NavyLCDR:229575 said: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.
@S&WM&P40
Interesting. I was rather certain some small mind out there would miss my point entirely, and the word "sheepdog" or "keyboard warrior" or some other clever slam would come out. Nice.
What you'll notice, though, if you reread my post, Is that never once did I suggest that the firearm is the only element in the use of force continuum. Of course the first answer is rarely going to "draw and fire." There are many other options for providing assistance, as you pointed out.
What I am railing against in particular is the attitude that some have, that whenever anyone suggests they would be the type to get involved and help someone in need, they do just as you have, and jeer and label them wannabe cops or caped crusaders, etc.
Apparently, if you're the kind of person to help out a stranger in trouble, but you keep quiet about it, you're ok. But the minute you speak up, you're a mall ninja. Pathetic.
I cannot emphasize enough. It boils down to situational awareness.
In most states, the standard for defending oneself is the "reasonable person" standard: If you reasonably believe you are in danger and defend yourself, your actions are covered under the law in most states. (Even if there was a misunderstanding of the alleged assailant's intent.)
However - when intervening on behalf of another, in most states the "reasonable person" standard does not apply, and your actions are weighed against the facts in evidence.
For example - you come across one person holding another at gunpoint. You draw and order him to put down his weapon...then when he refuses and the situation seems to escalate, you fire and the shot is lethal. If it turns out that the armed person was the assailant (a robber for example), then you're covered. If it turns out that the armed person was a homeowner, and the person being held at gunpoint was a would-be burglar who had been chased out of the home - then you ARE GUILTY of manslaughter at very least because your actions are weighed against facts...not against the "reasonable person" standard. (If you don't believe me - ask an attorney. I'm not going to engage in debate on this example.)
This is why it is CRITICAL to know what you're getting into. Is that woman screaming in the alley a victim? Or a prostitute? Or a robber? Or a drug addict/dealer? Is that guy a thug beating up on her? Or an undercover cop trying to make an arrest? Or a robbery victim trying to get away?
Extreme examples? Unlikely scenarios? Maybe, maybe not. But that's why I'm emphasizing that you have to BE AWARE of what you're getting into, and what the risks are, before you decide to intervene on behalf of a stranger.
It is ashame that we have to yell fire to get attention now and not help.
I just think we are so worried about being sued instead of helping out the weak. It is ashame that we have to yell fire to get attention now and not help.
I pray and hope I never have to be in that situation but if I have to ever draw my weapon I pray the Lord will guide me to keep my brain thinking logically.
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?