Do You Intervene?

[cshoff]

OJ was held liable in civil court because even though criminal court failed to convict there was still a crime and wrongful death which civil court has a much lower burden of proof on the accused. If a killing is ruled justifiable there is no crime and no wrongful death.

Except that not all states allow for the absence of a crime to be used as an absolute defense to civil liability. In some states, you can still be sued, and you can still lose the suit, even though were justified in injuring/killing someone in a lawful act of self defense. You and I are both lucky that our respective states (Florida and Missouri) have used some common sense when crafting our laws.

 

[The Big D]

Since no one else has mentioned it I'll post a link to the Wikipedia page on the Tacoma Mall shooting, in which an armed citizen attempted to intervene, for reference: Tacoma Mall shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Mr. McKown's mistake was in issuing the "verbal command," it seems. In an active shooter scenario there should be no such words spoken...any words, for that matter.

For thh record, I am so very sorry he (McKown) was injured so severely. He didn't deserve that fate.

Be safe.

 

[Strato]

Except that not all states allow for the absence of a crime to be used as an absolute defense to civil liability. In some states, you can still be sued, and you can still lose the suit, even though were justified in injuring/killing someone in a lawful act of self defense. You and I are both lucky that our respective states (Florida and Missouri) have used some common sense when crafting our laws.

Hopefully it will never come into play but I sure would hate to live in a state that would allow me to be financially penalized for saving someone's life from a violent criminal. If someone dies in the process of commiting a forcible felony it's pretty hard to view their death as wrongful. Fortunately some of us live in states that understand that.

 

[Kanewpadle]

Mr. McKown's mistake was in issuing the "verbal command," it seems. In an active shooter scenario there should be no such words spoken...any words, for that matter.

For thh record, I am so very sorry he (McKown) was injured so severely. He didn't deserve that fate.

Be safe.

That was one mistake. The other is that his gun failed to operate. They call him a hero. I sincerely mean no disrespect for the guy, but look where he is now. IMHO, he was ill prepared for the situation. Which has been my point all along. Intervene without being prepared and accept the consequenses.

 

[carbuncle]

From what I remember reading at the time, Mr. McKown hesitated when he saw how young the shooter was, and I am speculating that the shooter didn't hesitate at all. Which illustrates why it's good to think about scenarios like this in advance: would you be able to shoot a 15 year old in the back? I offer this strictly for consideration, not as a challenge.

 

[Kanewpadle]

From what I remember reading at the time, Mr. McKown hesitated when he saw how young the shooter was, and I am speculating that the shooter didn't hesitate at all. Which illustrates why it's good to think about scenarios like this in advance: would you be able to shoot a 15 year old in the back? I offer this strictly for consideration, not as a challenge.

In that situation, while firing a semi automatic weapon at random, yes I would shoot him in the back. But only if I was close enough and the conditions were in my favor.

 

[cmort666]

That's nice and all. Real easy to say. But there is a real BIG difference between fighting for yourself or loved one and a total stranger.

As I said, it's a moral issue for me.

Neither of us has any more LEGAL duty to protect another than the police do (which is NONE).

I impose upon MYSELF a MORAL duty to be a decent person. A decent person doesn't let somebody shoot toddlers when he can do something about it. You shouldn't go to jail if you don't. You shouldn't have anyone willing to have anything to do with you either.

 

[Kanewpadle]

As I said, it's a moral issue for me.

Neither of us has any more LEGAL duty to protect another than the police do (which is NONE).

I impose upon MYSELF a MORAL duty to be a decent person. A decent person doesn't let somebody shoot toddlers when he can do something about it. You shouldn't go to jail if you don't. You shouldn't have anyone willing to have anything to do with you either.

Simply put, there's a place and time to play hero. We all must choose to so wisely and be prepared for the outcome. I will help those that are defenseless but only on my terms. But those that choose not to help themselves are on their own.

And I don't count on anyone else's help or intervention. To do so is foolish and unrealistic.

 

[cmort666]

Simply put, there's a place and time to play hero.

"Playing hero" is seeking out danger to win the approval of others.

I have expressed an inclination to defend the defenseless so as not to despise myself.

 

[flop-shank]

I think you guys have gotten down to argueing over the language used.

cmort, IIRC, you're an experienced 11 bravo, You probably have a more refined ability to access a serious situation on the fly than most, so you probably would perform where others fail.

IMO, we all need to listen to that inner voice that tells us when we're getting in over our head. FWIW, I agree with cmort, if someone's shooting toddlers, or other obvious innocents, I'm taking the fight to them. I have to be able to live with myself.

 

[cowart]

Im in a public area... and there is an active shooter?
I will do what I can to put him down.

How would you determine that it wasn't a plainclothes LEO who just shot a bad guy? Or a licensed CCW who just shot a mugger?

 

[Sebago Son]

"... pray God's hand is on you..."

How can you plan for a hypothetical-what if-coulda/shoulda/woulda?

When it happens, IF it ever happens, you might have 10 minutes to make up your mind, or you might have a milisecond.

Learn to shoot, learn the difference between cover and concealment, play it by ear, and pray God's hand is on you.

Agreed.

Unless they start herding everyone to the freezers intervention without an immediate threat is fraught with the possibility of worsening the situation.

The rest is armchair Monday morning quarterbacking.

 

[Evil One]

How would you determine that it wasn't a plainclothes LEO who just shot a bad guy? Or a licensed CCW who just shot a mugger?

Should be pretty easy to tell a situation like those you mentioned... from an assassin walking thru pumping lead into anyone they see.
Someone who is 1 on 1... that is a hard situation.
Law enforcement generally make it a point of announcing themselves as LEO in a public area when they are in plain clothes and taking someone down.

Its a hard decision to make.
If you are in doubt, keep your head down...
If its a Lubys... light them up.


Jim

 

[cmort666]

Law enforcement generally make it a point of announcing themselves as LEO in a public area when they are in plain clothes and taking someone down.

I'm well known for being hard on LEOs, but I just don't see one (at least one who hasn't gone Bobby Cuts) just shooting kids or everybody in sight.

As I previously noted, if you see a one on one shooting that happens and then nothing else happens and the shooter doesn't leave, that's probably one you're going to want to leave alone. Dial 911 and observe the situation.

If it only took me a couple of tries to get somebody at the Cleveland Metroparks Rangers non-emergency number to confirm that it was professional hunters shooting in the valley below my apartment and not poachers or gang members, I imagine 911 SHOULD eventually tell you what's going on, despite my repeated experiences of their incompetence.

 

[Kanewpadle]

I'm well known for being hard on LEOs, but I just don't see one (at least one who hasn't gone Bobby Cuts) just shooting kids or everybody in sight.

As I previously noted, if you see a one on one shooting that happens and then nothing else happens and the shooter doesn't leave, that's probably one you're going to want to leave alone. Dial 911 and observe the situation.

If it only took me a couple of tries to get somebody at the Cleveland Metroparks Rangers non-emergency number to confirm that it was professional hunters shooting in the valley below my apartment and not poachers or gang members, I imagine 911 SHOULD eventually tell you what's going on, despite my repeated experiences of their incompetence.

I don't disagree with anything you said previously. My point is this; I will not jump into any situation without thinking things through. There are way too many variables for either of us to consider or express and an internet forum. And there are way to many people anxious to play hero and prove their worth to the rest of the world. How many people have died intervening in such a situation and were completely unprepared to do so? A lot of them ended up dead. If I give my life for a total stranger, it won't be because I was unprepared or just plain stupid.

I take it you have the experience and training necessary to make a difficult decision in a matter of a few seconds or less. I also am capable doing the same. But honestly and realistically, do you think that most people that carry guns can do the same? Not that I am any better than the next person but I don't think they are. How many of those has ever heard of a "tailgunner"? A few maybe.

To be honest I think we agree. Conveying myself in writing has never been a strong point with me. But I will say this. If I were to intervene I would be just as worried about an untrained, unprepared gun carrier as I would a bad guy.

 

[sheriffoconee]

this subject can be "what if'd" to death.....
on the topic of intervention, I offer the following advice....
can you clearly articulate WHY you intervened, and live with that decision....and is your intervention OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE....
that is, could another reasonable person, seeing, hearing, smelling, the same set of facts and circumstances reach the same conclusion to intervene that you did.....
for a good discussion....I urge the reading and study of Graham vs Connor...we use it in my profession of course, but it applies to everyone...
if some lawyer some day is defending you, knowing Graham would be a good idea.....
essentially, you can't be held responsible for facts and circumstances that were unknown to you, and couldn't be known to you....
here is the way the Supremes wrote it...
GRAHAM V. CONNOR, 490 U. S. 386 (1989) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
there are a lot of internet discussion on the topic, feel free to do more research for some more plain language interpretations

 

[Kanewpadle]

this subject can be "what if'd" to death.....
on the topic of intervention, I offer the following advice....
can you clearly articulate WHY you intervened, and live with that decision....and is your intervention OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE....
that is, could another reasonable person, seeing, hearing, smelling, the same set of facts and circumstances reach the same conclusion to intervene that you did.....
for a good discussion....I urge the reading and study of Graham vs Connor...we use it in my profession of course, but it applies to everyone...
if some lawyer some day is defending you, knowing Graham would be a good idea.....
essentially, you can't be held responsible for facts and circumstances that were unknown to you, and couldn't be known to you....
here is the way the Supremes wrote it...
GRAHAM V. CONNOR, 490 U. S. 386 (1989) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
there are a lot of internet discussion on the topic, feel free to do more research for some more plain language interpretations

Interesting reading. Thanks Sheriff.

It's one reason why I will become a member of Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network.

Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Network, LLC

 

[tpd223]

I would submit there is not enough context for one to make a decision with this scenario as given.

If it was a single shooter and single shootee, the shootee is down, and the shooter is still there and not running away, I'd likely assume an off-duty/UC copper or armed citizen just shot someone.

If the shooter runs afterwards, likely a bad guy that just whacked someone.

If they are shooting everyone in sight, different story.


Something very similar happened in a mall in Oklahoma City a few years ago, off-duty copper handled the situation by shooting the gang-banger that had just killed someone and was getting ready to shoot more people, but the officer had body language, yelling of threats, actions of bystanders, etc. to give him context to make a decision.

Evan Marshall has a very well written article on the dangers of intervention on his site.

 

[ltcdoty]

I would shoot the gun from his hand, the belt buckle off his pant so they would fall down, and the hat off his head.

 

[Brokenbutnotdead]

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6...