Your moral obligation to help innocents at risk?
- Thread starter AAshooter
- Start date
My state (WA) now has a Good Sam law that mandates at the least calling 911 if a crime is seen in progress where someone is in danger. State law also absolves someone from suit if they are trying to help someone in danger for most instances. Also anyone acting at the direction of a LEO is exempt from suit if they follow instructions even if they include use of force! Things get a little tangled here.....
Quoted from above: " . . . anyone acting at the direction of a LEO is exempt from suit if they follow instructions."
Wow, is that common? It sounds pretty unusual.
So if he tells me to shoot the bad guy and I miss hitting an innocent, am I on the hook for not following the instructions???
Wow, is that common? It sounds pretty unusual.
So if he tells me to shoot the bad guy and I miss hitting an innocent, am I on the hook for not following the instructions???
Food for thought. As a matter of law, LEOs are not obligated to protect citizens. I think that has been made clear in any number of courts. So I assume that, legally speaking, citizens are under no obligation to protect one another. Therefore I believe that if you see a person in danger you can walk away from it legally. That takes care of the legal part.
Then comes the upbringing part. Depending on your upbringing you may or may not see it as an obligation. My guess is that big city kids will be brought up to stay out of other peoples problems more than small town and country kids. That is of course a broad generalization, but I bet it is true most of the time.
Then comes the obligation to your own family part. If you have dependents you owe more to them than you do to strangers (in my opinion) so that helping strangers is OK as long as it is not going to interfere with remaining alive and in stable condition for your dependents. This one gets mixed in with the pure survival part of not getting into situations that will end with your death.
I think it boils down to what are the odds that you will not make things worse, that you can actually help, and come through alive and healthy. Weigh those factors and you should get the answer to go or no go.
Then comes the upbringing part. Depending on your upbringing you may or may not see it as an obligation. My guess is that big city kids will be brought up to stay out of other peoples problems more than small town and country kids. That is of course a broad generalization, but I bet it is true most of the time.
Then comes the obligation to your own family part. If you have dependents you owe more to them than you do to strangers (in my opinion) so that helping strangers is OK as long as it is not going to interfere with remaining alive and in stable condition for your dependents. This one gets mixed in with the pure survival part of not getting into situations that will end with your death.
I think it boils down to what are the odds that you will not make things worse, that you can actually help, and come through alive and healthy. Weigh those factors and you should get the answer to go or no go.
There seems to be an attitude here that depends on supposition that the person is to stupid to arm themselves.
What if the person is 20 years old, what if he or she is a Lautenberg victim, or had been convicted of a felony many years ago
About two weeks after I turned 18 I got into a bad fight with a kid that was 17 and 10 months old.
I drew a good judge who agreed to with hold adjudication if I joined the army.
If not, in all likelihood, I would have been convicted of a violent felony and 25 years later would not be allowed to own a gun.
If you agree that you have an obligation to help those in need.
Should you stop to analyze whether that person has chosen to be a victim or has has that choice made for them?
Dust_Devil
New member
Depends on the situation.
Morally one should always help another in danger, but it must be put in consideration that how much good will you be doing if you put your own life at risk, how much risk and what about your own family's loss because you wanted to play hero.
Let's look at something not involving a gun fight.
Let's say you saw someone fall off a boat in a lake. The person has no life vest and cannot swim.
You knowing how to swim, have a moral right to jump in the lake and try to save the victim.
But what if you didn't know how to swim yourself or the person drowning was caught in a flood of rushing waters and jumping in yourself without proper equipment could mean death for yourself. At that point, all you can do is call for help and painfully watch.
Morally one should always help another in danger, but it must be put in consideration that how much good will you be doing if you put your own life at risk, how much risk and what about your own family's loss because you wanted to play hero.
Let's look at something not involving a gun fight.
Let's say you saw someone fall off a boat in a lake. The person has no life vest and cannot swim.
You knowing how to swim, have a moral right to jump in the lake and try to save the victim.
But what if you didn't know how to swim yourself or the person drowning was caught in a flood of rushing waters and jumping in yourself without proper equipment could mean death for yourself. At that point, all you can do is call for help and painfully watch.
kennybs plbg
New member
No at that point I'd be looking for a rope, ladder, pole, anything, but I could not just painfully watch. I don't think most people would or could, well maybe a few here could.
kenny b
Dust_Devil
New member
You are right, but I was trying to say after all one could do. Of course if the person is that close to you where you can grab a tree branch or something, then of course at least try that or something, but when a person is drowning, how much time do you expect to be running around looking for a rope, ladder, pole conveniently sitting on the shore by a lake.
I understand what DD meant and he is correct.
There will be times where, in spite of our good intentions and belief in our obligation to help, all we can do is watch the train wreck.
And feel bad about it
If we accept that in a life or death situation we will do all that we can.
We must also accept that sometimes it won't be enough.
And dying in a hopeless situation just to prove that I will help does nobody any good
There will be times where, in spite of our good intentions and belief in our obligation to help, all we can do is watch the train wreck.
And feel bad about it
If we accept that in a life or death situation we will do all that we can.
We must also accept that sometimes it won't be enough.
And dying in a hopeless situation just to prove that I will help does nobody any good
Sorry to disagree, but it is never the case that all you can do is to watch the train wreck. You can call for help, even if it is after the fact, you can be a witness to help figure out what happened and perhaps preventing it from happening again, you can help the people suffering, even those not directly involved, you can help secure the area and keep it from getting worse, etc.
Yes, it is true that you can not always save someone and you will do no good by dying just to say that you tried to save them since that results in just another death.
You need to think before acting to ensure that you are doing good. For example, if you see several people down in an enclosed room, it might be best to not go in and instead just call for help and keep others out unless they have protection and/or an air supply.
Yes, it is true that you can not always save someone and you will do no good by dying just to say that you tried to save them since that results in just another death.
You need to think before acting to ensure that you are doing good. For example, if you see several people down in an enclosed room, it might be best to not go in and instead just call for help and keep others out unless they have protection and/or an air supply.
It is all part of the question as there is not a time limit. I also answered the question in saying that you should do all that you can without putting yourself in too much risk. There are too many shades of gray to give a specific answer and you need to make sure that you are helping the person in need before acting, rather than helping the wrong person.
Do you really think that it is splitting hairs to say that if you can not prevent any harm, that it is better to help them after harm instead of running away?
Do you really think that it is splitting hairs to say that if you can not prevent any harm, that it is better to help them after harm instead of running away?
USP45usp: +1 to your post #117.
And for Glenn, I wrote:
If you choose not to believe, fine thats your choice. You can sit and read your books and analyze all your facts and data, and think everything to death if you want. Meanwhile someone dies while you assess the risks involved. My point was that if everyone did that, no one would ever get helped. If eveyone thought about self preservation above helping others in crisis, this world would be an even worse place. I speak from personal experiences in my own life. There are others on this board who have put themselves in harms way for others, and do so everyday. Why do they do it? Who gives a rats *** WHY they do it. THEY DO IT. Thats all that matters.
And I sort of get your point, that you don't think people would ABSOLUTELY, EVERYTIME, risk thier lives to save someone else, that there are "factors" to morality and ethics and bravery.
I'm just really, really glad you are wrong......
And for Glenn, I wrote:
If you choose not to believe, fine thats your choice. You can sit and read your books and analyze all your facts and data, and think everything to death if you want. Meanwhile someone dies while you assess the risks involved. My point was that if everyone did that, no one would ever get helped. If eveyone thought about self preservation above helping others in crisis, this world would be an even worse place. I speak from personal experiences in my own life. There are others on this board who have put themselves in harms way for others, and do so everyday. Why do they do it? Who gives a rats *** WHY they do it. THEY DO IT. Thats all that matters.
And I sort of get your point, that you don't think people would ABSOLUTELY, EVERYTIME, risk thier lives to save someone else, that there are "factors" to morality and ethics and bravery.
I'm just really, really glad you are wrong......
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Whatever, the gun world likes to talk in absolutes - unfortunately, we know better about behavior. Good people easily do bad things under certain circumstances and vice versa.
If people don't want to believe that for reasons of self-image, I really don't care.
I talk to the informed reader who might want to know what determines altruism. We have known for a long time that people's introspections really are bad predictors of behavior in many situations.
If people don't want to believe that for reasons of self-image, I really don't care.
I talk to the informed reader who might want to know what determines altruism. We have known for a long time that people's introspections really are bad predictors of behavior in many situations.
stephen426
New member
Sorry if this has already been posted, but I don't have time right now to read through 6 pages of responses...
If someone's life is in danger and there is a good chance to save that person without endangering others(multiple bystanders or a distant shot), I would most probably act. If we are talking about preventing a property crime (someone else's, not my own), I would not draw my gun. I would call the police and try to be a good witness, but using lethal force to protect someone else's property does not make much sense to me. Now if this was a convenience store type robbery and the robber was waving a gun around at everyone who was in the store, I would consider that a potential deadly threat and probably pop him in the melon!
Inaction is not always the same as cowardice. You really have to think of your family and the long term risks before jumping in to play hero. With the power of the internet, how hard would it be for gang bangers to find where you live and avenge their fallen brother? What about the civil law suits that are sure to follow because you killed "someone's precious baby who never meant to harm no body"?
Like I said, life or death situations dictate that one take action to aid another person who is not able to defend themself. I am not a police officer and my concealed weapons permit does not make me a free lance police officer. Property crimes will have to be handled by the police which I will be glad to call.
If someone's life is in danger and there is a good chance to save that person without endangering others(multiple bystanders or a distant shot), I would most probably act. If we are talking about preventing a property crime (someone else's, not my own), I would not draw my gun. I would call the police and try to be a good witness, but using lethal force to protect someone else's property does not make much sense to me. Now if this was a convenience store type robbery and the robber was waving a gun around at everyone who was in the store, I would consider that a potential deadly threat and probably pop him in the melon!
Inaction is not always the same as cowardice. You really have to think of your family and the long term risks before jumping in to play hero. With the power of the internet, how hard would it be for gang bangers to find where you live and avenge their fallen brother? What about the civil law suits that are sure to follow because you killed "someone's precious baby who never meant to harm no body"?
Like I said, life or death situations dictate that one take action to aid another person who is not able to defend themself. I am not a police officer and my concealed weapons permit does not make me a free lance police officer. Property crimes will have to be handled by the police which I will be glad to call.
