have read some of your material too...reflecting on when your offspring were children and you had a trunk to store the weapons as one of many many examples...

We live in the age of the instant expert, where everyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's, and the guy who shouts the loudest usually "wins" an all-too-often adversarial online conversation. But I tend to listen hardest for the voices of people who have in some way been there. I might not like what they have to say, but darn sure I'll listen to it. To my ear, a loud voice cannot compete with a clear voice, even if it's a whisper.
Click to expand...

the last two thirds of the above post lead me to my next point. first off, who has been there? you must mean the person with experience with these animals. That is a valid point. Booksmart is not the same thing as been there. I tend to believe mleake as someone who has relevant experiences to qualify since you mentioned it. I also feel the first two points of mine are intertwined and I am definitely defensive if you categorized me with OTHERS as you stated that are yelling, chest-pounding, or demanding to be correct.

One of my steadfast points since the beginning of this thread is that many people freeze during emergencies, have to think(always takes longer), etc. I have Experience and first-hand knowledge of this(AKA - even the most stoic, trained individuals FREEZE during an emeregency..that is why it is URGENT that one had training, an individual reverts to their trainigns in such cases). So far in this 90something post thread I know of only three people conclusively who would act in a calm, life-saving manner: myself, MLeake, and David White. I also know multiple persons who would not act. None of this makes anyone wrong or a bad person, and it also only determines what my personal opinion is.

Honestly, if its me I'm kickin some serious butt and some animals are crossinmg over to the other side. I am not going to shoot someone else, I'm not going to shoot in the base of the skull(to use your wording...I am guessing this was a way to show humanism towards the innocent animal), I'm not gonna break a bone(sprain, fracture is possible), I don't care if this animal is endangered, I don't care if one of them is pregnant...all I care about is saving that child and doing it immediately, INSTINCTIVELY without a second's thought,calmly, rationally without taking any extra chances, and so-on. I have found throughout the course of my life this child would have had a much better chance to survive if someone like myself, David White, and/or MLeake had been on the scene(modesty out the window...in my earlier posts I didn't refer to myself). Even better, 2 or three of 'are kind' happen to be there together. People always see tragic events in newspapers and articles, but I think everyone here can serve as witness to reading heart-warming, incredible stories of how emergency situations ended well due to the acts of heroism and quick thinking of individual(s). Usually under discussion it is followed by something of this nature: "that person was extremely lucky" or "that person was extremely lucky BLANK was on the scene by coincidence; that could've ended much worse". this person can be an off-duty nurse, doctor, fireman, policeman, good samaritan with 'the gene', etc. When I was single digit years of age I watched a man dive into the potomac river(on television live) to save a woman who was freezing to death after a plane crash. He later was deemed a hero and met the president on live television. It is people like this who act...this person actually had time to think about it, as he just couldn't sit by and watch any longer at this woman who was very distraught, in shock, freezing, and unable to gather the strength to hold onto the rescue buoy.

Incidentally, for those who are saying that bystanders couldn't tell for sure that the child was actually dead, um, no. We have not seen any pictures of this child's injuries (nor do we want to!!), but .... dogs often go for the throat. If the child's head was completely severed, as seems not unlikely, or if the dogs literally tore the child's body in two, even a non medical person might take that as A Clue. Even if it was less clear than that, I would not want to take away a survivor's coping mechanism. The people who were there need to believe that nothing they could have done would have saved the child. The factual or non-factual nature of their belief hardly matters to us at this point, but it could be a sanity saver for them. Let it be.

pax
Click to expand...

part of my issue is I am not quite sure who you are referring to in your 'painted brush' post. I know I made one comment about DNS' point, but that was more due to the fact that in the context of what he was saying - it made sense. You have to be careful to rush to judgements that seem pretty much concrete(pretty much isn't concrete). I don't recall him or I ever saying or defending the notion that this child did not die quickly. I know I didn't...I should add that DNS should probably be added to the "will act" list. If these people need to cope that way then fine...and in most cases they probably couldn't have done anything. That being said it is a cop-out as well in certain situations and they KNOW if they could've done something. There are people out there that saw the tape, but that is a separate issue I am not going to comment on(as in the tape has nothing to do with whether one acted or not).
 
Hal, I'm not arguing with you here & I might be misunderstanding your post but who cares if the zoo people hunker. Many of the zoo employees are animal experts...others are just highschool or college kids, they're not trained for these type of emergencies plus by that time the child is history anyways. Sometimes one must realize that there is no time to wait for someone else. You kight have been just making an observation
Click to expand...
No offfence taken & certainly no argument.

It's been my experience in life & BTW, it's also a view held by most safety personell. that untrained people, jumping into a situation they aren't trained to handle, simply make things worse.

In this case - a non-uniformed civilian firing a weapon - may do more harm than good.

In all honesty, I don't know - since I wasn't there.
It's a point that no one has mentioned so far.

I can't see where a non-uniformed civilian firing a gun in a public place could do much more than add confusion.
It's not like your wearing a big flashing neon sign that says "I'm a good guy just trying to help".

So far, from everything I've read, response time or lack of, hasn't been an issue.
That may change though.
If/when it does, I may change my take on it.
 
Last edited:
Glen
I respect and agree with most of your posts, but I have to disagree with this one.

This is why we have programs for stress disorders for police, fire and soldiers. We help them deal with it and avoid suicide. We help rape victims.

Please spare us from the psychobabble. You don't know of what you speak. A person can recover from horrendous psychological trauma - it is preferred over death.
Click to expand...

The fact that many people can be helped to recover from psychological trauma does not mean that everyone does recover...hence the high rate of substance abuse, divorce, and suicide even after such treatment has been completed.

I wouldn't have jumped in, unless it was my own child. Parental instincts probably would have taken over common sense at that point. There are many parents who would willingly sacrifice their own lives in an attempt to save their child (I think that's what Mleake's tongue-in-cheek comment re barbecue sauce was about). But if it was somebody else's child and I was carrying a concealed handgun, I would rather deal with the consequences of firing than not firing.
 
Last edited:
Firing is different from jumping in and going Hand to teeth with the pack of dogs. I certainly would try to use a firearm if it was feasible.

The psychological consequences are of interest to me. The motivation to save the child should be about the child and NOT about how you feel later. Theories of altruism discuss whether folks act for their own external and internal image as compared to helping someone. Which is the best motive.

I sat down with a colleague (a coauthor of mine on a major paper on police dealing with stress disorders - including what if you shot a child -also done with police psychologists who deal with this all the time). Work with numerous victims of crisis and we pondered the scenario.

The first step, if you didn't act or weren't successful (assuming you lived), would be to analyze why felt that you couldn't live with yourself if you didn't act or failed. Most folks will get over that with their own internal resources and own informal support groups. Only about 30% of folks get stress disorders that are long lasting after a critical incident. So the odds are you don't. Thus we deal with the folks on the list who think or know they don't have the internal resources to deal with the consequences.

Thus, after determining why you think such, those beliefs and the stress disorder symptoms can be effectively dealt with by various cognitive behavioral therapies. The failures, suicides and drug abuse are found most likely in those who don't engage in a proactive attempt to deal. They self-medicate with alcohol or other drugs or don't do anything.

That's why military and police (with reluctance) are instituting programs to catch and deal with stress disorders. It is the failure to do such that causes problems. Men, particularly, are afraid or embarrassed to deal with failure and/or the resulting stress symptoms. Thus, it gets them. But if we deal with it correctly, that 30% has a high probability of short circuiting the problem if dealt with early or fixed later. Avoiding it gives you the troubles. Will you not have some consequence - you will but you WILL be able to live with yourself.

In classes, I've taken from folks with special forces background, they clearly state that after a critical incident you need to be aware of such and can deal with it. You cannot avoid it by saying folks who worry about such are weaklings. Talking to police, we found officers who said that if you have consequences you are a 'insert bad word here' and then tell you about the nightmares. That's why we have mandatory police psychologist interviews.

Are we saying that the folks who say they must act because they worry about their mental health are those who can't have the strength or are afraid to seek help? That's a crappy reason for an incredibly risky action.

The only reason to act is to save the child. How to do it is a subject for debate. One accepts the risk to yourself to save the child. We can debate whether the risk is so great that an action is a futile gesture. I had a friend tell me that he is sure that if he jumped in and cut one dog with his Spyderco the dogs would flee. Maybe?

But, again, engaging in a futile gesture (if it was) because you fear that you will have stress problems later flies in the strong probabilities that it can dealt with, if you have the gumption to do that.

So folks think they have the physical ability to save the child but doubt they have the psychological strength to engage in what would have to be done if you took a rational decision not to jump 14 feet or so and go CQB with a pack of significant dogs?
 
Last edited:
Glenn,

First, that last post of yours was more what I would expect from you. Thanks, it was informative and much less overbearing.

Second, not everybody has access to counseling services. Not everybody who has access would necessarily think to avail themselves of it. Some just wouldn't know; others would fear stigma, or problems at work.

The military has put a lot more focus on treating PTSD - though some senior medical officers apparently were routinely denying claims, with an eye on budgetary concerns over mental health. The military has also become much more proactive about suicide prevention - out of perceived necessity, due to relatively high rates.

So treatment plans exist, but those in need may not know about them, or may be afraid to use them, or may be discouraged or prevented from fully utilizing them.

Even if the person in need does get into treatment, recovery is not guaranteed.

Recovery may mean different things to different people, too.

Thirty percent, as fractions go, may not be huge but is hardly insignificant.

Rifleman1952 raised the issue of divorce. That is a good point. Glenn, in your experience what is the effect on likelihood of divorce when a child dies? How is this impacted when such death results from negligence on the part of one parent?
 
Hal,

To clarify, you feel it is better if untrained personnel wait for the cavalry?

Yesterday, near Kansas City, a man tried to abduct a 13yo girl from a school bus stop. He came up on her from behind, clamped a hand over her mouth, and started dragging the girl toward the woods.

A mother who had just dropped off her child saw this happen. She drove toward the man, screaming at him to get away from there. The man released the girl and ran into the woods. Last I checked, the manhunt is still on.

This woman could not know if the man had a knife or gun; for all she knew, he might have been able to pull her from the car and beat or strangle her to death.

She had a child; the girl being abducted was not hers.

The woman was untrained. Should she have done nothing?

Some might suggest she should not have intervened, but should have called 911 and been "a good witness."

The way I see it, had she done anything other than what she did, we would probably have a raped, or even murdered girl.

And, the way I see it, that woman is exactly the sort of neighbor I want to have, and exactly the sort of neighbor I want to be.
 
To clarify, you feel it is better if untrained personnel wait for the cavalry?
Click to expand...
If there's a reasonable expectation of trained help arriving in a reasonable amount of time - yes - I believe that's the prudent course of action.

My hat's off to the woman that yelled at the would be abductor and scared him off.

My son ran to the aid of a woman and her child that were in a car with a downed power line on top of it.
Matter of fact,,,,during his little speech that he gave to his National Guard unit when he was presented an award for it, he credited my wife and I for instilling that type of value in him.

Neither story, inspirational as they are, have zip to do with discharging a weapon in a crowded public place where trained people are present and in the process of responding...
 
Since we're 'going to the dogs'...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/13/56-year-old-russian-woman-kills-wolf-with-axe/

I guess one has to weigh the value of what you are trying to save or protect. To this woman, her flock of sheep was worth risking her life. Just think what she would be willing to risk for a baby.

There has been a lot of thoughts on the topic of whether to help/act or wait for trained personnel. Even some psychology on the topic.

My mindset remains the same. As my original post stated, I would not stand idly by and watch this baby get eaten. Knowing I had my CCW on me.
Too, I would hope that if I took the initiative to render help in some kind of way, others would join in as well. Two or three grown men would have a much better chance against these dogs if you had to go into the pit.
 
Hal, those trained people took several minutes, when time needed to be measured in seconds.

That has a pretty exact correlation with the woman in KC. Seconds mattered, so she did not exercise an option that might take minutes.
 
Hal, those trained people took several minutes, when time needed to be measured in seconds.
Click to expand...

Not according to this:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/pa-zoo-wild-dogs-killed-boy-fell-exhibit-17647871

"Nearby staff responded "within seconds" on Sunday but quickly determined the dog attack was fatal and didn't send handlers into the enclosure to intervene, Pittsburgh Zoo and PPG Aquarium president Barbara Baker said."

Granted - that is the zoo saying that...
However - other eye witnesses say one of the zoo people did respond within seconds.
I wasn't there so I don't know for sure.
 
Well, her job was to protect the animals including the calf that was being attack.
Click to expand...

DNS,

I understand that...and this frail lady went up against a full grown wolf with an axe to protect another animals life. Not even another human life. She acted. We can sit here now and analyze whether what she did was the wisest thing to do or not but the bottom line is she acted as she felt she had to in an extremely time sensitive emergency.

The point of me posting the story was to point out the fact that there are people that will put themselves in harms way to protect a life(or what they value in their own life), especially a life of a defenseless child or an elderly person, regardless of the risks to themselves.

This same person, usually, after the dust settle's and the events of the emergency are over , they have the time to digest/analyze the chain of events, will be the first to admit that their actions were risky at best and maybe would have done some things differently but would still have reacted.

Too, there are people as well, that will talk and posture a good game via the internet or standing around a bunch of buddies in order to sound macho(for lack of better words) that freeze up like an ice cube in an emergency situation.

I'm sure we all personally know people in our lives that have proven themselves to fit into each category.

Glenn, correct me if I'm wrong but...

...We can sit back and psycho-analyze both categories of people(those who react,those that don't) to try and figure out what makes each act/think like they do and maybe even find some similar characteristics in the people involved in each category but we really don't know exactly why all people chose to do some of the things they do in an emergency situation.

Too, having relatives involved in both LE and Psychiatry/Psychology along with one relative specializing in Criminal Psychology, I'd like to commend you(and those in your field) for your work in counseling with the 'aftermath' of tragic events in LEO's/Emergency Responders lives.
Knowing that these LEO's/Emerg Resp. are often forced by the department to get crucial treatment makes the job of the departments Psychologists extremely difficult.
Tough enough to counsel someone that voluntarily seeks help let alone counsel a 'forced' client.
While your services may not be appreciated or viewed as needed by some(including some dept. brass), know your services ARE appreciated and have been very helpful in the lives of many others.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the nice words. Disclosure - I don't do actually counseling. I'm a researcher but I worked with clinical psychologists and police psychologists on a project to examine efficacious treatments for police and their attitudes towards stress and treatment options.

That particular project was my idea (pat myself on the back :rolleyes:) and with the others we designed it. C. Becker - my close colleague had used the methodology with other populations. She is expert on stress disorders. The article we wrote has been downloaded about 670 times by professionals and I'm told we are making it into police psychology texts. We are all quite happy that we could do something that would help our first responders. I should also thank Capt. Charlie of TFL, Dr. Dave Armstrong of Mcneese State U. and the SAPD for their cooperation.

Blurb - on the work:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19200945

Now - back to the scenario.

GEM
 
Last edited:
To the OP....I have no idea what I'd do...probably not pull my gun...but in NC it's a moot point since you cannot carry into any establishment/event that charges admission.
 
I understand that...and this frail lady went up against a full grown wolf with an axe to protect another animals life
Click to expand...

LOL, please share the link that has the information on the wolf's growth status. I have read a bunch of the accounts, watched vids, and seen the pictures and nothing has mentioned this revelation and the images are not indicative of any particular growth stage. In fact, age, size, and weight information seems missing from all of them.
 
LOL, please share the link that has the information on the wolf's growth status. I have read a bunch of the accounts, watched vids, and seen the pictures and nothing has mentioned this revelation and the images are not indicative of any particular growth stage. In fact, age, size, and weight information seems missing from all of them.
Click to expand...

DNS,

Watch the vid. in the link I provided and you will see how big the wolf is. You will also see that the size of the wolf, whether it's 1/2, 3/4 or full grown, it's exact weight,sex and age is irrelevant. :rolleyes: It was big enough to severely hurt or possibly kill this 56 yr old frail woman.

Again, point is, this frail(but feisty) woman acted in a dangerous, time essential situation.
 
Last edited:
youngunz4life

So far in this 90something post thread I know of only three people conclusively who would act in a calm, life-saving manner: myself, MLeake, and David White. I also know multiple persons who would not act. None of this makes anyone wrong or a bad person, and it also only determines what my personal opinion is.
Click to expand...

Really?? well apparently you didn't read all of the post. I find your statement to be condescending at best. There were others that stated they would have tried to save the child including myself. The truth is anyone would have liked to help but in order to do so would have to evaluate the situation very fast before acting in a responsible and effective way.
 
Last edited:
Watch the vid. in the link I provided and you will see how big the wolf is. You will also see that the size of the wolf, whether it's 1/2, 3/4 or full grown, it's exact weight,sex and age is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

LOL, I watched the vid. You are the one who made the claim of growth to support your assertions of amazing bravery and now you are saying that your growth evaluation is irrelevant? If so, then why did you make it? The wolf appears to be on the small size from what I can see. Still, there is no way to know from the video or images if the wolf is full grown as you claimed.

There is a big difference in a person going after a single animal with a weapon who had NO intention of actually having to engage it in a fight and jumping down from a significant height into a pit of 11 dogs. There is a lot of comfort in thinking that nothing bad is going to happen to you and then you realize how poorly you misjudged the situation and have to then save yourself.

The 56-year-old heard the cry of a calf being attacked and rushed to scare off the wolf but it turned on her.

"I was not even frightened. I stood like this, holding an axe like this. And the wolf, with an open mouth suddenly jumped on me. Jumped like that. The wolf clawed at my leg and I wanted to hit him with the axe," Ms Maksudova said.
Click to expand...
http://news.sky.com/story/1010687/wolf-attack-russian-granny-fights-off-beast

She acted rashly and nearly lost her life because of it, thiniking as others would, maybe, that because she is a human and that animals fear humans (sort of like American coyotes would?) and would just run away. Interesting how that didn't happen.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top