PDA

View Full Version : engage the shooter?


tplumeri
December 14, 2007, 10:31 PM
OK, we've done alot of the "shoot, no shoot" scenarios here but was talking to a fellow cc today and the recent mall shootings came up. he said "too bad one of us wasnt there".
Now keep in mind this was not bravado on his part. we are both military trained and qualify yearly. (expert with baretta, at least marksman with m-16).
so, now that its all said and done, what do you think you would do if you were there?
honestly, part of me says i would engage the shooter and to heck with personal safety. other part of me thinks self preservation would be the way to go.
what would you do.
tom

Boris Bush
December 14, 2007, 10:58 PM
other part of me thinks self preservation would be the way to go.

I think everyone would feel that way. BUT that is why these people get such high body counts. A nation of cowards not willing to fight back would rather watch the slaughtering and preserve themself.

One kid at the VA tech shooting told through his mother how he played dead at the killers feet as he reloaded!!! ***! reloading means no loaded weapon, what better time to fight! This man(?) could have saved many lives yet chose the coward route and let the slaughter continue. I wonder how his mother would feel if roles were reversed, someone that was killed after his cowardly act played dead while passing up a chance to save lives watched from the 'possum position as he was killed.

I would rather die fighting than live with myself knowing I was a coward and people died because of my cowardice.........

Now to answer the question. As a ccw holder, I would within all reason and safety of innocents, engage the shooter..

Hardtarget
December 14, 2007, 11:16 PM
Let me say first...I HOPE to never be in this situation.

If ever put in that "fight for your life"...I HOPE to be the man I should be.

Thats why my screen name. Its what I aspire to be. I don't plan to go easy.

Realisticly, we all know the ugly legal nightmare following the survival of a shootout is always in the back of the mind. Not one person I know would look foreward to the years of court fights.

Mark.

Perldog007
December 14, 2007, 11:18 PM
Well the thing you don't do is issue a challenge to an actor who is already shooting up the mall.

I couldn't say unless I was there. Is it safer to shoot or to evade? Could innocent lives be saved or would you be endangering innocents by taking a shot.

Is the actor shooting a trash can or people?

Is the shot within a range you could hit with the adrenaline dump coming your way?

As soon as the shooting starts somebody, probably several somebodies have called 911. Will LEO arriving at the scene recognize you as a good samaritan? Would you recognize plainclothes LEO or uc as such?

What the heck are you doing ccw in a mall anyway? Most malls don't have gun stores, many have anti-ccw policies and make their security walk around unarmed with Sam Browne belts.

Yet they still expect these poor guards to embark on the continuum of use of force, knowing that after uniformed presence, verbal commands, physical force and possibly chemical irritants and impact weapons they are out of tricks. Most of them don't have O.C. or batons.

It's like sending you out on the highway in a truck with only first and second gear, sheer stupidity. And a good chance of being over run.

With policies like that malls are begging some person functioning outside societal norms to walk in and start shooting the unarmed employees and patrons.

Maybe that ain't my fight. Maybe that's why I will shop online when I can. Not saying I don't ever go to malls, but it occurs infrequently and when I do I consider the ramifications of doing so.

Me I would rather not be there. If present at such an unfortunate event my course of action would be determined by the exact circumstances and probably can't be decided in a "what if" session here.

Not to dismiss your question, it is a valid one and worthy of discussion. My .02 USD - don't give anti-gun malls your business if you can help it. If you have to be there and it "jumps off" rely on your training to make the right decision.

EastSideRich
December 14, 2007, 11:26 PM
Kind of been covered before, but I like to think (assuming I could actually think when some lunatic is shooting people around me) if I thought I had any chance of getting off a couple of shots without myself getting shot - i.e. I'm not directly in the line of fire, and I was within pistol range (for me probably 25 yards or so for a good shot) - I would take the shot. If I was not in a position to engage immediately I would like to think I would seek cover, then return fire. If nothing else it would cause the shooter to deal with me, at least momentarily, which would mean he's not shooting other people.
It's hard to really say though, because under the circumstances I think there would be such shock and panic, nobody can really say how they would react. If after the fact I realized I was within range (of a shot from a pistol) and could have possibly engaged the shooter, it would tear me up inside to think I could have stopped that guy, but I panicked and ran away.
I don't know how anyone could say they would absolutely not shoot the guy, even if they thought they could (again assuming they were able to keep a level head during the incident). I would think that would be very hard to live with afterwards.
I apologize if this is poorly written, that's what five or six Labatt Blues will do to ya

Perldog007
December 14, 2007, 11:34 PM
In Vino veritas, and well put Daryl.

Yup, them dang variables combine in endless probabilities in such a manner as to completely befuddle us keyboard commandos.

i have had the honor to know a couple of real commandos and am pretty sure what they would do. I ain't one of them, if they guy is shooting at me or mine, pretty simple.

When you intervene on behalf of strangers you have to consider is this worth my life, my health, my wealth, my freedom? If yes to all of the above, like Val Kilmer said as Doc Holliday in Tombstone: "Proceed".

Spade Cooley
December 15, 2007, 08:13 AM
Take cover first, then start shooting. Anyone who would pull a stunt like that would be a coward and would not stay in the fight. Do not say anything like, "Drop it", just get cover and shoot. That would be the end of his fun.

If I had a gun and didn't take some kind of action in that situation, it would be hard to live with myself.

38SnubFan
December 15, 2007, 09:15 AM
I think previous posters put it best to first consider your personal safety and the safety of others.

That being said, if I could reasonably assure my safety, as well as the safety of innocents, I would engage the actor and take the shot, assuming again I has reasonable certainty that I could stop the threat.

Legal ramifications being damned here, I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees.

And as far as possible legal ramifications go; yes, there would probably be court hearings, my weapon taken into evidence, and lots of testimony from expert witnesses and eye-witnesses for both Defense and Prosecution to put up with. That's just the legal process doing what they're trained to do, and the legal process being what it is and needs to be.

Now, I know there's varying viewpoints that will say I'm right and many more to say I'm wrong for my opinion. Here in PA, the Crimes Code states that "a person may use lethal force in the defense of a 3rd party if that 3rd party would themselves be authorized in using lethal force in defense of themselves - so that should pretty much sum up my legal stance at the time I need to make the decision whether to engage the shooter or not.

Just my 2 cents worth, and we all know what opinions are like LOL, but I have one.

God knows it's been a long time since I posted on here, but it's a slow morning and I figured I'd chime in. A merry and safe holiday to all.

-Matt

Creature
December 15, 2007, 09:28 AM
If I had a clean shot at the shooter, of course I would take it.

Spade Cooley
December 15, 2007, 10:38 AM
If you take time to weigh the legal ramifications, you could end up dead. In this type of situation just do the right thing and hope for the best. I'll take my chances with a jury trial if they want to go after me.

But when the smoke clears you might want to hold off on making your statement. This is a time I might even want an attorney at my side. How you say it went down is crutial.

stephen426
December 15, 2007, 11:12 AM
Perldog007,

I'm not sure where you are from but most malls in Miami don't have any "no guns allowed" signs posted. I think there might be one mall that does and it is probably a company wide policy. Besides, the idea behind concealed carry is that no one knows you are carrying. If you were to engage a psychopath with a gun, there is no way the mall would press charges. You would be a hero for preventing more bloodshed. While the idea is not to be regarded as a hero, think of all the lives that would be lost if everyone just ran for cover. They are safe until the gunman stumbles upon their position. Just like the VA Tech shootings, the gunman just walked around and pumped bullets into people cowering under tables and chairs. I hate to use the analogy, but its like fish in a barrel. Had a group of students resisted, they may have been able to prevent the loss of so many lives. Failure to act did not gaurantee their safety, rather, it sealed their fate.

4V50 Gary
December 15, 2007, 11:45 AM
Two concerns.

First, are you sure the person who you think is the perpetrator the actual perpetrator or is (s)he an off duty cop who is responding to the gunfire? Could (s)he also be a CCW holder like yourself?

Second, how do you ensure that you're not shot by the uniformed or off duty cops?

Better be sure of your target and then expected to be drawn upon by the police.

tlm225
December 15, 2007, 12:22 PM
This type of thread has always caused me concern. I've kept my mouth shut until now.

Target ID is a concern but if he's shooting women and children its a done deal.

Being engaged by off-duty officers, responding officers or a CCW holder is a possibility to be considered.

What does concern me is the position many take of "I'll save my hide, the heck with everyone else". Maybe your conscience will allow you to leave helpless innocents to be slaughtered while you run, mine won't. The mere concept that an armed man would turn his back on a situation like this sickens me.

Go ahead, flame away, you're safe behind your keyboard.

Perldog007
December 15, 2007, 12:49 PM
Miami sounds like a great place. Here in the Northeast I-95 corridor there is nearly complete anti-gun fever. States like VA and DE that have cc will almost always have signs at mall entrances proscribing concealed weapons and mall security in this part of the USA is universally unarmed.

I respect those who say damn the torpedos, lawyers, and legal ramifications. If there is a bad actor and weapon in the hands of a good guy then good should prevail. That is the way it should be.

First hand experience tells me that ain't the way it always goes down. Having a multiple felon accuse you of wrong doing when you have credible witnesses on your side, having to go through a trial and the expense, having your relationship destroyed because your spouse works for the city and does not believe the cops would lie, losing your job over the stigma, can make winning in court akin to a hollow victory.

The foregoing was over a misdemeanor brandishing charge for acting in my own defense. My accuser was a multiple felon and the good cops at the scene knew I was not the trouble maker. One bad detective suffering a viagra overdose was all it took to get the ball rolling.

The unwritten policy of that department was that concealed permit holders would be disarmed and charged whenever possible. The court determined that my actions were that of a reasonable and prudent person. I was acquitted.

I was also left knowing that right ain't always right. Not all cops and prosecutors and courts are anti-gun types who will consider you deviant just for having a weapon. But some are.

You only need to encounter corrupt officials once to ruin your life.

If you really want to be safe, you avoid the slightest hint of trouble. You run with confidence and if cornered you fight with determination and faith. You fight as hard as you can until you are safe.

You train for the worst and hope for the best. If there is a trend of @$$#0L35 shooting up malls, check this out - stay out of the mall.

The malls here are gun free zones filled with sheep. Unless the authorities ask me to hunt wolves I am not going there without a darned good reason. Being perceived as hunting without a license can ruin you, whether you were or not.

If the mall management goes public and says CCW holders are welcome here because they make the mall safer and we buy them free coffee that may be different.

When I see that blue sign by the door lumping CCW holders together with vandals, skateboarders and other trouble makers I know they don't want my business.

But Perldog, my state is a "stand your ground state". So your local sheriff is pro armed citizen and the DA is an NRA life member. Ever heard of the feds? Know all the federal regulations and laws by heart do you?

Some crazed person shooting up the mall? It is a trend? Common sense tells me to avoid malls. If everybody did they would have to change their ways, provide some real security and realize that CCW holders and skateboarders are two different things.

So the question is engage the shooter. My question is what where you doing there? A mall with no anti-gun policies and armed security might find me in it spending money. So attacked I would do what I was trained to do.

The malls near me don't qualify. To me the question is what can we do to find alternatives to shopping, work, and school places that are safe zones for terrorists?

Erik
December 15, 2007, 01:20 PM
As a general rule I would attempt to engage the shooter.

armedandsafe
December 15, 2007, 02:53 PM
As a good instructor once told me, years ago, "You can't stop him if you are dead. Always have a cover position in mind."

I'd like to think I'd take cover and attempt to stop the shooter. Circumstances of the instant would determine just how that would be accomplished. Which brings to mind the incident about 50 years ago, where an alert (and brave) citizen threw a rack of overcoats over a knife wielding madman in the store. Once he was down, close to a dozen people piled on and he was a little worse for wear when he was hauled off to the local copshop. The officer on duty that day was a little startled when we came bursting through the door with this poor, bedraggled fellow in tow. :D

Whatever works.

Pops

Dwight55
December 15, 2007, 03:40 PM
Like tlm225 said, . . . ID'ing the shooter is paramount. Anyone shooting with a handgun in a mall where I am, . . . gets a pass until I am certain he is a bad guy, . . . guy with an AK, face paint, baggy butt camo bdu's, . . . he is almost certainly a bg, . . . but again, . . . shooting another CHL or an innocent, . . . it would only turn out ugly.

In all honesty, . . . I would probably have to see him shoot someone, . . . then I could go after him with all I have with me.

A concealed carry license is a license only for defense, . . . it is not a hunting permit of any kind, . . . so what you shoot, . . . has to be hunting you or someone you can certify as an intended target that you defended.

Yes, . . . I would certainly hate to go to bed some night, . . . knowing if I had taken an earlier shot I may have saved a life, . . . but it would hurt much, much worse, . . . if I said goodnight to the cell captain, . . . laid down on my stainless steel bunk, . . . pondering if there is any way of getting freed from having shot an innocent CHL carrier who, like me, was only trying to be a good guy.

And, . . . while it goes against the grain of most mall ninjas and John Wayne wannabe's, . . . I only have responsibility for myself, my family, and those who at any given, certain, limited window of time happen to be within my range of effective defendability.

May God bless,
Dwight

Double Naught Spy
December 15, 2007, 04:11 PM
Legal ramifications being damned here, I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees.

We are talking about a mall active shooter single incident scenario, not the overthrow of our government and subsequent rule over us for years.

Or maybe you think going to safety is the same as living on your knees?

What does concern me is the position many take of "I'll save my hide, the heck with everyone else". Maybe your conscience will allow you to leave helpless innocents to be slaughtered while you run, mine won't. The mere concept that an armed man would turn his back on a situation like this sickens me.

Be sickened. It just strikes me as stupid to put the lives of strangers before that of my own and my family. Most of those adult strangers could have gotten their CCWs. Everyone over 10 can be proficient in self defense if they get instruction. Folks could learn about situational awareness. By and large, they do not, however.

If I am killed defending said "innocents," will they then get a clue? Nope. Most will not. Most will consider themselves lucky to be alive and continue on with their lives, maybe being scared of malls, but that would be about it. Nothing will change. Of course, probably some 30-40% of those "innocents" being defended don't share my political views on guns. Probably 50% aren't of my political party. 99% aren't of my church. 99% won't even be from my neighborhood. I won't know 99% of them. Probably 80% will attempt to sue me if my self defense efforts somehow result in their subsequent injury, directly or indirectly. 10% will be ****** that I "pointed my gun at them" even if I didn't, but they happened to be in the same direction from me as the bad guy(s). 99-100% aren't going to help cover my legal expenses. Those same peoiple aren't going to help make up for my lost wages and help care for my family whist I deal with the legal crap of such an event.

Tell me again why I am supposed to lay down my life for those that haven't bothered to learn to defend themselves? While it sounds cool, it really seems to have a lot of very risky and expensive drawbacks.

David Armstrong
December 15, 2007, 04:21 PM
Be sickened. It just strikes me as stupid to put the lives of strangers before that of my own and my family.
And we have a winner, IMO! The problem with these things is that way too many think that either nothing will go wrong or they will go out in a blaze of glory, honored and mourned by all. It doesn't work that way. There is just a good a chance that you will fail as that you will succeed at engaging the BG. Even if you succeed there is still a lot of potential for problems. I tell my students plan on spending at least $20,000 even in a fairly good shoot. So, is saving some stranger worth $20,00 to you?
Worse than the money is the fact thta it is not just you that can be impacted, but it is also your family. Do you really want your family to lose everything including the house, having to live in poverty for years? You wife might divorce you, and your kids will get tired of going to visit you in prison.

Now, will all that happen? No, probably not. But will everything work out great? Again, probably not. The question is where you will end up in the spectrum. Do you really want to find out?

tplumeri
December 15, 2007, 04:28 PM
Tell me again why I am supposed to lay down my life for those that haven't bothered to learn to defend themselves?

Because the meek shall inherit the earth? :)

seriously, Spy makes some good points. In this day and age, if I pop this guy and save "countless" lives, I can be sure of being arrested, having my gun impounded, spend five to ten grand on a lawyer and be sued by the "victim" s family. and what if the SOB gets off a lucky shot and takes me down. who takes care of my wife and kids?
but even with all of the negatives, i dont know what i would do.
i have shot a man, in self defense. took 3 yrs and 10k to clear my name.

TexasSeaRay
December 15, 2007, 04:37 PM
Tell me again why I am supposed to lay down my life for those that haven't bothered to learn to defend themselves? While it sounds cool, it really seems to have a lot of very risky and expensive drawbacks.

Our soldiers, sailors and airmen do it every day--and for a pittance in pay. The Coast Guard regularly risks all to save ignorant boaters who pay no attention to weather reports. Firemen risk all to save people who refuse to install smoke detectors.

And so on and so on.

To a certain extent, I believe in the karma of "what goes around, comes around."

Why should a banker risk money to lend you some when you haven't learned to budget, save and sacrifice in order to not need a loan?

Why should a doctor perform a lung transplant or liver transplant for chronic smokers or drinkers who haven't learned or pay no attention?

My faith teaches me that I am "my brother's keeper." Our nation was founded on the principle that while we were all created equal, we do not all have equal abilities.

Am I saying that we should all be "cops" and constant guardians of anyone and everyone all the time? No. But if you are in a situation to render aid and possibly/probably save someone's life and you fail to do it because you are more concerned with your own, then I submit that you only perpetuate the "me first" mentality that continues to destroy the will and fabric of this country.

Jeff

David Armstrong
December 15, 2007, 04:56 PM
Our soldiers, sailors and airmen do it every day--and for a pittance in pay. The Coast Guard regularly risks all to save ignorant boaters who pay no attention to weather reports. Firemen risk all to save people who refuse to install smoke detectors.
And all of those people are trained in the job, getting paid for doing it, adn have the government behind them supporting their actions, so I'd suggest there is little if any similarity.
Why should a banker risk money to lend you some when you haven't learned to budget, save and sacrifice in order to not need a loan?
Because the banker plans on and expects to make a profit from his actions, and if he thinks the risk is not good you don't get the loan.
Why should a doctor perform a lung transplant or liver transplant for chronic smokers or drinkers who haven't learned or pay no attention?
Because he gets paid quite well for doing that, and again will have the hospital (and usually an insurance company) to support him if there are problems.
I submit that you only perpetuate the "me first" mentality that continues to destroy the will and fabric of this country.
I would suggest the "me first" mentality was what made the country great, not what is destroying it. "Me first" sent the pioneers out in the West. "Me first" revolted against the British government. And so on. It was this silly "nobody is responsible for taking care of themselves" stuff that has caused so much of the trouble, IMO.

KC135
December 15, 2007, 05:06 PM
TexasSeaRay, Perhaps, but I carry a gun/s to protect me and mine.

The rest will depend on the terrain.

If children are involved, and I can move away from my wife of 56 years, I will likely become involved.

I did my 20, active participant in three wars--and your experience??

TexasSeaRay
December 15, 2007, 05:09 PM
So basically, David, what you're advocating is "Leave it to someone else," right? That if it's not your job or you don't stand to gain something from it, then don't bother?

"Me first" isn't what either built or made this country. Self-determination, self-reliance, courage and teamwork is what made this country and made it great.

I grew up in farm and ranch country. We helped our neighbors and they helped us. We looked out for them and they looked out for us. Together, we all did well.

But if our neighbor's combine went down and we hadn't helped, he would've lost a lot of money not being able to harvest. When lightning struck our barn, our neighbors could've said "to hell with it--I'm not risky MY ass." After all, they weren't trained firefighters and there was absolutely zilch in it for them.

Fact is, the way we were raised and brought up, we never gave it a second thought that we'd help out. We had a lot of transient cowboys and workers come through every year. Some of them got sick, some ended up having financial problems, etc. Know what? We helped them out too, even though we didn't know them.

Maybe that's why I prefer country folks to most city folks.

I did my 20, active participant in three wars--and your experience??

Nine years active duty, with operations in Iran in '79 and '80, Central America (El Salvador, Nicaraugua, Panama), Grenada and then recalled for the Persian Gulf War. Federal narcotics agent for ten years before getting out and going into the private sector in a completely unrelated field.

If you've been married for 56 years, I'd guess you spent a little time driving around some of the early A model 135's with the water-cooled engines that redefined what "loud" is?

Jeff

Perldog007
December 15, 2007, 08:42 PM
David Armstrong is right.

If his school was in my area it would be on my must attend list.

I still say with mall shootings becoming common enough to discuss not only here but amongst the sheeple, this fat guy is keeping his large target out of malls unless absolutely necessary.

If the mall management was serious about security we wouldn't be having this discussion.

MY guess is that if the malls in your locale are properly guarded and ccw permit holders are welcome you ain't gonna have the problem. Here in the "hamburger alley" mall zone - take your business elsewhere.

If you feel an unquenchable desire to go forth and confront these evil doers, get the job title to do so. No matter which way you go, stay safe and avoid trouble.

Mannlicher
December 15, 2007, 08:44 PM
Tom so, now that its all said and done, what do you think you would do if you were there?
honestly, part of me says i would engage the shooter and to heck with personal safety. other part of me thinks self preservation would be the way to go

Sometimes, engaging IS self preservation. I guess you have to be there to really know what you would do.

ROWG FROM FT WORTH
December 15, 2007, 09:15 PM
TEXASSEARAY this ROWG is with you all the way.

Double Naught Spy
December 15, 2007, 10:22 PM
Sometimes, engaging IS self preservation. I guess you have to be there to really know what you would do.

Absolutely.

kgpcr
December 15, 2007, 10:26 PM
I would go after him. Marines run towards the gunfire not away from it.

KC135
December 16, 2007, 10:43 AM
Were not on our birds, and yes, the water did cause a lot of smoke on takeoff Jeff. I did get a ride in a fan bird last year--quick and quiet.

J-57s--Loud?? Not near as loud as a B-36 on takeoff with 6 turning and four burning.:D;)

The problem with an active shooter has been well explored. If I cannot retreat with my charges, I will seek cover and wait, engaging if necessary.

Double Naught Spy
December 16, 2007, 11:08 AM
Marines run towards the gunfire not away from it.

So if you are caught between two different groups shooting at one another, which way do you run?

stephen426
December 16, 2007, 11:46 AM
Two concerns.

First, are you sure the person who you think is the perpetrator the actual perpetrator or is (s)he an off duty cop who is responding to the gunfire? Could (s)he also be a CCW holder like yourself?

Second, how do you ensure that you're not shot by the uniformed or off duty cops?

Better be sure of your target and then expected to be drawn upon by the police.

Come on Gary. You are TFL staff and you don't think someone could make the distinction between a crazed gunman and the police? Last I check, police don't go around gunning down people indicriminately. If someone is approaching the shooter cautiously with a weapon drawn while moving people to safety, I'm sure most people would think you were an off duty cop.

I do not advocate simply blasting away in the bad guy's general direction. There is way too much collateral damage that could occur. If I did not have a clear shot or could not get close enough, I would try and get closer or wait for the bad guy to reload and rush him.

As for the legal ramifications, I am prepared to deal with them. Of course I would get any loved ones with me to safety and I would not go rushing in like a sheep to slaughter. You guys seem to make it all or nothing here. Like I mentioned earlier, approach cautiously and look for a good shot. There will be plenty of witnesses and most malls have good surveillance systems.

As for avoiding malls, that is a little hard since I own a business in one. Malls are great places to shop since you have multiple stores in one location. You have to consider the fact that crazed gunmen can attack any crowded areas. Unless you plan on living like a hermit, just live your life and be prepared to act should the need ever arise.

TexasSeaRay
December 16, 2007, 12:11 PM
Were not on our birds, and yes, the water did cause a lot of smoke on takeoff Jeff. I did get a ride in a fan bird last year--quick and quiet.

J-57s--Loud?? Not near as loud as a B-36 on takeoff with 6 turning and four burning.

No doubt!

I did some time at Hill AFB back when they still had a Reserve unit of 105 Thuds. I believe that was the loudest single engine jet I've ever heard. The F16's screeched and tore at the air, but those Thuds literally thundered. On rare occasion, they'd do a four-ship formation takeoff rather than the normal two-ship. Holy moly, everything on base shook.

The problem with an active shooter has been well explored. If I cannot retreat with my charges, I will seek cover and wait, engaging if necessary.

My father-in-law says the same thing. He was a Marine in the South Pacific during WWII. Told me if he was my age or younger, then he might look for ways to flank the Omaha mall shooter if possible or prudent. But at his age, said he'd push his wife into a corner and try to gather as many people to a safe cover spot, then stand gaurd and God rest the shooter's sorry soul if he came within firing range.

Jeff

Casimer
December 16, 2007, 12:18 PM
These threads always depress me.

BikerRN
December 16, 2007, 12:21 PM
I have no duty to protect anybody but my "self imposed" duty to self and family.

With that said, I will protect myself and my family, nothing more, nothing less when I'm off duty. It sounds selfish, but it's reality. Life isn't like the movies and Use Of Force Investigations SUCK, BTDT. If you are not a member of my family I am not willing to risk bancruptcy, prison, financial ruin or death for you.

If I can flee without firing a shot, that's what I will do. If my family or self is being threatened then I will respond appropriately, or I hope I do. I have "appropriately" responded in the past if that is any indication of future behavior. Just because I'm fleeing doesn't mean however that I'm not being a good witness and summoning the "On Duty" LEO's to the scene.

The only exception I will make to assisting another is in the case of an "IDENTIFIED" LEO. Other than that, you all are on your own, just like I expect to be. BTW, I'm an LEO. :)

Biker

kgpcr
December 16, 2007, 07:36 PM
Double Naught
In that case we would run both ways, Just like we did at the Chosin resivoir and Khe Sahn and the Canal. If there is just one of us we attack one way and when that target is defeated we go the other way LOL. If you look at history its not us Marines that are in trouble when we get surrounded its the ones who surround us that have the major problem. We like it as we dont have to go looking for them LOL. Marines have a proud battle history, i am proud to have been a part of it.
Semper Fi

Double Naught Spy
December 16, 2007, 07:41 PM
Yes, but you are not a group of marines, but a single individual, which way do you run when the shooting is from two directions?

However, I am not surprised by the response. The recitation of mantra as an answer to a question is such that it often doesn't fit the question.

kgpcr
December 16, 2007, 08:58 PM
Well that depends on the situation. How often are you going to be in a crossfire as a civilian?? I am not worried about it. I am not really concerned about having to engage one person much less two. Yes a terrible tradgedy did happen at a mall but millions of others shopped in in peace. The odds are almost like winning the lottery to being in a shoot out.

David Armstrong
December 17, 2007, 05:42 PM
So basically, David, what you're advocating is "Leave it to someone else," right? That if it's not your job or you don't stand to gain something from it, then don't bother?
Actually David doesn't advocate much. He does suggest that you be aware of all the possible ramifications in order to make your best decision. So no, I don't say "don't bother", I do say "better know what can happen if you decide to bother."
"Me first" isn't what either built or made this country. Self-determination, self-reliance, courage and teamwork is what made this country and made it great.
We'll disagree. But I doubt many of those pioneer types were thinking "Gee, I can't wait to have to work like a dog and fight the Indians and the weather so I can help out my fellow man!" I question how many of the 49ers were thinking "Wow, all this gold I'm panning will sure go a long way toward improving the status of this country inthe eyes of other nations!"
Fact is, the way we were raised and brought up, we never gave it a second thought that we'd help out.
I don't mind helping out a bit. That is quite a bit different than ruining the rest of your life, or causing your kids to go without food, or losing the house, or going bankrupt, etc. I grew up on a farm also, and believe me there is quite a bit of difference between "let's help get the hay in before the rain hits" and "let's take a chance on getting our ass shot off."

David Armstrong
December 17, 2007, 05:48 PM
My father-in-law says the same thing. He was a Marine in the South Pacific during WWII.
What? Why, surely that cannot be! According to kgpcr,
I would go after him. Marines run towards the gunfire not away from it.

:D

David Armstrong
December 17, 2007, 05:50 PM
Life isn't like the movies and Use Of Force Investigations SUCK, BTDT. If you are not a member of my family I am not willing to risk bancruptcy, prison, financial ruin or death for you.
Well said!