|
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
|