Thoughts/rant


BikerRN

New member
Thoughts/rant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm placing this here because it stems from a Tactical Discussion I had someplace else. If I posted this in the wrong area, or it's "inappropriate" I ask that one of the Mods either move or delete it.

I recently saw a video of a woman being stabbed in the neck, repeatedly, by the spouse as he was straddling her. As I grow older, been carrying a gun legally for over twenty years, I find myself more and more aware of my own mortality. I also see the legal and financial implications to shooting in defense of a third party.

Bear in mind, I'm also an LEO, Federal. My Agency has said, "Any actions taken off duty will not be considered within the scope of employment." Since I carry a gun or two all the time I would be armed and able to resolve this situation, if I needed to use deadly force. I am looking at this from an off duty standpoint.

I generally believe that people are responsible for their own safety. Myself and my family take what steps we feel are necessary to try an ensure our safety. It seems that many CCW Holders would've intervened in this situation I'm describing. It was obviously a "Justified Shoot". I made a decision when I went to work for my Agency that the only person, besides myself and a loved one, that I would intervene for using deadly force was a uniformed LEO, when I am off duty.

My reasoning is manyfold. First, having to justify and defend your actions gets exspensive, been there twice already. I am responsible for my family's security, physical and financial. Being right is OK, but it doesn't do you any good if you can't buy the groceries or lose your home to pay your attorney bills.

Second, my Agency will not "cover" me off duty. Oh sure, we have LEOSA and all that crap, but if we use a firearm in defense of self or another we are "hung out to dry". If, after all the investigations, we are applauded by the media and other L.E. Agencies are commending us, we may be given an award and held up as a hero by my own employer, or we may simply be fired. Of course we most likely will win our job back, but at what cost?

Lots of people on forums spout off that they'ed rather be broke and living in a cardboard box than to not help someone in a situation as I've described. In my opinion, they've never seen a situation like I've described, nor been in an "Armed Encounter" or had to defend their actions. Heck, even LEO's think I'm "over the top" due to my stance of not helping someone by using deadly force on behalf of a non LEO.

That does not mean that I won't be a good witness, but what do I owe society? Is society going to pay my mortgage and buy groceries? Like I said before, I believe we are each responsible for our own safety and off duty I have no obligation to you. The reason I will help a fellow LEO is because I can "identify" who the players are in a situation. Make no mistake about it, identifying who is who is very important. Look at how many off duty LEO's have been shot when they decided to intervene off duty.

OK, here's my tactics part of it: Off Duty I will be a witness and nothing more unless the actions of the criminal aggressors are threatening me and mine.

What thoughts do you all have on this? I welcome feedback from CCW Holders and LEO's, but please leave the "Kill Them And Let God Sort Them Out" crap at the door.

Biker
 

The Gunny

New member
Very Interesting,

First off let me just say I am not a LEO, my son is though. I am just a dumb old Jar Head and I do not see myself as a pistolero of any kind. I will in the future be getting my CCL I do not have one now. That being said I can see your see your point. I as a private citizen would not feel obligated to do anything heroic. I would do as you suggest to be a witness to the situation. I might, MIGHT intervene if it was a LEO and my actions would save his life.

I don't speak for my son but I have been on ride alongs with him and I raised him so I can see him getting involved. Which is correct? I don't think there is a right or wrong answer on this one. Everyone most let their own conscience be their guide.

I know as far as myself I would follow your example. I will only engage in leathal force in defence of me and mine with the possible exception of a uniformed LEO caught in a deadly situation. Otherwise I am only going so far as to be a witness. Now should the subject turn and decide he wants to engage me, well then I am clear to engage but I would not make an attempt to provide him with a suitable target. As I say it is a personel choice one I would rather not have to make but there it is.
 

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
Thoughts/rant

I'm placing this here because it stems from a Tactical Discussion I had someplace else. If I posted this in the wrong area, or it's "inappropriate" I ask that one of the Mods either move or delete it.

I recently saw a video of a woman being stabbed in the neck, repeatedly, by the spouse as he was straddling her. As I grow older, been carrying a gun legally for over twenty years, I find myself more and more aware of my own mortality. I also see the legal and financial implications to shooting in defense of a third party.

Bear in mind, I'm also an LEO, Federal. My Agency has said, "Any actions taken off duty will not be considered within the scope of employment." Since I carry a gun or two all the time I would be armed and able to resolve this situation, if I needed to use deadly force. I am looking at this from an off duty standpoint.

I generally believe that people are responsible for their own safety. Myself and my family take what steps we feel are necessary to try an ensure our safety. It seems that many CCW Holders would've intervened in this situation I'm describing. It was obviously a "Justified Shoot". I made a decision when I went to work for my Agency that the only person, besides myself and a loved one, that I would intervene for using deadly force was a uniformed LEO, when I am off duty.

My reasoning is manyfold. First, having to justify and defend your actions gets exspensive, been there twice already. I am responsible for my family's security, physical and financial. Being right is OK, but it doesn't do you any good if you can't buy the groceries or lose your home to pay your attorney bills.

Second, my Agency will not "cover" me off duty. Oh sure, we have LEOSA and all that crap, but if we use a firearm in defense of self or another we are "hung out to dry". If, after all the investigations, we are applauded by the media and other L.E. Agencies are commending us, we may be given an award and held up as a hero by my own employer, or we may simply be fired. Of course we most likely will win our job back, but at what cost?

Lots of people on forums spout off that they'ed rather be broke and living in a cardboard box than to not help someone in a situation as I've described. In my opinion, they've never seen a situation like I've described, nor been in an "Armed Encounter" or had to defend their actions. Heck, even LEO's think I'm "over the top" due to my stance of not helping someone by using deadly force on behalf of a non LEO.

That does not mean that I won't be a good witness, but what do I owe society? Is society going to pay my mortgage and buy groceries? Like I said before, I believe we are each responsible for our own safety and off duty I have no obligation to you. The reason I will help a fellow LEO is because I can "identify" who the players are in a situation. Make no mistake about it, identifying who is who is very important. Look at how many off duty LEO's have been shot when they decided to intervene off duty.

OK, here's my tactics part of it: Off Duty I will be a witness and nothing more unless the actions of the criminal aggressors are threatening me and mine.

What thoughts do you all have on this? I welcome feedback from CCW Holders and LEO's, but please leave the "Kill Them And Let God Sort Them Out" crap at the door.

Biker
Jeez! I can't freaking imagine the scenario that you described! What a horror!

The answers I find in my heart to your questions, however, are multifaceted.

First off, I think you are correct in your assessment that most of us have never been in those shoes, of either having been in a gunfight or of having to draw our weapon in defense of a threat (combat vets notwithstanding). Consequently, I think that most of us don't know just what we'd do if ever put there. I think we think we do, and we run various scenarios through our heads and practice our responses, but when the SHTF people tend to revert to form, I believe.

When I was in the Army, I submitted 4 Requests for Transfer to try to get to Viet Nam...not because I was Gung Ho or wanted to fight, especially, but for other reasons that had to do with my personality. That was in '66, '67 and '68. I also tried for some few years when I was younger and a civilian to get on the local Police Force. I was interviewed a few times but never made it.

I bring these things up because they represent situations that had me considering what I might do in a 'dangerous' situation. In the end, I decided that you never know just what you're going to do...all you can do is follow your instincts and hope whatever training you've had takes over to keep your ass safe...or to haul it out of harms way fast enough to do you some good. In practically every interview I've read about True Heroes...Medal of Honor winners, for example...they invariably tell about their not having thought about their actions, they just did what they did, instinctively.

Which brings me to your decision about limiting your intervention specifically to those people you mention. I understand the reasons for it, especially in light of the position your Agency has taken. I'm saddened to read of what appears to be a "chickenshit" position on their part, but I guess in light of the litigious nature of our society I can understand it. Be nice of they had bigger balls, though. Anyway, I believe that, decide what you will, when you're standing there with a situation unfolding in front of you that means life or death to someone, and you have the facility to end it...I believe your gut and training will decide for you and you'll just do what comes naturally.

I live by certain philosophies that I refer to as "Ektarr's Laws", one of which is that People judge other people by themselves: for example if I think you're a lyin', cheatin' sonofabitch, it's likely because I'm a lyin', cheatin' sonofabitch, and I figure that that's pretty much just the way people are. I think you'll be fine.

Of course, I could be wrong...wouldn't be the first time!...your experiences and self control might allow you to walk away from that scene and let everyone fend for themselves. I don't see that happening. Hopefully, you won't have to find out. Stay safe, Brother.
 
Last edited:

DrDavidM

New member
As a whole I agree with you. The main reason is, as you put it, knowing who is who. I walk up on someone holding someone else at gun point. Do I know what is going on. Of course not. It could just as easily be an undercover LEO as a BG. There are exceptions to this though. There are several friends and some coworkers I have known for years that I certainly hope I would protect.
 
Last edited:

HK4U

New member
You never know

As a whole I agree with you. The main reason is, as you put it, knowing who is who. I walk up on someone holding someone else at gun point. Do I know what is going on. Of course not. I could just as easily be an undercover LEO as a BG. There are exceptions to this though. There are several friends and some coworkers I have known for years that I certainly hope I would protect.


I have to agree. You do have to be careful when getting involved. Things are not always as they seem. Who the victom and who the BG is can be mistaken. One thing we learned in the academy when I was a deputy years ago was that one of the most dangerous things an officer could face is a domestic distrubance call because often the person you are there to help will turn on you.
 

DarrellM5

New member
If I were positive that an innocent person was about to be seriously harmed or killed, I think I would try to intervene. Having never seen the elephant myself, I pray that I would have the courage to do so. I definitely can't fault you for your position on the matter, though. Everything that you stated makes perfect sense.
 

M50 Guy

New member
A few years ago there was an incident in California where some nutcase was running around inside a supermarket with a sword hacking up people. If my wife or kids were in that store and were hurt, and I found out later that there was an armed off duty federal agent that ran for the exit because he was worried about the financial aspects of intervening I think I would be extremely upset. Even not knowing you, I'm fairly certain you wouldn't be able to run in the opposite direction while the wacko was cutting up soccer moms in the cereal section. I'm no hero, I just don't think I could live with myself if I had the means to end something like that and decided not to based on a possible civil suit later.
Some things are more important than money.

On the flip side.....if I were in a bank and it was being held up..and nobody was hurt yet, I could kind of rationalize that the robber would likely just take the money and leave so I would be ok with running out the door.
 

ecocks

New member
Maybe it is just the way you describe it

so, I'll elaborate a little more to be sure I am clear.

IF I was in a "facility" (mall, church, store, etc.) and located within what I perceived to be the attacked area or zone, I would secure my family/self, determine whether there was a way "out," check general security of others/victims nearby and then decide what my chances were if I engaged. If there are 5 guys, wearing body armor and carrying automatic weapons then I suspect I am going to focus on withdrawal and immediate security. If it is one guy with an assault rifle, in reasonable proximity/range who is actively engaged in shooting, then my inclination would be to engage if I had cover and enough ammunition for the circumstances. The Tacoma Mall shooting was similar although the civilian shooter recovered from multiple wounds when he discoveered he couldn't bring himself to shoot the killer.

If the bank down the street was being robbed and people were being killed would I grab my gun and rush down there? Probably not. Then again, I recall the situation in Tyler, TX a couple of years ago when the guy was shooting in front of the courthouse and a civilian went to get a gun, returned and engaged him with a .45 only to discover the guy had armor. The civilian was killed but distracted the shooter and probably saved the man's son and a deputy, both of whom were wounded and in the open. The Trolley Mall shooting last year in Salt Lake also provides a model to consider of an off-duty (in fact, he was out-of-jurisdiction) LEO who engaged to secure an active shooter.

Last thought. Several years ago, about a mile and a half from my house a guy walked ino an Albertson's supermarket, killed his wife, the manager and the first responding officer. He was attacked/knocked down by a construction worker armed with a chunk of concrete and secured by an armed, off-duty IRS agent. I would like to think this sets the model scenario. You look at your chances, make your decision and take appropriate action. A sworn officer who is supposed to protect the citizens would seem to have an obligation to actually intervene when they can do so according to their rules of engagement in order to uphold whatever oath they took. I sure hope no one is ever killed because I failed to have the courage to take responsibility for others' safety. I would have trouble looking you in the eye if your wife or child was dead and I had been "right there" (in the zone) with a gun on my hip but decided not to intervene because I was afraid of being sued.
 
I have been in both situations where I assisted a civilian and a LEO. Each situation was in a different state. Both times I was fortunate to have been away from my family. The incident with the civilian happened in GA. I was heading to meet my crew to do some bail enforcement work when I observed a large group of youths robbing an elderly lady who was using a walker. They were all armed with hand held weapons, I did not observe any firearms. I called 911 and advised the operator of the situation. While using my hands free headset and keeping the operator advised of my actions, I approached the group, and yelled something like "Hey, what are you guys doing?" After yelling a bunch of obscene words, the group dropped the old lady and began to head towards me. As I headed back towards my vehicle, the group continued to approach me. While in my vehicle, I drew my firearm as I was unable to drive off at this point without running a few of the thugs over. Just as I was about to advise them of my "armed" status, several police cruisers arrived. The group immediately scattered. I was able to grab two of the thugs got them on the ground. The officers arriving on scene were advised by 911 of my clothing and "armed" status. After checking my permit, identification and a few questions, the responding officers thanked me for my assistance and advised me that I was "free to go". The elderly woman couldn't thank me enough for helping her out and saving her from getting a serious beating. Apparently she had just cashed her monthly social security check. One of the thugs watched the transaction and followed her from the check cashing place. After a quick check up by paramedics, the lady was found to be in good health. The police gave her a ride to the police station, and I was off to work.

The second situation happened in TN. There were 3 of us in our vehicle along with a bail jumper that we had recently recovered. We were on our way to the sheriff's office heading down the interstate when we saw what appeared to be a police cruiser doing a traffic stop. There were two vehicles on the side of the road, lights flashing on the cruiser, but no people in sight. We thought that it looked odd that the passenger doors of both cars were open. We decided to pull over and check it out. One of the other guys guarded our bail jumper, while two of us got out and investigated. The guy who stayed back called the situation in to 911, and kept in contact with us by 2-way radio. About a hundred yards off the road out of sight of traffic, we observed a guy sexually assaulting a female officer. We immediately took cover and advised out partner what we saw. He relayed the info to 911 as well as confirmed that the guy was a perp and the female officer was in need of assistance. We formed our "game plan" and took action. Seeing that the perp had the officers service pistol, we figured that it be best that we get the guy as far away from the officer as possible. My partner managed to lure the guy into the woods, and I released the officer from her restraints. At this point, several units responded and a K-9 was dispatched. The K-9 did her thing and was able to quickly locate the perp in the woods. Apparently the guy couldn't figure out how to disengage the safety on the firearm! He was pretty much dog food by the time the officers placed him under arrest.

I understand Biker's concerns about getting involved. I agree about being a "good witness" whenever possible. The situations I'll assist in are those where I feel that it's very unlikely that I'll have to shoot anyone. Otherwise like Biker, I'll stick to being a "good witness". So far I've been very lucky and feel fortunate that I was able to help out folks and possibly saved a couple of lives.


gf
 

Landor

New member
I saw that video.. PM me for a link. (I refuse to post it in public. Be warned it is real and shocking.)

I want to agree with the be a good witness attitude but man after seeing this video, if it is the same one and this one takes place in another country. I really do not think I could just stand there and be a good witness, at the same point the people trying to help are not doing a good job. This is one of those moments we all dread. I honestly can not even guess what I would do at THAT moment.
 

sar

New member
I think the original poster's attitudue is why this county is going to pot. Part of my being a good father is trying to provide an example of decent human behavior to my child.

I've never been in an armed encounter(well not firearms), but have intervened in violent situations when I didn't know if there were armed people.

More applicable and certainly more likely is my intervening in a medical emergency(I'm a trauma surgeon) outside of my hospital. If I were to take biker's attitude I would quietly slink away. My malpractice insurance certainly isn't going to cover it, and the good samaritan law isn't all that protective. So all I have to gain is the possible loss of my career and subsequent inability to provide for my family. Boo hoo.
OTOH, if I walk away I can prove to my daughter that everything I want to teach her is BS and the only important rule is "look out for number one."

Doesn't seem like a difficult dillemna to me.
 

stumpjumper101

New member
what would you do

I think the original poster's attitudue is why this county is going to pot. Part of my being a good father is trying to provide an example of decent human behavior to my child.

I've never been in an armed encounter(well not firearms), but have intervened in violent situations when I didn't know if there were armed people.

More applicable and certainly more likely is my intervening in a medical emergency(I'm a trauma surgeon) outside of my hospital. If I were to take biker's attitude I would quietly slink away. My malpractice insurance certainly isn't going to cover it, and the good samaritan law isn't all that protective. So all I have to gain is the possible loss of my career and subsequent inability to provide for my family. Boo hoo.
OTOH, if I walk away I can prove to my daughter that everything I want to teach her is BS and the only important rule is "look out for number one."

Doesn't seem like a difficult dillemna to me.

I was raised to help my fellow man and tought that one reeps what he sow's. I am a paramedic firefighter so helping people in need is certainly up my alley. given the situation that was described i dont think i could just watch, it goes against all my moral upbringing. Thats woman could be some little childs mother or grandmother and she's not going to be there for them anymore cause someone who had a means to end the situation just stood and watched for fear of financial losses! dont think i could live with myself if i just played witness. nor could i look that womans children in the eye as i testified against the assailant. I believe in that situation if i had a means to end it knowing she was going to die if i didnt i would have remove one worthless thug from the gene pool!!! When the police and medic arrive you can bet they will just cover him with a sheet, no other side of the story to be told...

now for scenario # 2 bank or store robery without any serious inclination that the perp is planning to do bodily harm, he can have all the money he wants i will play witness until it becomes life threatening.
 

BikerRN

New member
OK guys, take a moment and think about this.

Those of you that would intervene with a firearm:

Where are you going to shoot from? What is your backstop? If you shoot from where the camera was shooting you stamd a good chance of hitting a passing car. Also, beyond the bagduy, what is your backstop? The cars? Did one of those parked cars have a person in it? Want to bet everything on it that they didn't? Also, did anyone notice the building behind the cars? That building has a lot of windows, and we all know how well windows stop bullets.

I will intervene, but only to the degree and level that I want to. Some of you say the guys that did intervene didn't do enough, but in reality they did a whole lot at great risk to themselves. Like I said before, I'm only using a firearm ON DUTY or to protect me and mine. Even "good shoots" can be devastating.

Have I gotten involved in stuff off duty? Yes, but I will ensure my safety first and decide what action I will take before "jumping in". I've only seen the video once, but I have seen others. Guess what guys, this is "normal" for this type of situation and this is pretty much how it goes down. I use the term FORCED TO SHOOT because in my mind that's what it should be. No other option should be available to you and you are "forced" to shoot the aggressor.

Does this mean that I think you should let the badguy have a few free whacks at you first? No, not at all. I do think that deadly force is the "last resort" and sometimes there is no other option. Be ready though to "pay the price".

I hate to say it, but unless you are an identified LEO or a loved one, I am not using deadly force to save you. Everybody is responsible for their own safety. I do not expect help nor look for it. I would suggest that you all do the same.

Biker
 

ecocks

New member
Everyone is different

so everyone will see each situation differently. Also, hindsight is always perfectly focused. IF the guy in Tyler had realized the shooter was wearing bodyarmor he would have taken headshots. IF the guy in Tacoma had known he wasn't going to be able to pull the trigger on a teenager he would not have pulled his gun, he would have run for cover.

Most of us said secure and assess, then take action. If the situation isn't safe for engagement, then don't engage. If it looks okay, then do what you can. Not everything works out the way it should. Good guys get shot/killed, victims don't make it to the hospital on time and, yes, God forbid, a stray bullet sometimes finds soft flesh. All you can do is all you can do.

I think the problem is that many are reading your statement as saying you are only going to intervene or get involved when it is convenient for you. Hopefully, it is never going to be "convenient" to shoot someone. If my family is being attacked and I am cutting the grass back home or on a business trip, I am disappointed that anyone with the means to help would deny them assistance. But, if the risk is too great for you, then so be it, I can only hope that someone else is nearby if my family is ever assaulted under those circumstances.
 
Last edited:

M50 Guy

New member
''''I hate to say it, but unless you are an identified LEO or a loved one, I am not using deadly force to save you. Everybody is responsible for their own safety. I do not expect help nor look for it. I would suggest that you all do the same.''''

Biker


I have a hard time believing that you would be ok with a fellow armed LEO just watching as your wife and kids were being murdered with a cutting tool because he was "off duty" at the time. Please spare me the "That could never happen, my wife packs all the time BS", .........................................anything can happen anytime.
 

stumpjumper101

New member
would you intervene

I havnet seen the video so i cant comment on what approach i would have or what angle i would attempt to fire from should it come to that. But as i said before its in my Blood to help people in life threatning situations. I am a second generation firefighter/paramedic. we run into burning buildings while everybody else is running out the front door, without thought of weather i may recieve bodily harm. We do this for perfect strangers!!! worrying about if someone is going to sue me will never cross my mind. there are many people still walking around today because i went into a hostile environment not knowing because the whole situation was'nt given to the dispatchers. On the subject of over penetration or whats is potentially in the background, yes we are accountable for who else or what else that bullet harms. My pistol is loaded with the first 2 rnd are frangible to cut down that risk. even with that it still leaves a great risk to take. these situations wont happen in front of a birm!

If that was my wife and someone who had the means to end it just stood by and watched the horror, you could not imagine what i would think of that person or maybe even want to do to him for letting the mother of my children be taken from this world by some worthless pschopath debt to society. Especially when he is off duty law enforcement. I do not believe that anyone could just stand and watch and live with themselves afterward.:(
 

stumpjumper101

New member
ive seen the video

ok now that ive seen the video. I would have to say that coming to the aid of this lady with use of a firearm would be perfectly justified. no jury is going to convict someone of murder or manslaughter for putting this situation to an end. he is not paying any attention to what is going on around him. he is dead set on just plain killing her so approaching and getting a up close sure shot driving it towards the concrete would stop him and hopefully after the bullet went through bone then brain matter and out the bone on the back side it will stike the sidewalk and have disentigrated or lost its energy. with any shot in public is risk but if you dont take the shot she definatly dies. Its absolutely appauling that someone would just stand and watch.


On a second note ive heard many of my deputy and police officer friends state that they are sworn officers of the peace wether they are on the clock or not they have taken an oath to protect life and property. Not just the lives of their family and friends when they are off duty!
 

sar

New member
Two different issues it seems:
1)Worry about intervening without making matters worse by shooting someone innocent, etc. I see this as very valid
2) Worry that your actions may land you in jail or have other negative consequences that you're not willing to undergo.

Having seen the video, I can't imagine doing nothing.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,437
Messages
623,666
Members
74,275
Latest member
zxclord123
Top