The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Cheapo · May 1, 1999, 04:21 AM

Jim K:

I'm in less of a rant mode tonight. Had a great discourse 80% written yesterday, then lost it when I was called away from the computer.

True, common citizens (I, too, hate that term. It fails to honor the position.) do not have police powers. But the law makes the distinctions between police and citizens only because the people through representatives have made it so. The power to use force to protect self, others, order, and public property rested originally with the citizen, and can be reclaimed by just changing the statute.

I cite the community duty roster of all able-bodied males who used to patrol Wall Street in New Amsterdam. We hired others to take our duty shift, and thus created the modern Police professional. The older tradition of Kingly enforcement of stuff like anti-hunting decrees (King owns all wildlife, Sir Robin Hood!) by political appointees has less bearing on U.S. "police powers" of the gov'mint.

What to do? Depends on the level of danger. No shots fired by the BG means as unobtrusively as possible get your firearm in hand if at all possible. Observe closely for accomplices. Plot body position and movement, to include cover if possible, for if the BG starts to do A B or C, moving himself N, S, E, or W. Include danger to bystanders in your calculations.

Once a shot is fired, it's probably a personal decision whether to attempt to stop it at the risk of getting killed yourself. Being in near-contact distance makes the shot easier but the danger to you greater. But I say that once a shot is fired, the BG is proven to be a dangerous killer and anyone is justified using lethal force, even as the BG retreats. When the BG is so highly dangerous, defense of non-family members, like society at large or the cop who is about to round the corner to get a load of lead in the face, is okay and fully justified. The right-to-defense-ends-when-BG-starts-to-leave rule for fleeing felons does not apply in many jurisdictions to those who just killed and still have the ability to kill again.

If he drops the gun, he's no longer fair game.

Despite all of our training and planning and thinking things through, sometimes the best course is to not engage the BG. An element of flexibility must be part of our bag of tools.

For the driver who did not shoot through the window at the would-be carjacker, that was probably the best decision for him, though disastrous for the cabbie. The driver correctly surmised that his life was *not* in imminent danger, and both parties lived. But under the circumstances, another person could have had a reasonable belief of imminent danger and been in the right to shoot.

However, most good guys are not eager to see blood, and puke over the unpleasantness that follows the sheer terror of a near-lethal (for you) encounter. Ultimately, it comes down to being a personal decision based on what prices you are willing to pay.

Try in vain in a tactically losing situation and lose your life trying? No dishonor there, especially compared to letting carnage continue unchallenged while you wait for backup. Defer to the odds and let the BG go even after only one person is killed? No dishonor there because of the risk of harm to others from starting a gunfight in a crowded room. But save your own skin by becoming invisible as the killer wanders through the place shooting/stabbing/stomping anyone who moves? Inexcusable!

Exactly where you will draw the line between
1. the first victim and

2. the number of deaths which convinces you that the body count cannot be made worse by turning it into a gunfight...

well, that's probably a personal decision too, but it falls into the undefinable term "reasonable." It will depend on the circumstances and maybe even on the "vibes" you get. Unseen powers can give us the insights we need in such dire settings, if we remain flexible and listen.

And since it's a restaurant, let's not forget the utility of grabbing a knife and slashing the gun hand tendons while immobilizing the gun. Assess your chances and count on heavy resistance, more than you get even in full-speed practice at the Dojo.

The point about all problems looking like nails when all you have is a hammer...well, it's VERY well said.

Sorry this is so long, but I discovered a personal stake in this type of scenario last October. Turns out that one of my college buds, whom I was trying to look up, was killed by a wacko who wanted to make a point at Ft. Bragg in 1995. My friend was unarmed and died trying. And he wasn't the only one storming the BG's position.

Cheapo.

------------------
Let us never forget that the only legitimate source of government power is the citizens. If WE cannot exercise a certain power, we cannot grant it to the state.

May 1, 1999, 04:21 AM	#40
Cheapo Senior Member Join Date: November 19, 1998 Posts: 986	Jim K: I'm in less of a rant mode tonight. Had a great discourse 80% written yesterday, then lost it when I was called away from the computer. True, common citizens (I, too, hate that term. It fails to honor the position.) do not have police powers. But the law makes the distinctions between police and citizens only because the people through representatives have made it so. The power to use force to protect self, others, order, and public property rested originally with the citizen, and can be reclaimed by just changing the statute. I cite the community duty roster of all able-bodied males who used to patrol Wall Street in New Amsterdam. We hired others to take our duty shift, and thus created the modern Police professional. The older tradition of Kingly enforcement of stuff like anti-hunting decrees (King owns all wildlife, Sir Robin Hood!) by political appointees has less bearing on U.S. "police powers" of the gov'mint. What to do? Depends on the level of danger. No shots fired by the BG means as unobtrusively as possible get your firearm in hand if at all possible. Observe closely for accomplices. Plot body position and movement, to include cover if possible, for if the BG starts to do A B or C, moving himself N, S, E, or W. Include danger to bystanders in your calculations. Once a shot is fired, it's probably a personal decision whether to attempt to stop it at the risk of getting killed yourself. Being in near-contact distance makes the shot easier but the danger to you greater. But I say that once a shot is fired, the BG is proven to be a dangerous killer and anyone is justified using lethal force, even as the BG retreats. When the BG is so highly dangerous, defense of non-family members, like society at large or the cop who is about to round the corner to get a load of lead in the face, is okay and fully justified. The right-to-defense-ends-when-BG-starts-to-leave rule for fleeing felons does not apply in many jurisdictions to those who just killed and still have the ability to kill again. If he drops the gun, he's no longer fair game. Despite all of our training and planning and thinking things through, sometimes the best course is to not engage the BG. An element of flexibility must be part of our bag of tools. For the driver who did not shoot through the window at the would-be carjacker, that was probably the best decision for him, though disastrous for the cabbie. The driver correctly surmised that his life was not in imminent danger, and both parties lived. But under the circumstances, another person could have had a reasonable belief of imminent danger and been in the right to shoot. However, most good guys are not eager to see blood, and puke over the unpleasantness that follows the sheer terror of a near-lethal (for you) encounter. Ultimately, it comes down to being a personal decision based on what prices you are willing to pay. Try in vain in a tactically losing situation and lose your life trying? No dishonor there, especially compared to letting carnage continue unchallenged while you wait for backup. Defer to the odds and let the BG go even after only one person is killed? No dishonor there because of the risk of harm to others from starting a gunfight in a crowded room. But save your own skin by becoming invisible as the killer wanders through the place shooting/stabbing/stomping anyone who moves? Inexcusable! Exactly where you will draw the line between 1. the first victim and 2. the number of deaths which convinces you that the body count cannot be made worse by turning it into a gunfight... well, that's probably a personal decision too, but it falls into the undefinable term "reasonable." It will depend on the circumstances and maybe even on the "vibes" you get. Unseen powers can give us the insights we need in such dire settings, if we remain flexible and listen. And since it's a restaurant, let's not forget the utility of grabbing a knife and slashing the gun hand tendons while immobilizing the gun. Assess your chances and count on heavy resistance, more than you get even in full-speed practice at the Dojo. The point about all problems looking like nails when all you have is a hammer...well, it's VERY well said. Sorry this is so long, but I discovered a personal stake in this type of scenario last October. Turns out that one of my college buds, whom I was trying to look up, was killed by a wacko who wanted to make a point at Ft. Bragg in 1995. My friend was unarmed and died trying. And he wasn't the only one storming the BG's position. Cheapo. ------------------ Let us never forget that the only legitimate source of government power is the citizens. If WE cannot exercise a certain power, we cannot grant it to the state.