To intervene or not?

[The Lone Haranguer]

In the specific scenario of the mall or other mass public shooting, if you have the opportunity to take the shot, why would you not? We say we want CCW to protect ourselves in such situations, but what good is it if no one will use it?

Other situations are not always clear. Intervening in what turned out to be two miscreants' mutual combat situation can get you in a heap of trouble. You don't always know all the facts. If you don't wish to physically intervene, at least get on your cell phone, call the police and try to be the best possible witness.

 

[Treo]

An Interesting Question

QUOTE:"In the specific scenario of the mall or other mass public shooting, if you have the opportunity to take the shot, why would you not?"

There where two other. (None of them were security guards they were ushers who had permission from the Pastor to carry in church) guys W/ Jean Assam, they presented, aimed ..... and froze. There was even a guy ( not an usher) yelling, cussing & BEGGING the guys to give up their guns so HE could shoot the BG. Assam had that going on in her near vicinity WHILE she was getting ready to engage ( how's THAT for a distraction).

Bottom line, when it happens , IF it happens THEN you'll find out how you'll react

 

[D94R]

if you have the opportunity to take the shot, why would you not? We say we want CCW to protect ourselves in such situations, but what good is it if no one will use it?

That's part of the problem. You have the oppurtunity,... take the shot and miss, the BG now has you in his sights.

I want CCW to protect myself when there is no other way to 'get out'. The question posed the situation where we had a 100% free and clear escape. Some people get theirs I guess in anticipation of being a public Hero, other's get it for the sole reason of personal security. I don't believe the point of CCW is for public security, though that's a personal choice/belief and I have no idea if I'd stay or run. I'd like to say I'd stay, but I've had home circumstances where I was scared to death and on the verge of puking from nerves being so strung out.... I'd imagine I'd feel the same way in a public place too given a similar situation. If you can get out, why put your self in harms way? Which is why we decided it comes to instinct at that very moment what one will do.

 

[1911 guy]

My priorities.

I've got one over-riding priority, that's to safeguard my family. Everything else, including my pride, honor, whatever, is secondary. My job used to entail solving other peoples problems. Not anymore, now I'm a machinist (not a euphemism, I run milling machines).

Priority number two is my obligation to society. If presented with the "golden opportunity" to stop a shooter, I would. It would have to be a no-brainer, this is the bad guy, limited risk to myself and none to my family or bystanders. A pretty peach situation, not likely to occur in the real world.

The end result analysis is this: if handed to me on a silver platter, I'd take the shot. But I'm not going looking for it, nor will I shoot if there's any doubt or unfavorable circumstance.

 

[ZeSpectre]

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?

We've also had 30+ years of strong "nanny state" training along with powerful booster shots of "don't take the law into your own hands" and folks are surprised that the general populace is unready to act?

Add to that the "easiest path" mentality and no wonder most folks want to outsource the dirty job of dealing with crime.

 

[Treo]

The Machinist

QUOTE: " My job used to entail solving other peoples problems. Not anymore, now I'm a machinist"

That's funny I used to have a boss the would yell at me all the time
"Machinsts are problem solvers, if you have a problem SOLVE IT."

He also used to tell me " I don't care WHY it isn't working just FIX it !"

So are you a machinst or a machine operator?

 

[drpaulHOO]

I'm relatively new to all this. Only been shooting a few months; CCW permit coming next week. The purpose of the CCW permit for me is defense of myself and my family. There is a huge personal barrier to get over in drawing and firing at a person. At this point, I would be concerned about my competency and focus on safety for me and mine. I'm not a sheepdog, only an aware and cautious sheep/ram.

FWIW

Paul

 

[DarkSoldier]

drpaulHOO,

I read your post with interest. Congratulations on your decision to begin shooting and prepare to protect yourself and your loved ones. Train hard. Deal with the "huge personal barrier" before you ever have to face a deadly force situation. Otherwise it will slow you down and cloud your thinking when judgement is at its most critical. Doing what is right and necesarry to protect the ones you love is a moral act. You should not feel guilt in taking actions that were made necessary by circumstances which you could not control. Resolve to do what is right then sleep soundly.

And, by the way... you may not be a sheepdog, but you are certainly no longer a sheep.

Respectfully,

DarkSoldier

 

[1911 guy]

Treo, If I'm running a machine and something is wrong, it's my machine and therefore my problem. I'm not a foreman, I won't be solving other peoples problems. Just my own. Yes, I'm a machinist, not a button pusher. No CNC for me, 100% manuals. Blueprints, not go/nogo guages. You get the idea.

 

[conrad carter]

Would any of the Founding Fathers, early settlers or even those alive till 1960 have subscribed to such a notion... that being to cut and run? I think not.


Interesting, I watched a Denzel Washington movie last night and near the end the Judge said, "this is the basic responsibility free people owe to other human beings."
I thought about this thread and the header could well read: What is the basic responsibility that we as free men owe other human beings?

 

[smitty42]

I hope no one minds me putting in my 2c worth.
This is a subject I've given a lot of thought and prayer to since I got my CCW. I'm reminded of a video I saw a while back about a woman working in the deli at a Wal Mart when her x-husband came charging in and started chasing her around the deli stabbing her repeatedly. He had her on the floor, stabbing her when a 70-some yr. old man with a ccw fired three times and killed the attacker.
Most, if not all of us that ccw have a sheepdog mentality and have settled our minds about what we would do in a like situation. Sheeple are like poor people, we will always have plenty of them around. It is a responsiblity and duty as armed ccwers to protect others in a life and death situation.
I have no problem putting my life on the line if the reason is a good one and follows my beliefs as a Christian.
I personally could not live with myself if I was armed and allowed someone to murder innocent people in front of me and did nothing.
Like the sioux indians used to say "It's a good day to die". It would sure beat a nursing home, drouling down my shirt. LOL
JMHO

Smitty

 

[jpsimms]

I too must agree with the idea that if I had the opportunity, that as a God fearing honorable man I would have an obligation to stop the violence that was happening in front of me. I'm sure that if I didn't I could learn to live with it, but I wouldn't want to. If evil men are going to do violence then good men must stop them. I'm not saying that those of you who would get out, or tend to family and friends first are wrong; maybe it's right for you, but not for me. I would gladly give my life knowing I'd done my best.

I hope I never have to prove/disprove this

thanks,
JP

 

[esq_stu]

Yesterday something made me re-evaluate this . . .

duplicate

 

[esq_stu]

Yesterday something made me re-evaluate this . . .

When thinking through various tactical scenarios, I always assume that if I am in a public place and others are robbed or assaulted in my presence, I'm going to escape rather than engage a bad guy.

Before yesterday I would have said I would only act to save my loved ones. But something happened yesterday that made me think about that.

I have a MI concealed pistol licens and carry when in Michigan. But I have been in California on business for the last week. There is no concealed carry reciprocity between CA and any other state.

I was walking with a few acquaintances (a father, mother and 2 toddlers and another woman) to a nearby Masonic center for a big party. We cut through a park to save time. About 100 yards away we saw a young man walking his dog - a very big German shepherd - without a leash. At about 25 yards, the dog went into a full speed run right toward the mom carrying her 1-year-old.

I immediately reached for my pocket, which of course was empty (I normally have a snubby in my pocket). My adrenaline was really pumping - a friend in MI recently had a bad experience with a neighbor's dog and I've thought of that a lot.

The mom and the dog's owner both yelled at the dog "NO!" in commanding voices (I assume she must have had some experience with dogs). The dog, upon reaching the mom, circled her and ran back to his owner.

I don't know how the others felt. Nobody said anything, so we resumed our walk uneventfully. I was pretty rattled.

I don't know what I would have done if armed, but my reaction tells me I would have at least drawn my weapon and might have gone further. I was surprised by this. I don't know if I would ever have had a clear shot. But I know I would have drawn my weapon if I had one, and feel like I was kind of on autopilot.

 

[esq_stu]

duplicate

 

[george29]

And the choir said: Amen!

AMEN said this choirboy!

Unfortunately, thy speech falleth on deaf ears outside the choir, Pastor Bob.

 

[6_gunner]

Well said, Smitty42 (post 36), that's exactly the way I feel. One of the biggest problems in our society is the unwillingness of people to help each other. If I had an opportunity to save a human life by stopping an attacker, I couldn't live with myself if I did nothing.

 

[conw]

As others rightly pointed out, it's much easier to rationalize and expound on your views online than it is to act on them in person.

While you would be putting yourself in danger by firing on a shooter, it is not necessarily immoral to do so knowing that you would be potentially unable to support your family should you die. It is also not necessarily immoral to avoid the confrontation, for reasons of self-preservation or otherwise.

Seems to me like you probably wouldn't be thinking much about morality period when you made your decision. There is a self-preservation instinct in humans, but there is also a selflessness instinct (awkward name, but you get the point). This instinct may be more present in people who tend to carry weapons for defensive purposes, and it's definitely higher in police.

So...you're stuck with a split-second decision, and you do what you have to. If you had a good shot, chances are you'd take it; if not, there's nothing wrong with retreating. There are good reasons for either choice, and it comes down to the situation, that's all.

As far as the last point made to "the choir"...I disagree: there is no way you can expect every man, woman, and child to carry a defensive weapon. Also, you can't necessarily expect them to effectively use it in that kind of situation; what if they had a malfunction? What if they are from a state that doesn't allow CCW, visiting the area? What if they had a "mental illness" diagnosis and can't get a CCW permit?

 

[DarkSoldier]

Smitty42,

I think your two cents is worth a lot. I agree that dying for a cause beats living into the ever diminshing circle of old age. Only a fool courts death recklessly but, for me, the only thing worse than dying for no reason is living for no reason.

Many of you may be too young to remember Kitty Genovese. She was the young woman who was murdered in the courtyard of her apartment building in New York City nearly half a century ago. What makes her murder different than so many other sensless killings is that she died in full view of many of her neighbors who sat listening to her screams and cries for help from behind their locked windows and barred doors while her killer cut her to peices, returning to attack her again and again until he was satisfied the job was done.

No one called the police. No one picked up a ball bat or a broom handle and intervened. When questioned by the police about why no one helped her many replied that they were afraid or just didn't want to get involved. Was their decision correct? Certainly none of them got hurt that night....

....Or did they?

Respectfully,

DarkSoldier

 

[rainbowbob]

Conwict said:

There is a self-preservation instinct in humans, but there is also a selflessness instinct...

I hadn't heard it put like that - but I don't know to say it better. I think we do have a "selflessness instinct". Perhaps because we have this underlying bioligical imperative to preserve the species by preserving the "tribe" (family, extended family and friends, members of our community, etc). Just a thought.

And also said:

As far as the last point made to "the choir"...I disagree: there is no way you can expect every man, woman, and child to carry a defensive weapon.

True that! Another observation I hadn't really considered before.

 

[shadowalker]

"Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and central to many religious traditions. In English, this idea was often described as the Golden rule of ethics. Some newer philosophies such as egoism have criticized the concept, with philosophers arguing that there is no moral obligation to help others.

Altruism can be distinguished from a feeling of loyalty and duty. Altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (for example, God, a king), a specific organization (for example, a government), or an abstract concept (for example, patriotism etc). Some individuals may feel both altruism and duty, while others may not. Pure altruism is giving without regard to reward or the benefits of recognition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism

 

[Robert Hairless]

Although it's interesting to see so many heroic concealed weapons permit holders in this group, does anyone consider all that can go wrong when an untrained person with a gun starts shooting in an already chaotic situation? If nothing can go wrong, society can save a lot of tax money by skipping the cost of training law enforcement officers.

I'm not talking only about marksmanship training, by the way, but that's part of what needs to be considered. I have little doubt that many people here could stop an absolutely viscious attack by a marauding two dimensional sheet of paper printed in black as long as it's standing still and facing them in isolation.

But how many here could hit a few inches of an oblong sphere moving constantly and unpredictably against a background of innocent people or partitions of unknown ability to stop whatever caliber they're shooting? Does anyone care about those innocents or other people who may be crouching behind those partitions?

Perhaps on mature reflection and after contemplation of the skills one really has and can repeat on demand at any moment, it would be wise not to program oneself to intervene in situations that are essentially unpredictable in advance.

By the way, if you happen to shoot me or my wife while we're in a mall because you think something bad is happening and guessed wrong, neither of us will invite you to our next dinner party. And if you happen to take a snap shot at an off duty officer who is trained to respond appropriately, you're unlikely to feel virtuous or happy afterwards.

 

[Titan6]

Why should there not be a case for non-intervention? People have been letting people kill people forever. The Jews/ Christians/ gays/ gypsies/ whoever being marched off to die and Kitty Genovese are not isolated incidents you know. It is the easiest thing in the world to justify not taking any action that could put you or your family in danger.


After all If I were being gang raped and murdered by a motorcycle gang I would not want anyone to interfere with that... it's my problem you know....

 

[DarkSoldier]

Titan6,

There certainly is a case for choosing not to intervene. The people who watched Kitty Genovese die made that choice and articulated their reasons for making it.

I respect your statement that you would not want anyone to intervene on your behalf. After all, its your *. But what if it was your wife, daughter, son, husband, mother , father, brother, take your pick... instead of you. If you were not there to protect them and I was, would you want me to intervene?

Respectfully,

DarkSoldier

 

[ZeSpectre]

Darksoldier... Titan was being sarcastic.
He's over in the sandbox living what he believes (that we DO need to watch out for each other).