Armed Customer Halts Violent Attack in Party Store - Would You Intervene?
- Thread starter Jack Flash
- Start date
- Status
Protected One
Member
At that time... living in Detroit.
Maybe I should consider...
...regarding those who only care about 'me or mine' if the victim(s) the next time I intervene is one of 'yours?'
Naaaah, I don't discriminate; I will always help those in need.
Be safe.
...regarding those who only care about 'me or mine' if the victim(s) the next time I intervene is one of 'yours?'
Naaaah, I don't discriminate; I will always help those in need.
Be safe.
cmort666
Member
The point that people are making is that you may not be "helping" ANYBODY, yourself included....regarding those who only care about 'me or mine' if the victim(s) the next time I intervene is one of 'yours?'
Naaaah, I don't discriminate; I will always help those in need.
Be safe.
If you "protect" some female in a domestic dispute and she either lies to the cops and says you were the aggressor, or she physically attacks you or helps her assailant attack you, what have you accomplished? Whom have you "helped"?
You have to make the choice of whether to intervene or not, but you should do it with your eyes wide open, and you probably ought to give it a LOT of thought before it happens.
...regarding those who only care about 'me or mine' if the victim(s) the next time I intervene is one of 'yours?'
Naaaah, I don't discriminate; I will always help those in need.
Be safe.
You'll have to duck and cover. Beware I or they don't confuse you for another attacker . . .
So far, so good.
Believe me, I don't do anything in that regard without considering options and outcomes.
But in my career (on and off duty; primary jurisdiction or not) never had an outcome unfavorable to me and, in the end, the victim(s.) Since then the same has been true.
Bear in mind, like most LEO's I was/am prepared better than most folks.
I do understand there are inherent risks. And clearly I do not relish these situations.
Be safe.
Believe me, I don't do anything in that regard without considering options and outcomes.
But in my career (on and off duty; primary jurisdiction or not) never had an outcome unfavorable to me and, in the end, the victim(s.) Since then the same has been true.
Bear in mind, like most LEO's I was/am prepared better than most folks.
I do understand there are inherent risks. And clearly I do not relish these situations.
Be safe.
""A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire "
Didn't he get an electrical shock?
Didn't he get an electrical shock?
Honestly, that should probably enter into the "intervene or not" calculus. I hadn't thought of it this way--hear me out.
Let's say you intervene before you'd be justified in drawing. Now you're in a situation where the suspected bad guy has the initiative. He's the one making the decision as to whether the fight escalates, and you're doing it on his terms. That's not a position I'd want to start a fight in!
Otherwise, yeah--I'd be looking to stack the deck in terms of positioning. Maximum distance, and ideally an obstacle in between me and him. Not a lot of times you see that. Even in public areas, wall-to-wall distance is rarely very far, and your "backstop" usually sucks.
Honestly, I hear a lot of stuff about close-quarters fights. From what I've seen, for civilians, the stats don't back it up (Givens and Correia have crunched the numbers). And to be frank, I'd much rather put my chips on awareness and avoidance so I don't have to fight in stabbing range.
That would do it
sigp220.45
US Veteran
Yes, I would intervene.
Close-quarter fights and defense situations are very common. What these various stats seem to show is that armed civilians using firearms in them is not. Not every scenario requires a gun solution, but I see reported assaults on a regular basis that probably do, even in cases when the attacker(s) is unarmed. I'm not familiar with with any study by Correia(Larry?), but I am with the Givens study, which is fairy limited(only 66 cases and only involving past or present students) as well as Claude Werner's stats in the Armed Citizen(500 cases) and they do show that the specific civilian self-defense shootings they documented occurred at very close distances, but not at extreme close-quarters or contact distances. A great number of the Givens incidents were armed robberies IIRC. And how many absolutely required a lethal force response. According to his stats, most scenarios necessitating the use of a firearm occurred in public places whereas Werner's showed the opposite with the majority being home defense. So, there can be inconsistencies between different stats.
One could look at these stats and dismiss the need for ECQ skills, but I think an analytical consideration of what the stats do and do not show contradicts that perception. The armed citizen only shows cases where the defender was successful. Any incidents where the victim was unable to access their weapon or disarmed were not included. I would wager that the majority of violent crimes perpetuated against civilians occur at contact ranges since I'm pretty sure the combined numbers of unarmed physical assaults, rape, stabbings, bludgeonings would outnumber shootings by a relatively wide margin.
So, if the majority of violent crimes happen at contact distances, why don't we see more armed civilians shootings occuring at these ranges? I'm not asserting that this is absolute fact or even that I'm correct at all, but I think it is debatable and my theory is this...
1. Most Americans do not carry a firearm.
2. Even if carrying a firearm, the average armed citizen lacks the skills and ability to access and effectively use the weapon in a reactive ECQ scenario.
3. I would say that the armed citizen is generally much more situationally aware than most and does often see danger before it's on top them, therefore avoiding the problem altogether or frequently proactively puts themselves into a more advantageous position which is ideal.
However, no one can accurately assess and be aware of all potential threats all of the time or should count on having a certain amount of warning, time and distance. Avoidance, alertness and situational awareness does not negate point number 2 as most gun centric folks are severely lacking in reactive ECQ skills and either they see the threat in time and are more likely successful or don't and subsequently assaulted.
Pretty much just thinking out loud here.
Last edited:
I'd propose that the appearance of a gun interrupts the attacker's plans, and that people naturally move away from threats. That, and the shooters in question mostly decided to shoot before the threat was on top of them.
Does that sort of training have value? Sure, at some point. But I think that the vast majority of shooters are nowhere near that point. Most people can't operate their pistols under stress, much less present quickly or hit things. I mean, I've had CCW-seekers in qualifications insert a magazine, aim and squeeze the trigger, and when nothing happened, turn to me and say, "It's jammed."
Frighteningly common, and wrong on so many levels.
But to be quite frank, forget 'em. Nothing you say to or do with these people is going to wake them up or make them less of a threat to themselves.
Me? Dunno. Even when I'm out-and-about, most people aren't that close. I'd bet I'd have a different opinion of it if I spent more time in malls or lived in the cities.
Does that sort of training have value? Sure, at some point. But I think that the vast majority of shooters are nowhere near that point. Most people can't operate their pistols under stress, much less present quickly or hit things. I mean, I've had CCW-seekers in qualifications insert a magazine, aim and squeeze the trigger, and when nothing happened, turn to me and say, "It's jammed."
Frighteningly common, and wrong on so many levels.
But to be quite frank, forget 'em. Nothing you say to or do with these people is going to wake them up or make them less of a threat to themselves.
Me? Dunno. Even when I'm out-and-about, most people aren't that close. I'd bet I'd have a different opinion of it if I spent more time in malls or lived in the cities.
cmort666
Member
If you're going to get involved in other people's psychodrama, I HIGHLY recommend that you carry and use some kind of recording device.
When I have a gun on my body, I'm recording. While this is primarily for law enforcement encounters, doing so was INVALUABLE in an encounter with a couple of aggressive protestors intentionally blocking the view from a sunken driveway, and trying to CAUSE traffic accidents.
A lawyer friend paid me to take pictures of them trying to cause an accident. One and then the other confronted me, trying to start a fistfight. I said not a word to either of them, and let them hurl their insults and threats.
When my friend played the recording for the other protestors, they were disgusted and expelled the troublemakers from their group.
Furthermore, I was armed at the time, and had I had to shoot one of them, my recording would have shown them to be the aggressors.
When I have a gun on my body, I'm recording. While this is primarily for law enforcement encounters, doing so was INVALUABLE in an encounter with a couple of aggressive protestors intentionally blocking the view from a sunken driveway, and trying to CAUSE traffic accidents.
A lawyer friend paid me to take pictures of them trying to cause an accident. One and then the other confronted me, trying to start a fistfight. I said not a word to either of them, and let them hurl their insults and threats.
When my friend played the recording for the other protestors, they were disgusted and expelled the troublemakers from their group.
Furthermore, I was armed at the time, and had I had to shoot one of them, my recording would have shown them to be the aggressors.
Protected One
Member
I can't say exactly *how* I'd respond unless something happens, but I certainly would respond.
Clayguy
Member
As a former cop, I can easily tell you that in family disputes the victim will sometimes turn on you when you're wrestling her violent husband/boyfriend/whatever to cuff him. Things are not always as they appear.
If I were to lose my father in such an incident, it would console the hell out of me to know he was a "'decent man."' It would mean everything to me as a son, forever; more than any loss of his income or property.
Kodiakco
Member
Yea, right. You talk the talk, hope you never have to walk it. I'd rather have my Dad than have to bury him prematurely. Guess I'm just selfish in that way.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Last edited:
cmort666
Member
Not too long ago, a guy ran over some people at Ohio State, then started trying to kill people with a knife.
How do you be "aware of" and "avoid" THAT?
That may have happened at a CPZ, but in Europe such things happen in places which here wouldn't be.
You don't choose your assailant's tactics. You just choose your [hopefully planned] response to them.
The world has changed.
The threat has changed.
joeintexas
US Veteran
If we are talking breaking up a domestic dispute between husband and wife, boyfriend and girlfriend, I will mind my own business. If and when that dispute turns to him beating her face to a pulp or using a weapon on the victim or if it's a thug attacking a helpless person, yes, it's time to step in and help. I am amazed at how many people can come up with an excuse for not helping someone in desperate need. Oh well, I guess that's the world we live in today, hurray for me and to heck with you. If someone's life is in danger and we could have prevented it and did nothing, could you live with that on your conscience? I guess some of you evidently could. Each to their own.
- Status
Similar threads
