So this one is for the police officers and agents of domestic departments... it's not quite so relevant for military, and certainly not for civilians.
People muse on situations a lot here, but we've yet to conclude upon a standard to measure conduct.
As an officer, you're called to a shooting that is now over. A defense-minded citizen ended an armed robbery attempt with a single headshot to the BG. The details are not known to you - there is no verification on the degree of threat the deceased was posing at the time he was shot, and you do not know the entire chain of events yet besides that a gun was pulled on a cashier and a carrying civilian pulled and fired. All went "well," no other shots were fired, and if the bullet exited it did no damage beyond the cosmetic. The shooter was qualified to CC and has a clean criminal record prior to this, although you don't necessarily know that showing up to the scene.
How do you respond? Is the shooter treated as a criminal, a person who completed his duty to defend himself and other innocents, or completely neutrally? And in your experience, using a reasonable-man-standard, how would this person be treated down the line? Would he be shaken down, have his weapons confiscated and face serious issues in court besides the attempted-robber's posthumous civil case? Or, if witness accounts suggested he acted judiciously and in the best public interest at that moment, would he be exonerated of all guilt?
I realize this is a pretty open question, particularly considering the various laws only relevant in certain areas of the country, but it's one that could help decide a course of action for someone. It would help authoratatively answer the question "Should you cover the other patrons while they safely exit the premises or intervene with prejudice on behalf of the clerk being held up?"
Other people may amend this question as well if they feel I have posed it poorly, it just seems to be one that is hotly debated in all the situation threads but is rarely chimed in upon by the people who must actually judge the situation after action.
People muse on situations a lot here, but we've yet to conclude upon a standard to measure conduct.
As an officer, you're called to a shooting that is now over. A defense-minded citizen ended an armed robbery attempt with a single headshot to the BG. The details are not known to you - there is no verification on the degree of threat the deceased was posing at the time he was shot, and you do not know the entire chain of events yet besides that a gun was pulled on a cashier and a carrying civilian pulled and fired. All went "well," no other shots were fired, and if the bullet exited it did no damage beyond the cosmetic. The shooter was qualified to CC and has a clean criminal record prior to this, although you don't necessarily know that showing up to the scene.
How do you respond? Is the shooter treated as a criminal, a person who completed his duty to defend himself and other innocents, or completely neutrally? And in your experience, using a reasonable-man-standard, how would this person be treated down the line? Would he be shaken down, have his weapons confiscated and face serious issues in court besides the attempted-robber's posthumous civil case? Or, if witness accounts suggested he acted judiciously and in the best public interest at that moment, would he be exonerated of all guilt?
I realize this is a pretty open question, particularly considering the various laws only relevant in certain areas of the country, but it's one that could help decide a course of action for someone. It would help authoratatively answer the question "Should you cover the other patrons while they safely exit the premises or intervene with prejudice on behalf of the clerk being held up?"
Other people may amend this question as well if they feel I have posed it poorly, it just seems to be one that is hotly debated in all the situation threads but is rarely chimed in upon by the people who must actually judge the situation after action.