Loaded question, who do you protect?

[clipse]

I got into a discussion with my father-in-law about who I would use my CCW for. I told him only for my family. He set up a scenario for me though. Say you are in a convenience store and someone comes in and shoots a stranger standing in line and points the gun at the cashier. You and your wife are on the other side of the store and very well hidden for the robber/murderer. You really feel that the bad guy is going to shoot the cashier as well. Do you save the cashier or not since you and your loved ones are in no immediate danger? I would have a hard time not saving someone that I could have. Even if I didn't know the guy. When I got my CCW permit I swore it was only to save me or my wife. I latter added family members to that list but I feel that in the heat of the moment I may not be able to stick to my original feelings. What say you?


clipse

 

[R.H. Lee]

. Do you save the cashier or not since you and your loved ones are in no immediate danger?

"immediate" is the operative word. As long as the armed assailant remains standing and armed, your family is in danger. If you wait until he turns his attention to you, it is probably too late. If you can take him out from behind, or laterally, do it. But watch out for any other CCW holders who may think you are the BG.

My .02

 

[ducktapehero]

Shoot him. He's already shot someone and is pointing the gun at another. He's already shown that he will shoot you and your family too if he sees you. You and your family are already in immediate danger.

 

[jpIII]

I can honestly say that I do not know what I would do in this situation.

I will spend some time considering your situation in the days to come.

On one hand the instinct to bring my wife/family away from the danger, on the other hand knowing for the rest of your life that an innocent person died and you could have stopped it.

No win situation...

 

[Thumper]

As uncertain and as fluid as the real world can be, I still would do everything in my power to keep someone weaker than myself from harm.

Always have and will 'til I'm old and decrepit. I have the scars to prove it.

 

[proven]

if the bg shoots the person in line, and turns to the clerk, he doesn't want witnesses. he'll use the clerk to get what he wants and shoot them as well. shooting the person in line is what i would refer to as random. meaning that it could've been me in line and that he'll shoot anyone else in the store at his own discression.

may sound cheap, stupid, whatever...but providing other factors are conducive, i'd have gun drawn on bg and speak "drop it". any motion but the lowering of his weapon would constitute firing. the reason for this is partly to give the bg the option of living, and partly for the courtroom.

very nice signature line thumper.

 

[Trebor]

Easy answer. If he shot a customer, and is about to shoot the clerk, you and your family are in immediate jeopardy because why would he stop at only two murders? I'd shoot him, not to save the clerk, but to save myself and my family because I justifiably believe that I'm in immediate danger of death.

That question I have is, is a verbal challenge still appropriate in that situation? (I think not, but you could argue either way)

 

[SKN]

clipse,

I don't think the answer is easy. The description of you and your wife's position is "on the other side of the store and very well hidden from the robber/murderer". Your quandry is do you engage to defend the life of another (the clerk). Only you can make that decision and it will first be based on your skills and the confidence in your skills to engage in a gunfight with friendly backgrounds, the clerk is yours and your wife potentially becomes the backstop for any misses by the BG.

Having a CHL and being armed doesn't make you a cop. You're under no obligation to arrest or rescue anyone; unless your state requires this of you as an armed citizen? So, the second element of your decision will be based on what you think is right and what you think you can live with, which includes the clerk becoming the backstop for your misses and/or your wife ends up being the backstop for those of the BG. If we make it a decision based on morality the only hard and fast rules for that, that I know of, are the Ten Commandments and I don't recall one that says stop others from harming anyone else.

It is not easy and it's great that you're thinking about it and getting input here.

My answer based on my training, experience and the pre-rehearsed public venue plan with my spouse who is also a CHL holder: have my wife get down and make the 911 call, change positions, issue a verbal distraction and based on the BG's response do whatever needs to be done to end the threat.

 

[Steve in PA]

Shoot to protect the life of the cashier.

 

[Ransom]

I couldnt live with myself if I let someone die knowing I could have done something to stop it.

 

[Ryder]

I'll stick my neck out to protect a true defenseless stranger. Children, elderly, handicapped, sick, or injured being most obvious examples of what I am talking about.

However in your scenario I know that cashiers sign on knowing the risk. IMO they should take some responsiblity for their own protection. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to help if I were alone and in a position to do so but it does mean I would be very hesitant to interfere since there is so much at risk. Your loved ones are in no immediate danger only as long as you attract no attention. A loaf of bread isn't going to stop a bullet and they are a greater priority to me than some stranger who may be an accomplice in the robbery for all I know.

 

[Diggler]

Shoot to protect the life of the cashier.

And to cleanse the gene pool.

I know when I can and can't shoot someone legally. As long I know that, I'll take each situation as it happens. They're too different and you can't predict what your reaction will be. If me or another person is in immediate danger of life or limb, I have the green light to shoot. Whether I go through with it or just sit at the intersection is something I'll have to decide at the time and deal with later.

 

[Bravo11]

Geography is going to come in to play here too. If you are from a small town, and your considered a good citizen by many people, and if the LE in your community is self defense friendly, and if there is a shot customer on the floor, and if the BG has a bad record. Chances are it would be a justified shoot.
On the other hand. If you were from a large metro liberal city and the BG is a first timer, and you made the shot from behind. You might have to get a good lawyer.
I have run that scenario through myself and I always think I would take aim from a C&C position then post a challenge, if the BG swings and aims I would take the shot.
Chances are that nothing would ever play out like you plan though.

 

[SKN]

"I couldn't live with myself if I let someone die knowing I could have done something to stop it."

How much worse might one feel if in doing something your rounds miss and kill the clerk? Do you think the next of kin will be filing suit against the BG or their family? Your explanation to them of "Well, I tried to save him/her" may not ring as true to them or to a civil jury as to you.

Or, in an exchange of fire your loved one becomes the victim of a gunshot wound? Is the life of a minimum wage employee equal, in your mind, with that of your loved one?

Not an easy decision. A practiced plan based on your skills and the confidence in your skills in the worst case scenario will serve you well. Train hard to fight easy.

 

[treeprof]

Most folks' altruistic tendencies lead to the conclusion that they would come to the assistance of a stranger if that person's life was in peril. But, the possible downsides of a legit shoot gone bad are prison for you and/or the loss of your worldly goods in a civil suit. So the question really is: for whom am I willing to go to prison or lose everything I own? From that perspective, I understand the logic of those who have a very select list of whom they're willing to assist via the use of lethal force.

 

[clipse]

Treeprof,

That is exactly the reason I had a shortened list. But in the heat of everything, I would have a really hard time living with the fact that I could have saved and life and didn't.


clipse

 

[treeprof]

I think everyone wrestles with this at some point, and many probably go back-and-forth.

But I have to ask myself this: If another person does not deem their own life to be worth defending, who am I to question their judgement, especially at my own peril? Beyond the truly defenseless, as Ryder mentioned, everyone has to take some responsibility for their own protection.

Of course, maybe the clerk or whomever DOES have a firearm, but just can't access it at the moment. Who here has not found themselves in cond white at some point, but luckily to no harm?

 

[Blackhawk 6]

I know I have expressed my views on this subject before, but I will offer them again.

I was told by an attorney a few years ago that in the event that I had to discharge my firearm, I could expect to pay $10,000 minimum. If the individual died and the prosecutor took it to trial, I could expect to pay $100,000. As a result I tend to measure my response to these scenarios by this measure: If the individual whose life is in question told me they had an operable brain tumor but it would require $100,000, would I liquidate my assets to help them? This tends to reduce the number for whom I would intercede. The exception would be if the individual in question was one who Ryder referred to as "the true defenseless."

Before anyone decries the fact that I have boiled it down to strictly finances, let me add a few other comments.

First, I am not a law enforcement officer. In any situation where I have a firearm available (at least in the United States) I had to obtain a permit just as any law abiding citizen could have. The simple fact is that the individual in jeopardy could have/should have obtained a means to defend themselves and did not.

Second, a frequent arguement made in these discussions is that becasue I have the means I bear an obligation to my fellow man. I think that the arguement that having the means available to help ones fellow man obligates one to provide assistance is nice in theory but is put in to practice much less frequently than we would like to admit. Suppose you were driving with your wife and two small children on an interstate late at night and saw a couple of rough-looking individuals with their car broke down by the side of the road. Would you stop and offer them a ride? Why not, you have the means. If your answer would be to call the police and let "the system" provide the assistance, why then is this not an acceptable answer to the scenario proposed by Clipse? Ditto for doing nothing.

I think there is a somewhat romantic notion that Hollywood implants in our brains about how wonderful it would be to be the "good guy" who guns down the "bad guy." But real life is not Hollywood and there are consequences to this type of action, justified or not. A dead spouse, a prison sentence or financial ruin are three big ones in the scenario mentioned.

As unpalatable as I may find it, I will content myself with the knowledge that if trouble finds me it will get much more than it expected.

 

[Firethorn]

Skills....

Assuming that I felt that the clerk was sufficiently outside of the line of fire, I'd shoot. Same reason that I joined the AF... The line must be enforced. In this case the clerk is a fellow human, the BG has forfeited that status. Sure, I might suffer consequences, but I'm in a job where I might be kidnapped, tortured, and have my head cut off.

 

[Mannlicher]

For me its simple. The perp has proven his willingness to kill. He is almost certainly going to kill again.
Your family is at tremendous risk. Again, for me, no warning shot, just one into the back of his head. End of Conflict.
I always chuckle at those that plan their defense based on what lawyers and gun scribes say. If the threat is real, the response had best be rapid, and deadly. Let the chips fall where they may, but at least you will be alive, and your family unharmed, as opposed to weighing the consequences, and winding up dead.

 

[Steve in PA]

The perp may have proven his willingness to kill, however you are not the judge, jury and excectutioner.

In most states you can shoot to defend the life of another person, if that person would be justified in using deadly force to protect himself. In the example given, if the cashier has a gun pointed at him, you would be justified in shooting the perp.

You and/or your family are not in immediate threat, you are in a dangerous situation, but you there is no threat directed at you.....at this time. Say the perp does shoot the cashier, and goes about emptying the register, and does not notice you or even knows you are in the store, now what?

If you shoot him......you just commited murder. Yes, you were in a very dangerous situation, but that does not justify shooting the person. I chuckle at the postings on gunboards that say....."just let the lead fly.......let the chips fall where they may."

If no threat is directed at you, and you are not defending the life of another person.......you are just a witness.

Read, re-read.......read again your states laws on the use of force/deadly force. Memorize them. I can only comment directly on PA's law, since I'm a LEO here. No where does it say just because you are in a dangerous situation can you start shooting.

 

[Steve in PA]

This is a copy of my posting over on GT. Given the example posted above, if you are in PA, your actions need to be based on the following;

PACC 505 Use of Force in Self-Protection
(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person- The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

(C)(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat;

PACC 506 Use of Force for the Protection of Other Persons
(a) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:
(1) the actor would be justified under section 505 of this title (relating to use of force in self-protection) in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect;
(2) under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect, would be justified in using such protective force; and
(3) the actor believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

having the means available to help ones fellow man obligates one to provide assistance is nice in theory but is put in to practice much less frequently than we would like to admit.

Just ask Kitty Genovese.

 

[treeprof]

IIRC, people were made aware of Kitty Genovese's attack only after she had been stabbed, and that her attacker left when someone came out or shouted at him. The real tragedy is that she could have been rescued and likely saved after the 1st stabbing, but the repeated failure of neighbors to render aid enabled Mosely (sp?) to come back a couple times after relatively long periods of time had passed and gradually finish the job.

 

[proven]

Is the life of a minimum wage employee equal, in your mind, with that of your loved one?

who values a life according to how much they money they make??

and blackhawk six...if i have the oppurtunity to save a life from a heartless killer, as long as my own safety is in check, money wouldn't stop me. i'd rather pay out the $100,000 and walk away knowing i did the right thing, instead of watching someone die because money was more imprtant to me.


-Live as you will wish to have lived when you are dying-
Christian Furchtegott Gellert