In defense of others

If I see someone beating an unarmed woman or kicking an unconscious guy on the ground then I'm doing something about it.
Click to expand...

OK.

Two or three years ago a business associate of mine witnessed a neighbor striking his/her spouse with a shovel. The spouse was on the ground, apparently defenseless.

My business associate called 911. He undoubtedly felt, as I would, that he was morally obliged to do so.

The "victim" survived. The neighbors--the whole family, three generations-- then attempted to poison my friend's dogs, threatened his wife, and destroyed his lawn, and my friend had to move. Don't expect to be called a hero.

That's one reason LEOs hate domestic disturbance calls.

And that's just what that scene of someone being harmed wrongly could turn out to be.

Earlier, David Armstrong said "Personally I teach intervene when it will not put you in great danger or when the intervention will not make the problem worse, and using deadly force only when you or your family/friends are in danger of death or great harm. The legal ramifications are too great to ignore or disregard when you intervene, and there are lots of really questionable problems out there that can backfire in a minute and you end up doing time."

That is consistent with all of the qalified advice I have ever seen or heard on the subject.

I do not mean this to sound unkind, but I believe he has a whole lot more knowledge and experience than most of the people who have contributed to this thread.

I have thought a lot about what he said, and I think it's excellent advice.

Some former policeman I know won't even draw to defend friends--or so they say. Lack of morality? No. They simply understand the potential consequences.

I'm fine in leaving the person's motive between them and God as long as they stop a rape/murder/kidnapping etc.
Click to expand...

That sounds great. But where the potential consequences come in is when what you have stopped turns out not to have been a "rape/murder/kidnapping etc.". Things are not always as they appear.

Injure one spouse or brother in what turns out to have been a most brutal domestic altercation and see how long it takes for both of them to sign a complaint and file suit against you. Stop one degenerate thug from beating another and see what it gets you. Intervene when a parent is trying to help a daughter who is in the dangerous throes of a grand mal seizure and consider the consequences, legal and moral. And remember, unless you are a sworn officer, you're entirely on your own!
 
Beasley - one needs to understand the motives for actions and the pros and cons. If you don't see that - we have nothing to talk about. Understanding such is not an attack on the person, sorry you don't get it.
 
Don't ask rhetorical questions you don't know the answer to. To examine my giving wouldn't help your argument.
Click to expand...
Nothing rhetorical about it. If one is going to expound on the morality of others, one should expect to be questioned about their own morality. It is very easy to talk about morality, but such talk seems a bit hollow when it is not backed up by deeds, IMO.
That's ok, according to your answer you'd be fine with dumping the women and children overboard. I think you are making my point for me.
Click to expand...
Please don't try to put words in my mouth or atttribute positions to me I have not taken. I did not answer the question as I feel it is a poor analogy and that answering it would not be applicable to this discussion, therefore to say what I would be fine with is nothign but a wild guess on your part.
The fact is, I don't think you would do that. I think you'd intervene. If you saw someone being robbed or assualted you'd step in.
Click to expand...
I spent a fair chunk of my life intervening as it was my job, or the potential for loss was relatively minor in comparison to the gain. Nowadays, don't count on it. I'll intervene on my terms and how I feel minimizes my loss. Nothing personal, but if the choice is you get robbed or my daughter doesn't get to have Daddy at her wedding, let's just say I plan on being in that tux.
By your statement, we should never risk ourselves to help people we dont know. To be a hero would be too risky.
Click to expand...
Again, don't make stuff up and attribute it to me. I have not said that. In fact, I risked myself to help someone I don't know today coming home. I helped a lady change a flat on the shoulder of the interstate. She offered me $5 after it was done, but I told not to worry about it.
 
I've thought about it and David's one comment hit home with me.

If I stop a kidnapping or rape or worse, but I die, how does that help
my girls who are at home and need a father.

I lost my father to natural causes at the mere age of 6.

My girls losing me to unnatural causes would be a lot for me to
think about on such short notice (to act or not act for others)

which one is more morally correct?
 
KingEdward - you hit the nail on the head. It is easy on the Internet to preach total sacrifice for others but the reality is that we consider consequences to ourselves and those who are close to us. We consider the outcomes and the worthiness of the person to be saved.

Which is morally correct? That will never be agreed upon. But is easy to posture.

Even in the rape scenario, our posters consider outcomes. You might take on a single rapist. Would you make a suicide charge at a gang of 15 armed terrorists if you were unarmed? Easy game to play to short circuit the absolutists.
 
To BikerRN,
I understand and concur with your belief to analyze every situation and act accordingly, but to put women and men on an equal level in an "assault" situation, just because of equal pay, doesn't make sense to me.

If I were being assaulted by a 250 pound man outside a bar, I can understand you would think long and hard about intervening, not knowing the situation. But, I guess I would like to hear you say that you would at least THINK about it.

On the other hand, I bet most people in your situation that saw two 250 pound men having it out outside that very bar, wouldn't take a SECOND look and walk away...
 
Last edited:
Xrayeyes,

The point I was trying to make, poorly I might add, is that I treat everyone the same, or at least try to.

Women are already given significant latitude and legal advantages in the judicial system when it comes to the standard of "reasonable fear" in my opinion. I base part of my beliefs on a 70+ y/o lady trying to stab me with an 8" blade and having to use my BUG to diffuse the situation.

Male, female or martian, I care not. I'm an Ahole to everyone until you prove you're not. Just like I treat everyone as a threat, because you are. I will be as nice as you let me be, but don't be suprised if you don't feel all warm and fuzzy when we are done.

Biker
 
Now change the circumstances to a pregnant woman. Or how about a pre-teen or teenage girl...does that change anything for you?
 
Guys, this issue is one of morality. You guys are towing the line for a utilitarian ethic as opposed to an absolute sense of right and wrong. Work out your thinking to its logical conclusion. By the standard being set, no one helps anyone if there is any risk to themselves. Again, our country was not set up to be a police state. If we had enough LEO to stop every crime we would end up giving up much of the bill of rights and end up in a 1984 situation. We are supposed to take care of ourselves and our neighbors. Our founding fathers got this from a story in an old book referred to as the parable of the good samaritan. LEOs military sacrifice to help others everyday. Why do we believe that the average citizen shouldn't do the same? I think we should. I agree with you guys that we should be careful and know whats happening in the situation (undercover cops etc). But to not intervene (in whatever way we can, different people have different abilities) when we do know is wrong.
 
David

1. I think you missed my point about the "rhetorical question". My point is, you don't know what I give so it cannot make your point.

2. If you think my "sinking boat" analogy isn't good then point out where you disagree with it.

3. I can understand your view when it comes to a non-violent robbery. I'm talking more about violent crimes where people lives may be threatened.
 
Guys, this issue is one of morality. You guys are towing the line for a utilitarian ethic as opposed to an absolute sense of right and wrong.

I'm talking more about violent crimes where people lives may be threatened.
Click to expand...

Beasley, you are still assuming that you are omniscient enough to know what is happening when you see people interacting.

If you interfere with a person aiding someone having a medical emergency--say a grand map seizure or choking--is that an act of morality or a bumbling act that results in an a very undesirable outcome, morally and otherwise?

If you prevent an undercover agent from preventing a suspect from destroying vital evidence, is that an act of morality or a bumbling act that results in an a very undesirable outcome, morally and otherwise?

If you cause the escape of someone whose immediate sequestration may have been vital to saving the life of a kidnap victim, is that an act of morality or a bumbling act that results in an a very undesirable outcome, morally and otherwise?

If your intervention in any situation results in a death or serious injury (to either one of the persons into whose affair you were entering or to an innocent third party) that would not have occurred but for you actions, what great morality have you brought about?

If what you have come upon is really a domestic disturbance, no matter how violent it appears, and both parties sue you, are you than a moral hero?

No, it's not just your safety, health, life, record, fortune, and personal freedom that you risk by intervening.

But: if you have family to support and you are unable to do so because of injury, loss of fortune, or loss of personal freedom, is that a moral outcome?

I agree with you guys that we should be careful and know whats happening in the situation (undercover cops etc).
Click to expand...

And just how would you propose to know that, unless the victim is someone you know extremely well? Has it occurred to you that the LEOs and former LEOs who advise extreme caution may not be as "immoral" as you seem to think, but simply a whole lot more experienced, more knowledgeable, wiser, and more mature than you are?

And how about the attorneys? I've known too many people who have chosen to ignore the advice of attorneys and have rued the day for a long time afterwards.

However, if you do believe that it is your God-given duty to try to do risky things that may be quite moral, but that may prove harmful to others (including your family) or to yourself if you muck them up, might I suggest joining the police academy? That will provide you with the training, department procedures, tools, dispatcher network, and back-up to better enable you to carry out the deed correctly and without causing undue harm, along with indemnification, should it prove necessary.
 
Old Marksman

I understand your caution. The situations where it's hard to tell what's happening (undercover cops etc) are not so common as actual crime. Joining the police doesn't solve the problem because (as Mas Ayoob says) police aren't there (primarily) for crime prevention. The constitution leaves that in the hands of the people.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand your caution. The situations where it's hard to tell what's happening (undercover cops etc) are not so common as actual crime. Joining the police doesn't solve the problem because (as Mas Ayoob says) police aren't there (primarily) for crime prevention. The constitution leaves that in the hands of the people.
Click to expand...

So if the Police aren't there why should you assume responsibility for someone that chose not to assume that responsibility for themselves?

Aren't you being a bit presumptuous by assuming risk for them that they themselves were unwilling to assume?

Biker
 
Again, the moral question is whether or not to intervene, and as far as I can tell, we are ALL agreed on that point. We all intervene, because we're all That Kind of Person. We don't walk away.

The practical question is how to intervene, and that's all we're really discussing. Do we intervene by calling for professional assistance with problems too large or too confused for a single person to solve (just as those very professionals do themselves when they come upon such a situation)? Or do we intervene by jumping in headlong, and thus risk becoming part of the problem rather than part of the solution?

Neither of these two choices -- which are both intervening to help solve the problem -- is "more moral" than the other. But one of them is decidedly more realistic and more practical than the other.

pax
 
Thanks for clarrifying that Pax. :)

Yes, I do intervene, but the question is how.

I've already decided the "how", as you may sumise.

Biker
 
Another risk worth noting...

I don't think this has been pointed out, but in the case where you saw a situation that provoked you to draw your weapon... If you do NOT fire, I would be afraid of the potential risks to me and my family by the BG. What if they see my work badge or company logo on shirt, or otherwise make a determination to who I am or where I live.. Did I just put my whole family at risk down the road when they come to get revenge? Similar to how I would feel if I experienced a home invasion, and shot, but did not kill the intruder. While I can't begin to think like a felonious BG, I have to think that maiming (or even threatening to,) would create the basis for a major grudge..

I am with those who have suggested to only draw if you are "about to die," then make sure the perp meets that fate instead.
 
Great thread-
Curious to know what others think about exactly when to intervene if you are armed with a concealed weapon are watching and at exactly what step you would intervene--

1)You see a suspicious character at the mall and watch him--
What are your actions?
2)He moves or turns and you see a real, not fake gun--
What are your actions?
3)He takes the gun out and displays the gun--
What are your actions?
4)He points the gun at someone--
What are your actions?
5)You see him shoot!!
What are your actions?
6)You see him shoot a person--
What are your actions?
7) You see many persons injured by gunfire--
What are your actions?
8)You see him turning and aiming at you--
What are your actions?

At what exact step would others propose a level of threat great enough to draw, and shoot to neutralize this threat?? Anyone, please clarify when legally justified vs morally justified.
 
Curious to know what others think about exactly when to intervene if you are armed with a concealed weapon are watching and at exactly what step you would intervene--

1)You see a suspicious character at the mall and watch him--
What are your actions?
2)He moves or turns and you see a real, not fake gun--
What are your actions?
3)He takes the gun out and displays the gun--
What are your actions?
4)He points the gun at someone--
What are your actions?
5)You see him shoot!!
What are your actions?
6)You see him shoot a person--
What are your actions?
7) You see many persons injured by gunfire--
What are your actions?
8)You see him turning and aiming at you--
What are your actions?

At what exact step would others propose a level of threat great enough to draw, and shoot to neutralize this threat??
Click to expand...

My first action would be to try to get away, fast, by the time the gun has been produced.

I will point out that in items one through six, one would likely not be able to determine with even the slightest degree of certainty that the alleged "suspicious person" is not an undercover sworn officer or armed security guard who is himself engaged in "neutralizing a threat." And no, you cannot tell by garb, hair style, or belt line.

Should I still be in the line of sight upon the occurrence of item 7 and reasonably sure of a clean shot that would not have the likelihood of making things worse, I might fire at the subject. For item 8, I would only fire if escape were impossible--which, by the way, is required by law in my state.

Anyone, please clarify when legally justified vs morally justified.
Click to expand...

I presume that you expect everyone to have first answered Marty Hayes' question in Post 94:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3471396&postcount=94

For all of you pontificating on this subject, answer this question please.

Are you in a jurisdiction where you "stand in the shoes" of the 3rd party you are purportingly defending, or are you in a jurisdiction where you must simply "act like a reasonable person" when coming to the defense of another?

If you cannot answer this question, then I submit you had better spend some time researching this topic, because to get the answer wrong, means perhaps a long time in prison.
Click to expand...

Your question is a good one.

Here's one to consider that's a little different: You see a person walking toward an occupied out door eating place or into the foyer of a hotel lobby. He stops, takes out a 750ML bottle containing fluid, pours some of the fluid onto a rag, stuffs the rag into the bottle, and ignites the rag. There's no chance that he is engaged in lawful conduct, right? What would you do?
 
Last edited:
Action depends on all the circumstances, not just what the BG is doing. My first reaction is to ensure the safety of my family and to not get shot again. It hurts bad and death does no one any good.

Here in Omaha at Von Maur, one man stood up to the shooter, the shooter shot him then turned the weapon on himself ending the spree. I do not see this as a "I am a hero" type of thing, he was unarmed but still tried to intervene.

Another way to look at it, everyone can and should get a CCW and the training needed to protect themselves. Never rely on another for your own safety. Then everyone is responsible for themselves, if not then sorry charlie.?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top