Is collateral damage ok?

[mappow]

I ask the question because it's a main thought that crosses my mind if SHTF. Are you willing to engage a BG if you know that others around the BG may take hits? Or will you refrain and take cover and not engage? I cannot cover every scenario but if you don't have a clear shot at the BG and you know he's going too or already has starting shooting. Are you willing to accept that others may get hit, possibly die from your return fire?
I know tuff question but would like some feed back cause I'm still not sure which road I would go down. Of the FIRST road would be to maneuver to a position to ensure full engagement without collateral damage. What say you?

 

[Deanimator]

I'll TRY to avoid harm to bystanders.

I'm NEVER just going to LET somebody maim or murder me.

 

[dogshawred]

I believe the answer goes without saying, there is just no reason for innocents to have to take the fall for a BG's actions.

 

[nathanwriter]

Every shooter is responsible for every shot he sends downrange. Watching the background is a key part of threat assessment, isn't it? That's why I don't carry FMJ ammunition, even for home defense. I live in a townhouse in the middle of suburbia; the thought of a round going through the BG and into the neighbor's house scares the cr*p out of me.

 

[Bob in Bristol]

I do not want to die, but I would find it hard to live with myself, knowing I killed an innocent bystander. Know what your pointed at, and know your limitation.

 

[Warrior1256]

Every shooter is responsible for every shot he sends downrange. Watching the background is a key part of threat assessment, isn't it? That's why I don't carry FMJ ammunition, even for home defense. I live in a townhouse in the middle of suburbia; the thought of a round going through the BG and into the neighbor's house scares the cr*p out of me.

Same here as I live in a condo apartment. We are all responsible for our actions, including shooting when unsure what is beyond our target (negligence) or disregarding what is beyond our target (wanton endangerment).

 

[The_Outlaw]

I ask the question because it's a main thought that crosses my mind if SHTF. Are you willing to engage a BG if you know that others around the BG may take hits? Or will you refrain and take cover and not engage? I cannot cover every scenario but if you don't have a clear shot at the BG and you know he's going too or already has starting shooting. Are you willing to accept that others may get hit, possibly die from your return fire?
I know tuff question but would like some feed back cause I'm still not sure which road I would go down. Of the FIRST road would be to maneuver to a position to ensure full engagement without collateral damage. What say you?

"Is collateral damage okay?"

The short answer is "No".
As an armed citizen, You are responsible for every round that comes out of your firearm.
(Unlike Many LEO's As Of Late Unfortunately).

 

[ezkl2230]

As a team leader for one of my church's security teams, I recently went through a shoot/no shoot class. Although none of us ever want to be in such a situation, we were walked through at least one scenario in which DELIBERATELY shooting through a hostage was the only way to stop the bad guy - a kobayashi maru scenario. Obviously such a solution is an absolute last resort, but it serves to remind us that there might be situations so extreme that collateral damage might be unavoidable.

That doesn't make it OK, but it might make it absolutely critical in the worst case scenario to avoid even more injuries or deaths.

 

[MossyHead]

This is a good question. No matter the scenario, it's usually a split second decision. I think it's a call that would vary even if the collateral risk is constant. Kids in the scene would cause me to hesitate, I'd do everything to reposition so that a stray shot or a through put shot would avoid the crowd. I guess it's a case by case decision. Regardless, collateral injury or death would nearly seal your fate, legally. A text book defense scenario damn near sends you down the line anyhow since lib DAs and judges prevail these days. So, think how they'd crucify you in an imperfect defense scenario; perhaps a win after two years awaiting trial but lose, financially and mentally. Bottom line - 30 years ago a clear cut self defense was honored. Today it's heavily challenged and nearly a nullification of your constitutional rights and I'm not basing this on the Zimmerman trial. Only LEOs and military can cause collateral damage (even massive) and usually escape prison after token investigations are completed.

I ask the question because it's a main thought that crosses my mind if SHTF. Are you willing to engage a BG if you know that others around the BG may take hits? Or will you refrain and take cover and not engage? I cannot cover every scenario but if you don't have a clear shot at the BG and you know he's going too or already has starting shooting. Are you willing to accept that others may get hit, possibly die from your return fire?
I know tuff question but would like some feed back cause I'm still not sure which road I would go down. Of the FIRST road would be to maneuver to a position to ensure full engagement without collateral damage. What say you?

 

[r1derbike]

Behind every bullet is a lawyer. Remember that.

 

[Firefighterchen]

I'll mimic deanimator.

Priority: I will not get murdered.

Secondary: Collateral damage is not okay.

In the op's scenario, a shtf and I'm not necessarily the main target. Priority is my family. If I can get them out safely, that's my goal. If they are beyond the threat, I'll move to them and look for a clean shot if that's the best way to them.

If I'm alone (and not the main target), I'm out, the best gun fight is the one you're not in. On my way out, my two points above are my priorities.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[mappow]

OK so here's the really BIG question attached to the OP. If SHTF will you engage KNOWING that innocents will be harmed due to your engagement, or are you willing to stand down and watch mayhem prevail? I guess the bottom line is are you willing, in the protection of your family or yourself, to engage the BG knowing there is a high probably that those around you will suffer and or die?
Just asking..........that self preservation thing. This is supposed to be NOT an easily answered question. Your morals and the Right to Life question.

 

[ezkl2230]

OK so here's the really BIG question attached to the OP. If SHTF will you engage KNOWING that innocents will be harmed due to your engagement, or are you willing to stand down and watch mayhem prevail? I guess the bottom line is are you willing, in the protection of your family or yourself, to engage the BG knowing there is a high probably that those around you will suffer and or die?
Just asking..........that self preservation thing. This is supposed to be NOT an easily answered question. Your morals and the Right to Life question.

Good questions, because we are living in a time in which, although mass shootings are still statistically rare here in the US, the nature of those confrontations has changed dramatically.

 

[Paul_of_TX]

I carry a gun to protect myself and my family. That is my first and only priority as I am not a police officer. All those other people are allowed to carry a gun just like myself but apparently they chose not to, so I will let them deal with their decision not to carry. In defense of myself or my family I am willing to act in order to save the like of my family and myself and stop anything threatening us. As for others I will act to help others but that is not my main priority and If I can't be reasonably sure I will not kill an unintended target I will focus on keeping myself and my family safe.

 

[wolf_fire]

My answer in no way implies I am going to put my head between my knees, cower like a dog, and start whimpering. I have trained hard to restrain myself from taking a shot unless the shot was clear. If I don't have a clear shot, I'm not going to start pumping out rounds of lead. This, in my opinion, is irresponsible.

However, the question is extremely vague. One cannot run every scenario through their head, but one needs to know when one will and will not shoot. This is why you hear the term situational awareness all the time. If a BG is shooting at me while he is in the midst of a crowd... I'm going to duck and take cover with the people. Chances are in that situation he will not be able to see me either. If the crowd is only a handful of people and the BG is within 10 yards of me... chances are I'd be able to take him out without harm to anyone else.

We have a drill we do. We take two B27 targets (bust of a person) and put one behind the other. The idea is the back target is the BG and the front target is someone you love. They bring us to different distances away until we have a feeling of when we are willing to take the shot or not. I recommend all doing the same.


I don't agree with any of the choices in the poll as stated and therefore in my post choose "none of the above".

 

[mappow]

My answer in no way implies I am going to put my head between my knees, cower like a dog, and start whimpering. I have trained hard to restrain myself from taking a shot unless the shot was clear. If I don't have a clear shot, I'm not going to start pumping out rounds of lead. This, in my opinion, is irresponsible.

However, the question is extremely vague. One cannot run every scenario through their head, but one needs to know when one will and will not shoot. This is why you hear the term situational awareness all the time. If a BG is shooting at me while he is in the midst of a crowd... I'm going to duck and take cover with the people. Chances are in that situation he will not be able to see me either. If the crowd is only a handful of people and the BG is within 10 yards of me... chances are I'd be able to take him out without harm to anyone else.

We have a drill we do. We take two B27 targets (bust of a person) and put one behind the other. The idea is the back target is the BG and the front target is someone you love. They bring us to different distances away until we have a feeling of when we are willing to take the shot or not. I recommend all doing the same.


I don't agree with any of the choices in the poll as stated and therefore in my post choose "none of the above".

But my question is; Are you willing to take out innocents to save you or your families life? BIG friggin question, I've yet to hear an adequate response. OR is there a one?
Bottom line for me is IF, with my training I have, within that .3 seconds and adrenaline pumping I'm still not sure about my engagement. I don't care to die but I don't want any one else to perish. I won't shoot through a victim to hit a BG, I will do all I can to effect a termination of the threat. ( Kind of a cop out) but I will do what I have to do to stay alive.

 

[ezkl2230]

But my question is; Are you willing to take out innocents to save you or your families life? BIG friggin question, I've yet to hear an adequate response. OR is there a one?
Bottom line for me is IF, with my training I have, within that .3 seconds and adrenaline pumping I'm still not sure about my engagement. I don't care to die but I don't want any one else to perish. I won't shoot through a victim to hit a BG, I will do all I can to effect a termination of the threat. ( Kind of a cop out) but I will do what I have to do to stay alive.

And as I indicated in my first response, as someone who is tasked with helping secure our church until police can respond, we have been instructed that there may be a time when it may become necessary to shoot through someone in order to prevent even greater injury or loss of life. I hope and pray I never find myself in that situation, but I am also preparing myself mentally as best I can in case that day arrives.

Will it be OK? Not on your life. Will it get done anyway? I'm working on that one.

 

[Firefighterchen]

But my question is; Are you willing to take out innocents to save you or your families life? BIG friggin question, I've yet to hear an adequate response. OR is there a one?
Bottom line for me is IF, with my training I have, within that .3 seconds and adrenaline pumping I'm still not sure about my engagement. I don't care to die but I don't want any one else to perish. I won't shoot through a victim to hit a BG, I will do all I can to effect a termination of the threat. ( Kind of a cop out) but I will do what I have to do to stay alive.

I'll do anything to protect my family. I'll do anything to stop myself from being killed.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Kramer1113]

What are you using for a weapon? A Bazooka? Aim Small. Know your weapon, know your skill, Aim Small & Make the Kill.

 

[Kasper]

To me it comes down to will I be able to live with the actions I took. If I just leave or hide I would feel shame for not doing what I could to limit the body count. Moving to a better position to get a clear shot is a given that I think we all would do. The problem will be if you have to shoot the Bad Person and it will cause harm or death to an innocent person. That is where most of the debate comes in. Some will say If by killing one innocent person you can save 10 then it is worth it. But what if that one person is your wife, husband, son, daughter or friend would you still be willing to take their life to save the rest of the people.

For me I would only take a shot when I know that the only person being hit is the Bad Guy [person] because I do not want to be responsible for taking someones life when they where not a threat to my life or well being. And as pointed out only police get away with it because they can not do their jobs if they have to worry about facing charges for the actions they take.