Should You Act? - Get Involved Or Get Away?

[HK4U]

Not sure if this is the best place for this but here goes. There was a thread sometime back on if we should get involved. I got this news letter from Gabe Suarez today. With his years of experience not only in law enforcement but also firearms instructor I thought his insights woud be good. Hope he does not mind me sharing his wisdom.


Should You Act? - Get Involved Or Get Away?

Notice_no_guns_or_weapons Every so often we get a thread at Warrior Talk asking about what a CCW person should do if he sees a crime, or some apparent victimization. The implied question of course is the quest for justification of the desire to jump in with both feet to save the day. That inherent desire, while noble, may also be quite foolish and self-destructive.



I am not saying to default to doing nothing, merely that you should think it through before taking action that could adversely affect you for the rest of your life. Your decision will be based on three factors – location, companions, and information. Let’s discuss it.



Location. I have traveled in places that I refer to as Non-Permissive Environments. Those are areas where the legality of being armed may be questionable, yet where it is so dangerous that going unarmed would be stupid. In such places getting involved in anyone else’s problem is a bad decision no matter the situation.

In some places saving the day will get you a medal of valor, while in others, even if you saved everyone, the political environment would still cause you to be arrested and likely prosecuted. If you are in an environment like the latter, I suggest not getting involved in anything that does not directly endanger you or yours.

Look at it this way, will you trade your freedom, and finances to save strangers? That is what it boils down to. It is easy to be indignant at my suggestion from the safety of the internet in your living room, it is also quite easy to disagree when you carry the “Badge of America” card as an LEO with the full umbrella of protection your agency provides, but it is another matter altogether when you are sitting in the defendant’s chair, a civilian paying your own way, looking at a prison sentence because you decided to “do the right thing”.

Sceneofcrime If you don't have a gun its a moot point. If its legal for you to carry its also a moot point.

In a free area where you are legal to carry your pistol, again the choice is clear. Good guys can intervene in times of danger and victimization secure that if they act properly, they will probably be fine afterward. That is the reality of why places where gun laws are lax are far safer than places where gun laws are strict…because good guys are not afraid to be good guys.



Companions will also have an effect on your decisions. I spoke to an LA County Deputy once whose daughter was shot and killed by two armed robbers when he elected to intervene at the store they were robbing. Listen people…if you have your family with you, everyone else is on their own. 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.



Whether you act or not also depends on how much information you have about what is going on. The information present and available to you may over ride the presence in an NPE, but rarely. The less Intel I have, the less likely I am to do anything but leave. The more Intel I have the better decision I can make. What you see may not give the total picture.

Active shooter problems are easy. When you see a man with an assault rifle shooting into the Toys R Us, you can venture a guess that that is the bad guy and that he is the one that needs to be shot. But those are not the ones that cause us problem are they.

Two guys fighting? None of my business.

Two guys beating up a third guy? Do you act now? Honestly, for me it depends on what they look like. If they are two gang-type thugs beating up an old man, the choice is pretty clear. I would have to intervene. But if two gang-type thugs are beating up a third gang-type thug, its none of my business. I may make a 911 call, but I don’t plan to stick around. Is the fight you see two cops beating up a gang-thug? Cool, but still nothing to do with you. How about two homeys beating up a cop? Now we are back to helping out the good guys. All different stories, eliciting different responses aren't they. Here are a few more.

One guy slapping a girl? None of my business. “Hey wait a minute!”, I can hear the chivalrous crowd yelling from across the nation. Chivalry demands the presence of a lady. Is the apparent victim a lady? Are you willing to risk your life for her? Think with your brain and not your sword. Just on the face of the description I do not have enough to get involved, sorry. Make the guy a gang-thug and the girl a typical soccer mom? Things just changed because of the Intel. Make the guy a gang-thug and the girl a meth-mouth whore? Sorry…not my fight. My Glock will stay in the holster and my phone will be used for 911 instead.

Picture at range 011110 041 Its 2010 and your CCW stands for Cary (of) Concealed Weapons, not for Captain America. The only time I will get involved in someone else's fight is when I have enough info on what I am seeing to determine who is who and what is happening, I am alone or with other combatants, and then only if not doing something would shock my personal conscience.

 

[Ronsmag]

Insightful info Thanks for sharing

 

[JJFlash]

Good read. Thanks, HK.

 

[Corby]

All of my weapons say Sig Sauer Ruger or Smith and Wesson, not one says superman. Unless the threat is directed toward me I retreat to cover, communicate to 911, defend my cover. If the threat is directed to me or my family I try to retreat to cover communicate to 911 and then defend that cover. Steps two and three may be exchanged if necessary.

 

[ricbak]

Yes, a good read HK,
Two guys, Maybe a quick 911, One or Two Guys and hurting a woman, Certainly a 911 and leave line open. But it is not my job to get involved with my sidearm...

 

[kelcarry]

Leaving aside the "alter ego" rule in SC, it is the presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury that justifies deadly force--period/end of story. The "alter ego" rule allows you to substitute someone else instead of yourself in the above assumption--ie: you can intervene if someone else is, in your estimation, in that same reasonable fear--the problem here is that you had better be sure you know all the facts before you intervene, which, in the scheme of things and the chaos of the event, may not be so black and white and could get you in trouble. Castle Doctrine is also a possibility in SC---you can be presumed to have the "reasonable fear" mentioned above, if someone forcibly enters your home or occupied vehicle. Always comes down to imminent fear of death or great bodily injury---it starts and ends there--at least in South Carolina. As said in the thread intro, knowing the law in each state is a first step before you "get involved"--there are many variables including the "state culture" and that of the justice system to consider.

 

[wolfhunter]

Good read, HK. I truly like the perspective Gabe puts on situations.

 

[JSDinTexas]

I have considered the points HK4U raises, and good points they are. My take is:
If taking of life or serious bodily harm is immediate, apparent, or occuring - I will unholster
If it is most anything else - 911
That's the best I can offer since I feel each event has its own elements and requires serious decision-making prior to action - if possible.

 

[kelcarry]

Hey jsdinTexas: You are absolutely right in your comment/reply. It amazes me when I put the brakes on "what ifs" in some of my replies when I use a cautionary approach to deadly defense, particularly when it involves someone breaking into my home. In my case my wife and I are the only people in the house (it is wholly different if someone has children or others living in other areas of the home), I lock and secure my bedroom and will do everything sensible (activate car alarm, call 911 etc), but WILL NOT leave my bedroom as someone is rummaging thru my "stuff"---stuff is insured and stuff is not imminent danger of loss of life or great bodily injury. The perp or perps may be better armed and better shots than me and I do not intend to lose my life over stuff, but the responses from some of our fellow forum members (and I do understand where they are coming from--"hard work for me to get my stuff and I ain't letting anyone take it") is confront and shoot. In SC, a home breakin is sufficient cause for me to do whatever I want in my home, including confront and shoot-no questions asked, on the presumption that it is a reasonable assumption of death or great bodily injury but in my book, it is not worth the possible loss of my life because someone, who may be bigger and badder and more armd than me, is taking stuff. My hope is that the LEOs arrive in appropriate time, that the stuff will be recovered at a pawn shop (many times that is what happens) ,and the stuff is replaceable with insurance money, but my life is not recoverable. Iif they force their way into my bedroom,however, all bets are off and I am very well prepared with the arms and the strategy to deal with them in a very convincing manner.

 

[Boomer]

Good read & thought provoking.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[concrete guy]

Thanks for posting. I think people should all think of these scenarios in their mind and train themselves how to react. We have a neighborhood in my city that has a lot of shootings and I would not unholster there unless the guns were pointed at me. Let them shoot themselves. I do believe in the Sheepdog mentality though and if I am understanding the situation correctly and lives can be saved, I will unholster and close to encounter.

 

[charliej47]

:no:I have read the original posting and concur. To the following posters, I have stated it before and will state it again, "if you come at me or mine then at least one of us is going to die."

I will be a good citizen and call 911 from cover. I will try to disrupt the encounter from cover. I will return fire if fired upon from cover if I have time to get there.

I am not a LEO. I am not a white knight. If I die then who will protect and care for my family?

 

[HK4U]

O.K. here it is. Most of us like to think we know exactly how we will react in a given situation but the fact is until it happens it is hard to say. So the following is what I would like to think I would do. If it is not my money then under most circumstances and again I say most I will not risk my life nor place a family member in peril for something that is not mine. Would I intervene to protect someone else? I can not give a blanket answer to that. It all depends on a lot of variables. There definitely could be cases that I can envision that I would find it most impossible to stand by and watch when a sheep is being attacked by a raving wolf. My main responsibility first and foremost is to my family and myself. Anything else is a maybe.

 

[Midnight]

I thought of this kind of scenerio before I even applied for my permit. I personally will not go out of my way to save another human-being. I do not feel like dealing with the courts or risking myself going through hell for another human.

 

[kelcarry]

Hey HK4U and charliej47: Appreciate realistic and responsible answers to this overall "what if". I tend to read too many replies from all the "warriors" out there who are ready to do battle and kill at the drop of a hat with the "I worked hard for everything I got and NO ONE is going to take any of it and they will die if they try" attitude--personally, as HK said, they may talk a big talk sitting at their computers in their underwear cranking away, but the walk is a lot different if the slime is bigger and badder than you, not to mention the ultimate consequences of the law, which can be pretty clear on what you can and cannot do.
Hey midnight: Understand where you are coming from. In SC, we do have the alter ego rule which pretty much insulates you from any and all criminal and civil penalties if you come to someone's rescue as if the attack and imminent danger of death or great bodily injury were actually happening to you. The problem with this, of course, is that you really cannot be sure what started the problem and who the bad guy(s) is/are--could be that the person you are helping is really the bad guy--so I agree that it almost requires the wisdom of Solomon to know the real story--better you call 911 or somehow try to do something but not somethingthat entangles you in the mess to the point that your firearm is involved.

 

[JSDinTexas]

Hey jsdinTexas: You are absolutely right in your comment/reply. It amazes me when I put the brakes on "what ifs" in some of my replies when I use a cautionary approach to deadly defense, particularly when it involves someone breaking into my home. In my case my wife and I are the only people in the house (it is wholly different if someone has children or others living in other areas of the home), I lock and secure my bedroom and will do everything sensible (activate car alarm, call 911 etc), but WILL NOT leave my bedroom as someone is rummaging thru my "stuff"---stuff is insured and stuff is not imminent danger of loss of life or great bodily injury. The perp or perps may be better armed and better shots than me and I do not intend to lose my life over stuff, but the responses from some of our fellow forum members (and I do understand where they are coming from--"hard work for me to get my stuff and I ain't letting anyone take it") is confront and shoot. In SC, a home breakin is sufficient cause for me to do whatever I want in my home, including confront and shoot-no questions asked, on the presumption that it is a reasonable assumption of death or great bodily injury but in my book, it is not worth the possible loss of my life because someone, who may be bigger and badder and more armd than me, is taking stuff. My hope is that the LEOs arrive in appropriate time, that the stuff will be recovered at a pawn shop (many times that is what happens) ,and the stuff is replaceable with insurance money, but my life is not recoverable. Iif they force their way into my bedroom,however, all bets are off and I am very well prepared with the arms and the strategy to deal with them in a very convincing manner.

In Texas the CHL laws state deadly force is only defendable if the BG is stealing something that you "reasonably believe" can not be replaced (insurance does replace). So we can't use DF just cause the BG is running off with the TV

 

[concrete guy]

I personally will not go out of my way to save another human-being. .

Wow! Holly f**king Wow!!

 

[kelcarry]

Hey jsdinTexas: Texas law on "stuff" sounds about right to me. In my book, "stuff" just is not worth my life if I find I am going up against someone who is better armed and more proficient than I ("man must know his limitations"-Dirty Harry). I am sure, though, in Texas, if someone breaks into your home there is automatically a "reasonable assumption of imminent death or great bodily injury" by the act of forced entry alone--regardless of insured "stuff" or uninsured "stuff". There have been cases in Texas where the news information certainly leads to a conclusion that your comment is not always backed up by prosecutors who seem to "lean" toward the homeowner in any case of homeowner/gunowner vs a perp. Everything said above pretty well mimics the law here in SC and I'm glad I live here instead of some of these insane progressive/liberal states andrsidents who will be confused even as they face execution at the hands of a piece of garbage.

 

[JSDinTexas]

Hey jsdinTexas: Texas law on "stuff" sounds about right to me. In my book, "stuff" just is not worth my life if I find I am going up against someone who is better armed and more proficient than I ("man must know his limitations"-Dirty Harry). I am sure, though, in Texas, if someone breaks into your home there is automatically a "reasonable assumption of imminent death or great bodily injury" by the act of forced entry alone--regardless of insured "stuff" or uninsured "stuff". There have been cases in Texas where the news information certainly leads to a conclusion that your comment is not always backed up by prosecutors who seem to "lean" toward the homeowner in any case of homeowner/gunowner vs a perp. Everything said above pretty well mimics the law here in SC and I'm glad I live here instead of some of these insane progressive/liberal states andrsidents who will be confused even as they face execution at the hands of a piece of garbage.

Allow me to clarify here: if the BG is in the house, they are fair game at any time, with little exception, (Castle Doctrine) but I was speaking of if you see the BG running down the street with your 'stuff'. A BG shot in the back and laying over your TV in the middle of the street is going to bring down some scrutiny. And the Castle applies to the property as a whole, so the BG can be hammered in the front yard, in your vehicle parked on your property, and so on. The key to using "deadly force" is and has always been "to stop the threat." And the guy running away with the TV is not a threat that justifies using deadly force in Texas. However, force (not deadly force) can be used to apprehend and confine until the police show up.

Please be aware that I would council anyone that is licensed to carry to absolutely know the laws of their state concerning gun usage and the do's and don't's of what is legal. I make these comments based on what Texas law says, and it does not apply to other states - all gun owners MUST know their own state's laws. For instance, Texas has conditions of the use of force vs deadly force based on things like burglary vs burglary at night.

And before I make statements online, I look up the specific law here in the Lone Star State to be sure I am correct and not simply trying to show my smarts or opinion. And I think we all on this site should do that - if one doesn't really know a law and just doing an opinion-type thing it should be stated.

Hope this doesn't sound like I am getting on you or anyone - not my intention - but I have read some stuff on this and other forums that are more opinion than fact, and makes me do a double take occasionally. :smile:

 

[concrete guy]

Iowa is a shall retreat State. Hopefully we can get that changed to a Castle doctrine enviroment here in the future. We won here this spring to "Shall issue" so hopefully we are gaining ground!