In defense of others

I just had a off-duty situation that is analogous to this subject. I was coming home on the subway and the train was delayed in the station. I observed the security guard running to the engineer, when he came back I flashed the tin and asked what's the problem. He said a passenger stated he had a gun. I had him point him out. I drew down and had him put his hands up. However, I couldn't cover him and cuff him at the same time. I proffered my cuffs to the guard and he said he didn't know how to cuff. So I reholstered (refannypacked :) ) and cuffed, searched him and proceeded to wait fifteen minutes for backup.

The point is you have to weigh the risk and the benefits of action.

I could've just stayed out of it but what if he really had a gun and started shooting.
 
Advice to "always" do something is generally as poor as advise to "never" do something.

As to what to do: Weigh each situation and act accordingly. I'm in the camp that leans more toward intervention, as it turns out, but not always or even most of the time.
 
Is the life of a stranger worth a gamble that size? Depending on your personal morals, maybe he is. But never ever ever in an ambiguous situation, especially when you didn't see the prelude and don't know the players.
Click to expand...

Is the life of a stranger worth a gamble that size?

Especially when more than likely the stranger had the same options as yourself to procure a CCW , firearm and necessary training to protect oneself........If they felt their life wasn't worth the time or energy , why should I risk all for them? I don't have a team of lawyers or insurance paid for by taxpayer's money to cover my ass.......

Defense of a child, will be the only third party I will ever defend.
 
I find this subject no different than jumping into the St.Johns river to save a toddler who slipped off the shallow bar and went under. Or swimming across the same river to save the STUPID chocolate lab that couldn't find the thrown stick but wouldn't quit looking until he about drowned and needed a full 50-70 yard river rescue... a few others come to mind but rendering aid is all equal to me...
Not for everyone, but for me it is as easy as pie to go after it. I think I draw the line at jumping into a shark attack to save someone though:o
Brent
 
I think its all circumstantial. If I am walking by a bar and two drunks are whopping up on one, I'll just call the cops. If I'm in a place thats being held up, I'm complying unless I die otherwise. Then there are some situations where you couldn't help but intervene. Imagine you get off a bus and you see a man trying to force a woman at gun point to let him in the car that contains a child. How bout a mass shooting type situation? I remember reading an account from one of the heroic journalist who was trapped in the Mumbai attacks. He took some of the photos we all saw splashed across the news and Internet. One thing he said really stuck with me...

"I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."
Click to expand...
 
I find this subject no different than jumping into the St.Johns river to save a toddler who slipped off the shallow bar and went under. Or swimming across the same river to save the STUPID chocolate lab that couldn't find the thrown stick but wouldn't quit looking until he about drowned and needed a full 50-70 yard river rescue...
Click to expand...
I would suggest that one big diffference is that those acts do not open you up to the possibility of being criminally charged, having to pay huge legal bills, spend time in prison, be subjected to ruinous civil judgements, having your children be socially ostracized, losing the ability to own or use firearms for the rest of your life, etc.
 
Actually if the child I pulled from the river ended up retarded or worse from the near drowning the chances are higher for a suit there than in a clean defense case. I am protected from recourse in a clean defensive situation by laws. I am not sure if we have as concrete a wording in good samaritan laws. Yes prudence in called for and in many if not all situations, you will know if, when and who to protect.
Brent
 
In the case of jumping in to save the toddler, there's no chance at all of killing an innocent person if you get it wrong (unless, of course, you count yourself).

This is quite different from wielding a firearm, where there is a substantial risk of killing an innocent person if you do not understand what is going on when you jump in.

On a moral level, the life of an innocent stranger is absolutely worth as much as the lives of my own family members (by my personal moral lights), but I'll not risk my family's togetherness and happiness on anything less than an absolute certainty. Why not? Because my family's lives are worth as much to me as the life of a stranger who may not even really be in danger. Even more so if the stranger I save later turns out to have been the aggressor in the situation, and I find out I killed an innocent person when I jumped in. Nothing but a certainty -- an overhwelming certainty -- is worth taking a gamble that size with my family's happiness, or with the life of a stranger.

One of the things I have learned through my training: the greatest physical danger to an out-of-uniform police officer who intervenes in such situations actually comes from other cops when they first arrive on scene. "Friendly fire" is a horrendous oxymoron for the kind of devastating tragedy which can happen when someone goofs up during a rapidly-developing, stressful, chaos-filled, confusion-driven event. Here's the point: even well-trained professionals sometimes kill the wrong person when they arrive at the scene of a life-or-death struggle, especially if they did not see the entire prelude and don't know the players.

The entire issue is nowhere near as simple as people want it to be, and certainly not appropriate for bumper-sticker slogans without critical thinking. Knee-jerk, emotional reactions may be soul-satisfying, but often leave out crucial information. The more you learn about how these things often work in real life, the better you will be able to make realistic, reality-based decisions when you need to.

pax
 
Extremely well put, Pax.

How violent is the felony? What kind of stranger?
Click to expand...

In Texas, it is spelled out: the imminent commission of "aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery."

However, on face-value alone, every scenario doesn't fit neatly within the proscribed limits of the law. Pax put it best - even if you feel 99% certain, is it worth the gamble?
 
When you pull & use a gun, you are gambling literally everything you own on getting it right and being legally justified. You are gambling your job, your home, and every penny you have in the bank. You are gambling your marriage and your ability to watch your children grow up in person instead of from jail. You are gambling every friendship you've ever made, every dollar you've ever earned or will earn, and your family's future happiness. You are risking sleep disturbances, flashbacks, nightmares, impotence, anorexia, alcoholism, drug reliance, and a long and bitter lifetime of regret if you get it wrong.

To take a gamble that big, it's a good idea to be overwhelmingly certain there's no other way out.

Is the life of a stranger worth a gamble that size? Depending on your personal morals, maybe he is. But never ever ever in an ambiguous situation, especially when you didn't see the prelude and don't know the players.

Personally, I'm not taking that gamble unless I am overwhelmingly sure of who the players are, who's the good guy, who's the bad guy, and what provoked the whole thing. A scene that I just stumbled on, where I don't know either one of the participants, simply cannot meet that standard.

This might sound as if I don't believe in intervening at all, but that's not true: I'll intervene in unambiguous situations where I'm certain of my ground. In situations where I'm not overwhelmingly certain, I'll still intervene -- by calling the cops. Calling the cops IS acting. It's just not quite as macho as rushing in.

pax
Click to expand...

The above post said it all as far as I am concerned. :)

Pax's second post, about "friendly fire" reminded me of something that is relevant to this thread. As an off duty LEO I'm more afraid of getting shot by the responding on duty LEO's than I am of getting shot by a badguy with a gun.

Biker
 
A righteous man (or woman) would do something...

To help another in need. Cell phones are great, but if you were the person being raped would you want to wait for the police to arrive?
I have personally been in this situation a couple times, without a gun, and never failed to at least say something. The time that sticks out the most was, while living in a neighborhood with lots of drugs and thugs, I was walking to the grocery store for a six-pack when I saw a large man trying to force his way into an apartment while yelling threats at the woman inside who was striking at him through the window with a stick. I removed my phone from my pocket, pantomimed dialing the police and loudly informed the 'gentleman' that I was contacting law enforcement. The guy looked at me, looked at the apartment and bailed down the road. The lady inside said "thanks! I called the cops like 5 minutes ago and I was just trying to keep him out until they got here". I hung out for about 10 more minutes until the police finally arrived, but left without getting involved in the witness portion of the events.
Also, I spent a few years working in residential care with violent mentally ill folks... you'd be amazed how long it can take cops to respond to a rural assault call on a busy weekend.
If I had been armed in the previous scenario, I would have probably done the same thing, but with a hand on my weapon ready to draw in case Mr. Home Invader had come my direction instead of showing me his heels.
It all comes down to the particular situation.
 
Pax has it absolutely right. If you are unsure of the situation it's best to be a good witness and call LE to deal with it.

However, my opinion is that if it's a child getting injured then I want to at least challenge the attacker and/or separate the attacker from the child. And I'm talking an obvious child here... not a teen that could be 17-19 y/o. If a verbal challenge doesn't work, I'm fairly certain rapid application of Koga techniques with a Maglite will interrupt the assault.

In an altercation between adults, I'm staying out of it unless I see clear evidence that one of the parties is excessively injuring someone (i.e. kicking someone who's down and helpless, large differences in size or numbers, etc.) And I'm thinking twice about even that.

If I'm inside the Stop & Rob when Danny Dirtbag comes in to rob it, I'm going to be a good witness right up until he points the weapon at me or it makes a loud noise inside the store.
 
There are situations you'd better stay out of, for the reasons PAX mentioned. Especially if you don't know what's going on.

There are others where you couldn't look at your self in the mirror if you stood by and let it happen when you had the means to stop it--- and didn't.

Sometimes it isn't clear whether you're part of it or decided to intervene.

An acquaintance of mine was in a bank, years ago, when a robber came in and shot and killed the teller--right next to him. He shot the killer without hesitating. The killer ran out and died in the parking lot. I classify that as being right smack in the middle of it, and justifiably in fear, rather than intervening in something that wasn't his concern. Some may not agree.

For the record, the incident happened in California years ago when some folks actually had CCW's.

Other incidents are less clear as to being an intervention or already involved, but we live with what we do or don't do, either way.

And there won't be anyone but us to make the choice for us.
 
Last edited:
The fact is, if I see someone beating, choking, or harming someone in any way I'm doing something about it whether I have a gun or not. I'll first order them to stop. They have a chance to identify themselves as a cop at that point. If they don't identify or stop attacking then I'm intervening. Right is right no matter what the potential consequences. I'm not speaking hypothetically, I've had to intervene before.
 
My involvement in any situation would be based on the actual events as they transpire. But yes I would get involved in some way.



starshooter231
 
If you were being violently mugged or it one of your close family members was being raped, what would you hope that an armed citizen who was witnessing the event would do?
 
Actually if the child I pulled from the river ended up retarded or worse from the near drowning the chances are higher for a suit there than in a clean defense case.
Click to expand...
No. First, that supposes there is a clean defense case, which is rather problematic in itself contrary to what many here seem to think, but also not only would your actions not have been causitive to the child's retardation, most states samaritan laws preclude such suits. The only way you would be liable for anything would be if your attempt to save the child was so negligent that you actually caused the harm.
 
Last edited:
One of the things I have learned through my training: the greatest physical danger to an out-of-uniform police officer who intervenes in such situations actually comes from other cops when they first arrive on scene.
Click to expand...
Yes. We lose officers on a regular basis in that manner.
 
An acquaintance of mine was in a bank, years ago, when a robber came in and shot and killed the teller--right next to him. He shot the killer without hesitating. The killer ran out and died in the parking lot. I classify that as being right smack in the middle of it, and justifiably in fear, rather than intervening in something that wasn't his concern. Some may not agree.
Click to expand...

I'd say that was a case where the good guy was overwhelmingly sure of the circumstances. He did the right thing.

pax
 
I'm not a big guy by any means but I'm stronger than a lot of people with 60+ pounds on me and I've been in mixed martial arts and wrestling for several years. I'm confident enough in my ability to beat some punk down (actually more confident than I am in my shooting) that the ONLY way I am pulling a CCW in this situation is if he has a gun and is more than 10ft away. Disarming someone with a gun is not as hard as it may seem, especially if you have the right technique and know what you're doing.

HD and SD are different stories though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top