Legal and ethical question

[butch50]

BTW, I'm playing by the original rules, not the revised rules that get people to respond exactly the way you want them to and eliminate the whole point of having people provide different opinions so we can look at other points of view.

I did change the scenario, seemed like we had pretty well spun out the logic on the first one, and I thought the second scenario might refine and amplify the problem a bit. There was a lot of good ideas came out of the first scenario, but I wanted to see what happens when you have to look the bystander, now hostage, in the face when/if you pull the trigger knowing that they are going to die, while the bad guy may only be injured.

Think about this - if you shoot through the hostage, killing the hostage, you may well only wound the hostage to the point that he ceases to be a threat and because of that you can't kill him - and he ends up surviving and the hostage died. That is something to consider don't you think?

BTW I am not trying to get anyone to respond in a certain way, I am interested in all points of view while holding my own at the same time. Gotta listen in order to learn don't you think?

 

[JohnKSa]

when you have to look the bystander, now hostage, in the face when/if you pull the trigger knowing that they are going to die

Unless you know the future, there is no way this statement can be true.

Hypothetical is one thing, unrealistic is another thing. You can set up the situation (place the characters, arm them, etc.), but if the scenario requires the characters to know the future then it's gone beyond a hypothetical situation to a sci-fi/fantasy game.

Personally, I can't help but wonder of some of the people who get bent around the axle trying to work out these tortured scenarios built on impossible assumptions will eventually end up analyzing themselves to death in a situation where immediate action is required.

The THREAT is the THREAT. The rest is not the threat. Neutralize the threat and then deal with the resulting situation. Until the threat is gone, nothing else matters.

 

[butch50]

Personally, I can't help but wonder of some of the people who get bent around the axle trying to work out these tortured scenarios built on impossible assumptions will eventually end up analyzing themselves to death in a situation where immediate action is required

There is physical training of the sort you do at the range and in Hogans Alley - the reason is so that when you are faced with a threat situation you do not have to spend much time thinking the problem through - you know the best way to react.

There is mental training - if you work out some of the worst case scenarios ahead of time, and what is the correct way to react - then if you ever get into that situation you will already know what you should do, you don't have to waste time in paralysis trying to figure it out then.

Would you shoot through a hostage to save your own life? How many times have you seen this scenario on TV and how many times was the hostage not shot through? If you found yourself in that situation after going through this thread and deciding for yourself what you would do, you wouldn't need to think very much about it, you already did that homework. Hypothetical situations by definition will always have flaws in them, but then are no less valuable of a training exercise for it.

Pyhsical training, mental training - you need them both.

 

[JohnKSa]

butch50,

Would I try shoot through the hostage? It would depend on a LOT of different things. What is the hostage wearing, how big are they, where are they in relation to the bad guy, what gun am I carrying, what ammo am I carrying, etc.

If they caught me with a 7.62x25 loaded with FMJ, and I could shoot through the hostage without going through the abdomen or central chest/spine, and if I were close enough that I figured I could make the shot hit exactly where I wanted it to, and if there were no other options like cover or escape, etc., and if I thought that the BG was sure gonna pull the trigger and thought he had a ghost of a chance of connecting with tender little me, I'd pull the trigger on him.

If they caught me with a .380 and JHP ammo, things would be very different.

Would I shoot through the hostage's HEAD to get to the BG? (That's the only way I can see it would be 100% to kill the hostage.) I don't think that's even worth a reply...

The threat is the threat. You have to neutralize the threat before you can make things better. If you can't neutralize the threat then try to get away.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Now, I do this fully expecting to at least be charged with something for the death of the hostage. Probably some sort of manslaughter, or endangering other's lives, or something of the sort.

Does this imply that should you miss the BG and the bystander, you should be charged with vandalism and made to pay for the damage your bullets caused to private property? Your shot scares the hell out of an old man on the street and he drops dead from a heart attack....another manslaughter charge?

When your actions are being dictated by another person, you are not responsible for everything that happens.

Would I shoot through the hostage's HEAD to get to the BG?

Reminds me of my submarine days. If someone takes a hostage and tries to use them to do anything to the boat or especially the nuclear weapons, shoot everybody.

 

[jefnvk]

A bullet hole in a brick wall and a bullet hole in a bystanders head are two completely different things. I'll have the wall fixed. I can't have the dead bystander ressurected.

As for the old man, if I would normally be chardged with making a loud noise in connection with his heart attack, then yeah. If I normally wouldn't be, no.

As for kill everybody, that may work in the military, where situtations are a bit different, but in real life, minimizing casualities more of a concern (at least, I think it would be).

How do you think it would look on CNN? 'CCW holder guns down mother and child trying to defend himself?'. There is enough of an outcry and legislative push when a CCW holder shoots only a BG, or a ZBG shoots someone else. I can't imagine where a CCW holder shooting the wrong people would lead to.

 

[RWK]

IMHO:
#1) No.
#2) No.