In defense of others

[Xrayeyes]

To BikerRN,
I understand and concur with your belief to analyze every situation and act accordingly, but to put women and men on an equal level in an "assault" situation, just because of equal pay, doesn't make sense to me.

If I were being assaulted by a 250 pound man outside a bar, I can understand you would think long and hard about intervening, not knowing the situation. But, I guess I would like to hear you say that you would at least THINK about it.

On the other hand, I bet most people in your situation that saw two 250 pound men having it out outside that very bar, wouldn't take a SECOND look and walk away...

[BikerRN]

Xrayeyes,

The point I was trying to make, poorly I might add, is that I treat everyone the same, or at least try to.

Women are already given significant latitude and legal advantages in the judicial system when it comes to the standard of "reasonable fear" in my opinion. I base part of my beliefs on a 70+ y/o lady trying to stab me with an 8" blade and having to use my BUG to diffuse the situation.

Male, female or martian, I care not. I'm an Ahole to everyone until you prove you're not. Just like I treat everyone as a threat, because you are. I will be as nice as you let me be, but don't be suprised if you don't feel all warm and fuzzy when we are done.

Biker

[Creature]

Now change the circumstances to a pregnant woman. Or how about a pre-teen or teenage girl...does that change anything for you?

[BikerRN]

Nope.

I try to treat everybody equally.

Biker

[beasley]

Guys, this issue is one of morality. You guys are towing the line for a utilitarian ethic as opposed to an absolute sense of right and wrong. Work out your thinking to its logical conclusion. By the standard being set, no one helps anyone if there is any risk to themselves. Again, our country was not set up to be a police state. If we had enough LEO to stop every crime we would end up giving up much of the bill of rights and end up in a 1984 situation. We are supposed to take care of ourselves and our neighbors. Our founding fathers got this from a story in an old book referred to as the parable of the good samaritan. LEOs military sacrifice to help others everyday. Why do we believe that the average citizen shouldn't do the same? I think we should. I agree with you guys that we should be careful and know whats happening in the situation (undercover cops etc). But to not intervene (in whatever way we can, different people have different abilities) when we do know is wrong.

[beasley]

1. I think you missed my point about the "rhetorical question". My point is, you don't know what I give so it cannot make your point.

2. If you think my "sinking boat" analogy isn't good then point out where you disagree with it.

3. I can understand your view when it comes to a non-violent robbery. I'm talking more about violent crimes where people lives may be threatened.

[OldMarksman]

Guys, this issue is one of morality. You guys are towing the line for a utilitarian ethic as opposed to an absolute sense of right and wrong.

I'm talking more about violent crimes where people lives may be threatened.

Beasley, you are still assuming that you are omniscient enough to know what is happening when you see people interacting.

If you interfere with a person aiding someone having a medical emergency--say a grand map seizure or choking--is that an act of morality or a bumbling act that results in an a very undesirable outcome, morally and otherwise?

If you prevent an undercover agent from preventing a suspect from destroying vital evidence, is that an act of morality or a bumbling act that results in an a very undesirable outcome, morally and otherwise?

If you cause the escape of someone whose immediate sequestration may have been vital to saving the life of a kidnap victim, is that an act of morality or a bumbling act that results in an a very undesirable outcome, morally and otherwise?

If your intervention in any situation results in a death or serious injury (to either one of the persons into whose affair you were entering or to an innocent third party) that would not have occurred but for you actions, what great morality have you brought about?

If what you have come upon is really a domestic disturbance, no matter how violent it appears, and both parties sue you, are you than a moral hero?

No, it's not just your safety, health, life, record, fortune, and personal freedom that you risk by intervening.

But: if you have family to support and you are unable to do so because of injury, loss of fortune, or loss of personal freedom, is that a moral outcome?

I agree with you guys that we should be careful and know whats happening in the situation (undercover cops etc).

And just how would you propose to know that, unless the victim is someone you know extremely well? Has it occurred to you that the LEOs and former LEOs who advise extreme caution may not be as "immoral" as you seem to think, but simply a whole lot more experienced, more knowledgeable, wiser, and more mature than you are?

And how about the attorneys? I've known too many people who have chosen to ignore the advice of attorneys and have rued the day for a long time afterwards.

However, if you do believe that it is your God-given duty to try to do risky things that may be quite moral, but that may prove harmful to others (including your family) or to yourself if you muck them up, might I suggest joining the police academy? That will provide you with the training, department procedures, tools, dispatcher network, and back-up to better enable you to carry out the deed correctly and without causing undue harm, along with indemnification, should it prove necessary.

[beasley]

I understand your caution. The situations where it's hard to tell what's happening (undercover cops etc) are not so common as actual crime. Joining the police doesn't solve the problem because (as Mas Ayoob says) police aren't there (primarily) for crime prevention. The constitution leaves that in the hands of the people.

[BikerRN]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand your caution. The situations where it's hard to tell what's happening (undercover cops etc) are not so common as actual crime. Joining the police doesn't solve the problem because (as Mas Ayoob says) police aren't there (primarily) for crime prevention. The constitution leaves that in the hands of the people.

So if the Police aren't there why should you assume responsibility for someone that chose not to assume that responsibility for themselves?

Aren't you being a bit presumptuous by assuming risk for them that they themselves were unwilling to assume?

Biker

[pax]

Again, the moral question is whether or not to intervene, and as far as I can tell, we are ALL agreed on that point. We all intervene, because we're all That Kind of Person. We don't walk away.

The practical question is how to intervene, and that's all we're really discussing. Do we intervene by calling for professional assistance with problems too large or too confused for a single person to solve (just as those very professionals do themselves when they come upon such a situation)? Or do we intervene by jumping in headlong, and thus risk becoming part of the problem rather than part of the solution?

Neither of these two choices -- which are both intervening to help solve the problem -- is "more moral" than the other. But one of them is decidedly more realistic and more practical than the other.

pax

[BikerRN]

Thanks for clarrifying that Pax.

Yes, I do intervene, but the question is how.

I've already decided the "how", as you may sumise.

Biker

[br1dge]

I don't think this has been pointed out, but in the case where you saw a situation that provoked you to draw your weapon... If you do NOT fire, I would be afraid of the potential risks to me and my family by the BG. What if they see my work badge or company logo on shirt, or otherwise make a determination to who I am or where I live.. Did I just put my whole family at risk down the road when they come to get revenge? Similar to how I would feel if I experienced a home invasion, and shot, but did not kill the intruder. While I can't begin to think like a felonious BG, I have to think that maiming (or even threatening to,) would create the basis for a major grudge..

I am with those who have suggested to only draw if you are "about to die," then make sure the perp meets that fate instead.

[glock06]

Great thread-
Curious to know what others think about exactly when to intervene if you are armed with a concealed weapon are watching and at exactly what step you would intervene--

1)You see a suspicious character at the mall and watch him--
What are your actions?
2)He moves or turns and you see a real, not fake gun--
What are your actions?
3)He takes the gun out and displays the gun--
What are your actions?
4)He points the gun at someone--
What are your actions?
5)You see him shoot!!
What are your actions?
6)You see him shoot a person--
What are your actions?
7) You see many persons injured by gunfire--
What are your actions?
8)You see him turning and aiming at you--
What are your actions?

At what exact step would others propose a level of threat great enough to draw, and shoot to neutralize this threat?? Anyone, please clarify when legally justified vs morally justified.

[OldMarksman]

Curious to know what others think about exactly when to intervene if you are armed with a concealed weapon are watching and at exactly what step you would intervene--

1)You see a suspicious character at the mall and watch him--
What are your actions?
2)He moves or turns and you see a real, not fake gun--
What are your actions?
3)He takes the gun out and displays the gun--
What are your actions?
4)He points the gun at someone--
What are your actions?
5)You see him shoot!!
What are your actions?
6)You see him shoot a person--
What are your actions?
7) You see many persons injured by gunfire--
What are your actions?
8)You see him turning and aiming at you--
What are your actions?

At what exact step would others propose a level of threat great enough to draw, and shoot to neutralize this threat??

My first action would be to try to get away, fast, by the time the gun has been produced.

I will point out that in items one through six, one would likely not be able to determine with even the slightest degree of certainty that the alleged "suspicious person" is not an undercover sworn officer or armed security guard who is himself engaged in "neutralizing a threat." And no, you cannot tell by garb, hair style, or belt line.

Should I still be in the line of sight upon the occurrence of item 7 and reasonably sure of a clean shot that would not have the likelihood of making things worse, I might fire at the subject. For item 8, I would only fire if escape were impossible--which, by the way, is required by law in my state.

Anyone, please clarify when legally justified vs morally justified.

I presume that you expect everyone to have first answered Marty Hayes' question in Post 94:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...6&postcount=94

For all of you pontificating on this subject, answer this question please.

Are you in a jurisdiction where you "stand in the shoes" of the 3rd party you are purportingly defending, or are you in a jurisdiction where you must simply "act like a reasonable person" when coming to the defense of another?

If you cannot answer this question, then I submit you had better spend some time researching this topic, because to get the answer wrong, means perhaps a long time in prison.

Your question is a good one.

Here's one to consider that's a little different: You see a person walking toward an occupied out door eating place or into the foyer of a hotel lobby. He stops, takes out a 750ML bottle containing fluid, pours some of the fluid onto a rag, stuffs the rag into the bottle, and ignites the rag. There's no chance that he is engaged in lawful conduct, right? What would you do?

[markj]

Action depends on all the circumstances, not just what the BG is doing. My first reaction is to ensure the safety of my family and to not get shot again. It hurts bad and death does no one any good.

Here in Omaha at Von Maur, one man stood up to the shooter, the shooter shot him then turned the weapon on himself ending the spree. I do not see this as a "I am a hero" type of thing, he was unarmed but still tried to intervene.

Another way to look at it, everyone can and should get a CCW and the training needed to protect themselves. Never rely on another for your own safety. Then everyone is responsible for themselves, if not then sorry charlie.?

[David Armstrong]

. I think you missed my point about the "rhetorical question". My point is, you don't know what I give so it cannot make your point.

Sure it can, and I think I did.

If you think my "sinking boat" analogy isn't good then point out where you disagree with it.

Actually, somebody else argued the analogy wasn't good, but I tend to agree with them. I disagree with it because it causes you to actively place someone else in harms way (probable death) for your own well-being. You will have been the instigator of the harm.

I can understand your view when it comes to a non-violent robbery. I'm talking more about violent crimes where people lives may be threatened.

OK. I don't see any real difference for purposes of intervention.

By the standard being set, no one helps anyone if there is any risk to themselves.

Nope. By the standard being set, one gets to determine the potential cost versus the potential gain, and then make a determination as to what they feel is best. Sometimes the risk may be worthwhile, sometimes it may not. I did things when I was carefree and single that I will not do not that others depend on me. I simply reject any arbitrary morality that says I should risk the well-being of my loved ones and thier future for the well-being of someone else and their future.

[raimius]

Great thread-
Curious to know what others think about exactly when to intervene if you are armed with a concealed weapon are watching and at exactly what step you would intervene--

1)You see a suspicious character at the mall and watch him--
What are your actions?
2)He moves or turns and you see a real, not fake gun--
What are your actions?
3)He takes the gun out and displays the gun--
What are your actions?
4)He points the gun at someone--
What are your actions?
5)You see him shoot!!
What are your actions?
6)You see him shoot a person--
What are your actions?
7) You see many persons injured by gunfire--
What are your actions?
8)You see him turning and aiming at you--
What are your actions?

1. I would watch, and depending on how suspicious the character looked and the duration of time I might
A. Leave
B. Notify security
C. Move to a more "tactical position" and continue to watch.
D. Decide they are not a threat and continue my business.

2. Again, time dependent
A. Leave and notify security
B. Try to find ANY exit
C. If unable to leave, try to find cover/better position.
(Also pre-positioning my cover garments for easier access to my pistol)

3. (Hand moves to gun, if they are not watching me)
A. LEAVE NOW
B. Find Cover
C. Find a better position
D. Don't attract attention!
E. Try to notify security/PD
If the gun has not been pointed at anyone/no threats made, I would likely NOT escalate by confronting them.

4. (Gun leaves the holster)
A. I get VERY loud and command them to stop, with gun aimed at them.
B. (I'm in their line of sight, but my gun is not) I wait.
C. ??? Situationally dependent...

5. (Assuming they have not Identified themselves as PD/told someone to stop being agressive, etc)
All bets are off! They have used lethal force without IDing themselves, and I already thought they were suspicious. I draw and fire, move to a position to fire, or DIVE to cover/exit. Same for the rest.
My priorities are to either escape or stop the threat, notify help (LEOs/Paramedics), and provide any assistance I can (first aid, coordination, etc).

[David Armstrong]

1)You see a suspicious character at the mall and watch him--
What are your actions?
Stop watching him and look for something more attractive or interesting.
2)He moves or turns and you see a real, not fake gun--
What are your actions?
Go someplace else.
3)He takes the gun out and displays the gun--
What are your actions?
Go someplace else.
4)He points the gun at someone--
What are your actions?
Yell "Hey, you might want to go someplace else before you get shot!"
5)You see him shoot!!
What are your actions?
Go someplace else quickly.
6)You see him shoot a person--
What are your actions?
Go someplace else and get a medic.
7) You see many persons injured by gunfire--
What are your actions?
Go someplace else and get a bunch of medics.
8)You see him turning and aiming at you--
What are your actions?
Kill him.

[glock06]

What are others beliefs of commensurate levels of force when dealing with such a threat??

I hope others would agree about the concept of escalation to similar levels of action and finally to lethal action when no alternatives exists.Yes, we are talking theory here when the real world can go warp speed in a blink.

If the threat produces a gun and you might be endangered, you should logically have the right to equal his level of force given no better alternatives.
Granted you may need to observe and "disguise" your firearm somewhat by drawing it and holding it down at a low ready position if he is waiving his gun around unless he points his gun at someone. It would seem logical that you could bring your firearm to some type of ready position from being holstered for number 3&4.

If he obviously suddenly shoots an obvious innocent(unarmed female, etc)ie, #6), then lethal intervention may be indicated by a MORAL, not legal standard. Hopefully your perception is reality.Agree or disagree??

As I understand it a wacko can shoot everyone in sight and you have no legal requirement to intervene even if you are armed.Only when you feel personally endangered (#8), can you act with lethal force and be in true compliance of the law.

Is this right or totally off base, guys?

[supergas452M]

If I find myself in a situation where I can save lives by immediate, aggressive and violent response to a BG, I'm going to do everything in my power to take the BG out. I'm not going to run, hide (well I probably would take cover), call medics or hope the BG runs out of ammo by the time he gets to my turn to be shot.

I will take appropriate actions to not be shot but running while innocent people are being shot and I have a chance to stop the shooter is not in my makeup.

YMMV

[David Armstrong]

As I understand it a wacko can shoot everyone in sight and you have no legal requirement to intervene even if you are armed.Only when you feel personally endangered (#8), can you act with lethal force and be in true compliance of the law.
Is this right or totally off base, guys?

It depends. Certainly there is no legal requirement to intervene. However, there are a number of states, perhaps even a majority, that allow what is commonly called "3rd party intervention" which does allow you to use force, including deadly force, to save another person.

[supergas452M]

Even though, by your own admission, if it endangered your own life and your ability to return to take care of your family, you would run away and call the ambulances.

[Brit]

1)You see a suspicious character at the mall and watch him--
What are your actions?

My local Publix has a great customer base, these customers just shop, quite a while ago three not your normal type of customer hove into view.

No basket, no cart, walking around the produce area, looking at people, I was on my own, stepped away from my cart, and took notice. They stopped and looked at me, and at two other men who had more or less mirrored my actions, they turned and walked right out. Do rags on head, pants falling off, one with a hood on?

First and last time I saw that. That was in the afternoon.

What would I have done, what if? No idea, they just did not fit in, thought watching them was better than not.

[David Armstrong]

Even though, by your own admission, if it endangered your own life and your ability to return to take care of your family, you would run away and call the ambulances.

I have admitted no such thing! Nowhere will you find that I have said I would run away from anything! A nice brisk walk is usually quite sufficient and minimizes the loss of your resources.

[OldMarksman]

As I understand it a wacko can shoot everyone in sight and you have no legal requirement to intervene even if you are armed.

I believe that's true.

And I think that's a good thing. How would you like to be liable for damages to each person struck before you were able to stop the killing? I understand that the courts have held that the state would not be liable, so why should you?

Only when you feel personally endangered (#8), can you act with lethal force and be in true compliance of the law.

I do not believe that's true in most places. But--one more time--you need to do some checking:

Originally posted by Marty Hayes:

For all of you pontificating on this subject, answer this question please.

Are you in a jurisdiction where you "stand in the shoes" of the 3rd party you are purportingly defending, or are you in a jurisdiction where you must simply "act like a reasonable person" when coming to the defense of another?

If you cannot answer this question, then I submit you had better spend some time researching this topic, because to get the answer wrong, means perhaps a long time in prison.