Do YOU intervene?

[BillCA]

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

What worries me are those CCW-licensed folks who have taken their CC permit as a license to expand their role to include the functions of an armed police officer on behalf of others.

While that concerns me too, I think the appropriate avenue is education and more education. Whenever someone talks of "jumping in" I always caution them to make damn sure of the facts before even reaching for the carry gun.

In a case here in California not long ago, a man exercising in his garage heard a commotion. When he heard screams of "Kill him!" he grabbed his .45 Auto, exited the garage and assessed the situation. A neighboring family was holding a family gathering. A younger nephew had gone off his meds and then argued with his uncle, stabbing him several times. The family was trying to get the blood-soaked uncle away and the nephew was slashing around with the knife. The citizen ordered the nephew to drop the knife twice, even after the family urged him "Shoot! Shoot!" and "Kill him, quick!" The man fired when the nephew lunged, killing him. Police did not file any charges and the Chief said it appeared the man acted legally, in self-defense and defending others.

Of course, not everything will be clear cut. No one advocates shooting before trying to ascertain what the facts are. Your number one weapon is your brain. And you should spend time on making sure your brain functions as well as your sidearm.

Like Old Marksman, I won't go places with a gun that I won't go without one. I won't go looking for trouble, I might find it. If believe there is a high probability there will be trouble I can't avoid, I'm likely to bring a long gun. And friends with long guns.

Intervention can be done with your voice - Hey you! Stop! Show me your hands!, by making your presence obvious (those 100w driving lights at night for example) and other things - without resorting to your firearm - like calling 911.

[A_McDougal]

If you have strong opinions about the law, please take every opportunity to serve on juries. When you do, please remember threads like these - reasonable people can have widely different opinions about how the law should be interpreted. Before you vote to convict, ask "would there be folks on TFL defending this guy?" Look beyond your own experience, knowledge, training, and wisdom, and try to look through the eyes of somebody dumber than yourself when deciding what 'reasonable' is.

[Dr Raoul Duke]

But adding a firearm into how one relates to the events and circumstances around them on the mundane daily routine of their lives complicates the issues and adds risks both legal and physical, because carrying a gun has a lot more gravity than many realize at first. If this thread has any value it's probably in revealing just how vague and situational the rules are, and just how uncertain and unpredictable the effects of inserting a gun into situations otherwise avoided would be- the possibility of serious criminal charges and the potential to really harm someone are amplified 100 times with the presence of a gun that's brought forth; the gamble made 100 more times more expensive if the possession of a gun acted as an incentive to get involved in the first place, and none of those effects are predictable. Pull a gun = roll the dice, with lives and futures in the pot.

You know Uncle Billy; I had an Uncle Bill (my Mother's eldest brother), and aside from teaching me how to shoot, chase anything after Walker hounds, work wood, make a farm pay, treat people decently, read the Good Book, keep gasoline and diesel engines running, make and drink whiskey in moderation, and be an all around rational and decent man; most people would not have noticed him. I've been reading your posts for some time and find that I have this thing about agreeing with you on almost all of the things you say. In the current context, I've made my position quite clear. I'd just like to say that I find your mature and reasonable position to be a breath of fresh air among the folks who have never bothered to read the law concerning lethal force, or even question why they they have a CCW in the first place.

Good for you.

Dr. Raoul Duke
Gonzo Forever

[scottaschultz]

Posted by A_McDougal: Before you vote to convict, ask "would there be folks on TFL defending this guy?"

With all due respect, if I am on a jury, the absolute very last thing I would do is think about what a bunch of people on an Internet forum would do! The only other person's opinion about how I should vote died 2009 years ago!!

Scott

[Uncle Billy]

... I appreciate your comments. I often wonder if anyone reads what I post, and whether there's much agreement with what I have to say here. I've had a NY CCW permit for about 45 years and have parsed these issues again and again as the environment regarding guns changed in the society and my nature evolved. I had always thought that there would come a time in the stream of my life where I would finally reach an end point, where I could stop and be what I had become from then on unchanged. I now see that's not only impossible for me, that's undesirable, and when that happens to people or societies, a lot is lost.

You are very fortunate to have had a mentor of the sort of man your Uncle Bill was for you. I think it's every old man's desire to have been able to pass on to young folks what they've learned about things, from diesel engines to moral values, as your uncle did.

[OldMarksman]

What worries me are those CCW-licensed folks who have taken their CC permit as a license to expand their role to include the functions of an armed police officer on behalf of others.

I couldn't agree more. BillCA's comment that the appropriate avenue is education and more education is on point.

If I were designing the educational curriculum for this, I would start with two things that were tought in my state CCW class:

• The concealed carry endorsement does not confer any police powers upon a citizen.
• While our state law does provide for the use of deadly force to protect a third person under certain circumstances, there are great risks involved (this would have to be tailored to specific states).

I would add the following:

• Sworn officers have an obligation to engage miscreants for the purpose of enforcing the law; civilians have no such duty.
• When they are actually involved in the performance of their duties, sworn officers may display lethal weapons without legal ramifications; civilians may not be able to do so without risking criminal charges, in the absence of immediate necessity and imminent danger.
• Sworn officers are are schooled in the classification of criminal offenses according to severity, and they are trained in the law as it applies to arrest and detainment, the appropriate level of force to be applied, and what to do under varying circumstances in the event that a suspect attempts to flee; civilians are not.
• Sworn officers have been trained in following approved procedures that thave been appropriately reviewed and approved for legal compliance and tactical soundness; civilians have not.
• Sworn officers can call for backup via radio, and it is likely that they will not attempt to capture a criminal without backup except in a dire emergency.
• Sworn officers are indemnified by their jurisdictions against civil liability, which may prove involve very severe exposure; civilians are not.

Examples of situations that may appear to indicate the need for intervention, but that are not what they seem, should be provided, along with a discussion of the severity of the civil and criminal liability that a citizen may assume by intervening inappropriately. I would advise people to consider intervention only when they know the apparent victims or when it is abundantly clear that not intervening is very likely to result in death or great bodily harm.

The fact that most LEOs will not intervene when off duty should be pointed out and discussed.

I would hope that similar education regarding when the use of deadly force is justified in other kinds of encounters, indoors and out, and when it is not, will be provided also.

It is essential that anyone who carries a gun fully appreciate the fact that "adding a firearm into how one relates to the events and circumstances around them on the mundane daily routine of their lives complicates the issues and adds risks both legal and physical, because carrying a gun has a lot more gravity than many realize at first" and that it involves "the possibility of serious criminal charges and the potential to really harm someone are amplified 100 times with the presence of a gun that's brought forth".

I hate to put it quite this way, but people have done some pretty bone-headed things and gotten themselves into lot of trouble from time to time. That does not help anyone at all. Let's work to inform and educate.

[onthejon55]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

Yep, and I know people who survived car accidents because they weren't wearing their seatbelt.... But I still wear mine. Why? Well, because there are 10,000 who died because they weren't wearing a seatbelt for every one who survived because they weren't.

In other words, I'm not involving myself and my gun in a stolen purse situation just because somebody somewhere died because they lost their allergy medicine.

The odds of things going very badly for all of us are a whole lot higher than the odds of someone needing the medicine in the bag.
__________________

If you dnt want to stand up for someone who is being robbed then dont. If you see someone choking and do not feel like doing the Heimlich maneuver then dnt. If you see a kid trapped in a burning building and do not feel like risking you life then dnt.

But do not tell other people who feel the need to stand up for others in society that they shouldnt do whats right.

[MLeake]

... just make you sure you know what you are doing first.

It would really suck to intervene, only to find out you took the wrong side based on misinterpreting what you were seeing.

It would also really suck to intervene and cause harm to innocent third parties.

It would also really, really suck to find that you had caused an escalation in the situation, and had effectively voided any right to claim self-defense.

OldMarksman has NEVER said don't stand up for an obvious innocent victim; neither have I, or Uncle Billy, or anybody else. What we have all said is that you had better really understand your state's laws, both as they are written and as they have actually been executed in court; you had better make sure you have a complete grasp of the situation you choose to enter; and, you had better realize that life isn't TV, and that your intervention has a chance of making things worse even if you do understand what is happening.

And OnTheJon55, you still come across as way too eager to draw a gun.

[onthejon55]

Originally Posted by MLeake

... just make you sure you know what you are doing first.

Exactly!! In the event that you KNOW someone needs help then I do not understand why some people on here seem so reluctant to help.

OldMarksman has NEVER said don't stand up for an obvious innocent victim; neither have I, or Uncle Billy, or anybody else.

I never said they did.

And OnTheJon55, you still come across as way too eager to draw a gun.

And if I ever need help i hope i have someone more eager to help than you around.

[MLeake]

... but on the bright side, I won't first tell them to F off and flip them the bird. Please grow up.

[onthejon55]

... but on the bright side, I won't first tell them to F off and flip them the bird.

Good i wouldn't recommend doing that as stated much earlier.

Please grow up.

Im not the one digging up old posts and past mistakes and throwing them in the face of someone trying to have a discussion about the ramifications of carrying a weapon.

[MLeake]

Let me put this to you another way:

Two of my best friends are plainclothes narcotics detectives. An overly assertive reaction to a fight or attempted "kidnapping" or "assault at gunpoint" by a CCW, during an attempt at an arrest of a BG by either of my friends could result in serious tragedy.

So, for me, this discussion is not nearly so theoretical as it may be for you.

Please note also that I already have intervened in more than one situation, when I was sure what was happening, and in those instances I wasn't armed.

And in the example that you don't like me digging up, I probably wouldn't have helped you if I'd seen the whole thing, because I'd know that you had stirred up trouble and created a major legal problem for me. However, I would have stepped in to protect your sister, who was the innocent bystander.

I generally try not to single people out, but you really should not be accusing people of timidity or bad judgment, especially after having so many others tell you the same thing.

[onthejon55]

Two of my best friends are plainclothes narcotics detectives. An overly assertive reaction to a fight or attempted "kidnapping" or "assault at gunpoint" by a CCW, during an attempt at an arrest of a BG by either of my friends could result in serious tragedy.

Being a plain clothes officer is very risky, thats why they usually "POLICE" when they are making the arrest.

And in the example that you don't like me digging up, I probably wouldn't have helped you if I'd seen the whole thing, because I'd know that you had stirred up trouble and created a major legal problem for me. However, I would have stepped in to protect your sister, who was the innocent bystander.

If you want to discuss this situation please feel free to start a new thread.

I generally try not to single people out, but you really should not be accusing people of timidity or bad judgment, especially after having so many others tell you the same thing.

since when was i not entitled to my own opinion?


EDIT: well this is getting horribly off topic i believe im done here...

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by onthejon55

But do not tell other people who feel the need to stand up for others in society that they shouldnt do whats right.

"Right" as defined by YOU. There are a good many of is in the world that believe that killing someone over a duffel bag would be WRONG.
On top of that, there are a good many of us who feel that taking the chance of leaving our families fatherless and husbandless because of a stolen duffel bag is equally wrong.

Your attempt to associate killing over a duffel bag with failing to assist a choking victim is assinine at best.

Originally Posted by onthejon55

since when was i not entitled to my own opinion?

Since you started telling others to keep their opinions to themselves, which I quoted above. No fun when it's a two way street, is it?

[onthejon55]

Your attempt to associate killing over a duffel bag with failing to assist a choking victim is assinine at best.

How? either way if you mess up theres a chance you could be sued for everything you own which is almost the equivalent to going to prison.

Since you started telling others to keep their opinions to themselves, which I quoted above. No fun when it's a two way street, is it?

I give my own opinion. I dnt pretend to be a legal expert or cast doubt on everything anyone says.

[Uncle Billy]

You are entitled to your own opinion, everyone is.

When you make it public in a forum you put it up for comment and criticism.

If you don't consider what others have said about your opinion with objectivity and using reasoning, you miss a lot of opportunities to learn and possibly better your understanding.

Taking benefit from the criticism others offer requires that you be able to see past how it's stated- even if they've put what they think into sharp language, or say it in a demeaning way, the seed ideas they've stated are still worth considering.

If your intent is only to be heard but not to listen, then start a one-way blog.

[MLeake]

OntheJon55, on why his comparison of potentially killing somebody over a possibly stolen duffel bag was akin to failing to assist a choking victim made sense to him:

How? either way if you mess up theres a chance you could be sued for everything you own which is almost the equivalent to going to prison.

Sure, a homicide charge with potential life imprisonment is similar to a lawsuit that would be very hard to file (Good Samaritan laws generally protect you from lawsuit if you try to help, they don't provide grounds for a suit against you except in very limited circumstances). Look up the Good Samaritan laws in your state, and try to find any case history of uninvolved third parties being successfully sued for failure to render assistance to unknown parties.

Not only that, but an awful lot of people who would not shoot a stranger over a duffel bag, would assist choking or accident victims without a second thought.

OntheJon55 also said:

I give my own opinion. I dnt pretend to be a legal expert or cast doubt on everything anyone says.

I think you'll see that most of us, if not all of us, who have talked about laws have not claimed to be legal experts. What we have all said is you should 1) look up the laws and case history in your area; and 2) possibly consult an attorney, because some of those laws can be hard to interpret.

If you don't want to understand the laws of your state, and if you really think that being charged with homicide is anything like a civil suit, you really should stop carrying that .22 of yours. With your attitude, you are a walking liability to yourself and others.

[pax]

Looks like this one is done.

Do I need to elaborate as to why?

pax