The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 7, 2005, 03:39 PM   #51
6shooter
Member
 
Join Date: May 14, 2005
Posts: 49
^
Spoken like a true lawman. Every policeman I know has this same way of thinking. What ever happened to protect and serve? We are all suppose to protect and serve (so to speak) each other out of common decency.
I wonder what happened to honour?
6shooter is offline  
Old June 7, 2005, 04:00 PM   #52
Z_Infidel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2002
Posts: 117
The mall scenario brought up earlier would truly be a nightmare. I think in cases where a bad guy is threatening your life or that of one or two other persons then the "go/no go" decision on whether to shoot should be "no" if a strong possibility exists of hitting a bystander -- in other words, don't shoot. However, in a case where many people are in danger of being killed in a few moments' time if you don't shoot then it becomes a more difficult position to be in. Consider two of the possible outcomes: you shoot, killing the attacker and hit a bystander. You probably saved the lives of several people including the bystander if he/she survives your shot. Or, you manage the locational awareness to notice innocent bystanders beyond the attacker and decide to not take the shot and attempt to seek a better position behind cover or somewhere that might afford a shot that won't endanger anyone else. While you are doing this, five people are shot to death -- perhaps including one of the bystanders you noticed before.

Which decision makes you more responsible for the loss of life?

True, the attacker is guilty and responsible for anyone he/she shoots. But which decision is more justifiable on your part? I hope to God I'm never in that position.

By the way, I agree that you will most likely be held liable - at least in a civil suit - if you shoot a bystander in an attempt to stop the attacker regardless of your intentions.
Z_Infidel is offline  
Old June 7, 2005, 05:36 PM   #53
Doug.38PR
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 18, 2005
Posts: 3,298
Quote:
Spoken like a true lawman. Every policeman I know has this same way of thinking. What ever happened to protect and serve? We are all suppose to protect and serve (so to speak) each other out of common decency.
I agree with you. I think the popular slogan "To protect and serve" is actually just that, an abstract feelgood slogan for "public relations." The fact is police cannot, nor were they originally mean't to "protect and serve." If the police's job was to protect you then effectively you would have to have a policeman next to you 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Obviously not possible. Police forces didn't even exist until the 1850s anywhere in the world. The purpose of police originally was not to protect people or to "prevent crime" but to solve crime. Catch the criminal.
It used to be we relied on sheriff or constables to do this who would, if needed, deputize a posse or group of ARMED citizens to aid in this. Then large northern cities got the idea to hire full time policemen to do this. Gradually we have come to a line of thinking that it's the police's job to protect us. I'll never forget the later Dragnet Episode in the early 70s when Friday and Gannon were on a radio show doing a Question/Answer session and this man walks up to the microphone and (he is of course wild eyed, paranoid and crazy) screams "WHY DO WE NEED GUN CONTROL I GOTTA PROTECT MY FAMILY....BLAH BLAH BLAH!"
Bill Gannon responds, "Well Sir, if you have time to get to a gun, you've got time to get to a phone and call us."
I guess in theory, while the police are on their way, in the meantime the guy is supposed to throw the phone at the criminal I like the reverse saying, like one other poster in this forum says (I can't remember who it is) "A gun in the hand, beats a cop on the phone"
I like watching the old Jack Webb tv shows like Dragnet 1950s and 1960s-70s and especially the spinoff series Adam-12 in their efforts to portray the real everyday experience of the police but in trying to be pro-Police, Webb after the 1960s, started getting a little anti-gun along with it....although he was FAR more conservative minded than most hollywood types. BTW, TV Land needs to bring back Adam-12

Like you said we are all supposed to protect and serve just out of common decency. We are all in this community together. Just like when you pass the scene of an accident, even if your not involved, you stop to see if you can help. In the same sense we are all policemen in the sense that if you carry a weapon or some other means to help during a crisis you just as a matter of fact are going to need to help others if for no other reason that you are in danger just like everyone else. Your not going out looking "to save the world" for glory. Your not looking to be a hero. Sgt. York and Audie Murphy weren't looking to "save the world," they just did what they had to do during a needed situation. You will either freeze up scared or you will just do what has to be done in the moment by God's grace. I'd hate to be faced with that either, but if it ever came, I'd l pray that I'd do the right thing.

Personally, I think we'd be better off if everyone was armed who was comfortable with a gun. The odds would be better during such a crisis and the crisis would be far less likely to happen if the criminal knew this and fewer lives would be lost. (Granted there are no doubt a lot of NRA people that would find that last sentence extreme, having visions of massive shootouts in Dodge City in Errol Flynn movies. But it's just my feelings on the matter. I am for absolutely NO gun control.)
Doug.38PR is offline  
Old June 8, 2005, 03:11 PM   #54
6shooter
Member
 
Join Date: May 14, 2005
Posts: 49
Doug, I agree with you. That's kind of what I wanted to say earlier.
Thanks.
6shooter is offline  
Old June 9, 2005, 10:26 AM   #55
MEDDAC19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2005
Location: Endless Mts,NEPA
Posts: 379
Thanks guys, for all the good responses. It seems that the general consensus is not to hesitate if it is loved ones, and unfortunately, to be very careful when helping out your fellow man. It is sad that we must stop first, and consider all the possible legal ramifications when we should be able to give aid freely. It is a shame that our society has become so litigious that we would stand down when someone is in danger or being killed. I find it very disheartening that we have to even think, let him/her get robbed, mugged, raped, because there is a lawyer waiting to file a law suit. Do any/many of you feel the same way that I do? There should be some form of Good Samaritan law to protect us if we step up and do the right thing, help our brother on the street. As was said in some posts if you are acting within reason and not just sprayin' an prayin', the laws should then protect the law abider, not the law breaker.

Last edited by MEDDAC19; June 9, 2005 at 06:11 PM.
MEDDAC19 is offline  
Old June 9, 2005, 12:26 PM   #56
Z_Infidel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2002
Posts: 117
But I'm not sure it's always that simple -- which is what I was getting at in my previous post. If you shoot to protect the life of the person next to you while another innocent party is standing beyond the target, I'm not sure that is a responsible action. On the other hand, if you shoot to save the lives of several people and in doing so endanger the life of one person, then it could be justified -- it will depend on how the potential criminal and civil courts view the situation. It might come down to: Yes, the guy's intentions were good but should he have taken different action that would not have resulted in the death/injury of this innocent third party? The question is, do the ends justify the means? I think it should by necessity be judged on a case by case basis.
Z_Infidel is offline  
Old June 9, 2005, 03:05 PM   #57
Doug.38PR
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 18, 2005
Posts: 3,298
Quote:
But I'm not sure it's always that simple -- which is what I was getting at in my previous post. If you shoot to protect the life of the person next to you while another innocent party is standing beyond the target, I'm not sure that is a responsible action. On the other hand, if you shoot to save the lives of several people and in doing so endanger the life of one person, then it could be justified -- it will depend on how the potential criminal and civil courts view the situation. It might come down to: Yes, the guy's intentions were good but should he have taken different action that would not have resulted in the death/injury of this innocent third party? The question is, do the ends justify the means? I think it should by necessity be judged on a case by case basis.
Honestly, I believe it is that simple. In the case you cite. 1) The bullet will probably not overpenetrate into the other person. The gun from the bad guy will DEFINATELY penetrate into you and everyone else there. He is the cause of all trouble, he needs to be stopped. 2) You want to try to be careful and hitting other people, you don't want to be reckless, however realistically, while trying to do that, you have a decision to make usually more on instinct than taking a few seconds to think about "what if ____ or what if _____". In a case like that you probably won't even have 2 two seconds to think. If you hesitate you and more people are definately going to die. Again, like the other poster said, there should be a Good Samaritan law (so to speak) that protects the good guys from suit and charges in these cases. There is a difference between recklessness (spraying and praying) and taking risks like shooting someone with possibly an innocent on the other side of your target. You can always do alot of "what ifs" but Bottom line: THE BAD GUY should be held responsible for all deaths that occur except for cases of obvious recklessness.
Doug.38PR is offline  
Old June 9, 2005, 03:23 PM   #58
Sulaco2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,247
Who pays?

In Washington State the courts have trended to hold the felon accountable for all outcomes unless there is proof of neg conduct and use the reasonable man standard for both LE and cits. This has resulted in life sents. for crims. that killed while fleeing in a car from police for example. That does not stop the civil suits for damages against both however...

I would like to turn this around slightly and mention that there is case law for LE now that makes us liable for NOT taking action including shooting in civil court. This will no doubt be extended in time to those that were there but did nothing.

As to Davids comment about not saving the world he is living in the real world of blue state courts and cop hating media. I have been doing it for 27 years and even think hard before doing anything anymore. Mores the pity but the is the real world we have let get to this point...
Sulaco2 is offline  
Old June 12, 2005, 07:12 PM   #59
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
Quote:
It's not really what the law says that I question, it's the fact that it says it that scares me. I maintain that these are frivilous charges (and I don't deny that they happen and are on the books, I understand that) based on subjective law and frivilous civil cases.

1) As I define negligence, it is a negative consequence of an action resulting from CARELESSNESS. The senario I describe is not carelessness, it is simply a matter of having to take the shot. In other words, the shot has to be taken, there is not choice, there is good and reasonable chance of taking him down at close range.
It is not frivilous if you shoot a 3rd party non-combatant in Texas even though you felt you needed to use lethal force against another individual. Charging you for shooting the wrong person is not frivolous either. If you kill that innocent 3rd party person, you won't be charged with murder, but you will be charged with manslaughter. You may consider it frivolous and I am sure being someone's homegirl in prison wont' be frivolous either

The situation does not cause you to take a shot. You always have a choice and when you make that choice, then you get the consequences that go with it. That should have been covered explicitly in your CHL class. You are responsible for every round you fire down range, be it at the public range where you practice or in a gun fight.

If you shoot an innocent 3rd party in the use of lethal force where you may be justified in the use of lethal force, that is both carelessness and negligence. It is careless of you shoot the wrong person and by your definition, that would make it negligent. Even so, your definition of what is or is not negligent doesn't apply to Texas law.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old June 14, 2005, 04:59 PM   #60
John28226
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 292
Wondering

I am new to this site, so forgive me if the moderators screen it without my knowledge, but I read these postings and am torn between saying we should all thank RWK and Double Naught Spy for some free legal advise and saying that this is the Internet where 40 year old men who have "less than honorable intentions" pose as teenagers. While it is good to think about what you would do, even play the "what if" game, it might be prudent to ask such questions of a good attorney IN YOUR HOME JURISDICTION. Carry a gun or not, we should always be aware of our surroundings and teach our family the same thing; your wife should have an escape plan from her vehicle in case a BG graps her door and tells her to "move over". I think the question was, "can you use your gun?" but was it a legal question or was it the same type of question the instructor posed the first night of our law enforcement training, "in defense of your partner, another officer or a civilian, can you take a human life? If not leave now." Several people did.
And I tend to wonder if Spy is really telling us something about his intentions on a pro-gun site? Just me, I guess, but suspicion is part of my job and my nature.

Thanks for the information, anyway.
John
Charlotte, NC
John28226 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.04929 seconds with 8 queries