Some months ago, there were a number of threads about how to respond to an "active shooter" situation in a workplace or store. Several people championed the position that they would leave the area without assisting others or incurring any risk, and stating that their weapons and training are there to protect themselves and family and that everyone else is on their own. And that anyone who gets involved is either a Rambo wannabe or stupid.
This position seemed small minded then. In the light of recent events it seems even more so. I wonder if they think that these civic heroes are stupid, or Rambo wannabe's? I think that those who help their fellow citizens in the middle of a potentially hazardous situations are heroic, not stupid or attention wh****.
I'm not positive, but I perceive that most of the banter fudo refers to here was from a thread about a CWP holder that shot an armed robber at a Waffle House in SC in January of 2012. Fudo might also be thinking about one or more of the threads about the Zimmerman/Martin case in FL around the same time-frame. The opposed viewpoints were gone through ad nauseum on both subjects.
Both cases present specific facts and/or assumptions that people were evaluating to determine whether or not they would take similar actions as the shooter did. In the case of the Waffle House incident, the shooter actually joined this site just to enter that thread and disspell the many myths and inaccuracies he found there. His user name is "snipingshadow" for any of the newcomers who would like a first-hand accounting of a legal use of force by a CC'er.
"Wading into a situation that otherwise" does not involve you is a relative concept. The Waffle House shooter was not being shot at, was not being confronted by the robber at the moment he decided to draw, and took the actions he did based on what he determined to be something akin to his "civic duty." He was supported by his local Sheriff. Because it was deemed a legitimate use of force by LE, he was protected by state law as being immune from civil penalties (the family of the dead robber could not sue him). You can read the whole thread (it's a long one) to fully understand the scenario, and the contentious nature of some of the exchanges aside, there's a lot of good analysis of when it is or is not appropriate to involve one's self in a defense-of-others shooting.
I don't call it "civic duty" myself. I hope and pray that I will have the wherewithal to involve myself if/when my involvement can save innocent lives, and have the appropriate amount of self-restraint if/when getting involved is inappropriate for the situation. I will say this about that though. The legalities are not what I will suss out in the nano-seconds I might have to make that decision. The criteria for me is simply will I be a help or a hindrance? Will I possibly save a life, or do I not have enough information to know whether the target I perceive to be the "bad guy" is indeed the bad guy? If I can't answer those two questions (at least), I hope and pray that I have the presence of mind and self-restraint not to involve myself. If the answers to those two questions are clear in my mind though, I don't care what the law says, I intend to save innocent lives if/when I can. The same criteria would go into making a decision to go towards any other scenario where lives are at stake, whether it be a fire, a bombing, a weather-related disaster or whatever. If I can help, I will. If I'm going to be in the way or exacerbate the danger, I'll refrain. "Civics" has nothing to do with it for me. Only considerations of the right and wrong (for me) decisions would be included in my criteria.
Blues
....I don't call it "civic duty" myself. I hope and pray that I will have the wherewithal to involve myself if/when my involvement can save innocent lives, and have the appropriate amount of self-restraint if/when getting involved is inappropriate for the situation. I will say this about that though. The legalities are not what I will suss out in the nano-seconds I might have to make that decision. The criteria for me is simply will I be a help or a hindrance? Will I possibly save a life, or do I not have enough information to know whether the target I perceive to be the "bad guy" is indeed the bad guy? If I can't answer those two questions (at least), I hope and pray that I have the presence of mind and self-restraint not to involve myself. If the answers to those two questions are clear in my mind though, I don't care what the law says, I intend to save innocent lives if/when I can. The same criteria would go into making a decision to go towards any other scenario where lives are at stake, whether it be a fire, a bombing, a weather-related disaster or whatever. If I can help, I will. If I'm going to be in the way or exacerbate the danger, I'll refrain. "Civics" has nothing to do with it for me. Only considerations of the right and wrong (for me) decisions would be included in my criteria.
Blues
Well said, Blues. You are correct about my reference to the other thread. I agree with you 99%. I include that a civic or societal duty is, or should also be, a component in right action for individual or public welfare.
I hope I am not addressing this part of your post out of context.
You’re absolutely right, in that I, you, anyone else will not have the time to think out all the legal angles of a situation when confronted with it. Nor by any means should that be the only criteria as to whether you will act or not. Best to do most of your thinking beforehand; it needs to be informed thinking and it needs to be backed up by a lot of training.
In many states (but not all…New Jersey for example), a lawful shooting in self defense or defense of others provides immunity from civil liability filed on behalf of the criminal or his family. What about an innocent bystander in this situation? In many states you could still be criminally liable if you shot them accidentally, and I don’t know of any where you could not be held liable in a civil suit if you shoot an innocent or they show that your actions directly lead to an innocent being shot, bad guy or no.
Bottom line: You’re going to have a split second, or at most a very few seconds, to decide whether to intervene in defense of another. The potential for error is high. You’d better be right, and your execution had better be flawless. The risks are higher for you than if you are defending yourself or your family. That needs to be fully understood.
Very well put! Blindly going into a situation would and could be very bad. I totally agree with your two question criteria. I also do not know what I will do if and when a situation arises. It will depend on a number of things. I do hope and pray that I will make the right decision and act in the proper way.
Very, very big difference between running to render aid to the victims of a bomb blast, an accident, a fire, etc., and drawing your firearm and wading into a situation that otherwise did not involve you.
I have to fully agree with JCliff here. I don't think most are saying you shouldn't step forward if you have an opportunity to render aid but laying down fire in a situation which you are not aquatinted with all the facts while heroic could end up getting others killed or potentially yourself once law enforcement arrive. There is a huge difference in rendering aid and applying deadly force.
Thanks Blues for dredging up that thread that I made such a complete and total ass of myself!
I am still sorry for the way I acted towards you and in hind sight, I can't even believe how badly I acted myself!
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?