PDA

View Full Version : Moral Obligation to Take Action


pfch1977
January 9, 2008, 09:33 AM
Is it really my obligation to take action? Certainly I might agree with this if my actions did not put me at risk. However, I am not sure that is true when I might become injuried, disabled, or killed. In fact, even if I personally feel compelled to act, I feel as though I have to weigh the potential disasterous consequences and its impact on my family.

Personally, I am a proponent of carrying for the defense of yourself and your family. Any other use should be carefully weighed. In my mind, if it does not involve me or my family, I need compelling reasons to act. The default is not to take actions unless I must.

I also often wonder what my obligation is to take action to help/defend those who have not taken actions to be prepared. If they are unwilling to carry a way to defend themselves, why should I feel obligated to defend them? I know it sounds cold but it makes sense to me.

What are your thoughts?

Manedwolf
January 9, 2008, 09:43 AM
The simplest answer is that in some cases where there's a bad guy with a gun, you're at risk of being a victim of lethal force, too, as in an "everyone get in the back!" robbery with gun-waving...or a mall rampage. If you're not at immediate risk but can see that something is going on, then you're likely at a distance where you can call in the police instead. Missed shots can go on to hurt other people.

If a bad guy is threatening someone and is just armed with a knife, then a gun can be an effective deterrent at range, with a command voice yelling at them to drop their weapon. If they instead come at you, you're acting in self-defense.

In my state, lethal force is expressly authorized for three things, other than self defense or defense of one's home and curtilage.

1. To prevent the imminent use of deadly force upon a third party in the commission of a crime such as armed robbery. In other words, the BG is about to actually shoot the clerk or is shooting at helpless people running around.

2. To stop an act of sexual assault or kidnapping.

3. To stop an act of arson.

My idea? Have a gun, pepper spray and cellphone. Use your judgment as to which would be the best solution to the threat.

And recent example, here. A man was thrown out of a club, returned with a handgun and started shooting at the bouncer and into the club, thankfully missing everyone. A CCW holder came out of the club, aimed, and shot the perp twice. The perp fled, pursued by an angry mob, and fell a few blocks away. The club owner said that his bouncer would likely be dead if the CCW holder hadn't intervened, and it was all protected by state law.

Stockton
January 9, 2008, 09:44 AM
Situation dictates! Too easy huh? METT-TC! Too easy too? Not saying this is what you meant but its what I percieved... Is it worth it judiciously after the fact? Or is worth it moraly after the fact? Moraly I believe its in a vast majorities nature to want to help another in danger. Judiciously we don't want to be crusified, so to say, for good intentions on helping someone in need. Hard to stay left or right on this one. Personally i've had to make such decisions in the past and have come out fairly unscaved for my good deeds.

rantingredneck
January 9, 2008, 09:51 AM
Legalities aside as they vary from state to state, my personal feeling is to act only when necessary to prevent harm to my family or myself, otherwise call the police and be a good witness.

Just like carrying a fire extinguisher in your car does not make you the fire dept., carrying a gun on your person does not make you the SWAT team.

Just my opinion, worth every penny paid for it. :)

benny27
January 9, 2008, 09:57 AM
Well the fact is this, If a person visibly has a weapon with possible intent on using it for robbery, kidnapping, assault, or whatever it is naive to just sit back and say well let's just see what he does. You have to remember someone commiting these actions is probably hopped up on drugs and very unstable. Sometimes the world needs hero's, and if you can muster up the courage you should act in my opinion. Calling the cops is fine, but you know as well as I do they often get there in time to clean up the aftermath. Ask yourself this, wouldn't you want someone else to do the same for you?..;)

Manedwolf
January 9, 2008, 10:03 AM
Benny,

Most of the robberies around here have been with an airsoft gun spraypainted black.

You know as well as I do that if you actually shot someone who had one when they flashed it in a robbery, you'd be crucified in the press as having "shot a kid with a toy gun", and that he was "a good kid who was turning his life around". And you'd get hit with civil suits.

Unfortunate, but fact.

benny27
January 9, 2008, 10:12 AM
Manedwolf, I don't know if going on the assumption that the criminal may be carrying a airsoft gun is smart. If you can clearly see that it is maybe. The only thing is by the time you figure out it's not it may be to late. I can guarentee you there is not one cop out there who would stand around and try to figure out if the guy has a airsoft gun or a real one, you simply can't risk it. I would also rather be hit with a civil suit than a bullet any day.

jfrey123
January 9, 2008, 10:16 AM
Could this possibly be a response to the many who took the "do nothing" approach in another thread in this section? :cool:


YES, the situation dictates. I'm not going to shoot a kid who is robbing a convenience store at gun point, because statistics show that armed robbery rarely ends in blood shed. That said, if he starts shooting then all bets are off.

One of my favorite movies is "The Boondock Saints." While I don't necessarily agree with their vigilantism during the whole movie, a minister makes a good point in a sermon at the beginning of the film. He mentions a woman who is assaulted, and instructs everyone that we must be wary of bad people. But that we must also be wary of another evil, and that is "the indifference of good men". Society needs good men who aren't afraid to get involved when a situation necessitates a response: helping a woman with car trouble at the side of the road, help someone with a bag of groceries they're about to drop, etc.

The same mentality affects me if a life is directly at risk. If a man is outnumbered and being beaten on the ground by a group, I'm going to interfere. If a woman is being dragged away, kicking and screaming, into the back of a van, I'm going to interfere. I would interfere with these events and others like it because it's the right thing to do and my grandpappy didn't raise no coward. I'd interfere, and it wouldn't matter if I used the gun on my hip or just anything I could get my hands on.

Manedwolf
January 9, 2008, 10:20 AM
If a man is outnumbered and being beaten on the ground by a group, I'm going to interfere.

And what if that man being beaten is a rapist who has just raped a girl or a robber who just shot someone, and the group beating him is the girl's family or the friends of the person who was shot?

Just saying. Appearances can be deceiving.

benny27
January 9, 2008, 10:24 AM
Manedwolf, well in that case join in..:D

markj
January 9, 2008, 11:55 AM
Each situation requires a different approach. A CCW isnt a badge nor will you be paid for your "duty".

threegun
January 9, 2008, 12:24 PM
Moral Obligations........lets see my children and wife are minus Daddy if I screw up trying to save Joe Blow. Jow Blow goes home to his kids and wife.........because of the actions of a now dead good samaritan. Am I morally obligated to my own?

I have to answer this as yes and no. If if can help without adding much risk to myself hereby maintaining my moral obligation to mine....then yes. If not ........no. If I have no moral obligations of my own other than myself then yes.

Bond007
January 9, 2008, 01:01 PM
let's assume you're not killed, but somehow injured in a shoulder or arm such that you can't work for 6 months. is your health insurance sufficiently broad to cover placing yourself into a dangerous situation from a position of apparent safety?

even if you are a hero and save someone's life, they may thank you but not be able to cover your lost wages. sure, there may be a collection for you here or on the nightly news, but would it cover your medical costs, lost wages and suffering? most likely the bad guy doesn't have that money laying around for a civil suit.

perhaps this is when we quietly swallow some pride and take a brief handout from the government until we're back in working order.

i'm not making fun of anyone's viewpoints, but these things should be considered because they are real although not the glamorous side of heroism.

Hook686
January 9, 2008, 01:14 PM
My view:

morality is in the eyes of the beholder. Moral obligation is a rationalization that can lead to justifying spurious behavior.

I use the definition:

morality

n 1: concern with the distinction between good and evil, or right and wrong

Personally I do not believe there is a 'right and wrong', there are merely consequences. Personal philosophy, so it is my starting point. Who am I to judge 'right and wrong', I am not God, just another animal on this planet trying to survive, while enjoying the journey.

I chuckle when I read the expression 'Moral obligation'. This is because an obligation is an obligation, not an arbitrary choice. To begin putting qualifications on an obligation, dictating when I will exercise the 'obligation', and when I will not, eliminates the concept of 'Obligation', in my book. This means the thoughts of friends, family, work, recreation, retirement, ..., do not enter the equation, from my perspective, for an obligation is an obligation ... a duty to act.

Others surely see it different than I do, but then I am only responsible for my actions, reactions and inactions. I will leave the rest of you to struggle with your rationalizations.

chris in va
January 9, 2008, 01:21 PM
Honestly, nobody knows what they'll do until in a situation. Everyone's different. Some will thump chests on the 'net saying they'll intervene and mow down the offender, but in reality will shrink back in a corner hoping they won't get shot. Others will take action and possibly get shot.

There's certainly been quite a few cases of amazing heroism. Frankly I don't even know what I'd do if I saw something 'go down'. :o

RoscoeC
January 9, 2008, 01:22 PM
A friend and I had a long discussion about this one evening over a couple of beers. That is where I developed my philosophy about this issue. I very strongly believe that I have to be responsible for my own safety and the safety of my family. I know that the police cannot protect me. This is not an indictment of the police, it is just the reality. I expect each and every person to be responsible. That means that they need to be responsible for their safety and the safety of their families, just as I am. If they choose not to accept responsibility for their safety and self defense, then why should I do it? I'm already tired of being responsible for a good slice of the population that refuses to accept responsibility for itself in many other ways.

KingofAttendance
January 9, 2008, 01:32 PM
Your thoughts on a moral obligation to take action using a firearm should coincide with your thoughts of a moral obligation to take action through taxes; a lot of liberals and conservatives alike don't even think of that.

If you believe in not donating a chunk of your paycheck to the needy, you should also not believe in donating a chunk of your time and/or life to the needy. Otherwise, it's a huge contradiction. :rolleyes:

easyG
January 9, 2008, 01:35 PM
I also often wonder what my obligation is to take action to help/defend those who have not taken actions to be prepared. If they are unwilling to carry a way to defend themselves, why should I feel obligated to defend them? I know it sounds cold but it makes sense to me.

What are your thoughts?
I don't believe that anyone is under any morale obligation to defend another person's life at risk to his own.

HOWEVER....

You're the one that must look at yourself in the mirror every day.
When you make a decision to defend someone, or to let someone fend for themselves, make sure that it's a decision that you can live with.

TexasSeaRay
January 9, 2008, 01:52 PM
My viewpoint is simple:

--If you have or have had training and/or experience that will allow you to help someone avoid possible or potential (or certain) injury or death at the hands of a criminal, then yes, you have a moral obligation to help out.

After all, what compelled you to acquire the training and/or experience in the first place?

If you haven't had the training and/or experience, then it's a judgement call on your part. No right or wrong answer, in my opinion.

Jeff

James K
January 9, 2008, 02:02 PM
This is a case where there could be a real difference between moral and legal. Any citizen can legally defend himself and his family. Beyond that, he has no legal obligation and in most states, no legal authority. He is NOT a law enforcement officer, sworn to uphold the law.

But, morally, if he is armed he might feel a need to step into a situation where a person he believes to be innocent is suffering or is about to suffer death or grievous bodily harm. He does that at his own risk and peril. If he has judged the situation correctly, and he is good with his weapon and lucky, he will be the subject of praise. If he is wrong, he must accept the consequences.

But note that the situation needs to be considered. If an armed citizen sitting in a restaurant observes a man robbing the cashier, draws his gun and fires, killing the cashier, was he "morally" right? Legalities aside, did he have some higher obligation to stop evil, even if he kills an innocent? If he misses the robber, and the robber empties his gun into the diners, killing several, possibly includng the armed citizen or his family, was the citizen still "morally" right? Was the danger from the robber known, or only surmised? The robber might have simply taken the money and left, as most robbers do. His gun may have been a toy, or unloaded. Absent any real evidence that the citizen's actions were necessary to save a life, does he have a "moral" obligation to open fire, even at the risk of killing an innocent person?

I was once thrown this scenario in a training session. Dudley Doright is on the street and sees a woman coming out of a building, screaming that she is being attacked. She is followed by a tough-looking man who runs her down, throws her to the ground and holds her down. A real nasty guy, so Dudley Doright shoots him. The woman jumps up and runs away. Dudley had killed an FBI agent arresting a nurse who murdered 50 patients in a nursing home, and let the woman free to take on another nursing job.

Jim

BikerRN
January 9, 2008, 02:29 PM
On Duty I will do what is required within the scope of my employment.

Off Duty my guns are to protect me and mine only. The only exception to that is if I see an identified law enforcemnet officer in need of assistance. That will be action taken, "not in the scope of my employment" according to my Agency's "legal beagle". The Agency wants to limit it's vicarious liability, so why should I expose myself to that needlessly?

Jim Keenan's post brought up a very good point. Things are not always what they seem, and you will not know all the "players". That's a lot of responsibility on your shoulders if you decide to intervene.

Biker

TexasSeaRay
January 9, 2008, 02:51 PM
Dudley Doright is on the street and sees a woman coming out of a building, screaming that she is being attacked. She is followed by a tough-looking man who runs her down, throws her to the ground and holds her down. A real nasty guy, so Dudley Doright shoots him. The woman jumps up and runs away. Dudley had killed an FBI agent arresting a nurse who murdered 50 patients in a nursing home, and let the woman free to take on another nursing job.

We were taught and had it drilled into us constantly that (since we did not wear uniforms) when enacting an arrest such as you described above, to make sure EVERYONE knew we were police officers.

If we DIDN'T, there just might be a Dudley Doright looking to "make his day."

Unless you are absolutely, positively (what we used to call FedEx sure) 100% positive of what you are seeing, it always pays to take a second to think.

Jeff

TexasSeaRay
January 9, 2008, 02:52 PM
Off Duty my guns are to protect me and mine only. The only exception to that is if I see an identified law enforcemnet officer in need of assistance.

Oh, I see.

You'll stop and help a fellow cop, but not a fellow citizen?

Wonderful.

Jeff

CrazyIvan007
January 9, 2008, 03:19 PM
Is it really my obligation to take action?

If it can be done with reasonable belief that such action will decrease the victim count, then yes.

If it is done stupidly and ignorantly, then no.

Example: You see a man attacking a woman in an alley. You pull your firearm, take aim and yell, he turns and runs. -GOOD

Example: You are in a bank, there are 5 men with guns pointed in every direction. You are amongst 6 other patrons huddled on the floor. You reach for your gun and take 5 shots at one man taking him out, but miss with the third shot which flies by the armed man, goes through a service desk and hits a bank teller in the thigh pelting her with shrapnel from the desk as well. The other 4 men turn and begin firing in your direction. You as well as 3 others are injured/killed. -BAD

BikerRN
January 9, 2008, 03:22 PM
That's right, I will help a fellow LEO because I can IDENTIFY them.

I am thinking of uniformed officers here, not plainclothes or undercover officers. I don't know all the players and what caused the situation, so why would I want to play "Hero" and find out later that I was wrong? In uniform an officer is easily identifyable. In "street clothes" it can be hard to identify all the players and their relationships to each other.

Geez, this place is becoming a haven for keyboard commandos that would be better off going to school instead of skipping class to play on their parent's computer.

Biker

threegun
January 9, 2008, 04:28 PM
Biker, I am an adult and far from an internet commando. I also found it odd that as an LEO you wouldn't protect/aid a civilian because of your me and mine mentality however you would aid a strange LEO officer.

Perhaps the reason you are so hostile is because you see how bad that sounds.

benny27
January 9, 2008, 05:03 PM
threegun, I totally agree for some reason a lot of these cops get on these power trips "barney fife syndrome" and think their the only one's that should be carrying guns..etc.
They also think they're the only one's that know the law. I know the law and I know my rights, and no cop is going to tell me that I'm in the wrong because I choose to protect an innocent third party in distress. Notice I didn't say all cops and generally speaking I respect them completely.

David Armstrong
January 9, 2008, 05:07 PM
Well the fact is this, If a person visibly has a weapon with possible intent on using it for robbery, kidnapping, assault, or whatever it is naive to just sit back and say well let's just see what he does.
Yes. let's see what he does. You starting a gunfight does not fit into that category. If you do shoot at him, plan on him shooting back at you and at others. There is a reason even LE instructs off-duty officers to not get involved except under very pressing circumstances.

benny27
January 9, 2008, 05:10 PM
Well David, what if the guy blows the clerk's head off don't you think that could have been avoided if you would have taken action.

David Armstrong
January 9, 2008, 05:24 PM
Well, benny, one can play "what if" games all day long. What if you shoot the BG and in his death throes he squeezes off a round and kills a 6 year old girl who is coming into the store to get a strawberry ice cream? Wouldn't that have been avoided if you had not taken any action? One can play that game all day, without any end. The facts are simple---if you start shooting, there are going to be bullets flying around. If the BG is not shooting, there are not bullets flying around yet. If he hasn't shot the clerk yet it is unlikely he will shoot the clerk.

Thunderhawk88
January 9, 2008, 05:25 PM
The one thing the Deputy who taught our CCW class, and the Detective who interviewed us stressed was that a CCW was a badge, and in no way gave us any LEO powers. There is no requirement that you MUST act, but if you do you had better be da%n sure you are right.

Rifleman 173
January 9, 2008, 05:31 PM
Morally obligated???? How about using some common sense? If you can, you should look over situations BEFORE you take any action at all. To take the wrong gun up against a guy with a more powerful or longer distance shooting gun is NOT morally obligated. It's morally stupid. It gets you killed for nothing. It can get innocent people also killed. You are morally obligated to use your head and think. If you have multiple attackers and you're all alone, do NOT try to take them on by yourself. If your bad guys have rifles and you're armed with a derringer, do NOT act the hero. THINK!! If you're in a mall and shooting starts, your options are:

1. Do nothing and withdraw from the area taking as many innocent people out of the area with you as you can, or
2. Try to get a look at what's going on, analyze what's happening and think through your ability to react and then take carefully, albeit quickly planned, action, or
3. Try to secure the area you are in to defend yourself and other innocent people from being killed.

But whatever you do, don't just go running blind into a situation. Keep cool, calm and collected which will be amazing hard to do with gunshots going off all around you. Panic is your enemy. Remember to positively identify the target that needs to actually be shot and watch out for panicky shoppers fleeing from the bad guy(s). Use cover not concealment to your advantage. Team up with somebody when you can. Multiple sets of eyes see more things and work to better detect threats. Keep your tactics and actions simple and do NOT complicate things. Use your local resources to your advantage. If you're in a mall that has a sportings good store and they have shotguns and ammo handy, grab some of it and put it to use if needed. Got a man in the store who's a bow hunter? Tell him to grab a hunting bow and some arrows to help you out. Got a nurse in the group? Plan to use her/him to treat the wounded as soon as you can. Ex-military people in the group? Arm them with something too. The main thing is to communicate with people near you and to think ahead of trouble and confrontations.

Manedwolf
January 9, 2008, 05:33 PM
It is true, yes, that in most store holdups, the perp will not shoot. If they meant to do that, they usually march in coldly, fo-tays held sideways, and open fire immediately as an execution. In that case, it's already a gunfight, and you just better find hard cover and have better aim.

It seems like it's single holdups in parking lots and the like that are more likely to have the sorts who get off on the fear of their victim and might kill them anyway.

Judge the situation.

benny27
January 9, 2008, 05:35 PM
thunderhawk88, you're right it doesn't give you LE powers but it does give you the power to protect you and yours and also third parties if need be. The officer has to tell students this so they understand liability and that's great. I guess I would rather act if I could rather than ignore the situation. To whoever said that most robberies end without gunfire is wrong, a lot of robberies get very messy it just depends on which drug crazed fool is involved. Anyway the chance of ever being involved in this kind of situation is slim to none thank god..:)

BigO01
January 9, 2008, 05:48 PM
More things would be a tough call than an easy one .

A person randomly firing into a crowd is an easy call .

Two men engaged in a gunfight is a tough call as one could be a cop .

A man running through a crowd with a knife slashing anyone he can , easy call .

A man standing in one place and simply waving a knife around and having an emotional fit , tough call . For all you know he just fought off a couple of punks who tried to rob him with that knife .

Guys chasing a women who is screaming bloody murder as she runs away , tough call , could be domestic situation you really want to avoid , she could be mentally Ill and grabbed a handful of pills to commit suicide and he is trying to stop her or she could have his wallet .

Remember even in states with laws that allow a third person to get involved you have to make sure someones life is in danger before you draw that gun much less fire it ..

benny27
January 9, 2008, 06:00 PM
BigO01, Exactly, and a gun pointed at a clerks head or other bystanders is someone's life in danger. That's somebody's loved one they're threatening. Imagine if that was your mother behind the counter with some punk pointing a gun in her face. Now you get my point..;)

YounGun24
January 9, 2008, 07:23 PM
Mandewolf,

That first example you gave about the CCW holder coming out of the club and potentially saving the boucer's life (thank god for him, by the way), do we know if he was legally carrying? I don't mean to play devil's advocate, but I'm pretty new at CCW and wanted clarification. Isn't a club usually a place that serves alcohol (a glorified bar), and wouldn't that place be off-limits to CCW's. Maybe it's a state by state thing. Was he supposed to have his gun in the club?

Perldog007
January 9, 2008, 07:38 PM
I have jumped in to help a cop in a fray once. I knew the guy. I was unarmed at the time.

If I saw a LEO getting the worst of it I would probably yell "little help" and see how they were feeling about assistance. If a LEO was down and taking punishment don't think I would be able to pontificate. My past would likely come back to haunt me and this fat approaching middle age guy would probably jump in and hope for the best.

Unidentified persons, it would have to be pretty compelling and clear cut.

Don Lu
January 9, 2008, 08:02 PM
Well, benny, one can play "what if" games all day long. What if you shoot the BG and in his death throes he squeezes off a round and kills a 6 year old girl who is coming into the store to get a strawberry ice cream?

great example and very likely. In many robberies the perp is just as scared as the victims..many times they dont really have intentions of shooting but just know that the pressence of a gun will get them what they want...I know of robberies commited w/an unloaded gun for that very reason(im not crazy enough to believe this is the case in most situations) BUT..... My duty is to me and my loved ones...not to make sure that before its over, bullets are gonna fly..If he shoots the game plan changes, if he doesnt shoot...eveyone gets to go home....quickie marts 157.89 in the register is not worth the possibility of me starting a shootout, taking a life, losing all my money in civil court, possibly ending up in jail, my daughter not having a father, my wife...ehh you get the point

Many times the people who advocate this vigilante stuff are people who are not married, and dont have kids or people just being commandos from behind a keyboard...when you have a family it becomes clear that you main priority in these type situations is getiing home safley and making sure that your family is safe.

Ohio Rusty
January 9, 2008, 08:06 PM
Morally ...... I have an obligation to my family and extended family. That is where it ends. I'm not trying to be mean or calloused. It is just the way we need to be when it comes to pulling our pistols and pulling the trigger. Right now I'm in Columbus Ohio ........ As I set here typing, In this city women are being raped, children are being molested, people are being robbed at gun and knifepoint, men and women are being assulted and abused, some brutally and they will end up in the hospital tonight. At this exact moment, these same exact crimes are happening to people in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago, L.A., D.C., Philadelphia and small cities everywhere around me. One poster asked a question: When you know these crimes are happening and you aren't involving yourself to stop them, how can you live with yourself ??? I can live with myself just fine, and I'll sleep well. The moral responsibility of protecting every victim in every town in and around Ohio is not my moral responsibility nor is it any of my business. Secondly, you better be careful how you get yourself involved legally. Here is the scenario .,... you come apon a man beating another with piece of 2 by 4. You pull your gun and order him to stop. He refuses and you kill him. Turns out the guy he was hitting started the fight. Now according to Ohio law, you will go to prison forever because you hurt the person that didn't start the altercation.

Lastly I refuse to get myself legally involved because I refuse to be harassed, beaten, robbed and raped in prison by inmates and gang bangers who only know that life and have nothing to lose. Virtually all of us on here know only freedom and going to work and home daily. If you get stupid and end up in jail, just how long do you think your going to last in a prison full of thugs and criminals that will chew you up and spit you out like it's nothing? Just how tough do you think your gonna be when the guards put you in an overcrowded cell of street tough gang members and they turn out the lights ..... You'll be squealing like a pig allnight everynight (images of Deliverance) because you are soft from your cushy 9 to 5 job and you are in their turf. You wanna play hero and get yourself legally and morally involved when you should have kept your nose out of other peoples business??? Be prepared to be tortured, beated and butt-raped because you felt like you had some phantom responsibility to go beyond your family. Your name is in the phonebook. What happens when these same gang members threaten your family with extortion, and threaten to have their friends on the outside rape your wife and harm your kids (at home alone without you) unless they get lots of money. How are you going to be of any help to your family sitting in an 8 by 10 jail being butt-buddy to a gang? Which is now the more important scenario... protecting some stranger or protecting the family you love ..... You can't protect them because you decided to stand on your moral testicles and put yourself in jail for months or years.

I'm not saying I'm not getting involved to help the police. I plan on being an excellent witness for the police to help them do THEIR job. The police are sworn and commissioned to stop crime, not me. I helped the police two months ago. I followed a person under the influence for miles with 911 on the phone helping the police to stop the DUI/Drug induced driver before he killed a family by hitting them head on. (This same thing happened in Toledo a few days ago. No one got involved, and 4 kids and the mom died).

I'll let the police do their job because if they get sued, they have a whole city that will pick up the tab of their lawyers, lawsuit and insurance. I don't want to lose my home, car, personal belongings and all my savings and retirement because I had to pay out $100,000 or more to defend myself in lawsuits for wrongful death, civil injury, etc. The only time I want to be a hero is in the eyes of my family, kids and grand kids. My advice For the rest of the world ..... go out and get your own pistol permit and protect your own self ......
I'll walk thru the gates of hades to protect my family ..... everyone else in the world is just out of luck.
Ohio Rusty

benny27
January 9, 2008, 08:13 PM
Don Lu, you're just like some of the others assuming the criminal won't act. If you happen to be carrying why would you not intervene. Obviously there are different factors involved in your decision, but if the guy is crazy enough to commit armed robbery don't you think he has the potential of killing a person. If there's one thing a armed robber hates it's a witness. They kill people all the time I read about them almost every day, and I think to myself if only someone would have intervened.

spacemanspiff
January 9, 2008, 08:14 PM
I feel as though I have to weigh the potential disasterous consequences and its impact on my family.
We can discuss potential situations until we are all blue in the face (is it the good guy who is defending himself and we are trying to draw down on them? is it undercover law enforcement? blah blah blah), but realistically, most situations we would ever have the chance to come across, should be easy to determine who is the victim. And morally speaking, I don't think that any question of legalities or civil lawsuits would even enter my mind if i stepped in to assist a person in distress.
I am a human being, and I will act like one. If that means I get sued in civil court, so be it. I can't nor am I able to worry about that when lives are on the line.
My humanity would probably move me to step in even if I was unarmed and loss of my life was imminent for stepping in. Thats just how I was made.

Don Lu
January 9, 2008, 08:20 PM
If you happen to be carrying why would you not intervene.

I think I listed some good reason...here they go again..
quickie marts 157.89 in the register is not worth the possibility of me starting a shootout, taking a life, losing all my money in civil court, possibly ending up in jail, my daughter not having a father, my wife...ehh you get the point.
My duty is to me and my loved ones...not to make sure that before its over, bullets are gonna fly.
if he doesnt shoot...eveyone gets to go home.

benny27
January 9, 2008, 08:32 PM
what is all this fear of liability and civil court nonsense, who's gonna sue you the punk's gangmember buddies. When someone commits armed robbery he has no rights, he is a deadly threat if anything you would be commended for taking action trust me.

Don Lu
January 9, 2008, 08:33 PM
They kill people all the time I read about them almost every day
where the heck do u live that this is everyday life...I was born and raised in NY now live in ATL and its not an everyday thing(although surprisingly more common in ATL) ..its not unheard of but most robberies I am aware of dont end in bloodshed if the victims comply..I'd rather let the crook steal his 30 bucks and carton of cigarettes. there is no glory in your daughter saying..My father couldnt be her today (at her weding) b/c he got killed at quikie mart shootout that he started when a guy tried to steal the 59.98 in the cash register or..my dad missed the perp and shot a little boy, now he's in jail...no glory at all in that..My family is what I think of FIRST when Im in a potentially life changing situation, whether it be a violent encounter of professional endevour.

Don Lu
January 9, 2008, 08:37 PM
who's gonna sue you the punk's gangmember buddies
and depending on the situation, yes...the perps family.
My family is what I think of FIRST when Im in a potentially life changing situation, whether it be a violent encounter of professional endevour.

you would be commended for taking action trust me.

why trust you ?

benny27
January 9, 2008, 08:42 PM
Here we go again with shooting innocent bystanders, I don't know about you but I'm a good enough shot that i'm confident I can neutralize a threat. If your that bad of a shot maybe you shouldn't intervene.

Don Lu
January 9, 2008, 08:52 PM
stuff happens...have your ever had to shoot in a life and death situation w/adrenaline pumping, hands shaking, a woman crying, teller and perp yelling you breathing heavy and a moving tartget....... when you also have the threat of getting shot as well ?

If your answer is yes and if you can gaurantee these situations will end w/ your best range day type perscission? If so then more power to you...but I still stand on

My family is what I think of FIRST when Im in a potentially life changing situation, whether it be a violent encounter of professional endevour.

it has nothing to do with anything much but ...how old r u ?I'd be willing to bet you are relativley young and/or dont have a family of your own...If Im wrong....Im surprised. dont take it personal, my initial comments werent even directed toward u directly. I just agreed w/the reply of another poster who happened to be talkig to you.
anywho, Im very confident in my own shooting abilties BUT...I dont need this scenario as the means of proving anything
My family is what I think of FIRST when Im in a potentially life changing situation, whether it be a violent encounter of professional endevour.

IdahoG36
January 9, 2008, 09:18 PM
I don't believe I that you are obligated to do anything. It is a personal decision. If I was in a store that was getting robbed, I wouldn't do anything to stop it. It's not my money being stolen, nobody is being harmed, and I wouldn't risk legal liability to protect somebody else's money.
If somebody was in danger of being killed, depending on the circumstances, I would do something. It is never good to try to stop a fight. You don't know who is being beaten up and what for. If I was in a public place and somebody started shooting people, I would do what I could to stop it, depending on the situation.
A while back, in Lewiston Idaho, a guy started shooting people in front of a courthouse. He was armed with a M-14. A "good samaritan", Legally carrying, tried to stop the guy. He was armed with a Kimber .45acp. Needless to say, he was killed, trying to do something to help.
Always analyze the situation before you jump in feet first. Shooting somebody is a huge decision that can cost you a lot of money in legal fees, and run the risk of being charged with a crime, depending on the circumstances. You could also be killed. Consider the consequences of your actions.

benny27
January 9, 2008, 09:39 PM
I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record but there is no legal liability if he has a gun he is a deadly threat, take a deep breath and repeat. The only liability would be if he didn't have a deadly weapon therefore only the owner would have the right to use deadly force (protection of property)

Ohio Rusty
January 9, 2008, 10:13 PM
IANAL Benny27 but You are not correct in your last statement when it comes to laws here and surrounding Ohio. If the BG has a gun, or a knife, or no weapon at all and you shoot but don't kill him, he can come back on you and sue you civilly for what you own and everything you will ever own for damages. Bad guys win civil suits all the time. A few years ago a burglar was walking on a school roof in Cleveland and fell thru an open skylight left open by a janitor. The courts found the school negligent and awarded the bad guy $700,000 in damages.
If you do shoot him ..... and he dies, I guarantee his family will come back on you and sue you for wrongful death. They will paint the BG to the courts as just a mis-guided youth, and you will have a very expensive party on your hands. If a bad guy has a weapon, this doesn't release you from any and all liability ...at least not in this state or the states surrounding Ohio ..... Tort law permits any one to sue you whether he has a gun or whether he lives or dies.
Lastly ....If you shoot someone and the police show up .... the first thing the police are going to do is protect the rights of the bad guy laying on the floor. The police do not determine your guilt or innocense, the courts do. The police will arrest you, impound your weapon and take you to jail. The police only mark or don't mark the DOA box on the report. Now your legal battle happens and it will come at you from all sides.
In Ohio ...it is illegal to shoot someone to protect property. If they try to take your car, that is property and you can't shoot them unless you can prove your life was at risk of serious physical harm or death. If someone comes in your yard, breaks into your detached garage and steals your tools and you shoot them ...you are going to jail forever as tools are only property. There are no protection of property laws here whether you are the owner or not of said property.
As Clint Smith sez to those who go thru his training classes: "When you shoot someone, your troubles didn't end, they've only just begun".
Ohio Rusty

benny27
January 9, 2008, 10:25 PM
ohio rusty, I'm sorry you live in Ohio but here in Tennessee criminals don't have rights. I would suggest you get your sh*t together and get out of there. That sounds like a pretty messed up justice system. You could be right on the protection of property I'll have to check on that.

Ohio Rusty
January 9, 2008, 10:37 PM
I'll agree with you on the messed up Justice system here in Ohio ....... We also have some weird and non-sensicle CCW laws that need to be changed or abolished also .....
Ohio Rusty

benny27
January 9, 2008, 10:51 PM
I checked on the protection of property laws and in Tennessee it says you can threaten or use force deamed necessary to protect property or belongings, but is unclear on what "force" entails.

IdahoG36
January 9, 2008, 11:21 PM
I checked on the protection of property laws and in Tennessee it says you can threaten or use force deamed necessary to protect property or belongings, but is unclear on what "force" entails.

I'm no lawyer, and I sure wouldn't want a jury to interpret what "force" means. They may not think that deadly force was necessary to protect your belongings. I don't agree with this. I think that deadly force is acceptable to protect not only yourself, but your possesions as well. A jury may not think so.
America has grown soft. The legal system tends to give more rights to criminals than to victims of crime. There is legislation in place in certain areas of the country that turns entire populations into victims through strict gun control. Gun control creates havens for criminals. Washington DC has very strict gun control that, until recently, banned handgun possesion. It still has one of the highest crime rates in the US. Criminals don't fear the possibility of being shot during the commision of a crime, because it's not a possibility.
San Francisco banned handguns, and the local DA had something like a 56% conviction rate. What does that say to criminals? Prey on the local populous, because we have taken any means to defend themselves away.

benny27
January 9, 2008, 11:38 PM
you're right about that, personally I would never use deadly force over property or belongings unless it's my dog..:cool:

TexasSeaRay
January 10, 2008, 12:21 AM
And what about someone like me back in my day--long hair, beard, tattoos, biker garb--who's got five guys on me while we're on the ground cussing, fighting and rolling around, and I yell, "I'M A COP!!! Help me out!"

Can't identify me, unless I ask the guys I'm fight with for a time-out so I can badge you so you can make POSITIVE identification, so do you let me just get my brains stomped out or stabbed or shot?

I got into that exact same situation on a backroad in Alabama one night, except it was with three guys. My gov't car was behind the suspects' car and I had my grill lights and kojak going. A citizen stopped and fired two shots in the air, which stopped the fight.

He yelled at me, "I've got a permit!"

I asked him how he knew who to yell at and he told me, "Three guys on one, I figured you were the cop."

Geez, this place is becoming a haven for keyboard commandos that would be better off going to school instead of skipping class to play on their parent's computer.

I always love how those who openly profess they would do nothing because THEY by-god come first and foremost before anyone and everyone else, always resort to the "commando" retort. Best they can do, I suppose. . .

I'm still shaking my head in utter disbelief that anyone who works behind a badge would simply walk past a fellow citizen in imminent danger of being seriously hurt or killed and do nothing simply because they're "off-duty" and then disparage anyone who believe helping out is the moral and proper thing to do.

Jeff

Manedwolf
January 10, 2008, 12:36 AM
That first example you gave about the CCW holder coming out of the club and potentially saving the boucer's life (thank god for him, by the way), do we know if he was legally carrying? I don't mean to play devil's advocate, but I'm pretty new at CCW and wanted clarification. Isn't a club usually a place that serves alcohol (a glorified bar), and wouldn't that place be off-limits to CCW's. Maybe it's a state by state thing. Was he supposed to have his gun in the club?

Depends on the state law, correct.

Here in NH, it's legal. Other states, it's not.

steaknuggets
January 10, 2008, 12:43 AM
Sounds like we've "what if'd" this topic to death.....:rolleyes:

BikerRN
January 10, 2008, 02:23 AM
I always love how those who openly profess they would do nothing because THEY by-god come first and foremost before anyone and everyone else, always resort to the "commando" retort. Best they can do, I suppose. . .

I'm still shaking my head in utter disbelief that anyone who works behind a badge would simply walk past a fellow citizen in imminent danger of being seriously hurt or killed and do nothing simply because they're "off-duty" and then disparage anyone who believe helping out is the moral and proper thing to do.



I guess summoning "On Duty" LEO's and being a good witness is nothing, at least it seems so by what you are typing. Sorry, but I am more important to myself than you are, just as you should be more important to yourself than I am.

We each have to live our lives and be able to look at ourselves in the mirror when we shave. I've already been there, I know what I will do because I've already done it IRL. I'll give you a little hint, Use Of Force Investigations SUCK. Testifying as to why you did what you did SUCKS.

I can face myself in the mirror just fine. Like I said before, you better make dang sure you know who all the players are before you get involved if you are off duty or carrying as a non LEO. You will be "Monday Morning Quarterbacked" until the cows come home and the ones that will judge your decisions, made in a split second, will have weeks to consider all the information available.

My first responsibility is to my family. If I get locked away in prison because of something I did then I would be shirking my duties to them. If I have to sell the house to pay my attorney I have let my family down. Heroes are great in movies, life isn't a movie.

There is a reason that guns are referred to as a "tool of last resort".

Biker

steaknuggets
January 10, 2008, 12:15 PM
My first responsibility is to my family. If I get locked away in prison because of something I did then I would be shirking my duties to them. If I have to sell the house to pay my attorney I have let my family down. Heroes are great in movies, life isn't a movie.

+1

CCW's are NOT LEO's and can be criminally prosecuted for their so called "benevolent" actions. Unfortunately that's the way the laws are written and I'm not about to lose my family or house playing hero in a liquor store robbery. Call me what you want, but the risk isn't worth the reward.

BikerRN
January 10, 2008, 12:21 PM
I am an LEO, but off duty I will do no more than what a responsible CCW should do. In short, I will be a good witness and summon on duty LEO's as long as the criminal actor isn't threatening me or mine.

steaknuggets
January 10, 2008, 12:35 PM
I am an LEO, but off duty I will do no more than what a responsible CCW should do. In short, I will be a good witness and summon on duty LEO's as long as the criminal actor isn't threatening me or mine.

I agree with being a good Samaritan and helping LEO's apprehend and prosecute the suspect from a witness standpoint.

David Armstrong
January 12, 2008, 03:14 PM
To whoever said that most robberies end without gunfire is wrong, ...
OK, let's play. Just what percentage of robberies end with gunfire? You've made a claim that is contradicted by every legitimate source I'm aware of, so perhaps you know something all those researchers don't. I doubt it, but I'll gladly give you the chance.
....criminals don't have rights.
Huh??? Benny, do you ever take a minute to check these things, or do you just say whatever pops into your head. Criminals do have rights, quite a few of them, in fact.
Here we go again with shooting innocent bystanders, I don't know about you but I'm a good enough shot that i'm confident I can neutralize a threat.
Lots of folks have had that same thought, and found out that it wasn't quite that easy.
Imagine if that was your mother behind the counter with some punk pointing a gun in her face. Now you get my point..
Benny, if it is my mother please just move on back and munch on some potato chips until the BG is done, It sounds like you are way to eager to turn a simple robbery into a bloodbath.

David Armstrong
January 12, 2008, 03:27 PM
I'm still shaking my head in utter disbelief that anyone who works behind a badge would simply walk past a fellow citizen in imminent danger of being seriously hurt or killed and do nothing simply because they're "off-duty" and then disparage anyone who believe helping out is the moral and proper thing to do.
And other among us are in equal disbelief that someone would think it moral and proper to INCREASE the danger level of someone else when there is no need to do so.

rampage841512
January 12, 2008, 05:46 PM
Would you feel guilty if you didn't take action? If you would, you certainly think you had a moral obligation. If not, you don't feel you do.

I've always felt it was morally right to resist evil if you have the ability to do so successfully.

TexasSeaRay
January 12, 2008, 06:11 PM
And other among us are in equal disbelief that someone would think it moral and proper to INCREASE the danger level of someone else when there is no need to do so.

And THAT attitude is why respect for law enforcement continues to diminish.

The minute you walk into a store and there is a robbery taking place, the threat level just escalated. For you, for the clerk, for anyone else that happens in the store.

I've also learned over the years to not entirely trust all crime statistics that come solely from DoJ or law enforcement. Worse the statistics, worse the public perception, worse the chances of a chief, or AG keeping their job. We had that happen right here in Dallas.

Turned out the Dallas PD hadn't been reporting crimes and instances correctly.

My cousin is a senior homicide detective with the Fort Worth PD. Tells us he's been seeing more "rob and shoot" scenarios in the past five years than in the previous twenty years he's been on the job.

The "moral obligation" to help can take forms other than "bustin' a cap" on the robber. But for a cop to state that he'd do absolutely nothing while off-duty because of "departmental/agency regulations" is just crap. There is a CRIME IN PROGRESS and a citizen is in IMMINENT DANGER.

Although. . . I suppose the cops who feel like that could just merrily call out to the poor clerk who's looking at Tec-9 or shotgun in his face and say, "No worries, pal, statistics say. . . ."

Jeff

David Armstrong
January 12, 2008, 06:31 PM
And THAT attitude is why respect for law enforcement continues to diminish.
Sigh. Does anyone think it is important to verify something before they make a claim about it? Respect for law enforcement has remained fairly standard over the last decade, not diminished.
The minute you walk into a store and there is a robbery taking place, the threat level just escalated. For you, for the clerk, for anyone else that happens in the store.
Yes, the threat level has probably gone up. But that doesn't mean the danger level has to go up.
I've also learned over the years to not entirely trust all crime statistics that come solely from DoJ or law enforcement.
Good . Any time you have a better source, I'm sure we'd like to see the information. I personally prefer to mix DoJ data with independent researchers material, where available.
My cousin is a senior homicide detective with the Fort Worth PD. Tells us he's been seeing more "rob and shoot" scenarios in the past five years than in the previous twenty years he's been on the job.
So, do you believe him or not? You either trust crime statistics from LE or you don't. Let's make up our mind.
But for a cop to state that he'd do absolutely nothing while off-duty because of "departmental/agency regulations" is just crap.
Good. Now find someplace where a cop has said that and we cann all get on to him. But I don't think that has been said here.
There is a CRIME IN PROGRESS and a citizen is in IMMINENT DANGER.

Yes, which is why you should probably try to avoid making the situation even more dangerous.

benny27
January 12, 2008, 08:11 PM
David Armstrong, Yeah, let's just sit back and munch on some potato chips while some crack head nut robs the store at gun point great idea!..:rolleyes:
Of course if I'm not packing I'm not going to throw a can of soup at the guy, but If I am I'm going to intervene. I don't want to go to sleep that night after watching some innocent employee get blown away knowing I could have done something, but hey it's your call. Maybe you should just call the police and let them deal with it, but don't forget to tell them to bring the yellow tape and a body bag in case the nut snaps, because he didn't get the money he wanted or the clerk tried to call for help. Like you said though it will probably end peaceful. Oh yeah, you're right criminals do have rights they have a right to shut up, and wait on their state appointed lawyer who will never get them off..:)

TexasSeaRay
January 12, 2008, 09:24 PM
So, do you believe him or not? You either trust crime statistics from LE or you don't. Let's make up our mind.
Quote:
But for a cop to state that he'd do absolutely nothing while off-duty because of "departmental/agency regulations" is just crap.
Good. Now find someplace where a cop has said that and we cann all get on to him. But I don't think that has been said here.
Quote:
There is a CRIME IN PROGRESS and a citizen is in IMMINENT DANGER.
Yes, which is why you should probably try to avoid making the situation even more dangerous.

Well, I believe what he sees same as I believe what I saw when I was behind a badge. Unfortunately, I wasn't assisgned in just one area of the country and kept getting moved around. Saw lots of different things in lots of different cities which might've had something to do with how my experience helped form an informed opinion . . .

And, we had a poster here who said he was LE and that his agency strictly forbid them getting involved in such situation while off-duty. He even went so far as to say he'd help a fellow cop, but not a fellow citizen.

Now, explain to me how that helps the respect factor--especially when that was presented as "typical?"

Respect for LE enforcement was declining back when I was in it. We got regular updates from DoJ (since we were a DoJ agency) on both geographic specific research/polling/opinion-polling as well as demographically specific.

Two key incidents that went national started the tide--Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Used to be a time when local police departments rarely had to advertise for police officers. Now even semi-large departments are not only having to advertise, but recruit nationally and offer incentives and bonuses.

Worse yet, many departments are having to lower their standards drastically in order to field a halfway full/decent academy class. The Dallas PD's idiot chief recently announced that he is proposing to re-write the disqualifying section on illegal drug-use as it pertains to DPD candidates. Instead of two admitted instances, uses or illegal varieties of drugs used, he is pushing to raise it to FIVE.

That just gives me and so many others a warm fuzzy all over.

And finally, there is a reason firemen are generally better regarded than cops these days. If you're in a burning house, a fireman is gonna do what he has to do and all that he can do to get you out of harm's way.

Why the hell wont' a cop?

Can't have it both ways. So many of today's new gen cops tell us about all this supposed damn "incident" and situational" and "tactical" training they've had that makes them SO much more qualified to carry a firearm than your average dumbass civilian. . .

And yet, when that specific "training" is needed, you and others are saying, "well, now, let's THINK about this for a minute."

Sorry. You stated at one time that you were ex-military and ex-law enforcement. So am I. But I was trained in both that if you see bad guy pointing gun at good guy, you shoot bad guy. You didn't stand around and throw out statistics at the victim-in-progress that his chances are looking fairly good, based on statistics, that he won't get shot . . . this time.

Who knows? Maybe that's the policy that's coming. . .

Jeff

Vitamin G
January 12, 2008, 09:28 PM
Just in terms of my personal choice, I've made the decision to intervene up until the day I put a ring on some woman's finger. At that point, I have a much more specific family to worry about, rather than just the human family.

BikerRN
January 13, 2008, 12:34 AM
And, we had a poster here who said he was LE and that his agency strictly forbid them getting involved in such situation while off-duty. He even went so far as to say he'd help a fellow cop, but not a fellow citizen.


I am the poster you are referring to TSR.

I will act as a good CCW Holder should act in a situation. Yes, I am an LEO, but Policy trumps your self heroics and chest thumping. I will call the ON DUTY LEO's to handle whatever may arise. The only exception to that is if a UNIFORMED or otherwise IDENTIFIABLE LEO is in need of help. The reason I say that is, it's easier to tell who all the players are.

You are not worth my risking prison, bancruptcy or death for pal, get over it. Off Duty my guns are to protect me and my loved ones, nothing more, nothing less. If you are retired, as you claim, I suggest you find a hobby because you seem to have a lot of time to "relive" your glory years.

Do you think that if you shoot a Bad Guy that you will get a Medal and the Key to the City? Let me assure you, you most definately will not. You will be investigated like you've never been investigated before. The people making the decisions on if you were right or wrong will have days, weeks, even months or years to reach a conclusion that you had mere seconds to reach.

Now lets take a look at the "so called" Bad Guy for a moment. Once you shot him he went from being a Bad Guy to a "misguided but hard working young man" that was trying to turn his life around. He had recently gotten his GED and had been gainfully employed for four months, longest time in his life. He was supporting a child and the child's Mother with his meager earnings.

OK, I'm done with this post because obviously some people are too dense to "get it" or understand how things are in today's society and prefer to live in their own small pond where they are a big frog.

Biker

benny27
January 13, 2008, 12:55 AM
you are not worth my risking prison, bankruptcy or death for pal, get over it., WOW, those sound like the ethics of a great cop..:rolleyes:
So your saying if someone other than your family is in desperate need of help and your off duty their SOL, well that's just fantastic.

Boris Bush
January 13, 2008, 02:02 AM
Moral obligation to take action

Last year at VA tech a "victim" told his story through his mother. He told how he played dead as the gunman dropped the mags from his empty weapons and how the empty mags fell right next to his face.. An obvious time to fight back, yet the sheeple, raised from birth, would rather play dead to preserve his own life than fight back and save untold numbers of people.

For the most part police are not here to protect us. They take pictures, write reports, take names and investigate. I would find it hard to live the rest of my life knowing I could have did something and did not.

FWIW: I have been shot at, and have fired back. More than once and running to the fight and finishing strong makes it possible for me to sit here for a while every now and then.....

The Tourist
January 13, 2008, 02:44 AM
As most of you know, I enjoy a good debate. The problem with most discussions is that I can tell you what I might do, I can surmise how I might feel, and I could probably document texts where I might legally act.

Obviously, I cannot draw on a whole wealth of experience.

I have never been a soldier. I have never fought for money as a mercenary. I admit to spending way too much time in saloons. My combat training has all been second hand.

For example, a buddy of mine might be a member of a dojo, so he instructs me. I might learn blade skills from a guy who did some serious time. (I did read the book "Bloody Iron" once.) A former police sniper taught me skills with scoped rifles. I can reload. I can sharpen. But that's pretty much it.

The actual practice of drawing sights on a breathing person is simply foreign to me. Even if confronted I'd rather carve a felon "a little bit" than shoot him a whole lot.

I can defend my wife, friends and pets, but deep inside I know that I'll be spending quite some time with a cognitive guy and probably fight PTSD.

So, where does that leave me here at TFL? Oh, I like pistols, I love to plink and shoot beer cans. I still think IPSC would be fun.

But when could I feel that the deliberate act of ending life would satisfy all of my moral, spiritual, legal and justifiable thresholds so that I could come to you honestly and say I had an "obligation"?

I thought it over. Heck, a townie is just a stupid, seven toed lout. Ending his life might be good for the gene pool, but simply shaking a shiny object at him usually breaks his attention span.

A teenage mugger, perhaps. No, in my bones I really believe most are misguided. He probably simply needs a priest or a minister. He'll be seeing one in jail after I smash out every tooth in his head.

A 'banger? Well, that's a call on the line, like a sloppy John McEnroe lob. The guy would have to be a real, credible deadly threat. And truth be told, I know of no event at any level in my area where a gang-banger deliberately attacked a biker. Now granted, would I be told of such outcomes...?

So, what person, at what event, could pose such an immediate and potentially lethal circumstance to my family and my person that I could be morally calm and justified as I pressed down for the last time one four crisp ounces of trigger?

I think it would be a klansman marching in my neighborhood. I'd keep the hood for a trophy.

Honestly, guys, it would take a monumental amount of motivation for me to end a life. I don't think I can do it, even for the greater good.

BikerRN
January 13, 2008, 02:52 AM
Honestly, guys, it would take a monumental amount of motivation for me to end a life. I don't think I can do it, even for the greater good.

You sir are someone that I would like to share a beer with. Your honesty is refreshing. I commend you.

The Tourist
January 13, 2008, 03:06 AM
You sir are someone that I would like to share a beer with. Your honesty is refreshing. I commend you.

Oh, I wish it came from a place of bravery and concern.

I believe you reach an age when every nuance and exaggeration you tell just seems too heavy to carry.

We speak here of "what if." And when I thought about it, there was always some niggling aspect that told me, "Naw, you couldn't even do it then."

David Armstrong
January 13, 2008, 07:53 PM
David Armstrong, Yeah, let's just sit back and munch on some potato chips while some crack head nut robs the store at gun point great idea!..
Nobody has suggested that. In fact, that you would get that from this discussion is indicative of how little you understand about this kind of stuff.
I don't want to go to sleep that night after watching some innocent employee get blown away knowing I could have done something, but hey it's your call.
Why do you assume that your intervention would make things better and not make them worse?
Maybe you should just call the police and let them deal with it, but don't forget to tell them to bring the yellow tape and a body bag in case the nut snaps, because he didn't get the money he wanted or the clerk tried to call for help.
Try to stay in the real world, benny. I’ll put my “probably” up against your “in case” any time.
Try to stay in the real world, benny. I’ll put my “probably” up against your “in case” any time.
Oh yeah, you're right criminals do have rights they have a right to shut up, and wait on their state appointed lawyer who will never get them off..
Once again your lack of understanding is glaringly apparent.

David Armstrong
January 13, 2008, 08:16 PM
Well, I believe what he sees same as I believe what I saw when I was behind a badge.
Then you pretty much should believe the data that comes from other officers, I would think. And all thta data shows getting killed in a robbery is extremely rare.
And, we had a poster here who said he was LE and that his agency strictly forbid them getting involved in such situation while off-duty.
His isn’t the only one, and rightfully so. Also it isn't anything new, I might point out. And there is a pretty good reason for that. The chances of making the situation much worse are far greater than that it will help.
Now, explain to me how that helps the respect factor--especially when that was presented as "typical?"
Nothing to explain, IMO. You made a statement that was incorrect according to all available data, and got called on it.
Respect for LE enforcement was declining back when I was in it.
Maybe that was because of the way things were done back then? Rushing in, making things worse, not trying to minimize damage, etc. We’ve learned a lot since then, and in spite of your litany, respect for LE is fairly high, and has remained so for at least the last decade. As for recruitment, that is far more a matter of competition for people than it is a matter of respect.
And finally, there is a reason firemen are generally better regarded than cops these days.
Hate to break it to you, but firemen have been regarded higher than LE for a long time, it’s nothing new.
And yet, when that specific "training" is needed, you and others are saying, "well, now, let's THINK about this for a minute."

Gosh, why does thinking about how to reduce the chance of danger to everyone get you so bothered?
But I was trained in both that if you see bad guy pointing gun at good guy, you shoot bad guy.
I would suggest that is fairly poor training. I’ve been doing this since the early 1970s, and never heard of such a thing. You shoot the BG if you must, not because you can.
You didn't stand around and throw out statistics at the victim-in-progress that his chances are looking fairly good, based on statistics, that he won't get shot . . . this time.
Nobody has suggested that should be done, so why try to say that it does? Like it or not (and a lot of old-time cops don’t like it) the new breed of officers are pretty darned good at what they are doing, and they’ve presided over a reduction in crime that is simply outstanding.

benny27
January 13, 2008, 09:15 PM
David Armstrong, you said that in a previous post "Benny, if it is my mother please just move back and munch on some potato chips until the BG is gone".

Shamalama
January 14, 2008, 12:37 PM
Is it really my obligation to take action? Certainly I might agree with this if my actions did not put me at risk. However, I am not sure that is true when I might become injuried, disabled, or killed. In fact, even if I personally feel compelled to act, I feel as though I have to weigh the potential disasterous consequences and its impact on my family.

I, too, have been vigorously wrestling with this very issue for some time now. It has been the subject of long debate between my wife (also a CCWer) and me.

I, too, feel as though I have to weigh the potential disastrous consequences and its impact on my family.

Personally, I am a proponent of carrying for the defense of yourself and your family. Any other use should be carefully weighed. In my mind, if it does not involve me or my family, I need compelling reasons to act. The default is not to take actions unless I must.

The defense of my family and myself is exactly why I started carrying every day. The defense of the family and themself is exactly why my wife, son, and daughter started carrying every day. All of us would demand compelling reasons to act with lethality. This is not for the faint-hearted.

If they are unwilling to carry a way to defend themselves, why should I feel obligated to defend them?

You probably aren't obligated to defend the unwilling. Your obligation is to the criminal. Irish statesman, author, orator, political theorist, and philosopher Edmund Burke is said to have written the words, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." If we see Evil and do nothing, do we then assist Evil in its triumph? If you noticed that a thug was going to push a little girl into oncoming traffic wouldn't you try to stop it from happening? If you saw a terrorist leave a bag on the subway wouldn't you do something to prevent lots of bloodshed? If a junkie handed a 6-year-old a bag of dope wouldn't you stop the transaction?

Sure, the bed-wetters and gun-control nazis want to strip away our rights of self-defense, and perverse karma would dictate to let them die unprotected. And a single sheepdog cannot always save the entire flock. But I suggest that the object of your concern should not be just the innocent but just as much the guilty. Imagine the nightmares if the criminal you allow to escape today is the same one that kills your loved one, child, or spouse next year.

Not that long ago I thought as you did. But today I have decided it is my obligation, as a member of civilization, to help stop the uncivilized from conquering the civilized.

Just my 2¢

The Tourist
January 14, 2008, 01:22 PM
Not that long ago I thought as you did. But today I have decided it is my obligation, as a member of civilization, to help stop the uncivilized from conquering the civilized.

In the final analysis, this is the crux of the debate. You are on the "yes, we should" side. And, yes, I also don't want the bad guys to win.

However, let's be sincere and practical.

Most times when I am out, I am eating dinner with my wife or at Borders. In the summer months, I'm out riding and most likely relaxed. I'm in condition yellow, but it's a very dull shade of yellow.

Without warning, an innocent woman screams out, "I'm being attacked and raped!"

From a cold, standing start, we are to believe that I am capable of getting up, wiping my chin and saying to my wife, "Excuse me, dear, I have to go kill somebody."

Then with a cold, dead-calm, I rip the perp off the lady and Mozambique him into hell.

I have to tell you, Shamalama, I've done some thoughtless things in my life. However, when I take an honest audit of my strengths and weaknesses, I don't know if this is possible.

For me, the sides of the debate then become, "Yes, we should," and "No, we should not," and "Can we, at all."

David Armstrong
January 14, 2008, 06:47 PM
David Armstrong, you said that in a previous post "Benny, if it is my mother please just move back and munch on some potato chips until the BG is gone".
That was not a suggestion to the public at large, Benny, that was a request directed at you in particular. Quite a difference!

David Armstrong
January 14, 2008, 06:54 PM
If we see Evil and do nothing, do we then assist Evil in its triumph?
Perhaps, perhaps not. What if you do something but that in turn furthers greater evil? And of course there is the common mistake that failing to intervene is doing nothing. It is not. If I am a good witness and get the BG put away under the law, Evil has not triumphed. That is the real issue, IMO. It is not a bivariate option, IMO. It is more than "do nothing" versus "shoot the BG." There are potentially lots of things to do between those options.

mvpel
January 16, 2008, 07:09 AM
Thousands of years of Jewish scholarship make the answer to this question very simple for me, at least.

"Do not stand idly by while your neighbor's blood is shed." - Leviticus 19:16

"Where is it taught that it is obligatory to save someone who is being pursued by another with the intent to murder? The Torah teaches 'Do not stand by idly when your brother's life is endangered.'" - Talmud, Sanhedrin 73A.

threegun
January 16, 2008, 09:14 AM
Mvpel, I believe the arguement here is whether intervention increases your neighbors chances of having their blood shed.

There is a special place for someone who has a means to help a neighbor about to die and does nothing..............pretty hot there.

Boris Bush
January 16, 2008, 11:36 AM
threegun

The cost of doing nothing is your neighbors blood being shed.

Double Naught Spy
January 16, 2008, 02:15 PM
Hey, the neighbors could have come to gun school with me. They could have attended karate classes like my family does. They could have come shooting with me when invited. Since that hasn't happened, I don't feel inclined to assume all the risk for their safety when they haven't managed to pull their own weight.

There are significant familial obligations that are placed way ahead of obligations of neighbors who aren't activily involved in preparing for their own defense.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 16, 2008, 02:22 PM
I posted this once before. If I come to ill by saving my neighbor, will folks from TFL support my family in their current life style? That's altruism also.

threegun
January 16, 2008, 03:00 PM
Only if your actions save the day and only if your inaction would have resulted in their death.

Personally I don't like playing the odds when death is on the line........especially when its my death on the line. I would prefer to fight.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 16, 2008, 03:18 PM
So Threegun, are you saying that you would contribute to my family's expenses for an inderminant time? You would contribute a set amount, legally binding except for emergencies, until they pass away?

Altruism on gun lists usually involves shooting someone and little else.

threegun
January 17, 2008, 06:37 AM
Glenn, I was responding to Boris Bush.

To answer your question however, no I wouldn't take up a collection or donate on a regular basis to one. You can however make the decision to be safe and not help a victim. You can also purchase life insurance to protect your family financially should you die for any number of reasons.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 17, 2008, 10:44 AM
Then, I return to my initial analysis - that in many of these moral obligation threads - there is a subtext that we find the use of violence in an altruistic or pro-social scenario compelling and attractive. We think that someone should sacrifice their family's well being for the victim.

However, other altruistic acts that aren't based on violence, aren't attractive. Interesting from the viewpoint of the theories of why people act altruistically. If the goal is to help, then why isn't helping in nonviolent situations equally attractive?

TexasSeaRay
January 17, 2008, 01:33 PM
Bottom line, Glenn, is that you can always, without exception, find a reasonable, rational reason for doing absolutely nothing to help out a fellow human being--whether it even entails any risk to you or not.

I live a comfortable lifestyle. Earned every penny of it. Grew up struggling and poor, which made me all the hungrier.

But I also grew up in a poor neighborhood in which we--whites, blacks, Mexicans, whatever--all looked out for each other. We were "those people" who lived on the wrong side of town. The people the banks wouldn't give a loan to for a used car--you had to go to a "tote-the-note" ripoff used car dealer. You couldn't get credit at the local grocery store, etc etc.

So we all helped each other and looked out for each other.

It was a lesson well learned in unselfishness.

Everything I've gained, earned and procurred financially--from our home to our airplane, guns, boat, bank accounts, etc--is not worth the shame I would feel looking in the mirror and knowing that I let someone get harmed, raped or killed simply because I didn't want to risk some sheister attorney or overzealous prosecutor "ruining" me.

The minute I did nothing and a life was lost as a result, I became a ruined man. And all the "way I live now" excuses, reasons and rational will not wash away the shame and disgrace I would feel.

Jeff

Glenn E. Meyer
January 17, 2008, 03:36 PM
It is easy to say that one can face being a ruined man. The point some folks are making and in the theories of prosocial behavior, is it so easy to make your family a ruined family?

Who are you responsible for? Do you alter their lives? And, again, I don't see those who want to act altruistically and violent, saying unconditionally that they would act altruistically to support the family of the dead hero to save them from ruin?

Could you look in the mirror and let that happen? Now, Jeff - maybe you would step up to help a family - you seem like that sort of guy - but would others and society?

That has to be the part of the equation and is - when people decide to act.

Let's pass good samaritan laws that would support the dead hero's family. A simple tax on ammo - say a quarter a box probably would support the prosocial gun users quite well. I would be OK with that.

David Armstrong
January 17, 2008, 08:51 PM
The cost of doing nothing is your neighbors blood being shed.
But it is just as likely that doing something (starting a gunfight) will result in your neighbors blood being shed, perhaps even more so, than doing nothing.

The minute I did nothing and a life was lost as a result, I became a ruined man.
But what if the life was lost as a result of you doing something, a life that would not have been harmed without your intervention? That is the point so many keep ignoring. Assumiing we are still talking robbery, the chance of getting killed is .002. That is probably quite a bit lower than the chance of getting shot in an actual shootout.

BreacherUp!
January 17, 2008, 09:05 PM
Wolves
Sheepdogs
Sheep

It really is that simple.

benny27
January 17, 2008, 09:05 PM
I'm all for intervening if you have the means to do so, but this is really kind of a silly debate. What are the chances that an armed citizen is going to be in a store at the exact time an armed robbery is taking place, not very good unfortunatley. I believe these criminals know that to, if more people would start carrying guns the fewer crimes would take place. Think about it, if a guy was about to commit armed robbery and he knew there would be a good chance of he himself getting killed he would probably think twice. More armed citizens fewer crimes it's simple as that.

David Armstrong
January 17, 2008, 09:16 PM
It really is that simple.
Only if one is being simplistic. Few wolves are actually wolves, most sheep are not sheep all the time, and a huge number of sheepdogs are actually sheep who have an inflated sense of their own ability or have some great imaginations.

wcboggs
January 17, 2008, 09:21 PM
In my state, lethal force is expressly authorized for three things, other than self defense or defense of one's home and curtilage.

1. To prevent the imminent use of deadly force upon a third party in the commission of a crime such as armed robbery. In other words, the BG is about to actually shoot the clerk or is shooting at helpless people running around.

2. To stop an act of sexual assault or kidnapping.

3. To stop an act of arson.

What state is "your state"?

wcboggs
January 17, 2008, 09:25 PM
I can guarentee you there is not one cop out there who would stand around and try to figure out if the guy has a airsoft gun or a real one

Lets face it, cops are protected animals; they often get away with murder.

BreacherUp!
January 17, 2008, 09:25 PM
David, disagree. It really is that simple, IMO. All the other arguments are cover stories and rationalizations for ones actions or inactions. But the person (not the persona) falls into one of the 3.

BreacherUp!
January 17, 2008, 09:27 PM
Lets face it, cops are protected animals
That's great boggs. Class act.

benny27
January 17, 2008, 09:29 PM
Wcboggs, LOL that is hilarious, and very true at times. I said that in response to someone that said "what if the robber had a airsoft gun."

Erik
January 17, 2008, 09:43 PM
"Is it really my obligation to take action?"

There is no legal obligation, arguably no moral one, and those who would do so responsibly are the better for it.

"Responsibly" is the caveat allowing for situational reasons not to engage. Solo parenting with kids in tow, impossible odds, a "hunch" there won't be blood shed, on meds, under the weather, and other at the moment decisions which may lead someone otherwsie iclined to engage not to do so.

Importantly, nobody can, should, or must engage all the time. Just as there are sisuations where some who claim they'd would never do so must.

Boris Bush
January 17, 2008, 10:38 PM
David Armstrong

I never said a gunfight needed to be started. But. If you decide to do something you better be ready to do something. Maybe you just give him a good beating, or maybe you have to shoot them.

If someone is so bold as to start a criminal act then I will not take a chance they will let the homeowner live if they are there when they begin the crime.

I will never think "well maybe if I do nothing he will let them live....."

mvpel
January 17, 2008, 11:02 PM
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

In reply Jesus said:

"A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
-----

When it comes right down to it, each of us will make our own decision to act or not act, and the outcome will be better or worse for it, and each of us will have to live with or die with our decision.

The "moral or immoral" question is just window dressing.

TexasSeaRay
January 18, 2008, 03:38 AM
Only if one is being simplistic. Few wolves are actually wolves, most sheep are not sheep all the time, and a huge number of sheepdogs are actually sheep who have an inflated sense of their own ability or have some great imaginations.

Nothing overly simplistic about it.

Everywhere we did missions around the world, we saw wolves (bad guys/terrorists, Sandanistas, etc), we saw sheep (the huddled civilian masses who cried, screamed and begged the wolves not to hurt them--even when the wolves had walked into their village at 1:00 in the morning and emasculated the village chief, then began having their way with the chief's wife and daughters) . . .

and there were the sheepdogs who had had enough and took up whatever arms they could find in order to defend their village.

We helped train and support those sheepdogs. And of course, the sheep were never grateful and the sheepdogs among them were often resented because "as long as you're here, you're only inviting trouble--the bad soldiers will be BACK so just please leave!"

I saw it all over the world while in the military, and all over the country when in law enforcement.

It really is that simple. And right here in America, it's getting simpler. The wolves and sheep are continuing to increase in numbers every day.

And the one thing both have in common is that they dislike the sheepdogs very much.

Jeff

wcboggs
January 18, 2008, 06:54 AM
Wcboggs, LOL that is hilarious, and very true at times. I said that in response to someone that said "what if the robber had a airsoft gun."

It must have gone way over your heads guys; sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you.

wcboggs
January 18, 2008, 07:06 AM
When it comes right down to it, each of us will make our own decision to act or not act, and the outcome will be better or worse for it, and each of us will have to live with or die with our decision.

mvpel, well put (except "each of us will have to live AND die with our decision"). I know I mentioned to a friend at church I carried and he said "as a Christian, he didn't think he could shoot someone" to which I replied, sitting in the cafe at Church, "if someone came in here right now and started shooting my brothers and sisters (in the Lord) I couldn't just sit here and watch it happen having the warewithal to stop it" and I dont just mean having the gun on my person, I mean to include have the knowledge, ability, and own guns, meaning to have it with me, when it's allowed, to use the "talent" I've been given. Neither could I watch even a complete stranger experience the terror of being at gun point defenseless and do nothing with the ability to do something.

threegun
January 18, 2008, 07:30 AM
There is a difference in helping a fellow American being robbed and rushing a machine gun nest in terms of risk. No one is going look down on you for doing nothing if coming to the rescue meant certain death to you. However using a broad brush to cover every robbery scenario that you might be able to help is just wrong. Many instances for example you may have the advantage in surprise, reactionary curve, shooting experience, and firepower. The odds of you getting killed may have been worst in your hobbies yet your family's well being didn't stop you from them.

For me I would be willing to accept increased risk to myself to aid a fellow American in need. I've done it before just not with firearms involved. I will use my judgment to determine whether or not the risk is to high.

Let's pass good Samaritan laws that would support the dead hero's family. A simple tax on ammo - say a quarter a box probably would support the pro social gun users quite well. I would be OK with that.

As a conservative I refuse to accept handouts in the form of welfare or other government assistance. Thats why I've purchased life insurance. Not only to protect my family should I be killed in a robbery intervention situation but to protect them if I die for any reason. Any prudent father should do so.

Th0r
January 18, 2008, 01:45 PM
When it is yourself you are defending, and not your family it is relative.
When it is your family it is absoloute.

For example; you are on your own and a guy approaches you at an ATM asking for 10$.
I would give it to him and report it to the cops, unless there was a major factor that had to make me defend myself.

At home 1am with my family, a guy bursts in with a knife and threatens to kill members of my family if i dont comply with him. Then in that case I think it would be a moral absoloute to respond in a way to defend yourself and your family.

David Armstrong
January 18, 2008, 02:06 PM
David, disagree. It really is that simple, IMO.
One is certainly entitled to one's own opinion. However, to suggest that opinion is a fact is somewhat questionable. One can disagree all they want, but the facts are fairly obvious. For example, am I a wolf, sheepdog, or sheep? And how would you determine that?

mvpel
January 18, 2008, 02:15 PM
mvpel, well put (except "each of us will have to live AND die with our decision").

My gist was that if you choose not to intervene, you may or may not die as a result of that decision. Likewise, if you choose to intervene, you may or may not die as a result of that decision.

If you live through the incident, while either intervening or not, you will have to live with the "what-ifs" either way. "What if I'd been able to save that innocent person's life?" or "What if I didn't really need to kill that criminal?"

If you die, while either intervening or not, you won't be living with the consequences of your decision in any case. Hence, I didn't think "and" was suited for the sentence.

David Armstrong
January 18, 2008, 02:16 PM
I never said a gunfight needed to be started. But. If you decide to do something you better be ready to do something. Maybe you just give him a good beating, or maybe you have to shoot them.
Either way you are changing the dynamics of the event, probably for the worse. Again, as I've pointed out, even LE suggest that off-duty officers refrain from acting in these situations as the primary default, and acting only if there are unusual circumstances. There is a reason for that.
If someone is so bold as to start a criminal act then I will not take a chance they will let the homeowner live if they are there when they begin the crime.
But you will take the chance that when you do whatever it is you are going to do that it will make things worse and might result in somebody getting killed that would not have.
I will never think "well maybe if I do nothing he will let them live....."
Why not? That is the most likely outcome, by a huge margin. Do you base all of your actions on this reasoning, that one should ignore the most likely and respond to the least?

David Armstrong
January 18, 2008, 02:19 PM
Nothing overly simplistic about it.
Yes, it is quite simplistic, and based on stereotyping. Thus, almost by definition, it is going to be wrong. And if the sheepdog causes the sheep to be harmed when it would not be, is he still a sheepdog or a wolf?

mvpel
January 18, 2008, 02:24 PM
Either way you are changing the dynamics of the event, probably for the worse.

That's why good judgment and common sense is essential when carrying defensive arms.

I think what pushes these threads towards tedious pedantry is the assumption that good judgment and common sense is not stipulated or presumed by each poster.

Sure, there are situations where it wouldn't be a good idea to intervene, and in such situations, I probably wouldn't intervene. Saying "I would intervene" and that I feel that there is a moral obligation to intervene in defense of another, doesn't mean that I'm saying that I'd intervene if it were obvious that it would be an utterly idiotic thing to do.

I mean, let's give each other some credit here.

benny27
January 18, 2008, 02:27 PM
David Armstrong, well if you've got a gun pointed at a clerk or innocent bystander it should be fairly obvious who you are. The bottom line is if you have the means to act you should. If you were the clerk and somebody had a gun pointed at you, would you want someone to take action or just sit back and wait for the police. If someone walks in with a gun that means that person has the potential to take a life, now whether he/she will you don't know. One thing is for sure though if they pull the trigger it will be to late to say, man I should have done something.

wcboggs
January 18, 2008, 02:48 PM
mvpel, maybe I didn't understand; I thought I was correcting a mistake that you have to live or die with your decision. in my thinking you have to live with and die with that decision meaning the what ifs never go away.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 18, 2008, 02:59 PM
So I should buy life insurance to take care of my family when I get killed to save you and you won't even give my family a buck or two - because that is the conservative philosophy?

Don't people have a moral obligation to help a family whose life has been ruined by the loss of the breadwinner to evil - esp. when he or she was trying to save people?

N0 - the good samaritan is doing charity work and paying for saving you. By this logic, it is the responsibility of the victim to have bought a gun, intensively trained in its usage and in the martial arts so that they wouldn't need help. That is the conservative way.

If someone dies to save you - you should give them all your money. :D

XD40Tac
January 18, 2008, 03:11 PM
Just remember this, there is nothing moral about the law or an aggressive prosecutor. While you can justify your action based on outdated notions of traditional morality of helping others in need, just remember that this is a fervently anti-gun nation and there will be many chomping at the bit to put you behind bars because you used a gun. They won't care about how you morally justified your actions in the seconds before you pulled the trigger.

In most states there is no legal protection for "good samaritans" who try to play hero with a handgun. You have no obligation to anyone but you and your family. Sad but that is the country we live in.

revance
January 18, 2008, 03:19 PM
KingofAttendance: Your thoughts on a moral obligation to take action using a firearm should coincide with your thoughts of a moral obligation to take action through taxes; a lot of liberals and conservatives alike don't even think of that.
If you believe in not donating a chunk of your paycheck to the needy, you should also not believe in donating a chunk of your time and/or life to the needy. Otherwise, it's a huge contradiction.

That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever seen.

I don't want a chunk of money being taken out of my paycheck for THE GOVERNMENT to decide who and how to help. I have no problem with donating my time and yes even MONEY to people/causes of my choosing. Some "charity work" the government does downright ticks me off. That doesn't mean I don't like to help the needy.

To put it another way... you don't want the government dictating when you MUST use your CCW to protect another person do you? Would you like it if they created laws saying "If you see a person matching X description in danger, you must run to their rescue regardless of possible danger to yourself"?

- It should be an individuals choice who/how/if they give their time/money to.

- It should be an individuals choice who/how/if they risk their lives to protect.

I see no contradiction.

wcboggs
January 18, 2008, 03:31 PM
So I should buy life insurance to take care of my family when I get killed to save you and you won't even give my family a buck or two - because that is the conservative philosophy?

I think what he's saying is a conservative philosophy and frankly a Christian principal is you are responsible to be good prudent steward and take necessary steps to take care of yourself for foreseeable disaster. Every person alive who is a bread winner with dependants on that "bread" need be prudent and have life insurance in place to replace the breadwinners income in the even of a premature death. That's just sound and common sense responsible financial planning. Of course in today's society of "cant get enough" people often trade their families future for an extra movie a week or a shiny new car every three years.

On the other hand the democrat/liberal view is if a bread winner dies prematurely, it's everybody else's responsibility to make up for the fact that money was spent foolishly on "feel good' consumables. And you'll find that's pretty much always the difference. Why do you think Bush says there are millions of government subsidized health insurance policies available to Americans and nobody is buying them for some 25.00 a month? Well it's because if you give a person a pay check and they decide to **** it all away and not take care of their family first, they what the government to make all the other families give up their income to pay their premiums so they can continue to **** their money away. When what they need to do is make it child abuse to have no insurance available for your child and they get sick if you could have qualified for the existing programs.

We the people are not responsible for other peoples irresponsibility. If you think they are then just knock on your neighbors door next time you need food stamps and ask them to go to the grocery store for you. And if you think that's ridiculous and can only imagine what the neighbors reaction would be; that's what democrats are currently doing every day. m It's just they rob them of their paychecks not knock on the door asking for a handout in your name.

Does that help you understand?

Glenn E. Meyer
January 18, 2008, 03:39 PM
Haha, conservative rationalizations why I should get shoot for you and you wont' even give my family a buck. I ain't talking about welfare or food stamps or some other conservative talking point.

Every person alive who is a bread winner with dependants on that "bread" need be prudent and have life insurance in place to replace the breadwinners income in the even of a premature death.

Is it prudent to save the lives of those who won't even commit to helping your family after you save them? I won't have a premature death if you weren't so damn unprepared as a warrior. Oops.

It's all about some folks who want to be hero in a gun fight as a prime motivator and being able to say that on the Internet. If you want to help people you should intervene in the gun fight and financially for the worthy needy.

BTW, altruism is very heavily researched and one major motivator is self-image rather than the true charitable impulse. That's my major point on such internet postings.

wcboggs
January 18, 2008, 04:01 PM
Haha, conservative rationalizations why I should get shoot for you and you wont' even give my family a buck. I ain't talking about welfare or food stamps or some other conservative talking point.

Well here's a surprise, yes you are talking about a kind of welfare or food stamps; what the hell is this money you seem to think people are obligated to cough up under the circumstances?

"conservative rationalizations" I call your statements liberal guilt trips. The life insurance isn't so you can be or not be a hero; it's because you live a fragile life and anything can take it at any time. Get out of the microcosm of the guilt trip you're laying on people here and you'll see that premature death is premature death no matter what the cause. For that you buy sufficient life insurance and if you cant afford it, you were irresponsible many years ago.

BTW, altruism is very heavily researched and one major motivator is self-image rather than the true charitable impulse. That's my major point on such Internet postings.

BTW that has far more to do with ones character than your study BS is obviously capable of recognizing.

It's all about some folks who want to be hero in a gun fight as a prime motivator and being able to say that on the Internet. If you want to help people you should intervene in the gun fight and financially for the worthy needy.

and its starting to look like you're willing to be a "hero" if you're getting paid for it. Those aren't heroes, they are hit men under the circumstances. A hero reaches into a burning car and saves a life knowing he will get burned badly too and compensation NEVER enters his mind.

Glenn, if you ever see me crippled in a burning car, leave me there; I dont want you suing me for any injury you might sustain in the process of saving me.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeee is there any human life down there or is everything for sale?:barf::barf::eek::eek::confused:

TexasSeaRay
January 18, 2008, 11:32 PM
Haha, conservative rationalizations why I should get shoot for you and you wont' even give my family a buck. I ain't talking about welfare or food stamps or some other conservative talking point.

I remember you mentioning some time back that you never served in the military nor served in law enforcement.

No big deal. Probably the majority of folks here can say the same.

However, ask any combat vet what he was fighting for. He won't tell you all the romantic, academic Hollywood BS like "Mom, apple pie and the flag." Nope. You fight for your buddies.

Me-first attitudes don't last long in that society, nor should they.

And your attitude stinks of "me-first" when it comes to your fellow citizens and neighbors. So if nobody is going to pay your family off in the event you might get hurt, then THAT'S the deciding factor as to whether or not you'll use all this fancy training you write about participating in . . . in order to save someone from harm or death?

Every person alive who is a bread winner with dependants on that "bread" need be prudent and have life insurance in place to replace the breadwinners income in the even of a premature death.

I would venture that I live a more "comfortable" life than you, and only mention it because "how your family presently lives" seems to be at the root of any decision you would even consider that might even give you a hangnail, let alone a nosebleed or worse in the defense of someone defenseless.

My wife is already taken very well care of. If I have a premature death, she'll be hurting--because no amount of money will replace me, nor her.

And THAT'S what matters to me as a husband, adn to her as a wife.

Not how "comfortably" she'll live if I get killed.

But likewise, if I refused to help a mugging or rape victim because I might get hurt or killed, she'd leave me on the spot and go looking for the man she married and not the selfish wuss that was suddenly standing before her.

Money and comfort aren't everything to us. In fact, on our list of priorities, they're pretty damned low.

Is it prudent to save the lives of those who won't even commit to helping your family after you save them? I won't have a premature death if you weren't so damn unprepared as a warrior. Oops.

Well, reckon I oughta quit doing these charity medical flights where I fly kids with leukemia to various chemo centers. I could crash my airplane and none of the families I'm helping would be able to give me a dime.

You see, they're already struggling--that's why vounteer pilots like myself volunteer our own money, time and resources to fly their children to medical treatment centers.

But I guess I'm more important and of greater worth to my wife and society than they are--not worth risking MY life to help maybe save theirs.

Ooops yourself.

It's all about some folks who want to be hero in a gun fight as a prime motivator and being able to say that on the Internet. If you want to help people you should intervene in the gun fight and financially for the worthy needy.

So why all the killer commando gun training and IDPA competition you seem to be into?

I've smelled more than enough hostile gunpowder in my lifetime and survived to enjoy a fruitful and fulfilling life. I've got exactly zero interest in all that combat/tactical/pretend-police/SWAT training and competition. I like shooting at things that don't represent things that shoot back. Bullseye and sillouhettes and steel plates come to mind.

BTW, altruism is very heavily researched and one major motivator is self-image rather than the true charitable impulse. That's my major point on such internet postings.

Yep, and I've said more than once that I'd have a hard time looking in the mirror for the rest of my life if I simply walked past a group of thugs raping some poor woman and I did zilch about it.

But maybe if she--in between gasps for breath--promised to pay my family a buck or two if I didn't survive my attempt to defend her. . . .

Jeff

wcboggs
January 19, 2008, 08:34 AM
Well put TexasSeaRay; good old Glenn has certainly removed any doubt anybody may have had as to his extreme selfishness and coldness towards mankind.

Buy the way, my comment that you quoted:
Every person alive who is a bread winner with dependants on that "bread" need be prudent and have life insurance in place to replace the breadwinners income in the even of a premature death.
was quoted as a basic financial planning principal so I didn't have to explain the concept of life insurance not being life insurance (or as it's sold, death insurance) it's income replacement. My comment says "a bread winner with dependants on that "bread" (or income). Therefore if your income (or money you live from) is such that a death doesn't matter, you dont need life insurance. I was a financial planner so I've seen the gutter like of people like Glenn who for example wont give up one of their three bowling league nights to have ANY life insurance for the 4 children of a wife that had no marketable skills. There are just people like that.

Capt Charlie
January 19, 2008, 12:36 PM
Tempers are flaring and nobody's counting to ten.

This one's gotten waaaay too personal.

Closed.