Good Tactics vs Ethical Dilemma Gets CHL Killed

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Don Fischer

I think the biggest problem shooting someone will have is not the shot guy but the law. law say's he or his family can sue you. That mean's a huge expense for a lawyer which you don't get back. The law allow's you to protect yourself in court,,,for a price most can't afford! If you got shot and some how stop the guy by shooting him, I suspect you can also sue him,,,for a price! So you lay out more money than you have, got to court and win your suit and the guy can't pay what you win! So your out the settlement, instead you get a piece of paper to hang on the wall that say's you won and you pay court cost's and your lawyer, pretty much you end up in the poor house and the other guy get's free room and board and health care for a number of year's in jail then get turned loose on parole for good behavior! It's not so much the bad guy to worry about as it is the system!

So ya gonna hang up your EDC and go 'naked'??
Didn't think so...
Perhaps but for the 'most' of us..if it means I might get sued protecting my 2 wee grand daughters..well, I'll take that chance..as I think most would. If I end up in the 'poor house', well, so it goes...

[OldMarksman]

I think the biggest problem shooting someone will have is not the shot guy but the law. law say's he or his family can sue you.

The law also says that the state can charge you with a crime.

The law allow's you to protect yourself in court,...

Yep.

It's not so much the bad guy to worry about as it is the system!

Are you under the impression that his is a new development?

The point is well taken that any use of force incident can result in high legal expenses, even if the actor's behavior was justified.

That's just one reason why one should consider very carefully whether to intervene in someone else's goings on.

[Lohman446]

I would suggest that if in the unfortunate use of deadly force your biggest concern is the potential financial liability you will have in fact increased your exposure the very same liability by making this known.

Any savvy lawyer is going to go through your social media history and point out you were not at all concerned that you might have to use deadly force against someone and the human costs of doing so you were only concerned about the potential civil liability concerns. Ironically this likely raises your potential liability concerns. Said lawyer is going to use your posts to attempt to paint you as some cold blooded sociopath who was only concerned about his money.

[OldMarksman]

I would suggest that if in the unfortunate use of deadly force your biggest concern is the potential financial liability you will have in fact increased your exposure the very same liability by making this known.

Why on Earth would you think that?

Any savvy lawyer is going to go through your social media history and point out you were not at all concerned that you might have to use deadly force against someone

...Something that so indicated such a thought could damaging....

....and the human costs of doing so you were only concerned about the potential civil liability concerns.

Where would "only" enter into the picture?

Ironically this likely raises your potential liability concerns. Said lawyer is going to use your posts to attempt to paint you as some cold blooded sociopath who was only concerned about his money.

I cannot see how evidence a realistic concern about money could ever be used to characterize anyone as a "cold blooded psychopath", or even as someone who might engage in any use of force incident absent immediate necessity.

There are a number of ways in which prosecutors and plaintiffs might ty to say that prior statements by the actor might go to state of mind, but I really do not think that this is one of them, by any stretch.

[HiBC]

I went back and read the OP again. The question is ethics vs tactics.

Which reminds me of the old adage "If you find yourself in a fair fight,your tactics suck"

I just don't see framing the question as "Tactics vs ethics". An ambush ,a sniper shot,or a Claymore with a trip wire might be excellent tactics.
And someone might question whether those tactics were "sporting"

When you end up dead ….your tactics may well be you did the best you could and it did not work out,but generally speaking if you end up dead your tactics are subject to critical review.There might have been a better choice,in hindsight.

Another old adage is that "Many critical decisions must be made with inadequate information"

What are the "Ethics" of your spouse and kids receiving the news that you were killed in a shootout?

[Don Fischer]

If your in fair fight, your tactic's suck! No truer words ever spoken!

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by HiBC

I went back and read the OP again. The question is ethics vs tactics.

Actually, the title of the thread is "Good Tactics vs Ethical Dilemma Gets CHL Killed." In my opinion, the title is flawed, because the good guy with a gun was killed. That tells me that he did not exercise good tactics.

The underlying question in the opening post was: "I am curious about what other alternatives would seem a good idea, other than rushing in to the shop trying to take down two armed gun men Lone Ranger Style. These can range from running away to all kinds of other things."

I don't know what "all kinds of other things" is supposed to mean. I don't see a lot of alternatives.

• Enter the barber shop and confront the robbers
• Leave the scene ("run away")
• Stay outside and call the cops

What else is there?

I also don't see it as an ethical "dilemma." It's a choice, for certain. But a dilemma IMHO raises the bar from a choice to a choice that has no easy answer. But the issue is ethics, and that's intensely personal and subjective to begin with. One man's choice is another man's "dilemma," while a third person might have an ethical framework that automatically dictates his actions -- no choice or dilemma at all.

My question would be how the good guy went into the barber shop. Did he announce himself and demand that the robbers drop their guns? If so, that's bad tactics. If someone is using a firearm to commit a felony, the law allows us to use deadly force to defend ourselves and to defend innocent third parties. This isn't High Noon and the good guy wasn't Gary Cooper. Police officers may be required to order perpetrators to drop their weapons before the cop(s) can open fire. I don't think private citizens are under any such constraint.

As has been pointed out: "If you're in fair fight, your tactics suck!"

[MTT TL]

I also don't see it as an ethical "dilemma." It's a choice, for certain. But a dilemma IMHO raises the bar from a choice to a choice that has no easy answer.

His initial tactics of compliance when dealing with armed gunmen were successful. Had he then fled the area he likely would still be alive. These are good tactics.

The ethical dilemma was to intervene or not in the subsequent robbery and shooting.

Tactically it makes no sense to intervene. Ethically most people are not inclined to put the welfare of others above their own. Some people may see a duty to defend the lives of friends, neighbors and even strangers at risk to their own life but this is hardly a uniform or even predominant viewpoint. I would venture it is a minority viewpoint based upon what actually happens in society. Certainly we have plenty of examples ranging from Kitty Genovese (while admitted flawed and exaggerated there were large elements of truth to the story) to more modern examples.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-...pe-do-nothing/

What else is there?

That is the question. I am looking an outside the box type solution. Nothing particular in mind, just something more than what has come up so far. We have the wonderous benefit of hindsight to assist.

[Don Fischer]

I think pretty much the best thing to do is nothing. You can run in and try to stop it and in the process get some people shot including yourself. You were never in danger at the beginning, you put yourself there! So you can simply leave, your not obligated to help someone else. Or you can stay back and simply watch till the cops get there and then you are an eye witness to what has happened. My only obligation is to my family and very close friends. Not to someone else especially someone else that has chosen not to arm themselves. Dead hero's can't take their kids fishing!

[OldMarksman]

Some people may see a duty to defend the lives of friends, neighbors and even strangers at risk to their own life but ....

Yes, some people do so state.

They would be wise to reflect upon the fact that no one will see or act upon a "duty" to pay for their legal expenses and medical and rehabilitation expenses, or to compensate them for loss of income.

That's because no such "duty" exists.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

Yes, some people do so state.

They would be wise to reflect upon the fact that no one will see or act upon a "duty" to pay for their legal expenses and medical and rehabilitation expenses, or to compensate them for loss of income.

That's because no such "duty" exists.

No such duty exists in law. I think it's clear from the context that the statement "Some people may see a duty to defend the lives of friends, neighbors and even strangers at risk to their own life but ..." that the writer was referring to a perceived moral imperative. A moral imperative is generally considered to be equivalent to a "duty." Not a duty imposed by man-made law, but a duty imposed by the person's religious/moral code.

Clearly, not everyone shares such a strict moral code, but that doesn't mean we should pretend that it doesn't exist, nor should we ridicule it if/when we encounter someone who lives by such a moral code.

[OldMarksman]

a moral imperative is generally considered to be equivalent to a "duty." Not a duty imposed by man-made law, but a duty imposed by the person's religious/moral code.

Clearly, not everyone shares such a strict moral code, but that doesn't mean we should pretend that it doesn't exist, nor should we ridicule it if/when we encounter someone who lives by such a moral code.

I was pointing out that others have no duty to compensate the actor for his expenses and losses.

[USNRet93]

My only obligation is to my family and very close friends.

I agree with that.

Not to someone else especially someone else that has chosen not to arm themselves.

How about the 'very close friend' who chooses not to arm themselves?

[Don Fischer]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

I agree with that.

How about the 'very close friend' who chooses not to arm themselves?

If you don't choose to help the very close friend that choose's not to arm himself/herself, they are not a very close friend! A close friend is somewhat different that just another guy on the street.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Don Fischer

If you don't choose to help the very close friend that choose's not to arm himself/herself, they are not a very close friend! A close friend is somewhat different that just another guy on the street.

I was talking mostly in jest. I have many close friends who choose not to be armed, most in fact. Making that personal choice does not make them any less a friend. And if with them, they along with me being threatened, yes, I will respond with force.

[Brit]

In reading the whole blog! It seems like the average response is, I am not sure? As me being on my own? Is not a normal state, at home in Florida, my wife and I (I quote, are joined at the hip!) and the only walking we do, is to and fro, between the Jeep and back to the parking lot.

Now visiting my wife's youngest son, his wife, and two little munchkins! In CA.
A suburb of Sacramento. Not armed, guns at home. A razor-sharp $265 knife a Benchmade, a present from my son. In pocket. And my City Stick, cane.
Do not envisage any response to a scene, such has been dissected, from pillar to post, for 5 pages.

Now back at home, I would be quite likely, accompanied by my wife of 26 years, seeing all the shenanigans described in the previous pages. I am retreating to the Jeep. Putting more distance between us and the barber's shop, and calling 911. Who I am, where I am, name of Barbers shop.
The best description of what I had seen. Act on advice given. Or not!

I would be armed. In a marked Security vehicle. My Sons Company.
Give updates. Real easy to what if this scenario, to bits, behind a laptop yes?

[Don Fischer]

I don't think any of us really know's what we'll do in some situation where we may need a gun. For myself. I learned to avoid situations but I suspect even that is no guarantee. Actually it's easiest to simply stay out of suspect area's but there are time's when the bad guy's do come into areas you wouldn't expect to see them.What to do? Your not gonna know till it happen's!