The instruction I have received is based on the premise that use of deadly force is legally permissible when defending myself or a third person from the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
The question of intervening to protect a stranger has come up on this forum a number of times. Beyond the legal implications (which as pointed out can vary by locality) often the question of a moral imperative is brought up. I’ve seen firsthand in force in force scenario based training where someone’s desire to help ends up causing more casualties than may have occurred otherwise. This is often coupled by many thinking that the presentation of a firearm will yield compliance (for instance, in this story I command the knife wielder at gun point and that will cause him to stop). If you spend some time watching body cam or dash cam footage of law enforcement officers it becomes readily apparent that this is untrue, and it’s untrue of people with generally more authority in our legal system than a private citizen (that is if a person won’t listen to a police officer, I question if they will listen to some random person). People seem to assume rational behavior in people committing a criminal act (i.e. stopping an attack when a gun is point at you), but criminal acts are performed by people who are often not in a rational state of mind (temporarily or regularly).
I can’t tell another person what he or she should do, similar to MarkCO. I can share a small anecdote. An instructor I have taken courses with a number of times shared a story of how he witnessed an altercation between a man and a woman outside of a store while he was with his daughter. This instructor had been a police officer for many years. Being with his daughter and his primary concern being her safety, he called in what he saw and stayed to be a good witness. As the event unfolded (no one was killed) his daughter asked him point blank, “Daddy you have a gun, why don’t you stop him?” That’s an uncomfortable question for any parent when you may end up losing some of the hero image children often have of their parents. But this is reality. That’s why I made the comment earlier. These are questions we really owe it to ourselves to ponder. What are or aren’t you willing to do when carrying a firearm? What is our personal line, not just what is legally permissible but what can we live with? Now obviously each situation is different, but I think it’s better to consider these situations ahead of time rather than wrestle with the moral dilemma during the event and in our inaction potentially lead to more harm to someone else or ourselves.
In those force on force scenarios I mentioned where others were being hurt, a number of people chose to simply run. They weren’t necessarily wrong to do so, and when the people in the class that had chosen to intervene and in the process killed other actors in the scenario watched this on video, they were generally dumbfounded. It had never occurred to them to consider that possibility. At the same time in some of those scenarios, one where a receptionist at a doctor’s office was beaten by a jealous ex, many could see the exit but felt obligated to do something rather than watch a woman be beaten. There were consequences for getting involved, however, and personal risk.
For myself I can imagine a situation where I would personally get involved if legally justified and morally compelled. I’d add getting involved doesn’t always have to involve force. Being a good witness and rendering aid if safe to do so are all ways a person can choose to get involved (and they also carry risk).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
