Something that has been running in my mind from some post I have seen on this site. I have seen the debate of if we come across a person in our home and they are trying to retreat once confronted, do we let them go or stop them for life. The other part of this is the out in the open theory. Now I feel there are a lot of factors that play into this part of the situation.
One being if the BG is attacking you and you draw on him. Now if he retreats what will you do? Me, I think once the threat of danger to me has subsided then he is free to go. If I shoot him or her at this point I have just opened up a numerous amount of possible court issues with the prosecutor. One being why not let him go since the threat was done?
Second thing that bugs me is the ability for some people to say if they see a crime like a rape or robbery going on they wouldn't get involved because they are not the police. Let's take a look at this idea I have for a second: You are on your way home from spending a long day at the office. While driving home you notice a man in a alley way to your right on top of a woman coming down with hard blows while she is kicking and screaming. You continue home and come home to an empty house where ten minutes ago your wife told you she had dinner waiting. You then receive a phone call from the police saying your wife has been assaulted and you're needed at the hospital. You arrive to find out that female you saw getting assaulted in the alley way was indeed your wife. Now what decision do you feel is right for helping others.
I'm not I believe we need to get out and shoot the BG but I believe we owe it to ourselves to help the weak as we would want the same from a stranger if one of our loved ones was in the same situation. How do you decide to be a victim?
I think the people that say "we are not the police" are really just saying they are not going to go out of their way to put themselves in danger. Leave that to the police. But I dont think any one of us is going to drive by a rape in progress and say "I wonder what hunny made me for dinner..."
I think we would find a safe spot, dial the police, be the best witness we can be without trying to play superhero. I would love to be able to play superhero macho guy and save the day, but the fact is- when you jump in, you run the risk of turning one victim into two. You have to be smart, be alert, and do what you can while balancing your will to do good with that of your safety.
I think the people that say "we are not the police" are really just saying they are not going to go out of their way to put themselves in danger. Leave that to the police. But I dont think any one of us is going to drive by a rape in progress and say "I wonder what hunny made me for dinner..."
I think we would find a safe spot, dial the police, be the best witness we can be without trying to play superhero. I would love to be able to play superhero macho guy and save the day, but the fact is- when you jump in, you run the risk of turning one victim into two. You have to be smart, be alert, and do what you can while balancing your will to do good with that of your safety.
Why is it that 'most' people, civilians, police, lawmakers or otherwise, feel that if any ccw person seen 2 people in an alley and one had a gun on the other, if the ccw person stops to help that they are just gonna start shooting? I mean, is this something we see all the time? (TV) Not picking on anyone in particular but this fuels the fire for the anti's. The way we say and write our 'thoughts' should present more considerate thinking about the 'fuel' for both sides of the gun/self defense issue.
Just saying
Then when the rape is done and the criminal cuts her throat with the knife, then what? Oh, I'm sorry... I could have prevented that... but I chose to call the police... who, when seconds count are only two hours away. I would not have it in me to stand by and be the best possible witness to a violent crime while waiting for the police to arrive.
Phillips Gain, good points and for your first comment about bringing old post if you read my opening statement you will see I said something that has been bugging me about these post replies. Second if you intervene does that mean you have to shoot someone? No. Stopping the threat doesn't mean shooting all the time or even most of the time. Am I wrong?
No but unlike the Hollywood films we all watch, not every criminal backs down when they are shown a firearm. What happens when he/she/they rush you after dropping their weapons? Going to shoot an unarmed person? Are you any good at ground fighting?
Lets say you did shoot them, as training videos and real world tapes show a person can close in with in seconds. Unlike films one shot does not kill on the spot, nor does it send them flying back ten feet. They would more then likely still have enough fight left in them to stab/shot you a few times.
Lets add another kink into the works, the vic turns around and sues you for causing them PTSD(shooting the BG)
Now you find yourself defending yourself from criminal charges(if any come down)and two civil suits.
My God people. If you carry just to make yourself feel bigger, but never plan to draw for fear of liability, then put that puppy back in the safe and start carrying pepper spray or a stun gun. Because you carrying should actually have a chance of benefitting someone someday!
I carry because if someday, God forbid, I find myself able to prevent a great evil from taking place, I will. I'm not looking for trouble, far from it. I hope paper bad guys are all I ever get to shoot. But I will not stand idly by and allow a violent crime to take place in my presence if I have the ability to stop it. And I will certainly not let fear of liability stop me from doing what is right and reasonable.
Because you carrying should actually have a chance of benefiting someone someday!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?