Get involved or not - here we go again

skidmark · July 1, 2010, 06:38 AM

All the what-if scenarios that manage to get posted boil down to a question of whether or not to get involved.

There is never going to be an end to the question of should you or shouldn't you get involved.

But there are a few things that can help decide. Gabe Suarez has a few comments that struck a chord with me - not that I agree with everything he has to say, but he does say it better than I've read in many other places.

Check it out: http://www.warriortalknews.com/2010/...t-away.html#tp

If nothing else, I'm taking away "think with your brain, not with your sword".

stay safe.

CWPinSC · July 1, 2010, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Unless the bad guys have targeted you and them specifically, go on your way. Whatever is happening is none of your business. Certainly, call 911, but leave and keep them safe. Sorry to sound “cowardly” but anyone who says they will risk their family to save someone else’s money is a fool.

Most excellent! Each situation must be evaluated on its own particular merits. My first, ONLY absolute responsibility is to myself and my family. Anything else is way down the list. Carrying a gun doesn't make me a cop and gives me absolutely NO police rights and responsibilities. As he said several times, it ain't my business.

Simply determining who's the bad guy in some scenarios is difficult in the seconds you have to react or not react. Is the man punching a woman in the face a wife beater or is he defending himself from a prostitute's knife attack? Is the scruffy young man holding a business-suited man at snub-nose gunpoint in an alley a mugger or an undercover cop making a drug bust? Two men coming to blows over a heated argument - where is the fault? Who do you shoot? Is a man dragging a kicking, screaming child into a car a molester/kidnapper or the child's father attempting to deal with an unruly brat?

We carry guns for defense of our or our families lives - nothing else.

DiscoRacing · July 1, 2010, 06:58 AM

Quote:

We carry guns for defense of our or our families lives - nothing else

BINGO

old bear · July 1, 2010, 09:47 AM

Mr. Suarez makes very good sense. The only thing I would add, IMHO, the cell phone and the ability to retreat are two of the most important defense tools available today.

JonnyP · July 1, 2010, 09:59 AM

The link provided the best advice I've read yet.

BlueTrain · July 1, 2010, 10:23 AM

I keep reading everywhere that everyone is supposed to take responsibility for their own safety, which means them, not you--or me.

Skans · July 1, 2010, 12:48 PM

I thought that was a good read. It basically restates what I believe anyway.

I might add that if I am within 5-10 feet of an armed robber in the act of robbing lets say a Subway sandwich shop, I'm probably going to take action. At that distance, I feel that my life as well as others around me are in danger. But, other than that....well, that's why they call it a "free" country - other people are as free as I am to arm and protect themselves.

markj · July 1, 2010, 03:42 PM

Good article, every one that uses a gun in any way should read this.

chrisbarcelo · July 1, 2010, 09:16 PM

Only if my life or my family is in danger. When I was not yet retired from the Philippine military, yes I will get involve. But now, having a semi deaf ear and a limp to boot, Id rather let the local police do it.

Indy_Guy_77 · July 2, 2010, 10:35 AM

Personally, I think it's still all situationally dependent.

Guy goes on a murderous rampage at the mall with an AK-style rifle and walks near enough to me for me to do something...and I don't? ol' boy's probably going to kill/wound a dozen+ people.

If I were to somehow be able to intervene without any MORE risk to the woman who's at the top of my Priority List...then I think that I may very well be morally compelled.

#1) Wife
#2) me
#3) kids (when we have them)
#4) others as depending on the situation

sakeneko · July 2, 2010, 11:29 AM

Suarez makes sense. He isn't telling people not to intervene to help others, but to show some good judgement and good sense about when to do so. IMHO he's right about intervening in a violent situation where you risk getting shot when you've got unarmed/unprepared family members or friends with you who can't be stashed in a safe place quickly. This is doubly true if you've got children with you.

When the bullets start flying, they hit anybody in their path, not just the bad guys. Any of us, even the most tactically sophisticated, can't control events once the s*** hits the fan. It's important to think about your priorities *before* you jump in to help somebody at the possible cost of your life or that of some other innocent third party who is present.

Retired15T · July 2, 2010, 11:56 AM

I completely agree with the article. Having said that though, I do think that generally, the older you are, the more responsibilities you have...like a family, the more "sense" this article will make to you.

skifast · July 2, 2010, 12:16 PM

To sum up the article, Gabe is saying to think before you act. It is as simple as that.

I would also add to his examples, don't fight a fight you can't win. If six guys with body armor and M4s are shooting up a restaurant, I am not going to engage them with a 9mm handgun, unless I have absolutely no choice.

pacerdude · July 3, 2010, 01:23 AM

I am glad that you posted that article, it was a very informative read. Unless me or my family is involved in a situation, it's none of my business, just call 911 and be on my merry way.

BillCA · July 3, 2010, 02:27 AM

The question to get involved is neither black nor white. Nor does getting involved have to involve lethal force.

Someone mentioned a kicking-screaming child may be just putting up a tantrum against his father -- or resisting an abduction. No lethal force needed at that point if you call out and question the incident. Pedophiles are likely to vamoose while a parent's response may be anything from "get bent" to "wanna buy a kid cheap?"

But the advice is really a "think before you act" reminder. To paraphrase that old carpenter's wisdom - Think twice, act once.

ranburr · July 3, 2010, 08:01 AM

When I get involved:

1. When my life is threatened
2. When certain pieces of my property are threatened: My Sony TV = no shoot; my irreplaceable ring given to me by my grandfather = shoot.
3. Active shooter scenerio: If I can do it when alone, without putting loved ones in danger and I have a better than reasonable chance of coming out of it alive; I must do it to protect loved ones.
4. Someone is in my house. I live alone and anyone inside is up to no good.
5. Someone is anywhere on my property at night (exception being well lit front yard). Backyard, storage shed, garage, patio, all = shoot areas at night.

Mannlicher · July 3, 2010, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Unless the bad guys have targeted you and them specifically, go on your way. Whatever is happening is none of your business. Certainly, call 911, but leave and keep them safe. Sorry to sound “cowardly” but anyone who says they will risk their family to save someone else’s money is a fool.

brave advice from someone running a 'warriortalk' site.

Glenn E. Meyer · July 3, 2010, 10:55 AM

Warriors don't have to act stupidly to be a warrior. The case Gabe discusses where the warrior starts a fight that ends with the family members killed is case in point.

Mas has another (might be the same one) of an officer, off duty, who intervenes, thinks his kid is safe and in the melee, the BG sees the kid and kills her.

The warrior class in WWI were certainly geniuses. Charge the machine guns.

Wildalaska · July 3, 2010, 10:58 AM

Im not a warrior, Im a fat old guy. I dont want to be a warrior either, which is why I avoid things that have Warrior in part of the title.

WildiknowrealwarriorsandhavelittleuseforfakeonesbythewayAlaska TM

coldpointcrossing · July 3, 2010, 11:45 AM

Good read. It's worth rereading a couple of times with a bit of self reflection.

Makes me wonder just how and where do I draw the line between being a samaritan or a desensitized onlooker...

Glenn E. Meyer · July 3, 2010, 11:53 AM

One should take a stat class!

. It's really a subjective opinion on what error rate you accept for the various outcomes.

See there is some use for teaching that hated course since the early 70's.

Puntmefar · July 4, 2010, 06:06 AM

Well simply put

1) Is the situation as it actually appears
2) Will your response cause more risk
3) Will your response conflict with your reason for being armed e.g... are you trying to be a hero or are you trying to protect life
4) Are you justified in your state for deadly force
5) Maybe the most important can you live with the result of your actions ? The result may not be what you intended

Mannlicher · July 5, 2010, 08:53 AM

if only we had the time to run through a 16 point check list, call your attorney, and three close friends to discuss the 'what if's', before deciding to act.

BikerRN · July 5, 2010, 11:11 AM

When I am "off the clock" I am reticent to involve myself in another's predicament.

While I may involve myself, it may only be to call 911. Knowing who the parties involved in the situation are is paramount. Also, knowing who the aggressor and whom the victim is is essential. Things are not always what they seem.

My general defualt is to be a good witness and let others work out their own problems, while summoning the on-duty constabulary to sort it out. The exception to that is of course my family and other identified law enforcement.

Here's an article, much along the same thought line:

http://www.stoppingpower.net/comment...tervention.asp

Biker

July 1, 2010, 10:23 AM	#6
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	I keep reading everywhere that everyone is supposed to take responsibility for their own safety, which means them, not you--or me. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

July 2, 2010, 11:56 AM	#12
Retired15T Senior Member Join Date: May 20, 2010 Location: Alabama Posts: 175	I completely agree with the article. Having said that though, I do think that generally, the older you are, the more responsibilities you have...like a family, the more "sense" this article will make to you. __________________ Only a biker knows why a dog sticks his head out the window. -Unkown "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Thomas Jefferson

July 3, 2010, 01:23 AM	#14
pacerdude Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2008 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 607	I am glad that you posted that article, it was a very informative read. Unless me or my family is involved in a situation, it's none of my business, just call 911 and be on my merry way. __________________ Let not a man guard his dignity, but let his dignity guard him. -Ralph Waldo Emerson

July 3, 2010, 02:27 AM	#15
BillCA Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 2004 Location: Silicon Valley, Ca Posts: 7,117	The question to get involved is neither black nor white. Nor does getting involved have to involve lethal force. Someone mentioned a kicking-screaming child may be just putting up a tantrum against his father -- or resisting an abduction. No lethal force needed at that point if you call out and question the incident. Pedophiles are likely to vamoose while a parent's response may be anything from "get bent" to "wanna buy a kid cheap?" But the advice is really a "think before you act" reminder. To paraphrase that old carpenter's wisdom - Think twice, act once. __________________ BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)

July 3, 2010, 08:01 AM	#16
ranburr Senior Member Join Date: February 17, 2006 Location: TX Posts: 1,278	When I get involved: 1. When my life is threatened 2. When certain pieces of my property are threatened: My Sony TV = no shoot; my irreplaceable ring given to me by my grandfather = shoot. 3. Active shooter scenerio: If I can do it when alone, without putting loved ones in danger and I have a better than reasonable chance of coming out of it alive; I must do it to protect loved ones. 4. Someone is in my house. I live alone and anyone inside is up to no good. 5. Someone is anywhere on my property at night (exception being well lit front yard). Backyard, storage shed, garage, patio, all = shoot areas at night. __________________ ranburr "There are no stupid questions, just stupid people asking questions".

July 1, 2010, 06:38 AM	#1
skidmark Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2005 Location: Richmond VA - home of a street full of second-place trophies. Posts: 151	Get involved or not - here we go again All the what-if scenarios that manage to get posted boil down to a question of whether or not to get involved. There is never going to be an end to the question of should you or shouldn't you get involved. But there are a few things that can help decide. Gabe Suarez has a few comments that struck a chord with me - not that I agree with everything he has to say, but he does say it better than I've read in many other places. Check it out: http://www.warriortalknews.com/2010/...t-away.html#tp If nothing else, I'm taking away "think with your brain, not with your sword". stay safe.

July 1, 2010, 09:47 AM	#4
old bear Senior Member Join Date: November 3, 2009 Location: Not close enough to the beach Posts: 1,477	Mr. Suarez makes very good sense. The only thing I would add, IMHO, the cell phone and the ability to retreat are two of the most important defense tools available today.

July 1, 2010, 09:59 AM	#5
JonnyP Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 2009 Posts: 195	The link provided the best advice I've read yet.

July 1, 2010, 12:48 PM	#7
Skans Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2008 Posts: 11,132	I thought that was a good read. It basically restates what I believe anyway. I might add that if I am within 5-10 feet of an armed robber in the act of robbing lets say a Subway sandwich shop, I'm probably going to take action. At that distance, I feel that my life as well as others around me are in danger. But, other than that....well, that's why they call it a "free" country - other people are as free as I am to arm and protect themselves.

July 1, 2010, 03:42 PM	#8
markj Senior Member Join Date: October 27, 2005 Location: Crescent Iowa Posts: 2,971	Good article, every one that uses a gun in any way should read this.

July 1, 2010, 09:16 PM	#9
chrisbarcelo Member Join Date: December 28, 2008 Posts: 48	Only if my life or my family is in danger. When I was not yet retired from the Philippine military, yes I will get involve. But now, having a semi deaf ear and a limp to boot, Id rather let the local police do it.

July 2, 2010, 10:35 AM	#10
Indy_Guy_77 Member Join Date: April 24, 2007 Location: Indy Posts: 70	Personally, I think it's still all situationally dependent. Guy goes on a murderous rampage at the mall with an AK-style rifle and walks near enough to me for me to do something...and I don't? ol' boy's probably going to kill/wound a dozen+ people. If I were to somehow be able to intervene without any MORE risk to the woman who's at the top of my Priority List...then I think that I may very well be morally compelled. #1) Wife #2) me #3) kids (when we have them) #4) others as depending on the situation

July 2, 2010, 11:29 AM	#11
sakeneko Senior Member Join Date: May 23, 2009 Location: Nevada Posts: 644	Suarez makes sense. He isn't telling people not to intervene to help others, but to show some good judgement and good sense about when to do so. IMHO he's right about intervening in a violent situation where you risk getting shot when you've got unarmed/unprepared family members or friends with you who can't be stashed in a safe place quickly. This is doubly true if you've got children with you. When the bullets start flying, they hit anybody in their path, not just the bad guys. Any of us, even the most tactically sophisticated, can't control events once the s*** hits the fan. It's important to think about your priorities before you jump in to help somebody at the possible cost of your life or that of some other innocent third party who is present.

July 2, 2010, 12:16 PM	#13
skifast Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 2008 Posts: 227	To sum up the article, Gabe is saying to think before you act. It is as simple as that. I would also add to his examples, don't fight a fight you can't win. If six guys with body armor and M4s are shooting up a restaurant, I am not going to engage them with a 9mm handgun, unless I have absolutely no choice.

July 3, 2010, 10:55 AM	#18
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Warriors don't have to act stupidly to be a warrior. The case Gabe discusses where the warrior starts a fight that ends with the family members killed is case in point. Mas has another (might be the same one) of an officer, off duty, who intervenes, thinks his kid is safe and in the melee, the BG sees the kid and kills her. The warrior class in WWI were certainly geniuses. Charge the machine guns. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

July 3, 2010, 10:58 AM	#19
Wildalaska Junior member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 14,172	Im not a warrior, Im a fat old guy. I dont want to be a warrior either, which is why I avoid things that have Warrior in part of the title. WildiknowrealwarriorsandhavelittleuseforfakeonesbythewayAlaska TM

July 3, 2010, 11:45 AM	#20
coldpointcrossing Senior Member Join Date: November 12, 2009 Location: Georgia Posts: 246	Good read. It's worth rereading a couple of times with a bit of self reflection. Makes me wonder just how and where do I draw the line between being a samaritan or a desensitized onlooker... __________________ CPC

July 3, 2010, 11:53 AM	#21
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	One should take a stat class! . It's really a subjective opinion on what error rate you accept for the various outcomes. See there is some use for teaching that hated course since the early 70's. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

July 4, 2010, 06:06 AM	#22
Puntmefar Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 2010 Location: Louisville Ky. Posts: 137	Well simply put 1) Is the situation as it actually appears 2) Will your response cause more risk 3) Will your response conflict with your reason for being armed e.g... are you trying to be a hero or are you trying to protect life 4) Are you justified in your state for deadly force 5) Maybe the most important can you live with the result of your actions ? The result may not be what you intended __________________ The most powerfull weapon a person owns is in their own brain

July 5, 2010, 08:53 AM	#23
Mannlicher Senior Member Join Date: July 8, 2001 Location: North Central Florida & Miami Posts: 3,209	if only we had the time to run through a 16 point check list, call your attorney, and three close friends to discuss the 'what if's', before deciding to act. __________________ Nemo Me Impune Lacesset "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.".........Ronald Reagan

July 5, 2010, 11:11 AM	#24
BikerRN Senior Member Join Date: February 11, 2007 Location: "State of Discombobulation" Posts: 1,333	When I am "off the clock" I am reticent to involve myself in another's predicament. While I may involve myself, it may only be to call 911. Knowing who the parties involved in the situation are is paramount. Also, knowing who the aggressor and whom the victim is is essential. Things are not always what they seem. My general defualt is to be a good witness and let others work out their own problems, while summoning the on-duty constabulary to sort it out. The exception to that is of course my family and other identified law enforcement. Here's an article, much along the same thought line: http://www.stoppingpower.net/comment...tervention.asp Biker