To intervene or not?

[rainbowbob]

The following is a slightly abbreviated excerpt from an article written by Ralph Mroz, Training Director of the Police Officer Safety Association. Although many threads have discussed this issue, I think it is useful to read this view written by an LEO. We all have to decide for ourselves, of course, when, why, if, and how we would intervene in a violent attack on other innocent people.

To intervene or not?

The recent Utah mall shooting, in which courageous off-duty officer Ken Hammond intervened with gunfire and contained the shooter, has become — and rightfully so — the poster child for off-duty carry. And Officer Hammond has — again rightfully so, in my opinion — become a poster child for everything that's good and right about police officers.

I admire him, and I hope that if I ever find myself in the same situation that he did, I'd intervene in the same way. But I was talking to a friend recently...who, without taking anything at all away from Officer Hammond's courage and deciciveness, made the case for another course of action: not intervening.

You know what? Agree or not (and I'm sure this will generate huge amounts of disagreement), my friend has a line of reasoning worth considering before you make your own decision.

The case for intervening is rather simply put — There is innocent life in danger from evil people. We...have the pre-disposition to defend the innocent from evil...In fact, we've probably taken extensive training on our own time and nickel that honed our skills for such action. In short: it's our duty; honor demands it; morality demands it; it's what we do; it's who we are.

The case for not intervening is also rather simply put. To whom is our primary and greatest responsibility? The answer to any of us with families is: to them. If we are with our family when the bad thing happens, is not our greatest responsibility to see them clear to safety before we do anything else? And further, once they are safe, or if we are alone, if we decide to then intervene, we are obviously putting ourselves at risk. If we are injured or killed in this intervention such that we cannot provide for our family, have we not done them grievous harm? And to what end? To possibly help others to whom we owe — if anything at all — much less than that which we owe to our own family. That is, we have put the welfare of strangers above the welfare of our own family.

Now, my friend was talking about off-duty situations, in which we have no official duty or obligation to act. What of the innocent people who are in danger if we do not intervene? Well, the obvious question to ask is: Why aren't they armed and prepared to protect themselves and their families? Isn't protection of one's family from harm the primary obligation of everyone, and not something to be outsourced to others?

I added the bold-face emphasis on the last sentence. And the choir said: Amen!

 

[shadowalker]

A person does have a responsibility to protect their families but many people are sheep and don't recognize the danger. We can awaken the sheep but not by scaring them or yelling at them or telling them what to think which happens far too often by excited enthusiasts, they have to be educated and come to their own conclusions.

I think it is difficult and evolving question every person must answer for themselves, altruism versus the safety of ourselves and our families. It is something I've discussed with mine and is something there is slight disagreement on between them and me . My priority is their safety, and then mine and others.

Every situation is different, I would not seek out a distant fight or provoke one, if the situation is contained without me great. But if it occurs in my proximity insuring the safety of my family likely depends on me stopping the threat anyway, I'd rather do it on my time rather than when his full attention is on me or my family.

I am pretty altruistic and I know that I would have a very difficult time living with myself knowing that I had the ability, opportunity and skill to stop the loss of life and decided not to.

I have no intent to lose the fight and I wont recklessly endanger my life. That said the fact is someday I will die, cancer, heart attack, car accident, even old age. If it costs my life to save another, especially multiple lives then I am comfortable with that and is something that I and hopefully my family could be proud of.

It doesn't replace the person but there are various forms of insurance a person can get to help provide for one's family in the case that the fight is lost.

 

[rainbowbob]

I am pretty altruistic and I know that I would have a very difficult time living with myself knowing that I had the ability, opportunity and skill to stop the loss of life and decided not to.

I think along the same lines. I do not want to be a heroic fool, a damn fool, or a dead fool - but I think it would be impossible not to get involved if a violent attack were occurring in front of me and I truly believed I could stop it.

 

[crankshop1000]

A sworn police officer, off duty has an obligation to intervene if possible. It is part of why they are armed while off duty.He must act.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

I think the question is really, could you live with yourself if you did nothing when you could have and people died. If you're that selfish or lack the intestinal fortitude or the confidence, then don't worry about it. It is true that you don't have the responsibility or moral obligation to intervene. But I don't think I could just leave and let some scumbag slaughter a bunch of people if I had the wherewithall to stop him, or at least try. I'm not going to make a suicide charge and if he has a superior position, maybe I won't be able to help, but I would certainly look for a way if I could. To not do so would result in a lifetime of second guessing and survivor guilt. It is a personal decision and cannot be made by others who decide "This is what everyone should do."

 

[ilbob]

Why aren't they armed and prepared to protect themselves and their families? Isn't protection of one's family from harm the primary obligation of everyone, and not something to be outsourced to others?

The answer to the question is that by and large the government he keeps in power as a LEO, severely restricts and in many case outright prevents the ability of average citizens to protect themselves. But since he already knows that, why didn't he say that?

 

[LiquidTension]

Could I live with my self if I didn't intervene? Sure. Their safety is not my responsibility. I'll help if I can, but if I can't I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

 

[DarkSoldier]

To me, there is no decision to make. I believe evil must be confronted, fought and defeated, wherever and whenever it is encountered. Murderous rampaging killers and violent homicidal thugs are the physical manifestation of evil. It matters little to me if the zombie in question is targeting my family or friends, or someone I don't know. It is still evil and must be stopped by those who have the means and the will to do so. Long ago I accepted the responsibility of being an honorable gunman. Part and parcel of that decision was accepting the duty to protect those innocents who, for whatever reason, cannot or will not protect themselves. As Shadowalker said, we all die, although none of us want to. But trust me, if we must die, then dying for some good purpose is so much better than just fading away into old age. My wife is trained just as well as I ever trained any of my cops. She carries a Colt 1911 every day and knows what to do if the bell rings. She can back my play and take care of herself. I'm not saying my decision is the right one. I can only say it is right for me and mine. It is how we live our lives.

 

[walking arsenal]

A sworn police officer, off duty has an obligation to intervene if possible. It is part of why they are armed while off duty.He must act.

Maybe in your state, in most they have no obligation to act while they are on duty, let alone off.

 

[jenrob]

IMO me CCW is for the protection of myself and family.

Now if I was in a mall and some guy come in guns blazing I would first try to make sure my family was safe. Then being the cat I am I would have to take a look see. At that point if I was 99% (only the one up stairs is 100%) sure I could get the guy on one shoot. I would more than likely take it. If not I would not draw fire in my direction cause at that point I would know my family is in the same direction.

I could stand by and just watch bystanders get slaughtered and have to live with that.

Now if it was a small store guy walks in pops clerk in the head obviouslly killed him and we could get out the back with out taking fire we would move out. No others in the store to die. Might even be able to get a plate # on the car description direction.

 

[otcconan]

Maybe in your state, in most they have no obligation to act while they are on duty, let alone off.

They likely in some states, do not have a legal obligation to act.

But I would argue that anyone who is armed, in such a situation, has a moral obligation to act.

And the moral obligation, in this instance, outweighs any concept of self-preseveration. I could not live with myself if I had the means to stop evil and did not.

 

[coyotehitman]

I protect me and mine on my time. Mostly because of the liability created by whining pansies, armchair quarterbacks, and cop bashers who will second guess my actions and try to sue me later on. A bad day to be a whining pansy, armchair quarterback, or cop basher, I suppose.

If Darwin's theory is correct, these folks will have fallen victim to evolution and normal folks wont have to worry about them in the future. At that time, we can go back to following our moral obligations.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

A bad day to be a whining pansy, armchair quarterback, or cop basher, I suppose.

Best thing I've ever read with regard to Police offduty obligation to act. Nice job, CH.


I've briefly touched upon a citizen's "duty to act" according to the law in some classes. Apparently, the law considers that you (the non-leo, joe sixpack, thr poster) have a duty to act in some instances. Not sure what they are, specifically, or how they might apply to a shooter.

I've already shut down several threads with my debates about this issue, so I'll just keep quiet.

 

[GEM]

What's the source, please?

BTW, what everyone is saying are parts of well known factors for or against taking a pro-social action.

It's been well-studied and it's interesting to see all the standard rationales appear in internet discussions.

Ability
Internal moral views
Discounting the victim as not worth because of their actions or charactertistics
Putting the self and family first in a coldly rational view point
Wanting to be a hero for later praise
Worrying about later social shunning for one's action

etc.

It's when others don't see value in someone's analysis based on a principle they don't ascribe to and start ranting on the Internet that makes discussion heated.

For example: How dare you not save my wife because you want to stay alive to take care of your wife?

Let's see how this goes.

 

[coyotehitman]

Best thing I've ever read with regard to Police offduty obligation to act. Nice job, CH.

"Obligation???" No, sir.

Damned if you do, damned if you dont, just better off sometimes when you don't. This is also the same mentality that prohibits high speed chases, alleged "profiling," and most proactive activity in general.

I've already shut down several threads with my debates about this issue, so I'll just keep quiet.

I have read some of your posts.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Please post the source in which you derived your opinions on this "legal duty to act".
I am unaware of any ordinance which obligates someone to intervene in a situation that present a risk of serious physical harm to themselves or others.

 

[the naked prophet]

There's another side to this question:

Which will have a better/worse impact on gun rights in America?

A crazy person shooting up a mall, unchallenged... or a crazy person starting to shoot up a mall, getting taken out by a CCW?

Haven't we been saying that CCW may help stop spree shooters? We have a political obligation to stop these kinds of things. True, it may put our family in more danger temporarily - at the very least, the danger of losing a financial provider and husband/father, etc. But in the long run, not intervening may lose our gun rights.

 

[chrlefxtrt]

You could look at it as a form of activism...Just think how far a well placed shot at an armed pshycopath could go to support the RTKBA and Conceal Carry. Now if you missed it would be a whole different story mind you. Practice practice practice

As I am new to law enforcement I haven't given this much perspective from what I would do now that I have a badge. I suppose if I was with my wife I would use her as back up since I have gotten her to finally get a permit and she carries in her purse J/K, I would get her to a safe place if she was with me then I would intervene if possible doing so with out carlessly putting others or myself in harms way. Which in truth that idea is out the window just as soon as the "mutant zombie biker" opens fire. Just my .02

 

[coyotehitman]

Which will have a better/worse impact on gun rights in America?

While it would seem a valid argument, I do not believe a CCW saving the day will have much influence at all.

I would intervene if possible doing so with out carlessly putting others or myself in harms way

I understand your view, but if anything goes wrong, it will be bad times for you.

 

[Treo]

Ride Boldly Ride ..... NOT!

Based on past events I give this thread a DAY before the " Sheepdog" set is telling those of us who aren't gonna get anymore involved than we absolutely have to, what cowards we are. Shortly thereafter it will be closed.
The good thing about threads like this is that they give people a place to work out a response (on paper) to a situation that's becoming more & more common. Participating has given me some time to think & this is what works for me.(I still think this threads gonna end up in the toilet)

CONSTANTS:
I'm going to be out gunned I carry a CZ75B & 1 spare mag I will have 24 shots. The BGs have been leaning toward SKSs & ARs lately he's likely going to have more than one mag.

I'm going to be engaging on HIS battlefield at a time of HIS choosing. Throw into the mix he has nothing to lose. I, on the other hand, DO.

VARIABLES:
I've heard this suggested here several times (usually in threads telling us why it isn't a good idea to clear your own house) get a couple of airsofts have your buddy hide in your house & see if you can clear it W/out him "killing" you. Now imagine yourself playing the same game in a crowded mall that you aren’t familiar W/ FOR REAL.

VAN MARR first cops on the scene 6 minutes after the first 911 calls. They were about 4 minutes too late

New Life Church there were cops IN THE PARKING LOT directing traffic WHEN THE GUY OPENED UP. He was dead before they were even informed by 911 dispatch

POINT OF CLARIFICATION Jean Assam did NOT run toward the guy she took cover and let him walk right into her sights.

If my wife is W/ me she's priority # 1 I'm getting HER safe. Realistically by the time that's done it'll be over any way.

I AM NOT going to ride to the sound of the guns (that was Custer’s Motto)

IF( and thats the biggest IF you ever saw) I can clearly identify my target and can safely engage him (W/ a pistol that means less than 15 yards FOR ME) I will. What I won't do is deliberately PUT myself in that situation, by trying to go hunt the guy down. Remember HE doesn't have to worry about collateral damage I DO.
Other than that I'm taking cover

PS If Dude is shooting AT me all bets are off. I'd still expect to die but at least I'd be trying to defend myself

There is no cause worth dieing for that is not better served by living for ( Me I think)

 

[Treo]

Combined W/ post above

 

[DarkSoldier]

Treo,

I am a Sheepdog, born, bred, and trained. As I outlined in my earlier post, I can't say what decisions are right for everyone. I can only state what is right for me. I won't call others names if they choose a different path. I'll respect their choices as I hope they will respect mine. In matters such as this, my path is set. I don't have choices to make. But ultimately the test is simple. If you feel good about your decisions and actions after the smoke clears, you most likely did the right thing.

I hope this thread keeps going. There is a lot to be learned from this exchange.

Respectfully,

DarkSoldier

 

[KBintheSLC]

Well, the obvious question to ask is: Why aren't they armed and prepared to protect themselves and their families? Isn't protection of one's family from harm the primary obligation of everyone, and not something to be outsourced to others?

That is pretty solid logic. I am not sure how I would respond to a similar situation. I do think that people should defend themselves whenever possible. Just because I carry a gun, does not make me a cop... And even if I was a cop, that does not make me someones personal body guard.

I think the officer did a good thing that day, however, he should not feel obligated to do it... nor should he feel guilty for sneaking out the back door to safety till the forces arrive.

 

[rooter]

I protect me and mine on my time. Mostly because of the liability created by whining pansies, armchair quarterbacks, and cop bashers who will second guess my actions and try to sue me later on.

sad but true

Could I live with my self if I didn't intervene? Sure

he should not feel obligated to do it... nor should he feel guilty for sneaking out the back door to safety till the forces arrive.

+1

Who would pay my bills and put my kid thru college if I get hurt helping someone who cant put in the effort to help themself.

 

[D94R]

Great topic. Me and some fellow coworkers were talking about just this kind of scenario. Our question posed however was 'if you were by yourself' and a situation arose such as a mall shooting or any public place for that matter.

Under our circumstances we had a 100% free and clear way of escaping without entering harms way. We also had a free and clear approach/shot without being noticed.

The question was then: do you stay and help innocent victims assuming you might be the only one around carrying concealed, knowing it will take minutes for any armed help to arrive. Or, do you simply run and save yourself and pray for the others?


We decided that no one could possibly answer this question. We decided that actions to be carried out in situations like that are instinct. Its the fight or flight instinct in us that will ultimately determine the outcome. We all have our opinions on what we 'might' do. But no one truly knows unless faced with the situation first hand.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

I think the question is really, could you live with yourself if you did nothing when you could have and people died.

No I could not, I would run over and help, someone screaming for help and me just walking away is something I could not do.