In defense of others

. 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.
Click to expand...
Sure it can, and I think I did.
If you think my "sinking boat" analogy isn't good then point out where you disagree with it.
Click to expand...
Actually, somebody else argued the analogy wasn't good, but I tend to agree with them. I disagree with it because it causes you to actively place someone else in harms way (probable death) for your own well-being. You will have been the instigator of the harm.
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.
Click to expand...
OK. I don't see any real difference for purposes of intervention.

By the standard being set, no one helps anyone if there is any risk to themselves.
Click to expand...
Nope. By the standard being set, one gets to determine the potential cost versus the potential gain, and then make a determination as to what they feel is best. Sometimes the risk may be worthwhile, sometimes it may not. I did things when I was carefree and single that I will not do not that others depend on me. I simply reject any arbitrary morality that says I should risk the well-being of my loved ones and thier future for the well-being of someone else and their future.
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...
1. I would watch, and depending on how suspicious the character looked and the duration of time I might
A. Leave
B. Notify security
C. Move to a more "tactical position" and continue to watch.
D. Decide they are not a threat and continue my business.

2. Again, time dependent
A. Leave and notify security
B. Try to find ANY exit
C. If unable to leave, try to find cover/better position.
(Also pre-positioning my cover garments for easier access to my pistol)

3. (Hand moves to gun, if they are not watching me)
A. LEAVE NOW
B. Find Cover
C. Find a better position
D. Don't attract attention!
E. Try to notify security/PD
If the gun has not been pointed at anyone/no threats made, I would likely NOT escalate by confronting them.

4. (Gun leaves the holster)
A. I get VERY loud and command them to stop, with gun aimed at them.
B. (I'm in their line of sight, but my gun is not) I wait.
C. ??? Situationally dependent...

5. (Assuming they have not Identified themselves as PD/told someone to stop being agressive, etc)
All bets are off! They have used lethal force without IDing themselves, and I already thought they were suspicious. I draw and fire, move to a position to fire, or DIVE to cover/exit. Same for the rest.
My priorities are to either escape or stop the threat, notify help (LEOs/Paramedics), and provide any assistance I can (first aid, coordination, etc).
 
1)You see a suspicious character at the mall and watch him--
What are your actions?
Stop watching him and look for something more attractive or interesting.
2)He moves or turns and you see a real, not fake gun--
What are your actions?
Go someplace else.
3)He takes the gun out and displays the gun--
What are your actions?
Go someplace else.
4)He points the gun at someone--
What are your actions?
Yell "Hey, you might want to go someplace else before you get shot!"
5)You see him shoot!!
What are your actions?
Go someplace else quickly.
6)You see him shoot a person--
What are your actions?
Go someplace else and get a medic.
7) You see many persons injured by gunfire--
What are your actions?
Go someplace else and get a bunch of medics.
8)You see him turning and aiming at you--
What are your actions?
Kill him.
 
What are others beliefs of commensurate levels of force when dealing with such a threat??

I hope others would agree about the concept of escalation to similar levels of action and finally to lethal action when no alternatives exists.Yes, we are talking theory here when the real world can go warp speed in a blink.

If the threat produces a gun and you might be endangered, you should logically have the right to equal his level of force given no better alternatives.
Granted you may need to observe and "disguise" your firearm somewhat by drawing it and holding it down at a low ready position if he is waiving his gun around unless he points his gun at someone. It would seem logical that you could bring your firearm to some type of ready position from being holstered for number 3&4.

If he obviously suddenly shoots an obvious innocent(unarmed female, etc)ie, #6), then lethal intervention may be indicated by a MORAL, not legal standard. Hopefully your perception is reality.Agree or disagree??

As I understand it a wacko can shoot everyone in sight and you have no legal requirement to intervene even if you are armed.Only when you feel personally endangered (#8), can you act with lethal force and be in true compliance of the law.

Is this right or totally off base, guys?
 
If I find myself in a situation where I can save lives by immediate, aggressive and violent response to a BG, I'm going to do everything in my power to take the BG out. I'm not going to run, hide (well I probably would take cover), call medics or hope the BG runs out of ammo by the time he gets to my turn to be shot.

I will take appropriate actions to not be shot but running while innocent people are being shot and I have a chance to stop the shooter is not in my makeup.

YMMV
 
As I understand it a wacko can shoot everyone in sight and you have no legal requirement to intervene even if you are armed.Only when you feel personally endangered (#8), can you act with lethal force and be in true compliance of the law.
Is this right or totally off base, guys?
Click to expand...
It depends. Certainly there is no legal requirement to intervene. However, there are a number of states, perhaps even a majority, that allow what is commonly called "3rd party intervention" which does allow you to use force, including deadly force, to save another person.
 
Even though, by your own admission, if it endangered your own life and your ability to return to take care of your family, you would run away and call the ambulances.
 
1)You see a suspicious character at the mall and watch him--
What are your actions?
Click to expand...

My local Publix has a great customer base, these customers just shop, quite a while ago three not your normal type of customer hove into view.

No basket, no cart, walking around the produce area, looking at people, I was on my own, stepped away from my cart, and took notice. They stopped and looked at me, and at two other men who had more or less mirrored my actions, they turned and walked right out. Do rags on head, pants falling off, one with a hood on?

First and last time I saw that. That was in the afternoon.

What would I have done, what if? No idea, they just did not fit in, thought watching them was better than not.
 
Even though, by your own admission, if it endangered your own life and your ability to return to take care of your family, you would run away and call the ambulances.
Click to expand...
I have admitted no such thing! Nowhere will you find that I have said I would run away from anything! A nice brisk walk is usually quite sufficient and minimizes the loss of your resources.
 
As I understand it a wacko can shoot everyone in sight and you have no legal requirement to intervene even if you are armed.
Click to expand...

I believe that's true.

And I think that's a good thing. How would you like to be liable for damages to each person struck before you were able to stop the killing? I understand that the courts have held that the state would not be liable, so why should you?

Only when you feel personally endangered (#8), can you act with lethal force and be in true compliance of the law.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that's true in most places. But--one more time--you need to do some checking:

Originally posted by Marty Hayes:
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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top