Your moral obligation to help innocents at risk?

I agree that as a Father my first responsibility is to teach and guide my childeren. How can I instruct them in the values and ideals I hold dear if I fail to follow them?

Your question is somewhat pointless, you never know the odds. I've kicked in doors in Iraq where I fully expected to be met with an AK on the other side. I once crawled into a burning car to help free the driver. I certainly don't plan to change.

There are a lot of discussions where opposing parties can agree to disagree. For me this isn't one of those. Your arguments ring hollow... frankly, you seem to be hiding behind the wife and children. It's supposed to be the other way around.


But I suspect their lives would become something far different than if you had remained there to raise and guide and counsel and protect them, which is a Father's very first responsibility in the world. Any man who believes that his first responsibility is to something other than his wife and the children that they brought into this workd, is missing something about responsibility.
Click to expand...
 
Jcoiii Good movie. Good quote.

Yeah amazing what some one will do for money and honor. In which order I am not sure, in the movie it was hazy. But after he got kicked and beat it was plain as day. One of my favorite movies.

I think you are getting the idea though. The guy should have been armed but since he was responsible who cares. He got his reward for his actions.

Kicking doors not knowing whats on the other side is scary but someone has to do it. Might as well be for a good cause as not.

I have kicked a few myself, oh the good old days, when I was younger and not so concerned with right or wrong just doing a job.
Follow your leader. I am glad that we have held ourselves to a higher standard these last 25 years. Obligation to help I think so.

We were on the fence for awhile till we got our bell rung in WW11 but we responded in proper order. Would we be able to do that again?

We were naive to think we could do it and we did. Great men came to the forefront then and hopefully they still will. Civilians were/are held in contempt by the Men in the fighting forces. At least that is what my DI always said.

Men who put their lives on the line everyday, and others who are afraid to.

I was reading today about the Great men who wrote and made sure the Constitution is what it is today. Now we are chipping away at our freedoms.

Pretty Sad.

Patrick Henry was known for some good stuff, but he wanted everyone to be of the same religion. Now that was not good. How come religion always comes into the picture and the ones saying it is not the problem are the ones who know it is. Hypocritical comes to mind. Some people just don't get it.

Harley
 
frankly, you seem to be hiding behind the wife and children. It's supposed to be the other way around.
Click to expand...
I have learned over many years that the people who pat themselves on the back the hardest are always those that have the least to offer; and that those who are eager to pronounce that they are noble above some or all others tend to have overblown and inaccurate self images. Frankly people who blow their own horns are immediately suspect of being blowhards, or worse.

Military/Police/Firemen/EMT scenarios are not what this thread is about - it is about the ordinary Joe citizen/civilian with a ccw that stumbles onto a situation where he may be able to save a crime victim (not an accident victim) from harm, and what obligation does he owe a perfect stranger who hasn't taken the time and effort to arm himself to avoid being a victim. Without a very specific scenario all we can do is generalize.

Generally speaking if you find a situation where you can help someone without a significant risk, you of course help them. If there is risk - you should evaluate the risk and proceed or not based on that evaluation at the time. If it is likely that you will get killed in attempting to help a stranger, and you have a family of your own, then no, you should not take the chance of getting killed. The distance between go and no go is of course a gray area that can not be defined in general terms. Those of you who say you will help anyone at any time at any cost ~ I simply don't believe you.

Of course if you have a death wish and don't care a flip what happens to your own family, then go ahead and jump into any situation you find without evaluating first, the gene pool could use a cleaning now and then.
 
Butch, good summary of the discussion. Clearly if you are in a job were you have sworn an oath to take action, things change for most people. Your summary is right on the mark for the discussion:

"it is about the ordinary Joe citizen/civilian with a ccw that stumbles onto a situation where he may be able to save a crime victim (not an accident victim) from harm, and what obligation does he owe a perfect stranger who hasn't taken the time and effort to arm himself to avoid being a victim."
 
i wounder how some of you guys can sleep ever night. :rolleyes: where is the morality? why have we become so callose(spelling). since i have never been in the military i would say my family and myself come first. i am not a hero and i am not here to be one. I sleep good at night. :p
 
Good post, Butch50 :)

Most of the talk is bluster. As I posted the decision to help has been studied and many folks here are just trying to parade a false front of always helping as they think it makes them the tough and moral guy.

In reality, all the factors I mentioned would come into play.
 
Butch and Glenn good post's

I believe Butch cleared the muddy waters on that last post and I believe Glenn had written something similar on a prior. Now the two of them are on the same page. That is a good way to end this thread.

Edit: Good one ghost dog. I think to many feel the weak will inherit the earth it is the meek...Sure, not in my life time.

Take care. :)

Harley
 
Last edited:
Bloodybucket,
I read what you said, and it LOOKS like IMO that you justify inaction to help the woman by saying she might have done something to deserve it. I'm not judging you personally. I've been a cop for so long, I don't know what I would do as a civilian (yea,yea cops are civilians, but you know what I mean). I would hope that my upbringing would force me into action.

"I am not a LEO, I do not have the right to gun down a man in a busy Walmart store or even an alley way for that matter."

You have every right to defend another human being from harm.

"Like many of the comments stated many of you talk tough but have you ever been in a combat situation or even raised your weapon at another human being????"

More than once, I have had a loaded weapon aimed at a person and had all the slack out of the trigger. It's not a good feeling, but my main goal is to go home at the end of the day. I don't look at it as "gunning someone down". If someone forces me to defend myself or a third party from harm, I look at it like they did it to themselves. I hope I never have to actually shoot someone, but I know from what I have done thus far that I can, and will if I have to.

I've had to fight, hand to hand, in self defense before, and I know what I am capable of. It is the duty of the weak to learn to defend themselves, but it's also our duty IMO as the strong, to protect the weak.

Respects,
Ghostdog
 
many folks here are just trying to parade a false front of always helping as they think it makes them the tough and moral guy.
Click to expand...

Do you have any facts to back that up? Where have you seen/read with the people replying so far that they are putting on a false front and just trying to be keyboard commando's?

I figure that before you start to call the members as being loud mouth lairs, that you put forth some proof that they are in fact, such.

Wayne
 
We know from intervention research that the factors I mentioned are operative. Thus, when folks say that they are not influenced by them, I take that with a grain of salt.

They may not be liars (but I do think lots of internet talk is bluster) but I'd bet that faced with a real incident where the person doesn't meet certain of the tests I mentioned or the risks were high, lots of the absolutists won't jump in.

Of course there is no way to test an individual from the group. Listening to a tactical trainer who once was a police chief, he mentioned that he could tell you who blustered but always was late to arrive on a help the other cop call.

I have no reason to think that some posters are not the same.

I explicitly state that an intervention decision by me is going to be complex and based on a lot of factors. Those who stated they absolutely would help anyone with no thought of risk to self or consequences to family are very suspect in my eyes based on research and listening to lectures from responders.
 
Glenn,

There have also been cases where people have put themselves into harm for another without a thought.

I think that I understand where you are coming from but you know what they say about "research", the anti's uses it against us all the time.

If we take the % of those that have replied in the negative (would not help) and the % of those that have replied in the positive averages out to be entirely statically plausible that what the positives are saying is entirely true and not blustering.

Wayne
 
In Utah CWP holders are LEGALLY obliged to help...
Click to expand...

The instructor of my Concealed Firearm Permit class told us exactly the opposite -- that we are not police, and we have no duty to intervene in anything.

Which brings it right back to the point of the thread: Do you feel that you have a moral obligation to intervene on the behalf of another?

Personally, regardless of what's going on, I'm not going to turn off my brain. Every situation is different, of course, but if I see something happening and I think that I can make a difference without getting myself killed, I'll do it. If I see that doing something will get me killed, I'm not going to charge in anyway because "it is my duty."

A person's first responsibility is to themselves. One must first be alive to help others: Live today, fight tomorrow. ;)

So yes, I would help -- but not if it were simply in vain.

Wes
 
Thefumegator ,

I think that what he meant by that is called the Good Good Samarian Law. Some states have it, some don't.

But the law doesn't state that you MUST put yourself at risk but will do what is reasonable at the time.

A simple phone call to report what is happening is all that is needed to satisfy the law.

Wayne
 
So yes, I would help -- but not if it were simply in vain.
Click to expand...

Now THAT is something that should have been brought into the debate (and it's not up to me, everyone else has more "paper" than I) and I wished that I would have thought of it.

Now, Vain to me is 0% chance. Not 50/50, 80/20, would actually think about it if I deemed it 90/10 but would do what was morally correct (to me, I'm not saying that everyone has the same moral or value system that I have, and I don't expect them too).

To me, it's not a hard question to answer. I have been in situations that my life was on the line and I knew how I reacted to it. I am hoping that I will react the same in the next situation (So Glenn, I'm not drawing from what if's but what done's). Yet if a person has never been in such a situation, it is understandable that they would reply as they have done.

Here's a simple, realistic, thing that could happen and reply what you would do:

You are at home, you live by an airport. You hear a whinning noise and then right outside your door (let's say 500 meters) a small aircraft has gone down. It's burning, do you:

1: Run to the aircraft to see what you may be able to do

2: Run from your home because you are afraid of an explosion

3: Shut your curtains and resume watching "the last survivor"

Getting your family to safety (like out of the area) is a given.

On the news, they were interviewing people that helped to pull those old people out of the water from the Ethan Allen. They filled up their boats with survivors, they jumped into the water without life jackets, they saved 21 strangers, people that they didn't know or should care about, and feel sad that 21 others died, people that they didn't even know, or should have had a care about.

Wayne
 
Are you equating jumping in the water without a life jacket to save drowning people with that of presenting your concealed weapon and shooting an armed assailant that may take your life?

I think most would consider the level of risk significantly different. I don't want to minimize that there is some chance of drowning in the first scenerio; however, I see them as vastly different scenerios.
 
I'll just add this...

Risk a lot to save a lot, risk a little to save a little, risk nothing to save nothing.
 
My position is that there is no difference between those in the military or a first-responder occupation and "regular" people. Firefighters and cops have merely taken on a profession where they face these situations all the time, but the moral obligation to aid another is the same when faced with such a situation no matter what your occupation or station in life.

I admit there is a training and equipment factor, some situations that are completely impossible for the untrained or underequipped become possible with the right gear and know-how. I certainly don't advocate throwing your life away pointlessly when there is absolutely no hope. Often direct intervention in situation is tactically unsound... for example, I wouldn't get directly involved in a domestic dispute unless there was no other way to save a life (those things can turn BAD fast)... but if that was what it took I'd take the risk.

In closing I'll mention that I'm sure those blow-hard comments weren't directed at me. I've seen the elephant many times and he is big, gray and ugly.

EDIT: Entering the water in a mass-rescue scenario is at least as dangerous as drawing-down on an armed BG. When people are drowning, or even simply panicing, in the water they try to climb up on anything... including rescue swimmers. Half of lifeguard training is learning how to keep the victim from killing you. One victim is bad enough, now multiply that by the five or six that might be in arms reach, all trying to get ahold of you and push you under so they can stay above water. I'll take my chances with dumbo at the 7-11.

Military/Police/Firemen/EMT scenarios are not what this thread is about - it is about the ordinary Joe citizen/civilian with a ccw that stumbles onto a situation where he may be able to save a crime victim (not an accident victim) from harm, and what obligation does he owe a perfect stranger who hasn't taken the time and effort to arm himself to avoid being a victim. Without a very specific scenario all we can do is generalize.
Click to expand...
 
Lifeguard Training

Tank Soldier, Thanks for an interesting discussion and being consistent in your points. I had the Red Cross lifesaving training and worked summer jobs in college, long ago, as a lifeguard. Rescued a few while doing it, too. But as you point out, a great deal of the training was directed at controlling the potential drowning victim, so that you didn't drown, too. The bottom line of the training, all those years ago, was that if you got to one you couldn't control, get the heck out of there and let them drown.

There is a difference, for most people, between being a civilian and being a professional soldier or law enforcement officer or EMT. A civilian gets to pick their battles. If the situation is unclear or the odds are too bad, now that I'm a civilian, I can walk away. The professionals and especially the military professionals don't have it so easy. God bless them.

(By the way, the movie allusion from "Unforgiven" in my last post, "he should have armed himself," was highly relevant. I was talking about not saving an unarmed Democrat. That saloon in the movie was full of "Democrats," disarmed by Gene Hackman's gun-grabbing sheriff character and trusting him to take care of them.)
 
Legally I agree there is a difference. Morally, IMO, there is not. The aid you give may differ based on your ability or training, but the moral obligation to render the best aid you are able, to do SOMETHING even if it is only hold the hand of the injured and give comfort, is still there.


There is a difference, for most people, between being a civilian and being a professional soldier or law enforcement officer or EMT. A civilian gets to pick their battles. If the situation is unclear or the odds are too bad, now that I'm a civilian, I can walk away. The professionals and especially the military professionals don't have it so easy. God bless them.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top