Taking the Shot - Would YOU?

[Werewolf]

Two recent incidents have forced me to reevaluate whether or not I'd take the shot under certain circumstances. In one incident my niece witnessed a gang shootout at a local mall and in another if I'd arrived at my destination just 1 minute earlier I would have been present at an armed robbery.

Oklahoma law recognizes the doctrine of stepping into anothers shoes. What that means is if a person can legitimately use lethal force you can step into his shoes and use lethal force in his stead. As a result of the situations I described in paragraph 1 above I realized that I've just been lucky so far and that there exists a very real possibility that I could be thrown into a situation where I could step into another's shoes. But whose shoes would I step into and take the shot - accepting all the consequences?

Thus the poll...
Who's shoes would you step into and take the shot for?

 

[308win]

Family member only. I do not have any skin in anyother situation. The police can come around and take the crime report in anyother situation.

 

[Twycross]

I believe in standing up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. I am also young and without dependents. So all else being equal, it really doesn't matter what the victim's relationship is to me personally.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

Ditto Twycross.

Kith and Kin definitely get first priority, but someone's life in peril is worth trying to save. Doesn't matter who they are. Not to me anyway.

Of course, all self defense caveats apply. But, from what I gather, the scenario mentioned means that this person's life is in immediate and direct danger. As I see it, my only option is to watch them be killed.

 

[rbernie]

The poll only addresses half of the problem, to my thinking, because doesn't take into account my ability to make the shot safely or without undue risk to myself or others.

I'd be far more willing, for example, to take a riskier/mo' desparate shot to protect my kin than I would to protect a stranger. But that doesn't mean that I *wouldn't* protect a stranger - just that I'd be more cautious in doing so than if my wife were threatened. It's a multi-dimensional problem and the poll only allows for one dimension to be represented.

 

[griz]

The biggest factor is the situation instead of who is involved. That said, if I knew the person involved I would be much more inclined to side with them. It's not an us-then choice, just that it's very hard to tell who is the bad guy when you get thrown into the middle of someone elses scrap. The people I know (at least most ) are not going to be the BG.

For instance, imagine you walk up on two of the poll choices, a big guy and a woman, engaged in what looks like hand to hand combat. You don't know if one is armed, you don't know if one is an LEO, and you don't know who started it. Better to back off, dial 911 and be a good witness. If one started losing and the other was in the process of killing them, it might be time to step in.

 

[Technosavant]

I'm with griz on this one.

While I may be willing to use deadly force in support of a total stranger who is in immediate peril of severe injury or death at the hands of an evildoer, the situation matters more than the person. I will draw in order to prevent the kidnapping of a child or the murder of an innocent. I will not draw to help my brother win an argument.

It depends on what it happening, more so than to whom it is happening.

 

[Sylvan-Forge]

Who's shoes would you step into and take the shot for?

All of the above.

 

[pax]

For me, it's not so much about who but about the circumstances. If a family member of mine is involved, the odds are that I will be overwhelmingly certain of who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. This is emphatically not the case when strangers are involved -- especially if you did not see how the situation began.

If you walk into a convenience store, and see a thuggish-looking twentysomething holding someone behind the counter at gunpoint, you probably assume it's a holdup. But are you really witnessing an armed robbery? Can you possibly sort out the players? Is that twentysomething with a gun a private citizen like you, who is holding the robber for the cops while the clerk is lying in a pool of blood behind the counter? Is the twentysomething actually the clerk, who was stocking shelves when a thief snuck behind the counter to rob the till? Unless you saw the situation begin, you don't know. And if you don't know, you're better off to beat feet and call Johnny Law to sort it out.

Gang shootings are even more confusing. There usually aren't any good guys, just varying degrees of bad guys. If you want to be the hero in such a situation, instead of pulling out your gun, pull whatever people you can out of the line of fire.

Saving strangers is good. But try to follow the doctor's rule: first, do no harm. If you did not see the situation begin, and don't know the players, the intelligent thing to do is to protect the people you know weren't involved, and call the police.

pax

 

[strambo]

I'm with PAX, it's not the who...there are situatons where I would protect any innocent and ones where I wouldn't have checked any of those choices. Like the gang shootout, I don't have any gang family or friends and we don't go where the gangs are. If there was a gang shootout nearby, we'd split, they wouldn't be shooting at us anyway.

 

[Brian Williams]

If you get a chance find the book "The Fifth Profession" I tend to fall into that mentality.

Not paid mind you but mentality.

 

[Joe7cri]

I chose the first 6, but as stated earlier, it all depends on the situation.

 

[redneckrepairs]

IMHO the " whom" isnt the issue , the issue is someone being victomised that cannot fight back

 

[Optical Serenity]

It is bothersome to me that there are those out there who would only defend their family members...

 

[glummer]

Optical Serenity,

It is bothersome to me that there are those out there who would only defend their family members...

It's sad, but you've got to remember that a lot of your "fellow citizens" have worked to prevent you from defending anybody. That "victim" I don't know, might be the someone who elected the bigoted judge who will confiscate my gun, if I DO help him.

I'm from upstate NY, and the laws (& practices) here are so screwy that (if I understand it rightly) I could, technically, legally carry concealed on my permit, but if I am caught doing so, the permit would be pulled, and my gun confiscated, without convicting (or even charging) me with a thing. Just the (anti-carry) judge's discretion. No legal standard, no appeal (except to him!) So helping someone unknown to me is a certain lose situation. I doubt I would risk that for a likely idiot leftist who views me as an enemy to be persecuted.

 

[HighVelocity]

There should be an "all of the above or other" choice.

I am not a Peace Officer and have no desire to be one. However, if I find myself in a situation where my intervention could stop someone from being seriously injured, maimed or killed, it is not within me to stand there and do nothing.
It doesn't matter if it's my mother or a complete stranger. Many circumstances of the situation will be unknown but the end result is the immediate issue.

If my mind is clear of doubt then I will make my best effort to do what needs to be done and by whatever means are at my disposal to stop the threat. God willing, I will succeed.

 

[Ares45]

I defend me and my interests(.) I'm not a police officer and don't feel like playing the part.

If I'm caught in a convience store hold up and people have already been violenty assaulted or shot then it's in my interest to act. I could be next. If a bar fight spills out into the street while I'm passing by, who cares, not my problem. Women and children would get preferential treatment depending on the situation. Family goes without saying. Friends, ??? Some of my friends have been known to start their own trouble. They'll have to finish it. Legally I wouldn't be allowed to act unless they've tried to retreat and failed.

 

[Mannlicher]

I did not vote in the poll. Just not enough info to make that kind of decision.

 

[Dravur]

<quote>It is bothersome to me that there are those out there who would only defend their family members...</quote>

I would take each scenario on its own, but I certainly would not come into a situation which I had NO idea what was going on and start playing John Wayne. Imagine this scenario;

A derelict homeless man is beating the crap out of a guy in a business suit in a parking garage....What do you do? Do you draw on the homeless guy, yell FREEZE and see what happens? What happens when the Derelict homeless man is an undercover cop trying to make an arrest of a suspect. Here comes his partner around a corner and you have a gun pointing at his partner? What is the BEST thing that could happen in this situation. What if the derelict man is holding a gun on a person.

Admittedly, this is a situation not likely to come up, but it could. You never know what you don't know.

As to only protecting my family members.... At least I know the story with them. I know who the good guy is and who the bad guy is. I would feel much safer helping in a situation like that.

Now, having said that, In certain situations, I would react very differently, as in someone pulls a gun in a convenience store and tries to take people into the back room.... or similar. Then, you point and shoot..and shoot, and shoot until the threat is stopped.

 

[ezypikns]

Here's something to think about.......

If you're willing to defend the helpless, let's see what you might do here: You're pumping gas when you hear loud voices. You see a man pointing a handgun at a young woman and shouting something to her. She's unarmed and shouting back, but you can't make out the words. What do you do?

This scenario was presented to a Concealed Handgun Licensing class in Texas by the instructor. Some said they'd drop the guy there, others would have pulled their weapon and advanced on him. The instructor asked whether it might have been possible that the man with the gun might have been an off duty police officer, and the helpless young woman in question was an accomplice in an armed robbery. Blank looks all around.

If the situation warranted it (in my best judgement), I'd defend anyone. But I'd BETTER be right.

Just something to think about.

 

[grampster]

One should never do anything unless one knows exactly what is occuring.

First thing would be to quickly ascertain a safe and strategic postion. From there decisions can be made about action or lack of action.

Technology gives us the cell phone. That, today, is as important as ccw. The next most important issue is watching and recording in your mind what is happening and calling for help.

From there, the circumstance will dictate the response or lack of it.

 

[KINGMAX]

Family and Child

Not knowing all the facts, walking into the situation ??? Alot of if's. I just won't comment.

To the POLL: In my list to protect = ME, and MINE & Children = FIRST.

You will have to be pretty close to me in order for me to:

(a) Take another life for you.
(b) Spending the reminder of my life in prision for you.

Think about your good intentions - going against you - ??????

 

[geekWithA.45]

I would not allow reasonably identifiable evil to be perpetrated against the reasonably identifiably innocent in my presence.

 

[brownie0486]

RKBAman:

Point is there is a responsiblity with conceal carry that goes beyond protecting just one person or family. You have a duty to intercede and if you choose to not there may be legal problems (or worse) if you fail to do your duty.

Can you cite any statute anywhere in the US that states I have a "duty" to intercede into anything that does not involve myself personally as a private citizen just because I'm a ccw owner?

I've never seen anything on any books that there is a duty to protect others with a ccw license. Certainly not anything that would bring legal action against me for some nonfeasance on my part.

Interesting thought process, just wondering where you get your information from.

 

[Cosmoline]

It's a strange question and poll. The decision would be based on tactical and legal factors, NOT on whether the person falls into one category or another.