View Single Post
Old July 28, 2010, 02:13 PM   #121
Evan Thomas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by grubbylabs
I have worked in the EMS field for many years and of all the training that has evolved over the years the one thing that stays the same is teaching that you protect yourself first, your partner second and the public third and the victim last. If you are not trained to handle the situation maintain safety in the mentioned order as possible and wait for those who have the training and tools to respond and handle the situation.
Grubbylabs, thank you for this post.

I'm not a professional, but I've taken CPR... first aid... first responder classes -- and in every single one of them, the first thing taught has been, "Protect yourself first. Don't become another victim, and don't make the situation worse."

Professionals know this. That's why, for example, police officers don't rush into a house where someone is holding a family at gunpoint. They set up a perimeter and try to open communication with the hostage taker, rather than "heroically" storming the house. There are many excellent reasons for this: not endangering their own lives, and not making the situation worse by increasing the risk to innocents, are at the top of the list.

I don't know what it is about carrying a gun that makes so many people think they're automatically qualified to intervene with violence in any situation in which they think a crime is being committed... and that this is always the "moral" thing to do, regardless of the risk to themselves or to anyone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Retired15T
But now, since this GG is a national hero, the media reports that after the incident, the guy was discovered to of been a convicted child molester and rapist. He wasn't supposed to be in possession of the gun in the first place.

I'd sue to snot out of him. I'd take everything he owns that I could get in court.

The good guy is a pastor, previously in the Army where he earned the Bronze Star for his actions in combat and he is well known as an outstanding friend, husband and father.

I would do everything I could to NOT sue him.
So it turns out that the question isn't really one of the ethical status of the "Good Guy's" actions at all. It's not about whether his good intentions, or the effectiveness of his intervention, outweigh his negligence -- it really comes down to whether you like or approve of him as a person, and has little to do with his conduct in that situation.

"Heroes" should get a free pass for negligence. Others need not apply.

Well, that's honest, at least.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry.
Evan Thomas is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03200 seconds with 8 queries