In defense of others

[OldMarksman]

You are implying that I recommended using ONLY deadly force when intervening...which I did not.

I did not mean to do so, but I do see that I came across that way.

My thought process was that, if the altercation at hand was serous enough and involved a level of violence sufficient to require intervention, it would (1) have the potential to rapidly escalate to a situation in which deadly force could be required (2) not be something that I would want to try to solve by entering the fray using physical force.

Of course, intervention could simply involve calling for help on the cell phone.

And that's the only kind of intervention I can think of that would ensure one's not mucking up an arrest in progress, preventing a successful act of self defense, or getting oneself involved in a domestic dispute.

However, if I've missed something, I'm all ears.

[David Armstrong]

Actually, what I believe David advised was to "go softly and slowly"; earlier, he said that police officers themselves will echo the advice to "tread softly and slowly, and avoid when you can".

Exactly, and thank yo ufor pointing that out. Many try to suggest things have been said that have not really been said, or ascribe positions to others that have never been taken. For reference, this is from my first post on the thread, and I still think it a good one:
"Personally I teach intervene when it will not put you in great danger or when the intervention will not make the problem worse, and using deadly force only when you or your family/friends are in danger of death or great harm. The legal ramifications are too great to ignore or disregard when you intervene, and there are lots of really questionable problems out there that can backfire in a minute and you end up doing time."
So yes, go softly and go slowly, and only go when you have to. Even then realize there is a good chance you don't know the full story behind whatever it is you are about to get into.

[Xrayeyes]

Originally Posted by pax

One of the things I have learned through my training: the greatest physical danger to an out-of-uniform police officer who intervenes in such situations actually comes from other cops when they first arrive on scene. "Friendly fire" is a horrendous oxymoron for the kind of devastating tragedy which can happen when someone goofs up during a rapidly-developing, stressful, chaos-filled, confusion-driven event. Here's the point: even well-trained professionals sometimes kill the wrong person when they arrive at the scene of a life-or-death struggle, especially if they did not see the entire prelude and don't know the players.

Hi guys, new handgun owner and new to the forum. I've learned a lot from you all already.

Anyway, to comment on this above quote...we had a break-in in progress at our farm. It was late at night and hubby had just gotten out of the shower. He looked outside to see our motion detector light on and someone breaking in to our vehicles. He came to me and told me to call 911 and he grabbed our Maverick 88.

After informing the 911 dispatcher of what was going on, I immediately made it VERY clear that my bearded, half-dressed angry husband was armed, and please don't shoot HIM!

It could have gone that way....

Just one more senario to think about.

I also take offense to the gentleman that puts women and men on equal defense footing just because of equal pay. Give me a break! I am certainly no femi-nazi, but I am very independent and I will do the best to defend myself. But, I am only 5'2" and 120 lbs, what kind of defense is that to a large man in an assault situation (unless you've had defense training)?

[Dr. Strangelove]

An interesting argument, some very well considered thoughts here; as well as some not so well thought out.

A concealed weapons license is not a license to dispense justice however you see fit, nor does it infer some "duty" to defend the general public. Getting involved in other peoples' battles, particularly ones of the domestic variety, is a sure way to cause yourself great personal problems.

Many of these threads concern scenarios that make me wonder if you weren't carrying a gun, would you have put yourself in that situation? Take the one a few months back concerning someone who stopped for gas in a bad part of town at 2:00am, then brandished a pistol when they felt "threatened". Are you doing it because of poor planning, or because you felt safe because you had a gun? Carrying a gun does not mean you should put yourself in situations you would not have otherwise.

I won't try to change the minds of those who have already decided that they are the "Lone Ranger white hat wearing joker whose duty it is to defend the honor and safety of all those around them", but for those on the fence, it's not chicken**** or un-American, it's just good sense. Why charge into a situation you know nothing about and stand to lose your personal freedom and your family's way of life?

[BikerRN]

I also take offense to the gentleman that puts women and men on equal defense footing just because of equal pay. Give me a break! I am certainly no femi-nazi, but I am very independent and I will do the best to defend myself. But, I am only 5'2" and 120 lbs, what kind of defense is that to a large man in an assault situation (unless you've had defense training)?

I would be, to use the the term loosely maam, "that gentleman".

If I happen upon you when I am in uniform, and empowered to act, I would do so in a manner that reflects my agency and it's policies.

If however I happen upon you and I am off duty I will intervene at my discretion and only to the level I choose to. It would take a very extreme set of circumstances for me to act on your behalf, using deadly force, if I was off duty. Most likely the actions being perpetrated against you would have to be a threat to me and my family as well.

Like it, don't like it, I care not. I will do what I have to do ensure my survival and that of my family as well. If that means calling 911 for you and getting to cover and being a "good witness", so be it. I am not Sir Gallahad, or any other kind of Knight bent on "saving the day".

You, as an adult person of free will, have the choice to take steps to ensure your own safety. If you choose not to take those steps, then so be it. Why should I assume a risk for you, that you have chosen not to assume for yourself? I will not risk death, possible prosecution and financial ruin just so you, the perpetrator and any other Tom, Dick or Mary Sue can sue me after the fact, and I will violate no agency policy or law in doing so. I will do what I consider is appropriate. That is to summon the on duty constabulary to "sort it out".

Those of you that say you wouldn't be able to live with yourself, I say HOGWASH!

We have all done things we don't like, yet we are still here, living with ourselves. Armed encounters and gunfights are not child's play and one never knows how they are going to respond until the actual crisis is at hand. One can only prepare and train. I have chosen to train to avoid conflict when possible, as there are enough situations where conflict cannot be avoided that I don't have to go looking for them.

Biker

[markj]

A concealed weapons license is not a license to dispense justice however you see fit,

When I carry, I feel like Judge Roy Bean.....

[beasley]

And I'm saying first, you often do not, will not, and can not "know", and second, there is no "must" imperative for intervention. If one chooses to do so, cognizant of all the risks and potential downside, that is their choice, but it is always a choice and we each get to make that choice.

I disagree. Most of the time it become clear with a little observation. It certainly becomes clear if you tell people to stop and communicate. If they are a LEO they will quickly let people know.

The issue is a moral one. When injustice is being done there is ALWAYS a must for someone who can try to stop it. To stand by and just observe someone being hurt or robbed is immoral in itself. Self preservation at the cost of others is by definition selfish.

Lets say we're on a sinking boat. Do we let the women and children on the rafts first? We may argue, "I have a wife and child of my own back home who need a husband and father" and try to justify jumping on the life raft first. That would be absolutely immoral. The moral thing to do is let the women and children on, and put your family back home in possible suffering.

[Creature]

Interesting argument, beasley.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The issue is a moral one. When injustice is being done there is ALWAYS a must for someone who can try to stop it. To stand by and just observe someone being hurt or robbed is immoral in itself. Self preservation at the cost of others is by definition selfish.

What about the morality of failing to accept responsibility for your own safety and that of your family? Don't these people have the same opportunity to arm themselves and get trained that I do? If they don't value their own lives that highly, why should I second guess them?

Lets say we're on a sinking boat. Do we let the women and children on the rafts first? We may argue, "I have a wife and child of my own back home who need a husband and father" and try to justify jumping on the life raft first.

A better analogy would be where all of the passengers had the opportunity to purchase and equip their own lifeboat; but many chose not to because they deemed the likelihood of sinking small. Now that the ship is sinking, they want on the life raft you purchased.

[pax]

To repeat: discussion of the Founders and their motives have no place in this thread or forum. If you want to discuss civil rights and related matters, please do so in the appropriate forum below.

Deleted a couple posts. If yours was one, consider this a final warning -- since you ignored an earlier moderator request in order to post. I won't close this useful and interesting thread, but will ban those who cannot be considerate of others by taking their preferred topic to the appropriate venue after repeated requests.

pax

[David Armstrong]

I disagree. Most of the time it become clear with a little observation.

And yet we have seen in this little thread several examples of where it wasn't clear, and most any LEO will tell you multiple stories that contradict the idea.

The issue is a moral one. When injustice is being done there is ALWAYS a must for someone who can try to stop it. To stand by and just observe someone being hurt or robbed is immoral in itself. Self preservation at the cost of others is by definition selfish.

So, how much have you donated to help pay the medical bills of the guy in Florida who intervened and got shot? He was hurt, and yet here you are standing around doing nothing. I will assume you regularly volunteer at the local shelter, work with the Red Cross, donate to feed the starving children in Africa, etc. After all, those are an injustice that you could try to stop with just a little money. If I or anyone else here on GT is killed or injured intervening, will you vow to give our family 1/2 of all your income for the rest of your life? Wouldn't that be the moral thing for you to do, even though your family back home might possibly suffer?

[KingEdward]

In defense of others....

interesting, but seems to have turned into "am not", are too

am not , are too

it is a complex issue for sure.

we can all agree that we would probably try to do "the right thing" for
the situation to aid in protecting/saving life even though we might mess it up, or God forgive us make it worse.

Sometimes it works out. Sometimes it does not.

Does that mean we sin if we hesitate, or if we do nothing? Opinions vary.

at least we get to express them.

[OldMarksman]

I disagree. Most of the time it become clear with a little observation. It certainly becomes clear if you tell people to stop and communicate.

Voice of experience, I presume?

If they are a LEO they will quickly let people know.

An assumption. Can't comment, I am not familiar with undercover tactics.

The issue is a moral one. When injustice is being done there is ALWAYS a must for someone who can try to stop it.

Yet the current and former LEOs on the forum, all of the recognized authors, and every attorney, instructor, and current and former policeman I've discussed the subject with strongly advises against intervention unless one knows all of the facts. No assumptions allowed.

To stand by and just observe someone being hurt or robbed is immoral in itself.

Does that mean that you think it is moral to join a fight in progress? Do you really want to bumble into a domestic disturbance? LEOs usually call for backup first.

Off duty policemen usually stay away--see BikerRNs post.

On duty policemen are trained, indemnified against losing everything in a civil suit, equipped to call for backup, sworn to uphold the law (and legally permitted to present their weapons without fear of being charged for doing so), and equipped with non-lethal weapons and handcuffs and usually, backup guns.

Here's a checklist for the citizen who may think it his duty to step into something:

• Trained in approved procedure? (Y/N)
• Indemnified by the jurisdiction? (Y/N)
• Back-up called and on the way? (Y/N)
• Sworn to uphold the law? (Y/N)
• Non-lethal weapons and cuffs? (Y/N)
• Back-up gun? (Y/N)

I cannot answer yes to many of those. Can you?

[beasley]

So, how much have you donated to help pay the medical bills of the guy in Florida who intervened and got shot? He was hurt, and yet here you are standing around doing nothing. I will assume you regularly volunteer at the local shelter, work with the Red Cross, donate to feed the starving children in Africa, etc. After all, those are an injustice that you could try to stop with just a little money. If I or anyone else here on GT is killed or injured intervening, will you vow to give our family 1/2 of all your income for the rest of your life? Wouldn't that be the moral thing for you to do, even though your family back home might possibly suffer?

Don't ask rhetorical questions you don't know the answer to. To examine my giving wouldn't help your argument. That's ok, according to your answer you'd be fine with dumping the women and children overboard. I think you are making my point for me.

The fact is, I don't think you would do that. I think you'd intervene. If you saw someone being robbed or assualted you'd step in. If you were on the boat, you'd let the women and children on. Your conscience would over ride your rationalization. I think you should rethink what you're saying. Severe, immediate danger has to be dealt with immediately and by whomever has the ability to do it. By your statement, we should never risk ourselves to help people we dont know. To be a hero would be too risky.

[TINCUP AL]

This is a topic that EVERY ccw holder should have a firm understanding on before they carry. I have read and reread this thread and I think everyone should go back to page one and read PAX's reply. That is the best explanation that I have heard in a long time.

( edited to add : Things aren't always as they seem. You had better be sure )

[beasley]

I agree with Pax. I don't think a gun should be pulled in this kind of situation unless it absolutely has to be. If I see 2 guys duking it out then that's their business. If I see someone beating an unarmed woman or kicking an unconscious guy on the ground then I'm doing something about it. If you guys think I believe in jumping into everyone's disturbances you have me wrong. But if we know someone is being harmed wrongly and do nothing about it then we are culpable. I'm not arguing against those who say we should know before we act but against those who don't believe in acting because it might be too risky when we do know.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think that I came up with the example of charity in previous threads like this. It came from my knowledge (blah, blah) of theories of pro-social behavior. When folks post that it is immoral not to intervene even at risk to oneself as some kind of given, that is way too simplistic given what we know about the issue.

One of the factors may be folks seeming themselves as a hero. Giving to charity doesn't do it.

Some folks feel righteous anger against the aggressor and want to punish the BG.

Immediate emergencies seem to trigger action - perhaps a built in evolutionary circuit for group survival.

Others act on an outrage heuristic. There are more factors.

There are other factors. However, the question is a good one as it strikes to whether the action is true altruism - how can one claim true altruism if you don't act that way in other situations? If you only claim to act that way in situations that use weapons - is it driven truly by altruism?

To demand that someone gives up their life or family's wellbeing for you and being outraged if they don't is hypocritical if you won't support their family.

I asked if we should have tax payer fund for Good Samaritans - Hell, NO was the response. One poster suggested that it was my responsibility to have enough life insurance to support my family if I got killed saving YOUR family. Another suggested that he would let you sleep on his coach for a few days if needed.

Thus, the conundrum is to point out how claiming such action must be done on a moral basis misses the point of analyzing what is altruistic or being driven by some use the gun paradigm.

[beasley]

Really? To try to stop a rape or murder you would need to have handcuffs? How did the world go on before some of these items and tactics were invented?

[beasley]

Speculating on people's motives adds nothing to this argument. That's ad hominem. The person intervening may be a narcissist or may just be a kind stranger, that's not the issue. The issue is simply should someone intervene? I'm fine in leaving the person's motive between them and God as long as they stop a rape/murder/kidnapping etc.

[pax]

beasley ~

Calling for trained and well-equipped expert assistance in stopping the attack IS intervening.

I don't think it's fair to accuse people who would intervene in that way (rather than in some other way) of being "selfish" or "immoral."

If you must resort to personal arguments, save those words for people who would stand by and literally do NOTHING, not merely for those whose tactics you disagree with.

pax

[OldMarksman]

If I see someone beating an unarmed woman or kicking an unconscious guy on the ground then I'm doing something about it.

OK.

Two or three years ago a business associate of mine witnessed a neighbor striking his/her spouse with a shovel. The spouse was on the ground, apparently defenseless.

My business associate called 911. He undoubtedly felt, as I would, that he was morally obliged to do so.

The "victim" survived. The neighbors--the whole family, three generations-- then attempted to poison my friend's dogs, threatened his wife, and destroyed his lawn, and my friend had to move. Don't expect to be called a hero.

That's one reason LEOs hate domestic disturbance calls.

And that's just what that scene of someone being harmed wrongly could turn out to be.

Earlier, David Armstrong said "Personally I teach intervene when it will not put you in great danger or when the intervention will not make the problem worse, and using deadly force only when you or your family/friends are in danger of death or great harm. The legal ramifications are too great to ignore or disregard when you intervene, and there are lots of really questionable problems out there that can backfire in a minute and you end up doing time."

That is consistent with all of the qalified advice I have ever seen or heard on the subject.

I do not mean this to sound unkind, but I believe he has a whole lot more knowledge and experience than most of the people who have contributed to this thread.

I have thought a lot about what he said, and I think it's excellent advice.

Some former policeman I know won't even draw to defend friends--or so they say. Lack of morality? No. They simply understand the potential consequences.

I'm fine in leaving the person's motive between them and God as long as they stop a rape/murder/kidnapping etc.

That sounds great. But where the potential consequences come in is when what you have stopped turns out not to have been a "rape/murder/kidnapping etc.". Things are not always as they appear.

Injure one spouse or brother in what turns out to have been a most brutal domestic altercation and see how long it takes for both of them to sign a complaint and file suit against you. Stop one degenerate thug from beating another and see what it gets you. Intervene when a parent is trying to help a daughter who is in the dangerous throes of a grand mal seizure and consider the consequences, legal and moral. And remember, unless you are a sworn officer, you're entirely on your own!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Beasley - one needs to understand the motives for actions and the pros and cons. If you don't see that - we have nothing to talk about. Understanding such is not an attack on the person, sorry you don't get it.

[David Armstrong]

Don't ask rhetorical questions you don't know the answer to. To examine my giving wouldn't help your argument.

Nothing rhetorical about it. If one is going to expound on the morality of others, one should expect to be questioned about their own morality. It is very easy to talk about morality, but such talk seems a bit hollow when it is not backed up by deeds, IMO.

That's ok, according to your answer you'd be fine with dumping the women and children overboard. I think you are making my point for me.

Please don't try to put words in my mouth or atttribute positions to me I have not taken. I did not answer the question as I feel it is a poor analogy and that answering it would not be applicable to this discussion, therefore to say what I would be fine with is nothign but a wild guess on your part.

The fact is, I don't think you would do that. I think you'd intervene. If you saw someone being robbed or assualted you'd step in.

I spent a fair chunk of my life intervening as it was my job, or the potential for loss was relatively minor in comparison to the gain. Nowadays, don't count on it. I'll intervene on my terms and how I feel minimizes my loss. Nothing personal, but if the choice is you get robbed or my daughter doesn't get to have Daddy at her wedding, let's just say I plan on being in that tux.

By your statement, we should never risk ourselves to help people we dont know. To be a hero would be too risky.

Again, don't make stuff up and attribute it to me. I have not said that. In fact, I risked myself to help someone I don't know today coming home. I helped a lady change a flat on the shoulder of the interstate. She offered me $5 after it was done, but I told not to worry about it.

[KingEdward]

I've thought about it and David's one comment hit home with me.

If I stop a kidnapping or rape or worse, but I die, how does that help
my girls who are at home and need a father.

I lost my father to natural causes at the mere age of 6.

My girls losing me to unnatural causes would be a lot for me to
think about on such short notice (to act or not act for others)

which one is more morally correct?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

KingEdward - you hit the nail on the head. It is easy on the Internet to preach total sacrifice for others but the reality is that we consider consequences to ourselves and those who are close to us. We consider the outcomes and the worthiness of the person to be saved.

Which is morally correct? That will never be agreed upon. But is easy to posture.

Even in the rape scenario, our posters consider outcomes. You might take on a single rapist. Would you make a suicide charge at a gang of 15 armed terrorists if you were unarmed? Easy game to play to short circuit the absolutists.