Hypothetical question....2 perps robbing a liquor store....

[brian0128]

Both perps have guns, 1 guy covering the customers just waving the gun around, the other has the clerk covered and is shouting obscenities and getting violent.....what do you do? You think he is going to start shooting.....? According to you the "you have a legal and moral obligation to come to the aid of a third party when there is "reasonable" belief that death or grave bodily injury is IMMINENT"theory.......
Would your response change if there was only 1 perp with 1 gun pointed at the clerk?

 

[CWL]

Where are you in this scenario? Are you a customer?

If BG is covering you with gun, I think that your first obligation is to let them steal the cash.

Second obligation is to defend yourself if something evil goes down.

I would not be bothering with the activities of the 2nd gunman holding the gun on the cashier -unfortunate but true. The guy in my view is the one pointing gun at me.

My life comes first.


From videos of actual liquor store holdups, it doesn't go down the way you describe. Usually both perps are focusing on the cashier/register. One guy covers while the 2nd goes for the cash.

Sometimes they shoot the cashier immediately -so there is nothing you can do. Othertimes, they shoot the cashier after he/she makes a move for weapon -in this instance, you'd want to stay clear of stray rounds. Rarely (but it happens) the cashier gets shot accidentally or a gunman gets angry at slow speed of response. Extremely rarely does entire store get herded to back room for execution.

Last case is when you'd want to draw your CCW.

 

[twoblink]

I'd pull the knife out of my pocket, and do a run,tuck,roll, stand up, slit the throat of the first perp, and then go after the second in the same manner..

Oh, you mean if I'm not a ninja??

I'd get my butt to cover!

Most of the time, the shoot the clerk, or just go after the cash. I'd try to read the situation and see what they would do.

If they are the violent type, then I'd pull out my knife (you do have at least a knife on you at all times right??) and find cover, but be prepared to defend myself.

If there was only 1 perp, I'd be more inclined to help out. But it depends on how itchy he is on the trigger finger..

A knife stabbed in the hand, prevents the index finger from being used..

 

[sanchezero]

According to you the "you have a legal and moral obligation to come to the aid of a third party when there is "reasonable" belief that death or grave bodily injury is IMMINENT"theory.......

I am unaware of the legal obligation.

The moral obligation is one I don't have a problem with. The are very few people, that when threatened, I would feel obligated to protect . In those few cases my tactics would be markedly different than in the majority of cases.

We talk about shooting to stop the threat, but it is understood that this will likely involve killing the threat (thus the notion of lethal force). We have all committed to undertaking this course of action and all of it's consequences (problem 2) when ourselves or loved ones are in danger, but I won't willingly kill someone on behalf of a person I know nothing about.

 

[Sleuth]

There are many assumptions built in to this scenario. Given that, and feeling a moral imperitive to help my fellow man, I would first, try to position myself near cover if available, while trying to appear as a sheeple. If the threat seemed to escalate, and the threat seemed immenent, I would put one round into the "cover" guy, 2 into the principal, and then make other deliveries as needed.

But the world is not perfect, and none of us were born with a "guarenteed life span". I have risked my life for people I don't know, and, within the limits of my skills and abilities stand ready to do so again. Unless we are willing to do that, we become sheeple ourselves, and a bad guys win.

I refuse to join the ranks of those who will only act to save specified people -("only my life, or my wife and kids"). What a self centered, self absorbed way to live. They are saying that if they have a ability to save your wife or kids - let them get raped and murdered! She did not marry me!! Those are not MY kids being forced into that car - the heck with them!
What poor excuses for people. They are even worse than the sheeple.

 

[sanchezero]

 

[CWL]

Sleuth,

Welcome to this board.

Unfortunately for your description, reality is that tunnelvision will probably occur. It is very likely that you will not even be aware of gunman #2 since you are staring down pistola #1. Even if you could draw & beat #1, there is a good chance that #2 could shoot you from 3 yards away, without you even realizing that he/she is there.

 

[fish2xs]

hold on....

Sleuth wrote:

>>I refuse to join the ranks of those who will only act to save specified
>>people -("only my life, or my wife and kids"). What a self centered, self
>>absorbed way to live. They are saying that if they have a ability to save
>>your wife or kids - let them get raped and murdered! She did not marry
>>me!! Those are not MY kids being forced into that car - the heck with
>>them!
>>
>>What poor excuses for people. They are even worse than the sheeple.
>>

...be careful here. You live in Arizona - where there may still be some
common sense left in the legal/politcal systems. Not so here in the People's
Republic of MA. A white suburban guy pulling out out a handgun is lower
than whale crap. The perp pounding grandma over the head with a pipe to
get her SS check is "disadvantaged".

I was the only witness in a trial that connected a crack addict to a series
of purse snatches in a nice neighborhood (median house - $350K+). I saw
firsthand how the judge stifled my testimony. The guy was still convicted
on all 11 counts - the judge threw out 6 of them (why bother with a jury,
just let Oprah make the call).

Luckily I do alot of public speaking & presenting. I was able to relate
to the jury and get across what I wanted to get across. The DA said it made
all the difference.

I learned from the lengthy experience of the trial. I won't ever pull
a HG to protect anyone than me, my family, neighbors/friends. I'm not going
to jail for assault so I can protect a total stranger - who will probably
end up sueing me. Don't blame me - blame Ted Kennedy. I'm just surviving.

-Phil

 

[Art Eatman]

You know, I just really like living in rural Texas!

I'm reasonably proud of my capabilities with my LW Commander. If it is feasible from the standpoint of my own safety--and other customers, I'll try to kill the more dangerous of the two bad guys first; then the other.

In this scenario, the perp by the clerk appears to be more ready to shoot. The "crowd control" perp is less ready to shoot, and odds are that he will look away from the crowd at the sound of my shot--think "time lag".

I'm not saying this is what I absolutely WILL do. It's what I'd do if my own judgement says it's feasible. My location, lines of fire, all those caveats.

Art

 

[Sleuth]

CWL, I have been in life threatening situations during a 26 year law enforcement career - and I never had tunnel vision.

Fish, your choices may vary, but I could not reconcile not acting to "protect & defend" with "who want's a law suit?".

I have killed in the line of duty - not something I celebrate, or am proud of. But I never felt any remorse - I did what I had to do, and could look at myself every morning in the mirror, and sleep well every night.
My reward was a $30mil wrongful death lawsuit - it took 5 years to go away. So what! I saved a busload of schoolkids from death or serious bodily harm.

Your choices may differ. You will have to live with yourself, and the judgement of your peers.
I trained officers for 25 of my 26 years, and never lost an officer (other than 2 guys in the Oaklahoma City bombing). I know that my training, including my actions post incident, helped the Judge decide to dismiss the suit. I taught a class in post incident survival, and followed my own lesson plan. It worked.

If where you live is that bad - move. My life is the most important thing to me, after my wife. No job, no place, is worth the potential loss of my life. What could possibly be worth living where you must be a sheep? As they say in New Hampshire, "Live Free or Die!"

If you choose otherwise, never complain about it. It's your life, to use or lose.

(This rant is not intended as a personal attack, but to give you something to think about. I have "been there, done that, got the Tee shirt & the hat." Feel free to disagree, just understand your choices. Informed decisions are the best decisions.)

 

[fish2xs]

No offense taken, and none intended....

if my scenario involved the saving of a busload of school kids, then yes I'm
certain I would act - if I felt it would do more good than harm to the kids.

I have seen far less of the mean streets than you have I'm certain. As such
I'm guessing you have seen a scenario where you had to intervene in a domestic
situation and afterwards felt 'why bother'.

I used to intervene (prior to having a class A) and then realized that *I* was
the bad guy for trying to be chivalrous (sp?). No more...

Me & family? yes. Friends & neighbors? yes. Schoolbus full of kids? yes. Some
bimbo out in front of Denny's? no way. I'll call the local cops, but that's
it.

Did you hear the recent story of the guy in NYC who shot a man that had broken
into his kid's room? The anti-DA charges the resident with unlawful HG
possession, even though he had paperwork showing he was in the process of
getting a license after moving from FLA. The story was on Fox news.

There's alot of reasons I live where I do. Great job, great neighborhood, the
ocean's only 20 minutes away... The cauldron of liberals and anti-gun laws,
however, is not one of the reasons.

I have lived in MA & NY - both basically anti-gun areas. These places require
a different behavior than other part of the country. Same goes for driving
vs. boating. Half a million cars will pass a disabled car before someone pulls
over. But if you see a boater in distress, you are required to render aid.

Sleuth, have you spent any time in a place like Boston? You might understand
some of my apprehension

 

[El Tejon]

brian, if I can leave, I'm leaving. If not, then I may have to fight. I do not fight if I can.

If I am foolish and I have to fight, then I fight smart. Keeping in mind that as the mantis prepares to attack the cicada, the sparrow plans its attack on the mantis, I shoot the closest threat first following Rule #4. I move to something solid (2 liters of Pepsi?) and fight BG#2. I watch BG#1 because just because I shot him doesn't mean he's out of the fight. Lots of others will be hurt. I will go to jail, if I live. I will be sued, if I live or not. You will be made to be a bad person, if you live.

We train in violence to understand violence so that we may avoid it. The answer never changes despite the threat profile. We always avoid.

 

[Sleuth]

Fish, I went to college in Lowell, and started my career in Boston. But back then, the statue of the Minuetmen still had a rifle.

Let us change the situation slighly, to see how it would/could change your response:

You are in a convienence store with several other customers when a fire breaks out and blocks the exits. You break the front window - Do you help the others get out, even though they are not familiy members? Or do you just save yourself?

Remember, if you do not get everyone out, you could be sued.

 

[El Tejon]

Sleuth, if you have no duty, by what theory could you be sued???

In your scenario by helping others you are not endangering others as you are when you pull your pistol. It is not the same as launching pieces of metal about in a 360 firing range.

 

[Sleuth]

You can be sued for saving one person over another. I did not say they would win, only that they can sue. i.e., why did you help that guy when my mother was there and did not get out? (Usually accompanied with some idea of prejudice, as in "do you hate the elderly?".) You could, in some states, be sued for not acting. And you may be protected by good samaritan laws.

You have no duty to help others beyond your training & ability. The legal parameters may differ state to state. The Moral imperative is what you have within.

"If my neighbor's house is on fire, shall I not lend him my hose?"
A paraphrase of FDR before congress, asking for Lend Lease legislation.

 

[El Tejon]

Saved for saving one person over another, really? Is there a case or statute that you are citing, or just speculating? Do you think one may sue on a "moral imperative"?

You could be sued for anything. True, but I can countersue and take appropriate admin action at a recreational level.

In what states do you have an affirmative duty to strangers??? How does my skill level create a duty???

I have no duty to help no matter the color my gun fu sash or how many stripes on my pants.

 

[Sleuth]

That's correct. All you have to do is look in the mirror in the morning and say "it was OK to let that little old lady burn, at least I survived."

Duty - when not a moral imperative, is usually considered only for those who have taken an oath of office - Police, Fire, Doctors. Most states do have laws that require you to lend aid and assistance to those in distress, to the limits of your training. Your skill level creates a duty if, for example, you are trained as an EMT but fail to render aid. This is the extension of duty. You also have a "duty" to report crimes. (Federally, "Misprision of a Felony")

Case cites - I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But I have seen cases brought for little/no reason.

Torts - civil lawsuits, are brought on emotion, not statues. There need not be a statute for a suit to be filed. They are won on opinions, those of the experts and the jury or judge. Thus, they rely on the proponderance of the evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt.

But the origin of my remarks rests on those who will allow the innocent to die, rather than take action because they fear the possible consequences. They are worst than the sheeple, who have given up their right to self defense. They have taken such a narrow view of that self defense to exclude those outside of their personal circle.
Take an exterior view of the problem: Which of your friends will come to your aid, if you cannot solve the problem - you get knocked on the head at the start, for example? Don't you wish they would help, instead of standing aside and saying "El Tejon is a nice guy, but we are not related, so let him die! "?

"Appropreate admin action at a recreational level"? You mean revenge for exercising their legal rights? Or what??

 

[El Tejon]

Sleuth, you do know that police have no duty to protect anyone by state statute and Supreme Court decisions? Which states require you to render aid to a stranger that you have not injured?

Which states require EMTs or doctors to render aid or face prosecution? Which state statutes? Federal misprison of a felony is a duty to report (or rather not to conceal a crime), not to act.

Civil cases may be brought without merit but there are remedies to this. Civil lawsuits better be brought by law (statute or case law) or it is without merit. Where in the law are these duties you cite?

I take the personal view that I will only in self-defense or defense of others if it involves me or my immediate family, no ones, as I recognize the limitations of fighting, how many things can go wrong and the perils of Problem #2. As the wise man in Tejas says, "you cannot save the world, you can, if lucky, save yourself and your family."

If I am lying convulsing on the floor of the kwoon, I would hope my fellow club members would call an ambulance or render aid if they can, but they are not required to, no matter how nice I am to them.

Appropriate rememdy means legal counteraction or administrative grievances against meritless litigation. I despise revenge and the Batman mentality.

 

[Sleuth]

At the very least, the State of Arizona requires you render aid to the limit of your abilities. Check your own state laws - you may be surprized. Most of these statutes were past in conjunction with good samartitan (sp) statutes. I think Texas and Indiana also have such laws.

I have no idea what a kwoon is, but wouldn't you want them to stop the attacker before he/she/it killed you? Or is it OK with you if they just watch? After all, they are not your brothers and sisters. And you have posted that you would not help them.

Suppose you have the bad luck to get knocked out at the start of, oh, say a diner takeover/robbery. There you lie, with others of your ilk, with handguns, CCW's, and training, watching your loved one's being dragged off for the "entertainment" of the gang members. You feel they should do nothing, because, since you are not related, they should not act to keep your mother, wife, and daughter from being asaulted? Is that an accurate statement of your feelings?
How would you feel if I was there, armed, trained, and ready to stop the desicration of your family, even if I don't know you?

And, when you quote court decisions, the ruling was that the police have no duty to any INDIVIDUAL to protect them. Not the general "anyone" but any specific person. I am well aquainted with the case, which involved several women in a house who were attacked. They called the police, who drove around the house, detected nothing wrong, and left the women to their fate.

Your choices may differ. You may let your neighbor's house burn, or leave all those other folks in the burning convienence store. You have your character, I have mine. Fortunatly for me, so do those I call friend.

P.S. If you want court cases, hire a lawyer. I don't do legal research for free for anyone.

 

[Art Eatman]

El Tejon, since I think it's obvious that from my post, above, I agree with Sleuth more than with you. Ergo, to wit and therefore, I ain't gonna put on my Moderator hat.

However, it seems obvious you two aren't gonna agree, so you might just leave it at agreeing to disagree?

, Art

 

[El Tejon]

Sleuth, Arizona has a statute, ARS § 28-661, that requires those that are involved in motor vehicle accidents render aid. I am unfamiliar with any statute that requires anyone to become involved in a gunfight.

The Good Samaritan doctrine/statute(s) is usually a liability defense to those that render aid. You can still be sued. It imposes no duty to intrevene in a gunfight.

A kwoon is a training hall in Chinese boxing. There is no requirement that my younger or older brothers help me as I am being attacked by a deranged lunatic off the street.

If I am watching others being dragged off, then, as wise man in Tejas says, "they should have armed themselves," I do nothing. If I am watching my own family, I will perform the indicated response.

The decision I was quoting was DeShaney which holds that there is no duty for the government to protect you. It involves a neglected/abused child in Winnebago County Wisconsin who sued the state Department of Social Services. I should have specified United States Supreme Court; I am sorry for the confusion.

There is no duty to act which is the point you raised but did not state a basis in law to affirm there was. Whether one WOULD, is an entirely different matter. Acting recklessly foolishly is not moral.

 

[El Tejon]

Art, I have no argument with others stating that they would start a gunfight. I will disagree and will point out their illogic.

However, when someone says that there is a duty to start a fight, then I object most stridently. Asserting that you must play Batman is not only incorrect but reckless to the gun culture as a whole. It is an assertion I would anticipate in a gun rag or the gun shoppe, but not on THR.

 

[Sleuth]

El Tejon, the great thing about this country that I spent my adult life defending is that you get to live your life the way you choose. I get to live mine they way I choose. I select my friends based on shared values - you get to do the same.
I only hope you never have to test your belief system at someone else's expense.
I have tested mine, and at every level I have found it suitable. So did both the district court and the Circuit judge of the 9th Circuit, the media, my peers, and most importently, myself. I was weighed, I was measured, and, when the time came, I was not found wanting.

You choices may vary.

BTW, you may wish to choose another character. BATMAN never used firearms. And I would not be "starting" a "gunfight". When outlaws commence their evil deeds, the forfit any expectation that people will not resist, with deadly force if justified.

 

[fish2xs]

sleuth,

in response to your 'burning store with blocked exits' question, yes I would
save as many people as possible. I'd save a dog if it was in there...

But I would also kill a dog if it attacked me, my family, any person, or my
dog.

I would intercede if there was without a doubt a clear, proveable, good guy
and bad guy. In fact the court case and witness experience I refer to in my
post was a case where a woman yelled "HEY" when I was pumping gas into my car.
I stopped pumping gas and ran towards the woman. A man looked at me and got
into his running car and bolted. This guy later mugged a 70+ year old lady
and threw her to the ground to get her purse. He was eventually apprehended
after an amazing car chase. The link below doesn't do justice to the story
the assistant DA told me over drinks after he put this guy away.

http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20010411/LN_001.htm

I never realized until after the trial was over that I was the sole witness
for the prosecution. I also went through a bunch of BS as the defense atty
was trying to get my testimony thrown out - and tried to make my testimony
very inconvenient for me to give (long story - mostly messing up trial dates).

This all happened before my class A, and even today I don't carry.

If I carried then, and pulled the gun, I *may* have stopped this guys spree,
but I'd be in a whole heap of turds with the law.

With respect to your analogy of the burning store and getting sued by the
relative of the person I didn't save - that would be one thing. However getting
the full force of the MA legal system - not to mention the rage of every
screaming liberal in the state and the press (being redundant here) is another.

I may save a life or limb with intervention - but I also won't do much good
to my family if I am in jail and we lose everything to legal bills. So upon
some further relection, here a few scenarios and my actions in parenthesis -
and let's pretend I'm carrying:

- two guys arguing in parking lot (stay and watch the show, call 911, possibly
intervene if one party clearly being viciously beaten to death)

- guy clearly and aggressively agitating an elderly person (intervene)

- boyfriend/girlfriend or other domestic dispute (run away - maybe call 911)

- in a store/resteraunt which gets held up by gunmen (shoot first, ask later)

- in same store, bad guys have non-gun weapon (hang very low, wait and decide)

I guess what I'm getting at is that I will be aware and get prepared early
one I go to condition yellow (or whatever), but it had better be a real, real
crystal clear situation of good & bad before I'd draw.

As I said earlier, I'm no good to my family if I'm in jail. And they are
my primary responsibility.

-Phil

(this is almost as much fun as talking politics - although on this board,
that could be pretty dull - nobody to argue with... Send more scenarions!)

 

[El Tejon]

Sleuth, please understand I only object to one saying that there is a duty to intrevene. I have long argued that this is dangerous to the gun culture as a whole for a variety of reasons.

Whether one intrevenes depends on the case and one will have to face the consequences of what transpires. I am very glad you are O.K. and it came out as well as it did.

I believe Batman is an appropriate analogy as he acted out of vengence (he "hated crime"), not self-defense.