June 7, 2005, 03:39 PM | #51 |
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? |
June 7, 2005, 04:00 PM | #52 |
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. |
June 7, 2005, 05:36 PM | #53 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 18, 2005
Posts: 3,298
|
Quote:
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.) |
|
June 8, 2005, 03:11 PM | #54 |
Member
Join Date: May 14, 2005
Posts: 49
|
Doug, I agree with you. That's kind of what I wanted to say earlier.
Thanks. |
June 9, 2005, 10:26 AM | #55 |
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. |
June 9, 2005, 12:26 PM | #56 |
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.
|
June 9, 2005, 03:05 PM | #57 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 18, 2005
Posts: 3,298
|
Quote:
|
|
June 9, 2005, 03:23 PM | #58 |
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... |
June 12, 2005, 07:12 PM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
|
Quote:
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 |
|
June 14, 2005, 04:59 PM | #60 |
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|