Would you Intervene?

Hypnogator

February 9, 2003, 07:43 PM

I've been very gratified by the number of responses to date. FWIW, I would, of course, intervene. I'm a retired Fed, and teach judgmental shooting tactics for a living, so I simply can't conceive of doing anything else.

IMHO, Motorep and AHenry supplied the best reasons. Men after my own heart.

Although I didn't specify manner of dress other than ski masks, it would be difficult to construe this as a police raid, without the officers being in uniforms (or coveralls) clearly marked "POLICE". Urban legend to the contrary, officers executing raids wearing "tactical" gear always wear well-marked uniforms. I would think it would be rather obvious that these guys aren't cops.

Moreover, I would feel compelled to challenge them before shooting. Officers would identify themselves, bad guys wouldn't.

February 9, 2003, 07:47 PM

With what is described and with what is going on lately --
You might be witnessing an arest:rolleyes:
There was a case recently -- I think it was on listed these boards as well--
Where a female officer was enforcing an arrest warrant in a convience store wearing a Ski-Mask as she was an undercover officer. She was shot by convience store owner/clerk=-=

You don't always know what is going on--

Double Naught Spy

February 9, 2003, 07:47 PM

For some of you who say you would intervene because you owe it to society, if you were in the red pickup truck at Dallas Pistol Club this weekend and shooting the big Anaconda, trust me, society will make it without your help and probably be better off.

El Tejon

February 9, 2003, 08:09 PM

Hypno, well, maybe it's a good idea for the po-po to identify themselves via uniforms but they do not. Remember the thread on on the drugstore shooting of the copchick in Tejas?

She was DTF wearing the obligatory "Iwannabeacoolmallninja" ski mask and ran into the store with her pistola waving about in true movie fashion. BANG, down she goes. Oops!

Remember the photos of the mall ninjas during the sniper rampage on the East Coast? Waving guns around with masks just like your scenario. Shoot them too?

All kinds of raids, even non-DTF, are taking place now where the po-po, after intense movie and television research (they never shoot each other on "the tee vee), do not even wear "POLICE" windbreakers.

Shooting without knowing may be construed as reckless and setting yourself up for a BIG Problem #2.

Stephen Ewing

February 9, 2003, 09:13 PM

El Tejon, may I submit that you've missed what I believe to be the most important thing about the clothing smart police wear so they don't get shot by mistake?

YOU AND I AREN"T WEARING IT.

Just something to think about. I owe it to the women in my life (probably the guys, too) not to get shot playing hero for a stranger doing heaven knows what.

Steve

P95Carry

February 9, 2003, 09:35 PM

Just a further observation re clothing .. the chick who got gunned down was (IMO) wearing all the wrong gear .... and this makes it pretty plain to me that LEO's should definitely be identifiable .. for their own safety.

It does not take much imagination to come up with numerous scenarios, where masked ''people'' are acting suspiciously and inherently violently also ...... being then seen as both a threat and ''bad guys''.

Cops are in the line of fire often enough anyways ... so why risk only ninja gear and no obvious display of their status. As a few have mentioned, in this scene we have been given to analyze .... just imagine it's your daughter or Mom in the hostage position ..... makes for a clearer potential decision making methinks.!

Art Eatman

February 9, 2003, 09:59 PM

I would not at all recognize such masked doofi as LEOs. Sorry 'bout that. The behavior doesn't match rational LEO procedure, to the best of my limited experience or knowledge.

Given the circumstances as described? Subject to a smidgen of time to be sure of "the deal", I'd shoot. Texas law is specific that I can do so. The issue is whether I had cause to believe they would be ongoing dangers to the public--and I submit that armed kidnappers would indeed be ongoing dangers.

Caveats: Safe background, as in no innocents in the line of fire. Reasonably positive of my shot placement.

Ask yourselves: In the same situation as described in the opening post, what would a uniformed patrolman likely do?

It would never at all occur to me that I was shooting Bad Guys for "society's sake". I would shoot because it seemed the right thing to do.

Art

DeltaElite

February 9, 2003, 10:07 PM

Two of them one of me.
Headshot for the first one.
Now one on one, assuming he doesn't just surrender after seeing his buddy get splattered.

Oops, gotta go the men in the white coats with those happy pills are coming. :D

ahenry

February 10, 2003, 12:15 AM

Hypno, well, maybe it's a good idea for the po-po to identify themselves via uniforms but they do not. Remember the thread on on the drugstore shooting of the copchick in Tejas?

She was DTF wearing the obligatory "Iwannabeacoolmallninja" ski mask and ran into the store with her pistola waving about in true movie fashion. BANG, down she goes. Oops! Ok el tejon, since you seem to be such an expert on “problem #2”, why don’t you tell us all just how the drugstore clerk has been impacted by the dreaded problem. Come on, edumacate us all here. We all await your wisdom on this terrible, awful and horrific “problem #2”. :rolleyes: You talk big smack about this issue, back it up.

Diesle

February 10, 2003, 01:42 AM

My guns are to help protect me and my family. Additionally, I am responsible for protecting my guns. If no threat is emminent on any of the above, it wont come out of the holster.

It looks like, in this instance, I execute my best option for retreat and cover and be the best witness I can be.

Diesle

El Tejon

February 10, 2003, 07:25 AM

ahenry, the clerk in the drugstore could be:

1. criminally prosecuted for a variety of offenses;
2. sued in civil court;
3. subject to administrative revocation of his carry permit;
4. have his premise liability insurance premiums raised;
5. face a decreased amount of business from those that refuse to do business with someone who hurts another;
6. subject to mall ninja harrassment for hurting a fellow officer;
7. emotional distress of hurting another human being.

Does not mean it will happen, just that it may. The point being in Hypo's scenario no one knows. If you do not know what is going on, you should not be jumping in hurting people because you think you are doing what is right. And, even if you do know what is going, does not mean you should get involved just because you are carrying a pistol. Real life is not gun rag fiction.:(

El Tejon

February 10, 2003, 07:56 AM

Art, I understand your point, which is an excellent one, regarding the objective/subjective standard; however, they can still come after you. Something to take in mind in the cost/benefit analysis.

motorep

February 10, 2003, 08:12 AM

"...they can still come after you..." Anyone can sue you- justified or not. I seem to be hearing echoes of "tiptoeing through life safely" etc.

Delmar

February 10, 2003, 08:25 AM

It's getting to the point where almost anything you do or don't do is going to get you sued. LEO's are tragically shooting other LEO's because one or both of them are not clearly marked and/or the heat of combat has sent their senses into hillbilly overdrive. Tragic, but completely understandable.
Delmar would sick his half Scot-half Italian wife on both of the perps. An ace with a 45, she would then stand over those two and give a painful 2 hour lecture as to why they shouldn't be doing what she caught them at! They wouldn't even consider dragging her into court as the mere thought of hearing her barking at them yet again would cause their sphincter to slam shut like Buick car door:what:

Hand_Rifle_Guy

February 10, 2003, 09:41 AM

Much as I might want to help, I think I have to stay out of this one. Here in the PRK interfering in such a situation when I'm not a cop and not in direct danger would assuredly land me in jail.

Of course, here in the PRK the whole CCW thing is rather moot, so I wouldn't have a gun in the first place. Helping out without a CCW would get me in trouble too. Cops round hereabouts have a bit of that British mentality about 'em that inspires 'em to apply offences to anyone who's silly enough to stick around, and would likely arrest me after I stopped the afray.

Shooting to rescue and then running away to avoid arrest does NOT appeal to me. Price I pay for honesty and integrity.

Stupid state. :(

Felonious Monk

February 10, 2003, 09:52 AM

I have to say that I am REALLY disappointed and alarmed that when I voted (NO) on the question "would you intervene", that SIXTY ONE PERCENT of you had said yes. :(

I fault Hypnogator for the misleading and unbiased wording ("No, I'm not my brother's keeper" vs. "Yes, I owe it to society" makes it sound like I'm an @$$hole if I DON'T intervene, and a Good Citizen in a White Hat if I do.)
That fact ALONE has probably skewed the numbers. :rolleyes:

Nevertheless, if the girl is not my IMMEDIATE family, taken from MY place of biz or while accompanying me, you are WRONG to shoot.

El Tejon came up with several, but here's yet ANOTHER scenario where you would have put your bullets where they did not belong:

Girl is 17 and under age. Has been brainwashed into the Unification Sri-Krishna Holy Jim Jones Society of The Reverend Moon Unit Zappa, and is selling roses and Kahr handguns ;) inside the establishment.
Suddenly, "Cult-Busters", hired by her parents do a tactical extraction, go in and remove her. Not wanting to go, she's screaming her head off, and you just popped the folks her parents hired to bring Dorothy back to Kansas.

Hello? Are we really itching that badly to take another human life?
Please, friends. Unless you're wearing a badge, pulling the trigger is a LAST option, in the GRAVEST extreme, to protect life limb and loved ones.

ahenry

February 10, 2003, 10:02 AM

el tejon,

Sure “bad things” might happen, and I might get struck by lightning from a clear and cloudless sky. I’ve asked you a couple of times now, show me good solid evidence of an upstanding member of society doing what a “reasonable man” would interpret to be the right thing and any* of the items on your list happened to him (in this instance it is quite clear a reasonable man would interpret the ski-masked men to be bad and kidnapping the woman). I know our justice system is a little screwy, but it’s not that mixed up yet. I will repeat myself, you talk a lot of smack about “problem #2”, now show us all some solid factual evidence that this thing I should be in mortal fear of actually exists.

*Item 7 is a personal reaction. If you can’t handle the stress of a potential shooting then stop carrying a gun.

Powderman

February 10, 2003, 10:15 AM

This question was posted on some of the other forums.

I answered it then, and I'll answer it now.

1. Shots fired?

2. Unknown personnel in ski masks, backing out of the store?

3. A HOSTAGE, for crying out loud? Being dragged to a car?

4. You, there, with a gun that you can use?

If you have a CCW, and you DON'T intervene, YOU AREN'T WORTH WARM SPIT. Period. End of story.

I give less than a :cuss: if you are a cop or not. You can not stand by and call yourself a human being if you are willing to let another person go to almost certain torture and death and NOT do something.

For the folks who said they would intervene--You have my respect.

For the folks who said that they would not--well, let's say you have considerably less than my respect.

Flame on, folks!! I don't give a rip.

Felonious Monk

February 10, 2003, 10:20 AM

Yeah Boy, Powderman!

And "He Needed Killin' " is a legitimate murder defense! :rolleyes:

Kill 'Em All. Let Allah sort 'em out!
ah-RUaahhh!

God, I hope the lurkers from congressional offices and fence-sitters don't come across this thread! Talk about Redneck Rampage!

ojibweindian

February 10, 2003, 10:56 AM

It is rather disconcerting that some here are weighing the potential of a lawsuit against the potential saving of a life.

I hope my kids aren't in that situation when some of y'all are around. And, BTW, if it was your child in that very same situation and I'm there, I will do my damndest to save him/her, even if it means my death.

Beren

February 10, 2003, 11:03 AM

Well, this is a tough one. I'm presented with at least one armed opponent, and one may reasonably assume that there are at least two more potentially-armed opponents in close proximity. Perhaps more, depending on the vehicle.

1. Seek cover, draw firearm but keep it somewhat concealed.

2. Note license plate, make, model of suspect vehicle.

3. Call 911 and relay the information.

The most I could envision myself doing is attempting to disable the vehicle itself. It's stationary. If I could reasonably hit a moving opponent in the chest, then I could reasonably hit a stationary tire at the same range.

Assuming I did fire shots to disable or impair the vehicle, I would immediately retreat back through the store and attempt to exit the rear.

I would attempt to vacate the scene as quickly as possible after firing shots. I wouldn't want to sit around waiting for some angry armed alleged kidnappers coming around to find who just took some pot shots at their car.

I would then contact my lawyer, explain the actions taken, and follow his advice.

Why?

I'm not skilled enough to take on multiple armed opponents in a hostage situation without risking the death of the hostage. Assuming this is occuring in an urban environment where police response is typically within five minutes, I would not attempt to engage the opponents directly.

My preferred solution would be to buy additional time for a police response, if possible.

A man's got to know his limitations.

TheeBadOne

February 10, 2003, 11:16 AM

It is rather disconcerting that some here are weighing the potential of a lawsuit against the potential saving of a life.
It is an unfortunate fact and statement of where we are in the US. Justified shooting or not, you CAN expect to be sued, period. Look at some of the Police shootings that are unquestionably justified, there is always a lawsuit against them. Doesn't matter that Joe **** the ragass had a raps sheet 10 miles long, was high on meth, had fired shots at neighbors and police, etc. As seen on here many times over, the same arguement will come up with your case, "There must have been something else you could have done". Why did you have to shoot them, couldn't you have just called 911? Why didn't you shoot the gun out of his hand? Why didn't you just have them drop their guns? Why didn't you use mace? Etc etc etc.

You would quickly find out what it's like to be on the recieving end of a large segment of "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" who know for sure they could have done it differently, better, and much safer. I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from their chosen course, but making sure they understand what they're in for. Stay safe, stay smart.

P95Carry

February 10, 2003, 11:26 AM

I will just add this small caveat ......

IMO if a felon is proven to be such .. and has been injured or taken out in the committal of his crime, then he should AUTOMATICALLY lose all his rights regarding law suits against his ''attackers''. And that should run to include his family also ... so often the thorn in the side after defence cases.

I am not saying the perp has NO rights left ... he is still a human being (hmmm .. sometimes some doubts there too) ..... but this litigious kick back so often seen would be negated or at least rendered half way sensible.

The only ''trial'' brought against a defence shooting should be solely to ascertain the merits or demerits of the instance ... beyond that ... zilch, nada ......

OK I am being a tad dogmatic here .... there are sometimes factors that mitigate ... but, you maybe get the principle I am expounding.

ahenry

February 10, 2003, 11:39 AM

Felonious Monk,
God, I hope the lurkers from congressional offices and fence-sitters don't come across this thread! Talk about Redneck Rampage! If defending somebody that is no longer able to defend themselves from those that wish her harm is a “redneck rampage” then count me in. However, I suspect it is more along the lines of gentlemanly behavior. Of course, it could be argued that “rednecks” know more about that anyway...

Theebadone,
It is an unfortunate fact and statement of where we are in the US. Justified shooting or not, you CAN expect to be sued, period. Ok, I’ll ask you to do the same thing I asked el tejon, show me the proof. In order to be sued you first have to be shown guilty of a wrongful death, not always so easy. Second, practically speaking you have to have some assets worth going to court over. As much as I wish that was the case for me, its not, and I don’t think too many people have the “deep pockets” of say a police agency, or McDonalds, or Microsoft.

Look at some of the Police shootings that are unquestionably justified, there is always a lawsuit against them. Like it or not, police are held to a different standard (at least in public perception) than the normal "reasonable man". Again, how many of those lawsuits are settled out of court because of the essentially bottomless pockets of the city?

ojibweindian

February 10, 2003, 11:39 AM

To be frank, I would rather deal with the "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" and the lawsuits than live with the fact that I could have done something to save a life and instead did nothing. My conscience would compell me to act.

vi9er

February 10, 2003, 12:03 PM

I don't think i could look in the mirror if I let someone get kidnapped. Maybe I'm just a throwback to an earlier time, and feel that we should look out for each other, or maybe my dad just raised me with a sense of right and wrong, or maybe i feel it's my christian duty. If that makes me a redneck, well, I've been called worse by better.
Think of how you would feel if you woke up the next morning, turned on the news and saw that the very girl that you could have saved was found raped, tortured and mutilated before been killed and dumped on the side of the road. I would hope that you would feel shame. God knows I would.
Ed

Edward429451

February 10, 2003, 12:05 PM

You can expect to be sued regardless of its cult busters, police or a real perp. Criminal, Civil, whatever. First things first. You've got exigent circumstances, an immediately developing crises and you have the power to help and save a life. What do you do? What DO you do?

It might be undercover LEO. (Should've been dressed appropriately. Dont like it? Find other employment.)

It might be cult busters. (Millions of guns on the street and someone wants to play super hero without risks? Fantasy, find a real job.)

It might be a real perp. (Oh God, if I shoot him I'll be sued and jailed. If you dont, hey its only someone elses life, not you or yours.)(Good luck mamm, I'll watch the news to see if you lived? good one.)

It might be a lawyer. (Quick wheres my extra mags, I'm out already.)

What a bunch of worms and cowards our country's becoming. I'd cap the armed one first and hope the other runs. If he did then I'd run. (Who was that non masked man?)

I assert that it'd send a good message if any of the above were the deal. Besides, it could reasonably be assumed that its not police, she'd be cuffed before they brought her out, dont you people watch COPS?
I'd feel like *I* killed her if I didnt intervene. Sue me all you want to, worms. I'll still do whats right.

El Tejon

February 10, 2003, 12:19 PM

ahenry, so if I show them to you, will you then believe that Problem #2 exists despite what the gun rags tell you? They happen every day, some are reported here and on TFL.

If you think you could shoot a drug task force police officer or an innocent and handle the stress, then you must be one tough cookie. Using violence against people will stay with you and haunt you, especially if those you hurt are not worthy of it. Even if worthy, you will think "what if" and shudder for a long, long time.

My point, among others, being is you do not know what is going on in the outlined scenario. Why put yourself and many others in danger?

Felonious Monk

February 10, 2003, 12:28 PM

Beren--glad to see you thinking it through.

ahenry--If defending somebody that is no longer able to defend themselves from those that wish her harm is a “redneck rampage” then count me in. My only problem with this is that *as I laid out the scenario* in my first post, you would have shot people who were asked by the family to help remove a minor from a situation. Sure you're okay with this? REALLY?
If so...that's EXACTLY my problem with everyone's response to "shoot first, ask questions later". Things are not always as they seem. I recall a TFL member posting that he came home, armed, while his teenage kids were rehearsing a play and came screaming out the front door...in a ski mask. Shoot in haste, repent at leisure. I'm just not that "cavalier" about it.

And...I don't KNOW that I wouldn't have SHOT in the heat of the moment and lived to (maybe) regret it. Or I might have shot and stopped a situation that was quickly going "south".

Also, whether I am or am not sued as a result has NO bearing on my decision, as I am assuming I will be sued in ANY shooting scenario.

OF COURSE you take steps to stop it. If I had all the time in the world, I'd do like Beren said: Take cover, get a license #, call 911, yell for them to stop, and shoot out a tire if possible. I could live with myself knowing I had not killed someone in error, knowing that I did all of those other things.

El Tejon

February 10, 2003, 12:45 PM

Felonious, indeed, remember the TFL threads about people jumping out of closets at others?

I remember a little girl dying in her Daddy's arms. Do we say, "too bad, she'll never do that again, serves her right"?

I remember a girlfriend jumping out of a closet and her boyfriend shooting her. Do we say "let Allah sort them out, that's what's right"?

Isn't the Fourth Rule to know your target?!?! We do not here.

As the wise man in Tejas sez, anyone can get in a fight, we train to avoid fights, not to seek them out. Why subject oneself to danger with lots of unknown variables in Problem #1 or #2?

Felonious Monk

February 10, 2003, 12:50 PM

Okay...I went back to re-read the question, and I had ASSUMED the issue to be "would you SHOOT"? If I'm reading it correctly, it DOES NOT ASK THIS:
You are walking alone down a city street, carrying your favorite "serious social occasions" weapon, for which you have a CCW Permit. Suddenly, you hear a gunshot and a scream coming from a store a few yards in front of you. Being a perceptive type, you deduce something is amiss, so you duck into an adjacent doorway, which provides excellent cover. Suddenly the door to a store two doors ahead of you bursts open, and a male wearing a ski mask and holding a pistol emerges, followed closely by a second masked male, not visibly armed, dragging a screaming female clerk with him. The two head for a car parked with the engine running, dragging the girl with them. Would you intervene?And, based on the question, I Flubbed my answer. I WOULD *intervene*, just as Beren outlined earlier. That qualified, I voted NO, and should have voted YES to the question.
I am NOT CHANGING my stance, I STILL would like to think shooting one of the MIB would only be the LAST option, and as stated, I don't think there is sufficient cause for an armed non-LEO to shoot the guys.

Edward429451

February 10, 2003, 12:54 PM

So if I'm reading you right, the moral of the story is 'Dont EVER get involved and try to help, cause theres always 'a chance' that you'll be wrong?'

:confused: :scrutiny:

Felonious Monk

February 10, 2003, 12:57 PM

Edward: 2 different questions:
1) Do you INTERVENE?
2) Do you SHOOT (a person)?

As laid out in Hypnogator's scenario, the answers, in order, FOR ME, are
1) Yes
2) No

Edward429451

February 10, 2003, 01:09 PM

Whoops, you slipped in your post before I was done typing. I was actually addressing El Tejon.

The way it was laid out, you heard a shot right before the came out the store with the girl. Hmmm, what could that mean? Either the store owners had shot at them (in defense? leaving the reasonable impression that they were BG's exiting with a hostage/victim) or that they (suspects) had fired at the store people (leaving the reasonable impression that they were scum and just murdered someone).

I think its reasonable to assume that LEO's, cult busters, or a private eye finding a runaway or such would not exit the store when shots were fired, but stay to help wounded and / or wait for backup etc, certainly not dragging a girl.

Or am I missing something?

ahenry

February 10, 2003, 01:11 PM

el tejon,
ahenry, so if I show them to you, will you then believe that Problem #2 exists despite what the gun rags tell you? They happen every day, some are reported here and on TFL. Sure, as long as its compared (you wouldn’t have to do this though) to the number of shootings that don’t have “problem #2” issues. Allow me to clarify something however. I do not mean to imply that there is no risk of being sued or going to jail, or other such issues. What I am trying to say is that the risk is way overblown (sorta like the risk of loading your own self-defense loads; sounds dicey in theory but is it really a risk?). So go ahead, show me cases where there is a clear “good guy” doing something that everybody would unequivocally agree was the right thing, but is now in jail or was sued. It happens, but not like you think it does.

If you think you could shoot a drug task force police officer or an innocent and handle the stress, then you must be one tough cookie. Using violence against people will stay with you and haunt you, especially if those you hurt are not worthy of it. Even if worthy, you will think "what if" and shudder for a long, long time. I dunno about being “one tough cookie”, but I do know that I will do my best to accurately interpret what is in front of me and then act accordingly. If I interpreted incorrectly so be it. I’ll live with it. I’d far rather risk that than live with the death of an innocent person on my conscience because I was too scared of the potential risks. Life is full of risks and you can choose to do your best or you can choose to never risk anything. You make your choice, but let me make mine.

Why subject oneself to danger with lots of unknown variables in Problem #1 or #2? Because there is almost no doubt that in this specific scenario an innocent woman is being kidnapped and will probably be rapped and killed. Anybody can come up with far-flung, off the wall, explanations to what’s going on, but any reasonable person could safely assume that the worst is happening. If you can live with yourself after cowering in the corner because of the potential risks of “problem #1 or#2” then so be it. I just hope there aren’t people like you around if one of my loved ones ever needs help.

Felonious Monk,
My only problem with this is that *as I laid out the scenario* in my first post, you would have shot people who were asked by the family to help remove a minor from a situation. Sure you're okay with this? REALLY? Of course I’m not ok with shooting somebody that was just trying to “save a family member” (pretty far out there scenario if you ask me though). Thats what I have a tongue for. Did you somehow get the idea I was just going to open up on these guys? Come on! Use your head.

Felonious Monk

February 10, 2003, 01:25 PM

Okay...

I want to say THANKS to ahenry, Edward, and all.
This REALLY makes me think. And while it IS Monday Morning QB'ing, the one thing it tells me is that I need some more defensive scenario training, 'cause in truth, I don't really KNOW how I would react in an intense, real-life SHTF situation like this.

Gimme some points for being honest, eh?
Newsflash: I don't know it all. Despite the rumors. :D

Iron sharpens iron and all that jazz.

King

February 10, 2003, 01:35 PM

Shots fired. You have "good" cover. Masked / armed guys are dragging a screaming clerk (must have been in a uniform). Get- away car awaits. Do you intervene?

Intervene (by my definition) means stop the action if you can? That further assumes that you have the skill, the tools, the motivation to act and to act without hurting an innocent bystander or getting yourself killed.

The answer still has to be yes (to me).

Masked guys aren't repo'ing a car, they aren't police, they are BG's. No action equal shades of Kitty Genovese otherwise(IMO).

I know that doesn't matter to those of you who justify not taking any action or that getting a license number and reporting it is an acceptable intervention measure. You have your reasons. However, it appears that most of us would intervene.

And that's the way it should be.......if more people act to intervene when BG's are hurting innocent people, maybe we can make BG's believe that there are risks to "their" actions. In this scenario, they apparently think they can get away with it.

El Tejon

February 10, 2003, 01:41 PM

Ed, I think that's exactly what we don't know. I've seen the police do all kinds of things. My thinking on this, as prejudiced as I am by doing what I do, if I do not know beyond a reasonable doubt, I will not shoot. In the case at bar, I don't know what's going on. I think you and ahenry have made solid points to justify a shooting that may or may not save the day; however, I prefer avoidance to defense.

ahenry, Problem #2 only need happen once, to you. Perhaps I do make to much of the "worst case scenario." Maybe I do because if this not what happened, I would not be needed. Maybe I just don't want any GGs to go down without knowing the consequences of their actions.

Maybe you can live with the costs associated with intrevening, but everyone should be aware of what may come. There's an ugly underbelly to all of this, but the gun rags never tell you that, just the heroic outcomes. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

Edward429451

February 10, 2003, 02:03 PM

however, I prefer avoidance to defense.

But, she needs your help and you're right there...:confused:

TheeBadOne

February 10, 2003, 02:13 PM

ahenry-
show me the proof
Apparently you're not familar with civil law. You can sue anybody for anything, silly or not.
----------------------------------

Lots of good stuff on this thread, lots to think about. I notice quite a few say "too bad" if it turns out to be some schmoe doing something dumb and gets smoked. It seems you all are taking it quite a bit easier on the "shooters" in this thread than any cop related shooting in the news. Double standard? Quite a few are of the opinion that if someone is a felon, they can be smoked w/o reguard to due process or civil rights...

ahenry

February 10, 2003, 02:15 PM

I prefer avoidance to defense Too late to avoid this one. You’re there, she is being dragged away by men that appear to be shooting others and they are wearing masks. Intervene or no?

ahenry, Problem #2 only need happen once, to you. True. However, when I look at the potential for this happening, I have to see how common an occurrence it is. Walking down the street involves the possibility that I will be hit by a car. Is there really much risk of that happening to me though? Well a smart person looks at all the data available. I’m asking you to show me that there is a significant risk. Actually I’m asking you to show me that there is really any risk at all.

Maybe you can live with the costs associated with intrevening, but everyone should be aware of what may come. Absolutely. However I don’t think you were going after warning people as much as you were trying to convince them of the error of intervening. Or did I misinterpret?

ahenry

February 10, 2003, 02:21 PM

Apparently you're not familar with civil law. You can sue anybody for anything, silly or not. You’re right you can. However you have to show some form of culpability in order to win and be awarded your millions. Granted culpability has become ridiculous in recent years but I still contend that those of us do what a reasonable man would clearly consider to be the right thing, are not at that great of a risk of suit, at least not like you seem to be suggesting. I will reiterate, show me the proof.

It seems you all are taking it quite a bit easier on the "shooters" in this thread than any cop related shooting in the news. Double standard? Absolutely there is a double standard. There should be a double standard. I want there to be a double standard. I am glad there is a double standard. Any questions?

El Tejon

February 10, 2003, 02:27 PM

ahenry,

"error v. warn" Based on the costs to do so I would not intrevene. One should be aware of the costs so he can make that decision on his own. I am in no danger, I would not. If they look around to kill witnesses, then it changes a lot.

I avoid as wise man in Tejas sez, "you just let an unarmed man be killed--he should have armed himself." I have no duty to intrevene, I will not, I avoid. You cannot save the world, but you may be able to save yourself (also wise man in Tejas).

"risks" Handicap or quantify them? That I cannot as it comes back to a tilecrawler's favorite line--"it depends." If the men in ski masks turn out to be po-po, big risk. If your shots miss or pass through and kill Mrs. McPherson on the sidewalk, big risk. If guys in ski masks have Triple-Is as long as my arm, very little risk.

mjustice

February 10, 2003, 02:37 PM

This one is a toughie for me. Even dumbass New York allows deadly force to terminate kidnapping.

I heard the shot, and now an armed man (in a mask) is leading another masked man dragging some girl out. What if that was my mother/sister/gf? Or someone else's?

If the armed man turned in my direction, I would draw. If I saw any move that would be considered furtive, I would drop him in a heartbeat. These perps may not want to leave any witnesses.

As much as I would want to help this girl, I really cannot say what I would do unless I was there.

MJ

Edward429451

February 10, 2003, 02:37 PM

I notice quite a few say "too bad" if it turns out to be some schmoe doing something dumb and gets smoked. It seems you all are taking it quite a bit easier on the "shooters" in this thread than any cop related shooting in the news. Double standard?

TheeLogicalOne, Why'd you have to say that?:D Maybe it was the ski masks or maybe shots fired already or even the screaming girl being dragged. Dont recall any scenarios where we beat up on the cops where these list of specifics were in place in the cops shooting. So it may not be a double standard. (I didnt yell about the cop who shot the drunk who came out of the trailer with a gun and came at them). I'll chew on this some more. Hmmm.

Diesle

February 10, 2003, 03:36 PM

Hello? Are we really itching that badly to take another human life?

The hammer just hit the head of the ole nail....

Simmer down out there folks, or your going to be in a world of crap for 'doing the right thing'.

Diesle

Diesle

February 10, 2003, 03:40 PM

It is rather disconcerting that some here are weighing the potential of a lawsuit against the potential saving of a life.

Ummm, disconcerting, yes. Unfortunate reality, again yes.

On the other hand, if a shot has been fired, how do you know it wasnt fired at you....

Also, how do you know there isnt a third or fourth person standing behind you or off in the distance snipping....?

Hope Im never in the situation and pray that I make the best available decision if I ever am.

Diesle

ahenry

February 10, 2003, 03:47 PM

"error v. warn" Based on the costs to do so I would not intrevene. Fine by me. I’m not going to try and make you do something you don’t wont to.

I avoid as wise man in Tejas sez, "you just let an unarmed man be killed--he should have armed himself." I have no duty to intrevene, I will not, I avoid. You cannot save the world, but you may be able to save yourself (also wise man in Tejas). First of all, that was Clint Eastwood...in hollywood...in a movie, hardly my idea of wisdom to run my life by but whatever floats your boat. Second of all, you really gotta stop trying to lend credence to your words by claiming “as a wise man in Tejas sez”. I’m taking a wild stab in the dark and guessing you mean Clint Smith. Regardless of who it is, stand up on your own man! If you think the point is valid, voice it. No need to try and make it sound more impressive than one man’s opinion simply because you can say “as a wise man in Tejas sez”. :rolleyes: And lastly, I (and apparently others here as well) value doing what is right above potential personal risks. Before you go off half-cocked, I’m not suggesting somebody jump out and do something stupid. As Beren said, A man’s gotta know his limitations. Fine, if you think you don’t have the ability to accomplish anything at all and decide to just be a witness thats your choice (frankly if you think that then I’d suggest you sell your guns, buy a football helmet and look for somebody to come pad the walls of your house so you can live in safety).

"risks" Handicap or quantify them? That I cannot as it comes back to a tilecrawler's favorite line--"it depends." If the men in ski masks turn out to be po-po, big risk. If your shots miss or pass through and kill Mrs. McPherson on the sidewalk, big risk. If guys in ski masks have Triple-Is as long as my arm, very little risk. I’m not sure I know what you just said, but I’ll give it a stab. There is no “it depends”. You don’t have the luxury of knowing all the facts, you have to make a decision on limited info. Get over it. The world doesn’t give you the luxury of taking your time and discovering little detail. Sometimes you have to do the best you can. That said I will ask one more time, show me the proof of “problem #2” to a reasonable man for intervening in a situation like this.

ahenry

February 10, 2003, 03:51 PM

Might I suggest you make an attempt to know the person of which you accuse eager to kill another before saying such things? That said, of the two reasonably expected outcomes (death to an innocent woman and death to a kidnapper), I’d much rather the latter died.

Diesle

February 10, 2003, 03:55 PM

ahenry,

Do you have a family of your own that your responsible to?

If you don’t, I understand your willingness, and frankly what appears like eagerness, to start shooting.

If you do, Id sure like to hear what your wife thinks about your chivalry....

Nonetheless, thanks for your inputs.

Diesle

Diesle

February 10, 2003, 03:57 PM

Ummm, I am making an attempt. im reading your posts arent I...?

Is your blood pressure an issue for you? (dont answer that...)

Diesle

El Tejon

February 10, 2003, 04:04 PM

ahenry, I'm citing authority of those who know, not the silly bromides of gun shop commandos. Education is key. As Bismarck said, I prefer learn by the mistakes of others.

The Clint Smith quotation (misquoting "Unforgiven") is a correct restatement of the duty to strangers--none. Why anyone would be intent on risking everything, including hurting innocents, when he is in no danger and has no duty to do so is beyond me. "Doing something right" is subjective and can lead to prison, bankruptcy, inter alia.

If you decide not to intrevene, then there are no consequences. If you decide to intrevene and it turns out that you have shot innocents or police officers, there will be dire consequences.

I have no need and have no chip on my shoulder to act rashly to "prove something", "act like a man" or to be a hero. I fail to see how protecting myself by choosing not to intrevene renders me incapable of defending myself if I were to be attacked. One carries a firearm to protect himself, not to become Batman.

P95Carry

February 10, 2003, 04:22 PM

Wow .... has this thread gained some momentum!!!

Much that has been discussed in fact seems to revolve around essentially moralistic issues ... repurcussions of various types etc .. thru action or inaction.

Ultimately I think every one of us would perforce, have to make our best decision ... at the time. Detached analysis of a scenario can only go so far .. because in part of the severe ''what if'' factor.

I would hope none of us does meet with this situation but .. I feel we would all, in our own ways, wish at least to ''do the right thing'' as we see it ...... a split second decision has to be made ... not necessarily helped by an OD of adrenalin ...... and then we act or we turn away.

I shall certainly have this subject in mind a good while yet . it has opened quite a can of worms... usefully I would say.

ahenry

February 10, 2003, 04:36 PM

Do you have a family of your own that your responsible to? Sort of. If you don’t, I understand your willingness, and frankly what appears like eagerness, to start shooting. Frankly, you’re way off base in your interpretation. How many people in this one thread have said they would intervene? You think they all are eager to shoot somebody, or just me because I have defended the reasoning behind the choice? If you do, Id sure like to hear what your wife thinks about your chivalry.... I assume this applies to the family question. I have spoken with my fiancé about this as well as my mother, my grandmothers, my future mother in law and other various females I know to see what they think about this. So far not one thinks I should not intervene. As far as my future wife is concerned, to paraphrase her words, she wouldn’t particularly want me to get myself shot but she would probably think less of me as a man if I wasn’t willing to try and help somebody that needed my help. Is your blood pressure an issue for you? (dont answer that...) Not sure how that applies, but I’ll answer despite your suggestion that I not. ;) I have excellent blood pressure and I am in excellent health. I appreciate your concern though. :p

Diesle

February 10, 2003, 04:46 PM

Understood. And, good luck.

Diesle

Powderman

February 10, 2003, 04:51 PM

Ho-kay, folks!

WHY are there people here attempting to put monetary value on human life?

You know, folks, I might be somewhat simplistic in my views and beliefs, but I believe that there is ample case law that proves:

1. If you, as a "reasonable person" believe that another person is in imminent danger of loss of life, or maiming, or

2. Is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of a crime that could result in the loss of life, or maiming (as in, rape, arson, or kidnap)

that the use of deadly force will be justified.

Also, for the still weak at heart, be advised that many states are now passing laws that grant immunity from civil prosecution for justifiable homicides done under these circumstances.

Even if there were not, though, how can anyone--ANYONE--say that they could be an armed witness to the crime described above--and do nothing?

Some have said that "it might be cops" Bull:cuss: !!!

If a person is being arrested and/or detained, you can bet that the person will be in handcuffs, not being dragged out kicking and screaming. Also, there will be at least one car with some type of official plates around.

Still in doubt?? A quick 911 call on your trusty cell phone will dispel all doubt.

"It might be a cult-buster"

HORSE:cuss: .

I don't care if it is!!! It's still forcibly removing a person against their will, which is called KIDNAPPING.

And for all of you who STILL would not intervene, just do this.

In the scenario listed above, think about it. Play the movie in your head. Do you have it going? Good. Make it VIVID! In COLOR!

Now, put the face of YOUR wife, or YOUR daughter on the woman being dragged away.

Finally, insert a bystander, almost at arms length, holding a gun--but doing NOTHING. Pretty picture, huh?

IF YOU USE SOME EXCUSE SUCH AS LIABILITY OR FINANCIAL LOSS TO PREVENT THIS CRIME FROM OCCURRING, YOU ARE NOT A MAN--OR WOMAN. YOU ARE A SHEEP. TURN IN YOUR CCW AND GIVE YOUR GUNS AWAY. YOU DON'T DESERVE THEM.

Oh, and by the way, for all you "macho" guys that will go shoot IDPA, or USPSA, or IPSC, carry any gun that has "combat" in the name, or use any ammo but ball ammo, if you will NOT respond in this scenario, turn in your gonads. You don't deserve them.

Flame on, folks! I've got asbestos drawers on.

El Tejon

February 10, 2003, 04:51 PM

ahenry, you're getting married? You are a brave man!:D

Felonious Monk

February 10, 2003, 04:54 PM

ahenry--And lastly, I (and apparently others here as well) value doing what is right above potential personal risks. Before you go off half-cocked, I’m not suggesting somebody jump out and do something stupid. As Beren said, A man’s gotta know his limitations. Fine, if you think you don’t have the ability to accomplish anything at all and decide to just be a witness thats your choice (frankly if you think that then I’d suggest you sell your guns, buy a football helmet and look for somebody to come pad the walls of your house so you can live in safety).You're my bud and all, but that's assuming too much, and implying that anybody else who doesn't agree with you totally is wrong. That's just hard-headed. If a situation shows itself (I'm in McDonald's, a guy walks in and pulls a gun on the cashier), that's cut and dried enough to put myself in harm's way to stop the threat with a bullet. No thought to my personal safety.

To imply that this is the same (cut and dried) is wrong, IMO.

TracerSpies

February 10, 2003, 05:03 PM

Wouldn't a responsible citizen be obligated? Out here we call it retroactive birth control. :cool: I think it would be really interesting to break down the responses geographically! Too bad some folks don't link themselves to the area they live.

ahenry

February 10, 2003, 05:20 PM

If you decide not to intrevene, then there are no consequences. If you decide to intrevene and it turns out that you have shot innocents or police officers, there will be dire consequences. Actually the only consequences that are for sure are the emotional ones (I redirect your attention to the drugstore clerk mentioned previously). While those would be severe to be sure, what would be the emotional consequences of doing nothing while an innocent person is raped and killed? Apparently, for some, not as severe as the potential downside risks.

I have no need and have no chip on my shoulder to act rashly to "prove something", "act like a man" or to be a hero...One carries a firearm to protect himself, not to become Batman. I don’t have a chip on my shoulder to act rashly either, despite your attempt to imply otherwise.

I fail to see how protecting myself by choosing not to intrevene renders me incapable of defending myself if I were to be attacked. It doesn’t make you incapable, it makes you somewhat spineless, if I may be frank. No offence meant, but to my way of thinking a “man” that is afraid to help another person in need (especially a woman) simply because of the possibility that there might be some adverse consequences (an as yet unproven assertion, BTW), is not much of a man. I really mean no offence, and I’m sure you are a good guy, I just have a particular view of “what makes a man” and running the other way ain’t it.

Felonious Monk,
You're my bud and all, but that's assuming too much, and implying that anybody else who doesn't agree with you totally is wrong. That's just hard-headed. Didn’t mean to imply that. As I told el tejon before, its his choice to make. I don't fault a person for deciding to do everything they think they are able to do (even if its less than I would choose to do). The key words being "everything they think they are able". Each person has to decide for themselves what they are capable of. No problem there. The only problem I have is with people either a) saying to intervene is wrong and sets one up for a unproven risk, or b) choosing not to act because they think they might suffer some risks, even though the victim will suffer.

B9mmHP

February 10, 2003, 05:21 PM

I did not vote, because if I voted.

#1. No I'm not my brothers keeper.
Well no I'm not my brothers' keeper , but sometimes my brother can get into things that he can't foresee or have any control over. So should I try to change my brothers' fate or just say it is his destiny and live with my decision? No is my answer.

#2. Yes, but only if it appears the victim will be harmed.
It seems to me, according to the scenario that she is being harmed by the sound of her scream, being dragged out by some perpetrator with an armed gunman backing him up, and the gunshot I just heard. So it would be logical that she was in immediate danger.

#3. Yes, I owe it to society.
No, I owe nothing to society, I owe nothing to the victim either, but I do owe it to my family and myself and friends that may be the next victims of the perpetrators or some others like them.

I don't recall anyone mentioning anything about hearing a gunshot, as the scenario states there was a gun shot. That should dispel some of the problems that some here have about shooting the preps.

Yes, I would shoot. I would give a warning to drop your gun, while keeping my gun sighted on the one with the handgun, if he turned to face me with the gun, or not, depending on what he did. He would get a double or triple tap or more, depending on what the other prep was doing. No I would not run after the battle was over, because I line in Texas.

I also have a right and obligation to defend others that may not be in a position not to do so, even if it is the ones that would not do so themselves.

Edit: Well, someone did mention the gun shot.

El Tejon

February 10, 2003, 05:47 PM

ahenry, no offense taken, ever. It's just the Errornet and we're all on the same side. Put it in with heat!

How does one know what will happen to the clerk? Don't know, don't shoot. Who knows what's going on? Don't know, don't shoot. I'm not in danger regardless, don't shoot.

Spineless? No, just not foolhardy. I do not equate bravery with recklessness. What good would anyone be to their wife if in prison or broke?

Why fight a battle you do not have to? Jumping into a Problem #1 that you do not have to be in is setting yourself up for all kinds of potential trouble after the fact.

spacemanspiff

February 10, 2003, 05:50 PM

how is it that the majority who voted in this poll say they would intervene, but in past discussions, the majority would not intervene in a domestic violence situation?

theoretically, maybe the female clerk is one of the masked mens sig other? so are you intervening because you think its a robbery/kidnapping? or because human life is threatened and no matter what the situation is, your conscience would plague you if you didnt intervene?

Beer for my Horses

February 10, 2003, 05:51 PM

For those of you (us) willing to intervene/and shoot, you'd better be prepared to take a head shot on the BG with the gun on the hostage, not shoot to COM, or double tap as has been suggested. A COM shot, even if directly to the heart, leaves the BG with enough blood pressure for meaningful action for up to 15 seconds or more. . . . enough time for him to kill the hostage and get off a couple shots at you before bleeding out. The only instantaneous stopper is a shot that penetrates the brain, preferably the medulla omblongata. Hostage interventions are very risky, and whether a police officer or good samaritan, you've got to be prepared with how to deal with it effectively. If you don't feel confident with your ability to make a head shot under the stress of the situation, you're best to stay behind cover and call 911.

ahenry

February 10, 2003, 06:02 PM

I do not equate bravery with recklessness. What good would anyone be to their wife if in prison or broke? Allow me to once more ask you to, show me the proof!

vi9er

February 10, 2003, 06:15 PM

First off, those who are saying they wouldn't intervene are calling those who would trigger happy. I don't think most of us are going in shooting, but, and thats a BIG but, I would do everything in my power to prevent an innocent from being harmed. You say she should arm herself, what if she WAS armed, and ski mask guy walked in behind her and stuck the barrel of a .38 in her ear. She is now beyond drawing! :p as wise man in Tejas sez "dont' draw on a drawn gun" :p I would not rush in firing, but I would certainly yell for them to stop. If it was a cop, you'd know it real quick, as they would scream that they are cops. If they raise the gun without ID'ing themselves, they probably are up to no good. In which case, i get to let my trigger happy finger enjoy itself:D

El Tejon

February 10, 2003, 06:25 PM

ahenry, what is it that you demand proof of? And what will you say when I show you proof?

DeltaElite

February 10, 2003, 06:55 PM

Wait, make that a NO, I might drop my donut. :neener:

Atticus

February 10, 2003, 07:38 PM

'The only instantaneous stopper is a shot that penetrates the brain, preferably the medulla omblongata. "

Is that right? I assume the perp is spineless and heartless. Sound like some folks here.

B9mmHP

February 10, 2003, 07:47 PM

Beer, if your comment was ment for me about the double tap, you can be assured that if I was close enough, it would be to the head, that is why I said it would be, double tap etc.
Close enough for me for a head shot with a pistol would be about 15 ft, but I would still do a double tap, and more if needed. And yes, before you ask, I would look to see if anyone was in danger behind the perps, before I shoot.

El Tejon, you write like KS Freeman from TFL, might you be the same?:rolleyes:

PDshooter

February 10, 2003, 08:04 PM

Yes! I would intervene. But if I layed out the BG, and I know he's already DOA.

I "ANT" hanging around !:o for the the COPS !
I'm history!:)

Diesle

February 10, 2003, 08:32 PM

What Ive found to be absolutely silly about this entire thread is that, generally speaking, most of you seem to think that you’ll be in full control of not only the situation, but of your own facilities at all times as this situation unfolds. Ridicules on at least one of those counts, if not both... And, I got $10 that says more than half the people confronted with this type of action begin their 'involvement' by wetting themselves.

I’m gonna put 2 to his head.... or more. Oh, are you...? Ludicrous!

You know when my gun comes out? When I feel like my life, or the life of someone I love is about to END. Thats about as clear and absolute I can be on the matter. If the situation does not meet that simple criteria, I take cover. I dont feel that this position makes me any less of a man as my morals dictate that I keep myself out of harms way so that I can be around as long as possible for my children and wife. I resent the suggestion and will gladly demonstrate my manhood if and when so challenged.

Good luck cowboys,

Diesle

DeltaElite

February 10, 2003, 08:42 PM

I find this thread funny too.
It's funny how many people are pro-freedom, but unwilling to help someone else maintain their freedom. ;)
Talk is cheap.

The scenario is horribly incomplete. There is so much that can only be reasoned at the time of the incident.
If my family is with me, then I won't act, because I won't risk them for anyone.

These threads are about as useful as asking what play you would call to win the Superbowl. I'd run a post pattern. :p

Oops, this thread scared me so bad I wet myself. :neener:

Edward429451

February 10, 2003, 09:36 PM

<What would my wife think?>

OK I asked my wife. Laid out the scenario for her and what would she want me to do and what would she do, respectivly.

She said it'd be terrible to do nothing and made the point that taking the license number would be useless cause it does nothing to help right now and car could even be stolen so they may never even find the guys. She also said that I should not shoot without a verbal challenge first. Cover the gunman, challenge him to drop weapon, shoot if he does anything but drop the weapon.

She said she'd challenge him first also.

Its good that some voice that they'd do nothing. It lets us know who wouldnt back us up if we were hangin out together!

El Tejon, would you stop and change a flat tire for a lady if you knew it would make you late to your anniversary dinner with your wife?

El Tejon

February 10, 2003, 09:42 PM

B9mm, yes, it's me. Just using my old LE name. Good to see you here.

Since we have now shifted to Problem #1 in hypno's scenario, headshots on round, mobile, armoured targets are tough in skul with cardboard. With sims in skul very tough. Now mix in real ammo, innocents, movement, yelling, confusion, et al--REALLY tough outside the gun shoppe or the Errornet.

Atticus, how is it heartless or spineless to recognize a tough situation and check your fire rather than risk the lives of innocents or you or your family?

PD, how are you helping by running away? "Do the right thing" then run away? Why would you run away?

Politically Incorrect

February 10, 2003, 09:56 PM

CCW Permit? What's that? Haven't seen one of those around here.

Atticus

February 11, 2003, 12:13 AM

"Atticus, how is it heartless or spineless to recognize a tough situation and check your fire rather than risk the lives of innocents or you or your family?"

Hey KF - how are ya?

I wouldn't hold it against anyone who didn't respond like John Wayne in a real life situation. People react differently under stress. I started my first post with "In theory" because I don't know what I'd do. I DO have a problem with people who already have their mind made up that they would never risk anything to help someone they don't personally know. Stranger!? That's a 6 year olds term. If I'm alone and carrying a gun (and maybe even not carrying a gun) and I see a crying screaming woman being dragged to a car, I'm gonna do what I'm able to do to help her. If that means pointing a finger and yelling at them... that's what I'd do. If I was armed and did nothing, I'd have to consider putting my gun away for good. With the exception of defending myself or family, I can't imagine a better reason to use a gun than the one illustrated here. I also can't imagine living with myself if the women ended up dead. As they say, " a hero dies once - a coward dies a thousand deaths."

February 11, 2003, 12:20 AM

This is a dynamic situation--
Heck--Life is a dynamic situation-

You have to figure out what the heck is going on and "WHAT"you would do should be changing every second as you go through this scenario--
If we wanted more straightforward // realistic // unambiguous answers to this -- we would need a more though out and solid scenario set up--

I think the Best answer to this one is -- I'ld check it out--

Bullet

February 11, 2003, 01:11 AM

I would intervene from the doorway that provides excellent cover, with my gun ready. I probably would yell something at the masked men. Then take it from there and see how the situation develops. The only motivation I would have to intervene would be to protect the woman. I'm not sure why I feel the need to protect or to try to help others, but this is the way I am. I always thought most people are like me in this respect. I hope I'm right.

Mark Benningfield

February 11, 2003, 01:28 AM

Hello All.

Wow, this is a touchy one!

I would intervene. I would intervene even if I didn't have my pistol with me, because I am the type of person that COULD NOT stand by and let this woman be dragged away screaming by an armed man. So, since I am this type of person, I carry a gun.

Arguments against:
1) I might be sued if I end up shooting the BG.

How on earth could I explain to my children that I let this woman be taken against her will because I was afraid it would cost me too much money?

2) I might get shot by the BG.

All men die. No man knows the hour of his death, nor by any action of his can he hasten or delay it by a single minute. Until that appointed hour, I will comport myself as a man.

Powderman

February 11, 2003, 06:45 AM

Well said--and well met, sir.

How could anyone--ANYONE--do less?

Beren

February 11, 2003, 07:20 AM

As Beren said, A man’s gotta know his limitations. Fine, if you think you don’t have the ability to accomplish anything at all and decide to just be a witness thats your choice (frankly if you think that then I’d suggest you sell your guns, buy a football helmet and look for somebody to come pad the walls of your house so you can live in safety).

Why?

I'm not a member of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, Delta Force, or even my county SWAT team. Why would I be expected to perform at their level in order to retain my firearms?

Intervene in the manner calculated to cause the least harm to yourself and those you are attempting to aid. You won't do the hostage any good if you get yourself killed trying to help them, and you'll do the hostage even less good if you hit them in the chest.

Have you trained to the point where, at a range of fifty feet, you can accurately and consistently hit the moving head of a target mostly obscured by the person you're trying to rescue?

My sidearm is for the gravest extreme when all other options have been exhausted, and I or a loved one is facing immediate risk of serious injury or death. My sidearm isn't a magic wand that fires God-guided projectiles of unerring righteousness that will smite my enemies to the ground yet avoid injuring the innocent.

My obligation as an honorable member of society is clear. As I am not properly equipped to directly effect the rescue of the victim, I must do what I can to assist indirectly.

My efforts to directly intervene, within the context of the described scenario, would be counter-productive.

==========

If, for example, I were out on the street behind the men as they exited the store, with a distance of ten to twenty feet, they had masks on, and I saw a gun...

...then I would not hesitate to:

1. Put a round of 357SIG in each of the visible opponent's heads from behind.

2. Seek cover.

3. Verbally instruct the victim to get back inside the store and call 911.

4. Engage the driver of the vehicle.

5. Leave the scene as quickly and calmly as possible.

6. Call my lawyer.

ahenry

February 11, 2003, 10:02 AM

el tejon,
ahenry, what is it that you demand proof of? And what will you say when I show you proof? The same proof I have asked for 8 times previously in this thread. Go back and read it again if you’re so unclear. I have no problem admitting when I’m wrong. I’m a pretty stubborn guy (ok, I’m really stubborn) but when I make a mistake I own up to it. As yet, I’ve requested eight times for you to show me factual proof that a significant risk of adverse after effects (your “problem #2”) exists. BTW, as I’ve said before, just finding one case where a person was clearly in the right but suffered consequences anyway is hardly significant proof of “problem #2”. Of course at this stage, I’d be impressed if you would even bother to do that.

Beren,
I should have been clearer than I was when I posted that. As I told Felonious Monk, I was trying to say each person should decide what they are capable of and act accordingly. I will never fault somebody for doing that. My derogatory comment was aimed at those that would not do anything that puts themselves at risk, not because of a lack of ability but because of a fear of reprisals. Males (and females for that matter) that are ruled by fear ought to stop carrying in my mind (please note I said ruled by fear, not experience fear). I never meant to imply otherwise, although it did come across that way.

Ian

February 11, 2003, 10:20 AM

Mark - Argument against, #3) They might not be bad guys.

ahenry

February 11, 2003, 11:08 AM

You honestly think there is a reasonable chance that that is the case?

HS/LD

February 11, 2003, 11:52 AM

I can't remember the exact quote:

"evil triumphs when enough good men do nothing...."

Something like that.

HS/LD

Edward429451

February 11, 2003, 12:23 PM

My obligation as an honorable member of society is clear. As I am not properly equipped to directly effect the rescue of the victim, I must do what I can to assist indirectly.

Is clear...as viewed through a cloud. If you're not properly equipped then you should get so equipped. It might be your wife or daughter needing help, then whats your excuse? I assert that all Americans have the duty to be so equipped and regulated that they could effect resolution to the crises. Heck, we're the people. We're the checks and balances of the system when it fails us. You got to be better than the cops in case they're late or miss. This is not hobby fun time, its real life. Have fun for now but it could shift to full blown war at any moment and you as the man have to be able to respond efficiently. Yeah, you might die, so what else is new? You still have to respond. Or so it seems to me.

El Tejon

February 11, 2003, 12:44 PM

ahenry, just because one does not know of anyone with cancer, does not mean that cancer does not exist. Gun shoppe bull sessions about what a brave and noble Warrior Prince one is must include discussions of what may happen next, Problem #2. Noble intentions are feckless in the face of the real world outside the gun shoppe. Education is the key.

If you pursue your education through training, you will learn of plenty more where things can go terribly wrong. The more you train, the less you know.

Just because one does not understand a potential problem, does not mean that this potential problem will not confront you. Just because you are confident in your Warrior Princelyness, does not mean things will go as you imagine

State of Indiana v. Annette Chew, 79D02-0008-CF-77
www.court.county.tippecanoe.in.us (http://www.court.county.tippecanoe.in.us)

If you think "it can't happen here" then I can direct you to cases in Tejas.

I understand your zeal and frustration, I urge all to temper their physical prowess with the knowledge that study of these things will bring. Call it cowardice or whatever you like. Someday you will call it wisdom.

Ian

February 11, 2003, 12:56 PM

ahenry - Yes. Given the stakes, even a very small chance that the "obvious" conclusion is incorrect is enough reason to hold fire.

Edward429451

February 11, 2003, 01:00 PM

Your link wont work for me.:confused:

El Tejon

February 11, 2003, 01:06 PM

El Tejon meets technology, hilarity ensues!

Ed, sorry, these new-fangled computers and all.

www.county.tippecanoe.in.us/ (http://www.county.tippecanoe.in.us/)

Click on "court records"

Felonious Monk

February 11, 2003, 01:09 PM

You saidIf I'm alone and carrying a gun (and maybe even not carrying a gun) and I see a crying screaming woman being dragged to a car, I'm gonna do what I'm able to do to help her."
Yep. Me, too. I'd do the EXACT same thing. I would "INTERVENE", as the original scenario was laid out.

You, however, and MANY others Powderman, seem eager to shoot.
If I had an alternative, because to me this is NOT a clear-cut situation, I would NOT shoot. Intervene, yes. Shoot, hopefully not.

Ian--ahenry - Yes. Given the stakes, even a very small chance that the "obvious" conclusion is incorrect is enough reason to hold fire.To me, this says it all.

Choosing not to play SWAT does NOT make me a poontang, it makes me one who will think CLEARLY through the options and respond without jumping to deadly (and possibly tragic) conclusions.

If the situation were, to my perception, cut and dried, I have no compunctions in shooting the BG. This is not one of them.

ahenry

February 11, 2003, 01:32 PM

Alrighty here stud-duck, no need to get all high and mighty. I have never claimed that there isn’t the potential for something to happen after the fact. What I have repeatedly claimed (and still await your proof otherwise) is that it is not the overpowering risk you insist it is. Look even a guilty man can go free, and an innocent man can go to jail. “It” happens. I’m waiting (and I feel certain I will have to wait forever) for you to show me that the risk of “problem #2” is significant. I’ve even left the definition of significant wide open, but you still haven’t shown me even one solitary example of a person in the clear right that suffered after the fact (unless your link goes to what were looking for, I can't get anything other than a person accused of assault). It should be pretty easy for you to show me case after case after case, if indeed there is a large and substantial risk of “problem #2”.

buzz_knox

February 11, 2003, 01:49 PM

Yes. For those who say they wouldn't help a stranger, I hope you don't turn your back on the girl, only to find out you mistook your sister for a stranger. Actually, in all honesty, I almost hope that is the case. I don't want some other family to suffer for your decision.

Edward429451

February 11, 2003, 01:52 PM

seem eager to shoot.

You must be reading more into it than I said. I'm never eager to shoot, cept at the range. Intervention, even by gunplay is forced on one if he has his head on straight. 'I had no choice in the matter'.

Thats the problem with what if scenarios, you say you'd help, your trigger happy. You say you'd decline, your a coward.

Been packin 18 yrs and havent shot anyone yet. How eager is that. (Been in half a dozen close calls that probably would have been justified, yet still havent shot anyone or anything). So you are wrong, sir.

Felonious Monk

February 11, 2003, 02:01 PM

Thats the problem with what if scenarios, you say you'd help, your trigger happy. You say you'd decline, your a coward.You're right on that one! Didn't mean to imply you're trigger-happy. I was starting to get defensive, because I kept hearing the OTHER implication you mentioned directed at me, and nothing is further from the truth.

No harm, no foul.

El Tejon

February 11, 2003, 02:09 PM

ahenry, I have just shown you the case you seek. Since this one is not now enough, how many do you want?

I do not understand what you mean by "significant." It depends on a myriad of factors as to what happens next. Why subject yourself to any risk if there is no need (other than the need to play Batman)?

I have never claimed that something will happen next, just that it may. I do not know what is going on in the described scenario and do not know what will happen if I start a fight. Only a foolhardy person refuses to weigh the consequences of his actions just as only the uneducated runs to a fight he can avoid as he as no idea of the bad things that await during and after a fight.

Edward429451

February 11, 2003, 02:24 PM

I used to get upset at peoples words and kinda lash out a little. But I'm learning to treat it like talking philosophy lately. I know I make some stern statements sometimes but its not designed to inflame or attack, just to provoke thoughtful discussion. Besides, I know I'm right, LOL!:D <--Joke.

Oleg must be slowly getting through to us! This threads lasted quite awhile..

El Tejon, What am I looking for on that site? Got a case number or name so I dont have to browse them all? THX.

ahenry

February 11, 2003, 02:42 PM

ahenry, I have just shown you the case you seek. Since this one is not now enough, how many do you want? I never said it wasn’t enough, I said I couldn’t get any details. All I was able to do was get summary info. Regardless, I’ve done my own research in the past and again during the course of this thread. My assessment of the risks of a lawsuit or imprisonment after taking action if faced with a scenario like this one is that it is negligible. Quit clearly, your assessment is different. Fine by me, I’ll promise to never try and force you to do something you don’t want to, if you will promise to not try and keep me from acting when I want to. Deal?

The bottom line as far as I am concerned is that regardless of the risk of a lawsuit or of the risk of jail time, I have just been confronted with a situation where I have the ability to save a womans life or at least her “virtue” (for lack of a better term). I will not allow myself to wimp out because I fear adverse after-effects. Period. In the end, the choice to act or not is up to each person and can’t be made by another no matter how sound the argument for or against. I’ve made my mind and I and my loved ones are more than comfortable with the choices I’ve made.

BTW el tejon, are you real sure you want to harp on the “uneducated” and “batman” comments? You don’t know just how much training I’ve had nor do you know my motivations...

El Tejon

February 11, 2003, 03:50 PM

ahenry, very well, but what you wish to do puts others (including me if I am walking behind the scene of this arrest) as well as yourself at potential risk with no benefit to you. Difference of reasoning underlying the basis of our being armed perhaps.

I carry to defend myself and myself alone. I have no obligation to others. I do not see myself as Batman or a saviour to the world and am too old to have anything to prove. There is a chance that one could pull this (sucessfully intrevene) off. However, the downside here is enormous which you now see. I believe it is imperative to appreciate fully the risks before we act rashly out of emotion. Besides, emotion just screws up your sight picture!:D

Ed, look back a bit, I gave the cause number.

ahenry

February 11, 2003, 04:01 PM

However, the downside here is enormous which you now see. I believe it is imperative to appreciate fully the risks before we act rashly out of emotion. Besides, emotion just screws up your sight picture! I do not wish to continue debating this with you, but you grossly misrepresented me and I must clarify. In my mind, the downside to inaction is indeed enormous and the downside to action is not near as enormous. As you said, perhaps this is a difference in why we choose to go armed. Had you left it there I would have agree with you. You just couldn’t do that though. None of my statements have implied that I would “act rashly out of emotion” and your continued attempts to paint me as somebody that thinks I am some sort of savior or batman or something even after I have politely suggested you stop, are getting tiresome and annoying. Since you don’t pick up on hints, I’ll be real blunt. I do not think I am anything special. Nor do I think carrying a gun transfers some special responsibility (my choice to act or not would be the same sans gun). I was clearly raised with a different moral code than yourself. So be it. I am doing everything I can to avoid labeling you something you might not be; now you return the favor.

Intune

February 11, 2003, 04:38 PM

now things become a little clearer. El Tejon would not shoot if the robbers were sceaming "this is a robbery" come out of the building, shot his wife and kid next to him but never pointed the firearm at HIM, climbed into their getaway car and drove away. That's his choice, it would not be mine.

Intune

February 11, 2003, 04:48 PM

So a situation has to be 100% risk-free before some of you would come to the aid of a fellow human?
Does THAT senario even exist?

Double Naught Spy

February 11, 2003, 04:51 PM

I made the statement previously about some guy with a big Anaconda and hoping he would not ever come save me as he was more likely to shoot me, some passerby, or miss all together than he was likely to hit the bad guy.

After seeing the way a lot of concealed carry folks shoot while not under great stress (taking the Texas CHL shooting qualification) and seeing how several shoot while under stress (first time competitors in IDPA, first time under the gun, first time in a Handgun I class after carrying for years prior to that), I feel about as safe as risking letting some of y'all try to save me as letting the cops try to save me as taking my chances with the bad guy.

I really enjoy seeing the CHL renewal folks come to the shooting line and unload the hollowpoint ammo they loaded up four years ago when they last qualified. The load in the ball ammo for the new qualification and then reload the old hollowpoints that will still be there in 4 years when they come back again.

I know some of y'all are good, some really good, but I know some of y'all are no where near as good as you think you are. For that matter, I may be in that category as well, so I am not suggesting I am better than any of you.

If you shoot me while trying to save me, I can assure you that I won't sue you, but the rest of my family will. I know it sucks, but that is just part of the game you are playing. Whether you shoot me or the bad guy shoots me, it matters not. It is going to suck for me either way. The only person who has the option of getting to shoot me while trying to save me is my wife. She has had dibs on that for quite some time. :cool:

Intune

February 11, 2003, 05:44 PM

my post in reference to your actions (or inaction) came off as crass instead of tongue-in-cheek as it was meant. My apologies before you even respond. Your line caught my attention though "I carry to defend myself and myself alone. I have no obligation to others."

Beer for my Horses

February 11, 2003, 05:57 PM

I carry to defend myself and myself alone. I have no obligation to others.
As a general proposition, that is truly pathetic.

However, concerning the facts of this scenario, it would be unwise to engage a BG in a hostage situation that even SWAT HRT members will tell you is hard to prepare for after a career of training. This is compounded by the second BG who may also be armed. If you challenge the BG from cover then you'll worsen your chances of getting a makeable shot off (which are already low) because the BG will likely put the gun to the woman's head and cock the pistol. If you try to take the shot from your covered position, most of the members in this thread would likely miss, and possibly hit the hostage. The only circumstance I would intervene in this scenario is if I thought I could sneak up on the BG to within 20 feet and then put a round through his head before warning him that I was there. That's the furthest distance I can make such a shot under stressful conditions. I would wait for the cops to show up; anyone who would flee the scene is committing a crime and casting unnecessary doubt on the circumstances of the shoot. But again, as this scenario is presented, it's almost certainly a case for a HRT, and I'm not that.

El Tejon

February 11, 2003, 06:43 PM

Beer, pathetic? Maybe so, but I'll let the heros (and the mall ninjas) save the world. I ain't no hero/mall ninja. As the wise man in Tejas sez, "you cannot save the world, but if you're lucky, you can save yourself and your family."

Intune, no apology required. I have a thick skin and we're all on the same side. We just disagree about a specific scenario. That will happen. Outside this thread, we'll argue about SIG v. Glock.:D

ahenry, how about this, even if you take action, what if your bullets pass through the "officers/BGs" and hit a bystander? What if you hit the "arrestee/hostage" (good point there, 00)?

What do you tell the "officer's" widow and family? What do you tell the "hostage's" family? What do you tell the husband of the decedent bystander?

Is not the course of action that causes the least harm is to become a good witness rather than a third party to a fight in which you do not know the players?

Edward429451

February 11, 2003, 06:51 PM

OK, I'm confused abut the Indiana vs Annette Chew case, El Tejon. She was charged with 'Assault with intent to do serious bodily harm' (or some such). There is no transcript or information which would shed light on our issue that I can find. The case against her was dismissed.

What point is being made with this case reference? Enquireing minds want to know!

TheeBadOne

February 11, 2003, 07:09 PM

El & Beer's last 2 posts have some good stuff in it w/o all the emotional BS

El Tejon

February 11, 2003, 07:17 PM

Ed, O.K. there inquiring mind you, it was Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Criminal Recklessness with a Deadly Weapon. No such critter as "assault" here in the Land of Truth and Justice.

Point is even if you are clearly in the clear in a case of defense of a third party, Problem #2 can still come after you depending upon a blizzard of variables. If things go badly in Problem #1, e.g. you shoot a bystander or they are police officers, things will go even worse for you. Even though a criminal prosecution against you is dismissed, you are still out big money on bond, attorney fees, private investigators, depositions, etc. et al.

This does not included the civil suit and administrative revocation of your carry license. Those are separate fees.

I can look for some Red cases if you want me to (no, I never sleep anymore).

These concerns, along with the concerns of Problem #1, must be weighed in making your decision to intrevene. To ignore them or wish them away, IME & IMO is very foolish. I am always amazed (well, maybe not) at the gunshop scenarios where the GG always win. Everyone always walks away with the same number of holes and they are not in jail without bail.

Ed, please understand, I'm not arguing that no one should carry a pistol because "something" may go wrong. I'm saying that in this scenario to get involved is to risk it all to yourself and others with little benefit.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed against these problems.

Powderman

February 11, 2003, 08:45 PM

No, I'm not eager to shoot at all.

However, to not even engage in this scenario would be a great error.

This is the way I would do it:

Get into the doorway mentioned, if possible. Draw my weapon, quickly take up a sight picture, and challenge.

"FREEZE! DROP THE WEAPON NOW! DROP IT!"

At this point, a number of things will resolve themselves for you.

1. If they're police officers, they will stop, verbally identify themselves, and slowly produce ID.

2. If they're "cult busters" they will likewise stop, identify themselves and their purpose, and you can take it from there.

3. If they are armed robbers and kidnappers, they will do one of the following:

a. Stop, drop their weapons, release their hostage, and either act like you are the Man, or take off running. Most thieves do NOT count on encountering armed resistance. Guns in robberies are usually used for the intimidation factor. As soon as Momma's little darling figures that he/she is going to catch a terminal case of Glock poisoning, the pucker factor usually elevates.

b. Turn their weapons toward you. In this case, remember the following:

The adrenaline dump that occurs when the challenge is issued will hamper fine motor skills. Also, one of the BG's has a squirming, screaming hostage. Most of the time, there will be a LOT of him/her exposed.

Before you issue the challenge, you should be on target, slack removed from the trigger, and concentrating on your front sight. If a weapon is moved, SHOOT.

And, the hostage taker is not automatically the first target. Always engage the one with the most destructive weapon first. In order of importance, this would be: whoever holds the long gun/shotgun/handgun/knife or other edged weapon/club or blunt instrument.

The point is, though, you can NOT do NOTHING. You can NOT just walk away. You can NOT just watch.

That is, if you are a human being.

DeltaElite

February 11, 2003, 08:48 PM

Kitty Genovese wishes someone would have intervened, instead of just watching.
It appears some don't learn from history.;)

Diesle

February 11, 2003, 08:55 PM

However, concerning the facts of this scenario, it would be unwise to engage a BG in a hostage situation that even SWAT HRT members will tell you is hard to prepare for after a career of training.

This is where I was headed and didnt get the words out. Its not that I am a hard liner on not getting involved... Its that this particular senario has a lot of big holes in it.

So, first off, secure my position, and if I am capable beyond that point, make a determination on what my next action might be.

I will not risk running into an open area in this senario to get a good shot off. How could I be sure that I knew where all the BGs were... And shot placement would be critical because you wouldnt want to shoot the hostage....

Me and my family get protected first. That is the point of defensive gun ownership. If I can be of service to my fellow man after that is assured, youll get my help.

Civilian,

Diesle

Edward429451

February 11, 2003, 09:08 PM

I agree with Powdermans post exactly. I can certainly see El-Tejons point and do in fact agree with his well thought out reasoning. The only thing I really disagree with is the first things first factor. I certainly would not relish having to shoot another human being and definitly not the ensuing court case probability that I'd probably be ruined even if found justifiable eventually.

But first things first. The lady needs help Right Now. I can swim but am not what you'd call an excellant swimmer. Do I not jump into the turbulant water to save the drowning lady, fearing that I may drown myself? Certainly Not! I jump right in and try to help. Through willpower, determination, and a little grace & faith I intend to prevail because its the right thing to do. If I die trying, at least I went out trying to help. So be it. Odds are I'll fail, but people hit the lottery every day. I may save a life and make a difference.:)

El Tejon

February 11, 2003, 09:09 PM

Delta, Kitty should have armed herself. No one had a duty to help her.

Powder, cannot be a witness to this arrest? Just watch me!:D You left out several things that could happen if they are BGs and not officers. The biggest being they start shooting: the hostage, the bystanders, you.:scrutiny:

Ed, if you jump into the water to save the drowning lady, you risk no one but yourself. If you start shooting, you risk many people.

Edward429451

February 11, 2003, 11:18 PM

No one had a duty to help her.

I disagree. Besides, this sounds sooooo bad.

You left out several things that could happen if they are BGs and not officers. The biggest being they start shooting: the hostage, the bystanders, you.

This is the problem I have with challenges. Why I think it'd probably be better to just take the carefully aimed headshot before they realize your there. (I've already heard at least one shot so its reasonable to assume they will not hesitate to shoot again)

If you start shooting, you risk many people.

This sounds pretty thin and very oversimplified. Too much so for a life and death situation. Got anything better?:neener:

Diesle

February 12, 2003, 12:12 AM

Edward429451,

Your going to take a head shot before you do anything else....?

I guess my comment is..... Dont bend over for the soap.

Diesle

Turkey Creek

February 12, 2003, 12:22 AM

El Tejon- you have come up with several "what ifs" to support your position which of course is your every right and perogative- just as you have every right to act or not act as you choose- our mutual rights to disagree and express those disagreements are perfectly normal and in are in no way personal- those of us that choose to "intervene" in this hypothetical scenario are not going to be swayed from our point of view any more than you wiil be moved from yours- you and I will continue to agree to disagree over this until the cows come home- that said, I have a couple of comments- you can "what if" yourself to the point of immobility if you feel that you have to have to have total knowledge in any decision making process about anything- how many times have any of us taken a course of action, after analyzing the situation to our satisfaction, and with the belief that we have taken care of all the "what ifs", only to ultimately realize we were wrong in our analysis and hence also wrong in our action- I'm not saying that a knee jerk reaction is superior to thoughtful consideration- what I am saying is that at best, "what iffing" yourself through life will not guarentee a mistake free existence, and at worse reduces a life to less than what it should be- risk is part of living- nothing in this world is a sure thing- to endlessly search for no risk sure things is futile- they do not exist- everyone of us takes risks every day in one form or another, some consciously some not- that's just the way life is- the other point that I strongly disagree with you on is your willingness to stand aside when another human being needs help- my point of view is that if we spend our life only taking care of our own, and look aside and walk away when from someone who needs help and we can provide it, is not what were put here for in the first place-I personally could not live with myself if I did not try to help- and that doesn't mean going in blasting right away in this situation- doing nothing here would be a haunting that would never go away for me- even if making an attempt to help resulted in my death, I think that would be better for me than trying to live the rest of my life with the horrible burden that I survived and another person suffered due to my inaction- said another way, I'd would have rather given up my seat in a lifeboat to someone and stayed on the Titanic- call it an overly active conscience or what you may- that's just the way I am- I learned a long time ago that I can't be something that I'm not- I understand your point of view, I hope you understand mine

Bullet

February 12, 2003, 01:24 AM

Turkey Creek I'm with you. If me you and El Tejon were on the Titanic together I think it might have taken both of us to throw El Tejon out of a life boat to make room for a woman.

Jim March

February 12, 2003, 03:01 AM

Take cover, draw gun, point it right at the gunman, verbally challenge, what happens next is up to them. They may well end up dead, or they'll act reasonably - be they cop or crook or whatever (not that there's always a distinction). The store clerk that shot that "unmarked ninja cop" who came into the store to make a drug bust will get off scot free, which is in my opinion both proper and will do more for local police reform than a dozen grand juries.

Folks, I've "been there, done that". I probably saved a man's life once...that was certainly his opinion later, when I met him at the DA's office where we were giving witness statements. I came out with no legal problems whatsoever, and I could look myself in the mirror. I didn't act "for society", I acted because I couldn't live with myself otherwise. Go here for the story:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25140

Do you all understand that when someone gets carried from the scene by criminals, their odds of survival go WAY down?

El Tejon

February 12, 2003, 07:35 AM

Jim, once again no consideration is given to the bystanders on the street or the hostage/arrestee, only "they." What if "they" do not act reasonably and start shooting? You do not know who "they" are yet you are willing to jump into a fight?

Turkey and Bullet, if you give up your seat on the lifeboat, you risk no other person (other than my murder). If you jump into this unknown fight, you risk the lives of many around you. I fail to see the nobility of putting others at risk.

Ed, disagree all you wish with the facts, but no one had a duty to help Kitty (maybe broke their SEEL Team 37.5 oath or something). How is it bad to ensure that people take responsibility for themselves?

I do not know how to phrase it any better than "if you start a gun fight in the middle of a street, you risk putting pieces of flying metal into fellow human beings who you or your target(s) are not shooting at." How's that?

How do we know it's life or death situation? How do we know what's going on? It may help your feelings of manilessness or cosmic justice, but saying "I'm sorry" or "at least I wasn't a coward" does not help those in wheelchairs or the widows and orphans of those you hurt.

Intune

February 12, 2003, 08:10 AM

Some men perform heroic feats when the balloon goes up, some lay in their foxhole with a warm stain spreading across their britches while cryin’ for Mama. The first may very well be the slight, slender young man who spoke with a lisp, while the latter, sporting his stain, may have been the macho, muscled he-man who swaggered around camp. None know how they will react until the deal goes down. Train and plan for war, then, living in peace will be a breeze. One must live with the results of their action or inaction. I think it is a sad reflection on our society when men would stand idly by while a woman is whisked away to potential rape, torture and death because “I might hurt somebody or get in trouble. I don’t know her; she’s not part of my family. Maybe somebody is already rescuing her and I don’t want to get in the way. Maybe the police just want to talk to her for awhile?????” Know how to find out what their intentions are? Step up to the plate and say something, you'll find out quick what their intentions are. Or... Stay behind cover and maybe get a glimpse of their stolen plates while you protect the women and children down the block "in case the bad guys come this way." Sheesh.

El Tejon

February 12, 2003, 09:59 AM

Intune, if we are back to "proving our manhood" as reason to intrevene, then is not part of manhood coupling power with responsibility? Should you not be responsible and ensure you know what is going on? Should you not be responsible and not start a gunfight where bystanders, the arrestee/victim, or the police officers may be hurt? Should you not be responsible to your family and ensure that they will not see you imprisoned or broke?:confused:

buzz_knox

February 12, 2003, 10:26 AM

El Tejon, are you capable of having a discussion without denegrating your opponent? So far, you've referred to one person as essentially having a Batman complex, and another as trying to "prove his manhood." Neither of those is justified by the person's comments, but is rather your attempt to spin the issue and try to marginalize their opinions by casting them in a negative light.

El Tejon

February 12, 2003, 10:49 AM

buzz, you mean there has been no talk of heroics or not being a wimp as a basis to start a gunfight? Must be seeing things.

buzz_knox

February 12, 2003, 10:58 AM

You're seeing what you want to see, to justify your own choice. You then insult the other person's choice by stating its based on some misguided principle. For example, describing your choice to remain uninvolved as being motivated by a hatred of women and thus a deep seated desire to see a woman in bondage, raped, or murdered. That's the functional equivalent of calling someone else's decision of getting involved as being motivated by a Batman complex or a need to assert one's existence as a man.

For the record, I'm not suggesting that this is the motivation for your decision, but only showing the comparison.

Edward429451

February 12, 2003, 11:08 AM

Aw were gettin goofy now. Bottom line is some recognize the moral obligation to help and some do not.

Diesle, thats THIS scenario. Shots have already been fired. El-Tejon made the valid point that if you challenge them they may start shooting indiscriminitly. I'd already considered this and maybe the head shot would be the best option (at least for the girl) at this point. I'm not trained to handle multiple BG's in a crises situation. Practicing your butt off in pistol drills is not the same as real training and I have no armchair warrior illusions that it does. Something still needs to happen to help the girl though, I cant just stand there and take a plate number, that'd be...not right, to put it mildly.

El-Tejon says "what about the bystanders?" over and over. Well, what about the GIRL? What do we tell her family? I saw them take her, it was two __________guys? Sheesh.

El-Tejon, you feign concern for the bystanders and yet have no duty for the girl. I think this is self- contradictory and discredits your line of reasoning. Sounds like something the Government would say. Just my opinion.

I think I would rather sit in jail for a stranger than have to go home to the warm cozy safe nook and live with the fact that I couldve helped and did not so she died for it. I'll act as my conscience directs me too.

Intune

February 12, 2003, 11:38 AM

El Tejon, it's not a matter of proving one's "manhood." No potential shooting scenario is going to be risk-free. NONE.

These are all your words:

"Go for cover, be a good witness.

And, even if you do know what is going, does not mean you should get involved just because you are carrying a pistol. Real life is not gun rag fiction.

…they can still come after you. Something to take in mind in the cost/benefit analysis.

Why put yourself and many others in danger?

Why subject oneself to danger with lots of unknown variables in Problem #1 or #2?

I think you and ahenry have made solid points to justify a shooting that may or may not save the day; however, I prefer avoidance to defense.

Maybe you can live with the costs associated with intrevening, but everyone should be aware of what may come.

I am in no danger, I would not. If they look around to kill witnesses, then it changes a lot.

I avoid as wise man in Tejas sez, "you just let an unarmed man be killed--he should have armed himself." I have no duty to intrevene, I will not, I avoid. You cannot save the world, but you may be able to save yourself (also wise man in Tejas).

Why anyone would be intent on risking everything, including hurting innocents, when he is in no danger and has no duty to do so is beyond me. "Doing something right" is subjective and can lead to prison, bankruptcy, inter alia. If you decide not to intrevene, then there are no consequences. If you decide to intrevene and it turns out that you have shot innocents or police officers, there will be dire consequences.

I have no need and have no chip on my shoulder to act rashly to "prove something", "act like a man" or to be a hero. I fail to see how protecting myself by choosing not to intrevene renders me incapable of defending myself if I were to be attacked.

I'm not in danger regardless, don't shoot.
Spineless? No, just not foolhardy. I do not equate bravery with recklessness. What good would anyone be to their wife if in prison or broke? Why fight a battle you do not have to? Jumping into a Problem #1 that you do not have to be in is setting yourself up for all kinds of potential trouble after the fact.

Atticus, how is it heartless or spineless to recognize a tough situation and check your fire rather than risk the lives of innocents or you or your family?

Just because you are confident in your Warrior Princelyness, does not mean things will go as you imagine

I understand your zeal and frustration, I urge all to temper their physical prowess with the knowledge that study of these things will bring. Call it cowardice or whatever you like. Someday you will call it wisdom.

Why subject yourself to any risk if there is no need (other than the need to play Batman)?

I have never claimed that something will happen next, just that it may. I do not know what is going on in the described scenario and do not know what will happen if I start a fight. Only a foolhardy person refuses to weigh the consequences of his actions just as only the uneducated runs to a fight he can avoid as he as no idea of the bad things that await during and after a fight.

I carry to defend myself and myself alone. I have no obligation to others. I do not see myself as Batman or a saviour to the world and am too old to have anything to prove. There is a chance that one could pull this (sucessfully intrevene) off. However, the downside here is enormous which you now see.

Beer, pathetic? Maybe so, but I'll let the heros (and the mall ninjas) save the world. I ain't no hero/mall ninja.

Is not the course of action that causes the least harm is to become a good witness rather than a third party to a fight in which you do not know the players?

I'm saying that in this scenario to get involved is to risk it all to yourself and others with little benefit.

Delta, Kitty should have armed herself. No one had a duty to help her."

?????????????????????

El Tejon, I will give you the benefit of doubt and say that you may be a great warrior but you're gonna have to prove it in a foxhole down the line. I would not let you share mine. 'Nuff said.

Felonious Monk

February 12, 2003, 12:01 PM

You guys who are incinerating El Tejon seem to think that what he's proposing is that we all stand around with our thumbs up various body cavities and spectate.

Edward said: "Aw were gettin goofy now. Bottom line is some recognize the moral obligation to help and some do not."

Major error. Bravo Sierra, Butch Cassidy!
El Tejon and I both recognize the moral obligation to help, and we fulfill that obligation without employing deadly force to the possible cult-buster/BG's.

Observe actions. Evaluate/mentally note details.
CALL OUT/Question Ski Mask boys.
Evaluate response...
FREEZE FRAME: Since the situation did not provide any further details, the rest is pure conjecture. A crap shoot.
Write the ending according to your own sense of Cowboy Wannabe, Sherriff Roscoe P, OR quivering poontang milk-toast waste of breath panty-waste...

...or, my preference (and my hope), a quick-thinking, responsible Armed Citizen who will shoot as a last resort, but will try to do lots of other things first to stop the situation if it turns out to be a bad scene going down.

I'd like to hear from some of our personal defense trainer folks on this. Gomez? You other guys who do this for a living...what's your take: Shoot/No Shoot?

King

February 12, 2003, 12:25 PM

Sorry Monk....If I get caught at the mercy of two BG's who are planning me great harm (per this scenario) and El Tejon is the only one there to help me, I'm in a world of hurt. He's not going to get involved. Neither are several others here. His reasons are clear. He his free to choose his actions. That's unfortunate in my view.

Question is, if it were El Tejon (or pick one of the others) being dragged out of the store by two masked gunmen, would he be grateful to those strangers who would step to the plate to help him? (I already know the answer).

Intune

February 12, 2003, 12:43 PM

Any incineration is self-inflicted. Please sir, could you perchance point me to the post in which El Tejon stated that he would do ANYTHING other than observe, to assist this hapless individual other than note details? In order for an "intervention" to take place, one must INTERVENE in some form whether verbal or physical. Otherwise, one is ALLOWING these individuals to proceed on their way unchallenged. Throw mean thoughts their way? I agree with your assessment of this situation and would, myself, issue a verbal challenge (thereby notably increasing my own peril) just to reassure my belief that these individuals did indeed have criminal intent. Depending on their reaction to that challenge another assessment would then be done before any deadly force would be employed on my part. I see none of this confrontation in El Tejon's posts. None.

Diesle

February 12, 2003, 12:44 PM

Bottom line is some recognize the moral obligation to help and some do not

Ummm, what about my moral obligation to my family?'

Then, what is the order of my moral obligations. In my world obligation #1 is to me and my loved ones. So, my immediate actions will likely be driven by that fact. Causing me to take cover AND THEN, if possible (subjective), be of service to my fellow man.

The reason you are getting resistance on this matter is that you (most of you) are indicating that a MAN is defined by his willingness to come to the aid of fellow man. Therefore, making any man who would not immediatly jump, a BAD man. Or, a bad example of a man.

That is not a reasonable assumption to make.

Diesle

buzz_knox

February 12, 2003, 01:05 PM

The question isn't about whether it's unreasonable or wrong to immediately jump. The question is whether you'd jump at all. So far, we have people discuss taking cover and challenging the presumed bad guys (and people with guns and ski masks and hauling a screaming woman away rarely fall into the good guy category no matter how much you try to swing it that way) or taking cover and essentially doing nothing. And calling 911 in that situation is basically the same as doing nothing.

My obligation is to myself and my family first. But included in my obligation to my family is the need to help out others when I can. Why? Because I want others to do the same for my family when I'm not there, and if I'm not willing to do that, why should I expect anyone else to do it?

El Tejon

February 12, 2003, 01:16 PM

King, you're right, of course, assuming I'm being dragged out of the store by masked terrorists from Bedsheetistan. However, what if it is John Law that finally caught up with me? Can't dodge the phone calls of the Indiana Department of Revenue forever.

Point being, we don't know here. Further, even if we did have a Godseye view, what would be the attitude of the innocent bystanders about who are moseying down the calle in the middle of the gunfight we are about to initiate?

buzz, understood, but what about the obligation to use your ability to help without making things worse. What about the obligation to the bystanders and your own family? Would not a gunfight in the middle of a busy street aggravate an already bad situation?

Ski masks and screaming women NOT good guys?!?! What, you never pitched a CLET case from DEA???

Intune, there's no reason to give me any benefit. I am no warrior and make no claims to have been at any time. I sat in an office typing and talking on the phone.

My training for Problem #1 has all been under the eyes of gunskul masters. Shooting cardboard and paint pellets is not the same as the real deal.

However, my experience with Problem #2 was all been the real deal. The best indicia of good training is avoidance. I would avoid that foxhole as best I could.

Pheonix

February 12, 2003, 01:21 PM

If in doubt, dont pull it out!

Diesle

February 12, 2003, 01:28 PM

If in doubt, dont pull it out!

Isnt it... When in doubt, I whip it... Ive got me a.....

Oh, that was something else....

Diesle

Jim March

February 12, 2003, 01:44 PM

El Tejon: balance the "possible" threat to bystanders (and myself) to the near-certain threat to the girl. It ain't even close. IF they're bad guys, and they haul her away, she's prolly dead.

I'm with F-Monk on the verbal challenge first, just in case this is a low-budget movie shoot, or "street bondage sex game" or cops or whatever. Fine. But until I know what's up, they ain't haulin' her outta there. Not with their hides intact they ain't.

The good news is, I *know* what I'd do. Been there once before.

Diesle

February 12, 2003, 01:51 PM

The good news is, I *know* what I'd do

Good news for you.... The rest of us sorry saps can only speculate.

Diesle

El Tejon

February 12, 2003, 02:07 PM

Diesle, no speculation here. I know what to do as well.

ahenry

February 12, 2003, 02:18 PM

Not so much speculation for others either...

Chris Rhines

February 12, 2003, 02:24 PM

There is a huge difference in being grateful to someone who intervenes in your situation, and believing that that person is obligated to do so.

- Chris

ahenry

February 12, 2003, 02:30 PM

There is a huge difference in being grateful to someone who intervenes in your situation, and believing that that person is obligated to do so. True enough. Isn’t it pretty hypocritical though to want somebody to help you (as evidenced by the feeling of gratefulness) and yet be unwilling to provide that same help to another if the roles were reversed?

Chris Rhines

February 12, 2003, 02:55 PM

No, it isn't.

If I'm being dragged off by some thug, and you shoot his lights out, I'll be properly grateful. But that places no obligation upon me to do the same if the situations were reversed. Nor would I expect you to intervene on my behalf. I understand that your life is more valuable to you than mine is, and I accept that (because I think the same way.)

For me to intervene in such a situation, the victim would have to be a person that I am willing to die (or go to prison, or be financially ruined, etc.) for. Sorry, but a stranger on the street doesn't qualify.

- Chris

ahenry

February 12, 2003, 03:19 PM

But that places no obligation upon me to do the same if the situations were reversed.
I didn’t say it places an obligation on you (as I said before, read what I wrote), I said it was hypocritical. There is a difference.

I understand what you are saying though. Can’t agree with the value system you express, but thats ok, I’m sure you don’t agree with mine.

Intune

February 12, 2003, 04:31 PM

this has been very enlightening. We are all different creatures with different wants, needs & values. Some of these are shared by others, some aren't. That's okay. To each his own. I have been on the wrong end of firearms during two separate occasions. On the first I was unarmed and during the second I had a firm (sweaty?) grasp on a Colt .357 loaded with the old blue Glasers. My mouth proved to be the best weapon in both of these incidents. Yes, I know, it's big enough to be considered a deadly weapon! In the scenario that started this thread, I believe that I would intervene if given the opportunity and even if unarmed. Red, Yellow, Black or White. They wouldn't have to reach a certain "standard" for me to try IF I thought that I could help. Big emphatic IF. This is what I would do for a stranger. If it was my wife or one of my children at risk, I don't care if I was naked and unarmed I'm going after them. Stupid? Maybe. Anything less than 100% effort to save them would not be entertained. But that's what I would do. I am more in shock at some of the statements than judgmental. You guys gotta do what you feel comfortable with.

Edward429451

February 12, 2003, 05:14 PM

<Major Error. Bravo Sierra, Butch Cassidy! El-Tejon and I both recognize the moral obligation to help, and we fullfill that obligation without employing deadly force to the possible cult-busters/BG's.>

I fail to see any error in my thinking here. This is my perception / opinion based on the given set of circumstances of the thread. Shots have already been fired. Is it reasonable to assume that they will continue with their demonstrated propensity to violence if challenged? Of course. Hence no challenge first. If the scenario had no shots fired already, I'd challenge. So within the given set of circumstances, IMO, yall' fail to see a moral obligation to act.
Dont get me wrong on the moral obligation thing (I think Chris is right on that one), My moral obligation is not subjecated to me from without or 'other people', it is ingrained in my own conscience, so comes from within myself.

<...or, my preference (and my hope), a quick thinking, responsible armed citizen who will shoot as a last resort, but will try to do lots of other things first to stop it if it turns out to be a bad scene going down.>

Not very often, but sometimes the last resort is the first action.

<Ummm, what about my moral obligation to my family?>

Ummm, fulfill your moral obligations to your family as you see fit according to your own wisdom & judgement. No one's trying to force any obligation on you, just putting out food for thought friend. Subjective's correct, me too.

<There is a huge difference in being grateful to someone who intervenes in your situation, and beleiving that the person is obligated to do so.>

I agree with this. Chris & El-Tejon & others are free men and it could prolly be construed to be a violation of these individuals absolute rights, to press them into service where their conscience does not agree. You cant expect anyone to know something that they have never realized or learned etc..so it is not hyporcritical methinks. My moral obligations are self realized.

Not rescuing El-Tejon because we beleive he wouldnt help us would be hyporcritical. I'd help him just as fast as anyone else. To base your amount of willingness to help on another individuals core beliefs would be pretty low (to yourself!). Have we not our own standards & conscience? ("sorry mrs Freeman, I didnt like what he said so I didnt save him and now he's dead" :rolleyes: )

Come to think of it the statement "She should've armed herself" does sound kind of self incinerating. Would you say this to the family & police after they took the girl?

Biggest danger I see here is the police. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE wear your jackets, guys. I most certainly dont want to inadvertantly shoot an officer. I can keep my shots away from bystanders but sure wish that nice officer wouldve worn his identifiing jacket. If it turns out to be a BG in a jacket he'll still get the challenge to be on the safe side.

Turkey Creek

February 12, 2003, 05:26 PM

El Tejon- you will hear no more from me- your comments continue to run the same old themes, are getting tiresome, and are totally contrary to my beliefs- fortunately you are in the minority- the world would be a very cruel place if most thought as you do- if you think you can go through life without help from time to time, you must be living some place other than this planet- there are givers and there are takers in life- I know where I sand and it's not difficult to see where you come from- if you are happy with your choices, then God Bless

Turkey Creek

February 12, 2003, 05:37 PM

Chris- concerning your last post

"I understand that your life is more valuable to you than mine is, and I accept that (because I think the same way.)"

here lies the difference between you and me- I am willing to risk my life for yours so I'm at least putting your life on an equal footing with mine- and No, thank God, you and I do Not think alike!

"For me to intervene in such a situation, the victim would have to be a person that I am willing to die (or go to prison, or be financially ruined, etc.) for. Sorry, but a stranger on the street doesn't qualify."

See my last post to El Tejon re "givers and takers"

B9mmHP

February 12, 2003, 05:58 PM

Ya`all need to quit pickin on El Tejon.

He ain`t going to save anybody from anything, I doubt that he would try to save his own butt, unless while runing away the perp shot and wonded him, then he may draw.:uhoh:

And for the rest of ya`all, my self included, check out the first part of my Sig line.

Sometimes peoples minds can be changed, sometimes not.

I hope that when El comes on his visits to Kerrville, Texas, that maybe some of the Texan spirit rubs off on him. :D

Bullet

February 12, 2003, 07:56 PM

El Tejon you're still here? I thought you got thrown off the boat.

Really, isn't the United States Great. Anyone can express his or her opinion. I don't agree with you but I can live with that.

As far as claiming that throwing you off the lifeboat was murder. I say it was your choice because I would have asked you - Will you give up your seat (on the lifeboat) to this woman? If your reply was yes I would think you just committed an honorable suicide. If your answer was no and then you got thrown overboard I don't think this would be murder.

What you don't know how to swim (you should have taken swimming lessons) NOT MY PROBLEM

What the water is freezing (you should have brought your own lifeboat) NOT MY PROBLEM

I think by answering no you just committed an unhonorable suicide. NOT MY PROBLEM

Have a nice life.

PS Are you from FRANCE?

Matthew Courtney

February 12, 2003, 08:14 PM

The armed men could be cops serving a warrant or undercover officers making an arrest, who knows? I believe we all have a duty to help protect the innocent, but before introducing my valuable self to a violent situation, I would have to know who the goodguys are.

Which is the more common occurance: Daylight kidnappings at gunpoint or lawful arrests by cops not wearing uniforms?

Beren

February 13, 2003, 02:17 AM

Wow, this thread has really taken off. Anyway, in response to the sandbagging ( :) ) that Edward429451 laid on me..

Is clear...as viewed through a cloud. If you're not properly equipped then you should get so equipped. It might be your wife or daughter needing help, then whats your excuse?

Unfortunately, I cannot realistically wear body armor on a daily basis. Nor do I routinely carry a short-barrelled rifle or shotgun on my trips to the movie theater. Also, I don't have a number of highly-trained friends in position to provide support fire.

I don't know if I would be able to stop myself if it was my wife or daughter involved, but I hope I would do as I outlined earlier.

I am not going to attempt to shoot through my wife or daughter.

It comes around again to the particular circumstances of the scenario. The described scenario does /not/ present much hope of the hostage coming out alive if I attempt a direct, armed engagement with my concealed handgun.

Sometimes it IS better to do nothing, and it is almost always better to avoid doing things the Hollywood way.

IF:

A. The muzzle of the visible handgun is not pointed towards the victim.

B. The armed opponent is not mostly obscured by the victim.

C. The area behind the armed opponent is reasonably clear of people I would prefer not to put holes into.

D. (B) and (C) also hold true for the second visible opponent, who would have to be engaged next.

Then, and only then, would I view it as productive to engage directly with my concealed handgun.

Schuey2002

February 13, 2003, 03:35 AM

Yes, i would.:evil:

El Tejon

February 13, 2003, 06:36 AM

Bullet, I can't have a nice life, you thrown me into the icy water. Sort of like shooting (or having one shot by the officer/BG) a bystander to save the arrestee/victim.

Turkey, beliefs are good, but reality is something else. Sometimes best to have beliefs based on reality.

Real life is not a gun shoppe bromide or a movie. The problem is that some believe that doing what they believe is "right" will not be seen as such by those that they hurt doing "right." If you start a gunfight on the street, you may not be seen and mentioned as a hero, you may be seen as reckless and mentioned as the defendant. Of course, it depends.

B9mm, I'm counting the days--52 days as of 13th of Febuary.:(

Edward429451

February 13, 2003, 10:50 AM

It comes around again to the particular circumstances of the scenario. The described scenario does /not/ present much hope of the hostage coming out alive if I attempt a direct, armed engagement with my concealed handgun

I can agree with this only would add that she dont seem to have much chance for survival if you only observe & report also.

Your checklist seems reasonable enough. I think that those considerations are a given in almost any scenario. How could I take the shot if any of those conditions existed?

IMO, getting equipped is more of a mindset than body armor or whatnot. Seems like some people steer themselves more towards looking for a reason to not engage than a way that they could possibly engage and save a life. This is not hollywood, just determination. If I was hollywood, I'd have shot the dog that attacked me 4 or 5 times instead of 1 in the grass in front of him.

My position is not hollywood shoot up the street and hope for the best. If you dont have a clean shot, just stay on him with your sights instead of reholstering to grab your bic pen to write the license number. He may give you a shot when he moves to the other side of car to get in, or the girl may throw herself to the ground to resist getting in the car, giving you an opening. If I never got a clean shot, I probably would not have the license number either cause I'd stay on him until they drove away, looking for the clean saving shot.

I just think its wrong to decide beforehand that you would not engage them.