Do You Intervene?

[MajorGeneralMontyM]

This is a good illustration that you have to know your own State law. Carrying is an awesome responsibility and the enforcement of the law is for the LEO's not the legally armed citizen. While the laws generally are more forgiving INSIDE your home; it's another thing OUTSIDE in public. Almost all states restrict the use of deadly weapons if it will likely cause death or serious injury to innocent 3rd parties. Then there is the problem of identifying what actually is going down. What if it is an undercover narc officer protecting himself after being shot at by a gang member and his armed friends. How do you, in a split second, with the adrenaline pumping decide who the bad guy is. And of course there are more such examples.

I would 1st: try to retreat without exposing myself to fire. 2 call 911. 3 find a place of cover and await the LEO's. If that's not possible I would 1. find a place of cover 2 draw my weapon and protect myself 3 call 911 4 make sure I'm not exposing my weapon when the LEO's arrive so they don't misinterpret me as the threat.

The point is that I carry now for SELF protection from the use of a weapon of death or serious bodily harm being used against ME. Remember that most people really, when it gets down to it, arent capable of intentionally pulling the trigger, and that goes for the LEO's; so dont put that kind of pressure on you. For civilians it should be a matter of life or death.

 

[cmort666]

You use common sense. You don't shoot unless you have a very clear picture of what's going on. If the guy shot another adult, he's not taking further action and it's not obvious why, you wait until the situation develops while dialing 911.

If he shot a five year old, or it's clear that he's just randomly shooting people he sees, I would take action. I'm single and have no immediate family members to protect. After the threat was neutralized or departed, I would dial 911 and report the incident, being careful to identify myself in detail.

If I saw a guy shooting kids waiting in line to see Santa while screaming "Allahu akhbar!" and didn't intervene if I were armed, I'd feel as though I should shoot MYSELF.

 

[Krull]

If I saw a guy shooting kids waiting in line to see Santa while screaming "Allahu akhbar!" and didn't intervene if I were armed, I'd feel as though I should shoot MYSELF.

If I saw this....I would be really hauling sweet butt for the exit ,there's usually more then one of these nut jobs on board for the ride when it happens and they may have rigged the place to blow.

I don't wanna be fooling with crazy terrorists,thanks.

I see a whole family get mowed down,*beep* you didn't pay attention to your surroundings,tough luck,hope you enjoy the afterlife.

 

[38-44HD45]

This has been discussed here, previously, at length, with arguments at either end of the spectrum, from chest thumping macho, to cautiously reserved. While there's no easy answer, as has been said, adults who've not bothered to be prepared to defend themselves probably don't deserve your intervention. Someone raping a child or about to torch an orphanage probably does.

There was an illustrative incident here a while back, when several Scottsdale high school kids staged a play-acted armed assault in a parking lot, as part of a class assignment involving videotaping the event. It was apparently realistic enough to prompt observing passersby to summon the cops (no one actually intervened...). How'd you like to try to explain to the grand jury that some goofy high school students caused you to shoot them acting as a Good Samaritan?

Unless you or yours are immediately threatened, best to leave yourself out of the action, and be a good ex post facto witness.

Reminds me of an undergrad school class in Psychology. The professor one day told us that he had originally planned on having a fake shooting at the front of the class (a large one-approx. 300 students) with a grad student helper running in from the wings, "shooting" the prof, and running out. He wanted to use it to show just how lousy eyewitness testimony can be. However, he abandoned the idea, he said, because he was afraid there might be someone from Texas in his class, who might just shoot his grad student! We laughed, but I thought the idea was stupid to begin with.

When one of my CHL students asks one of these "what would you do?" questions, I always start asking the student questions, with new variables about which they've not thought. You have to be there in real time to know what you'd do; chest-thumping or Monday morning quarterbacking are almost always wrong.

 

[FirebirdV8]

This reminds me of some of the points taught in my Arizona CCW course. First, you are responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun. If you miss the bad guy, you could hit an innocent and you have just told him where you are. The lesson here is to practice, then practice after practicing some more.
Next, be sure you know the entire situation before acting. Your state laws may or may not protect you. Some of us have liberal District attorney's that will prosecute if you look at the bad guy wrong while he is released to a mental hospital so he can "get better". Some of us have the other extreme, as long as there is nothing fishy, going on you are off the hook. I for one don't want to find out which my DA is, unless my family's or my own life is in danger.
Now, without writing a novel, remember that taking another humans life, by definition is homocide! Legal and moral justification are, saddly, not the same thing in todays world.
Finally, do what is right for the situation. Small details make a huge difference. It is called self defence and home defence for a reason.

 

[maddog909]

Seems to me that there could be many circumstances in such an encounter that it would be wise to scrutinize what is really happening. It may be an undercover officer initiating the situation, it may be a bad guy.....you really don't know. I look at the self defense issue coming into effect when myself or a family member is in immediate danger. That means an armed threat is present, a weapon has been brandished. We are not the police. Anything we might do in the described situation might just make if worse if we try to intervene, not to mention the legal implications we will be facing once the encounter is over.

 

[Bratastic007]

I have a CCL and when I do carry, it is for the express purpose of protecting myself and my family.

When something bad happens in a public place (mall shooting, whatever...) my CCW is there for the express purpose of putting down whatever stands between me, my loved ones, and the nearest safest exit. The answer is the same, even if I'm by myself.

I'm not a hero, and have no desire to be. My only desire is to exercise my constitutional right to protect myself and my family. Nothing that comes immediately to mind is worth forcing my children to grow up without a father and my wife to raise them without a husband.

I have friends who are police, and I have a lot of respect for what they do, but no desire to do it. (well...maybe sometimes...). I am, however, an attorney, and I have desire to find myself on the wrong side of a court proceeding--civil or criminal. Intervening in anything not directly threatening myself is just asking for trouble.

Caveat: All that being said, if I ever came upon a man attacking a woman or child in a dark alley, I hope beyond hope that I would have the courage and ability to stop it. I would just do everything in my power to stop it without exposing myself as having a CCW.

 

[cmort666]

If I saw this....I would be really hauling sweet butt for the exit ,there's usually more then one of these nut jobs on board for the ride when it happens and they may have rigged the place to blow.

And they generally come from environments where people aren't allowed to fight back, even in the United States. Having somebody fight back throws a 200lb. monkeywrench into their plans. When the Israelis started arming school teachers, shooting kids in school stopped being as much "fun".

If you WANT this stuff to happen, make sure that you DON'T fight back.

The police aren't there to protect you as an individual. Protect yourself or don't get protected AT ALL.

It's a war and you're in it, whether you like it or not. You can be a combatant or a target. Pick one.

 

[Kanewpadle]

And they generally come from environments where people aren't allowed to fight back, even in the United States. Having somebody fight back throws a 200lb. monkeywrench into their plans. When the Israelis started arming school teachers, shooting kids in school stopped being as much "fun".

If you WANT this stuff to happen, make sure that you DON'T fight back.

The police aren't there to protect you as an individual. Protect yourself or don't get protected AT ALL.

It's a war and you're in it, whether you like it or not. You can be a combatant or a target. Pick one.

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.

 

[QuickSabre]

I honestly don't know what I'd do, but I know that I'm not an LEO, and therefore not authorized to use deadly force against anyone else - unless my OWN life is in jeopardy.

This is the key, in my opinion. The CPL doesn't make you a cop, and too many people seem to think it does. Just stay out of it, especially if you're not trained to handle it. (Oh and going to the range once in awhile doesn't count as "Trained to handle armed criminals").

If your life (or your loved ones) is in danger that's a slightly different story - but even then you can only respond enough to stop the attack. Even then, running away is probably the best option. It's pretty hard to shoot a moving target with a handgun beyond, say, 12 feet or so.

 

[ENGINE18]

The shooter might be legally defending himself and/or might be an LEO. Probably seek cover & 911 folowed by return fire if I felt threatend

 

[dryrider]

It would be difficult to just leave and that might be a good choice for some. Innocent victims who did not choose to carry? Don't deserve to die either. If I thought I could take the shot...I would.

 

[Kanewpadle]

It would be difficult to just leave and that might be a good choice for some. Innocent victims who did not choose to carry? Don't deserve to die either. If I thought I could take the shot...I would.

I hope for your sake that your right. And I hope there isn't a tail gunner present.

Wanna be hero's die all the time my friend. Don't be one of them.

Read this:
http://www.stoppingpower.net/commentary/comm_dangers_in_intervention.asp

 

[Strato]

A lot of good points have been made in this thread. I especially agree that you need to know exactly what's going on before you branish your weapon. With that being said if I walk into the convienant store next door to my house and some crackhead's waving a gun around and I'm reasonably sure he's gonna shoot the cashier I'm gonna drop him. Florida statute 776.012 protects me from prosecution in such an instance and even though there would be emotional ramifications it would'nt be nearly as bad as knowing that some family in my neighborhood lost their mother or father or child because I made a concious decision to let it happen.

 

[cshoff]

There are so many unknown variables here, that a definitive answer to the question in the OP is simply impossible.

Personal protection, when you get right down to it, is nothing more than a set of contingency plans we have in place for responding to a potential or confirmed threat. We should generally start with the least lethal, least hands-on response in our contingency plans when initially responding to a threat as long as time and distance allow us to. There are a few qualifiers that must be met before we make the decision to use deadly force to protect ourselves or another person. Those qualifiers go by the acronym of J.A.M.:

Jeopardy: Have the actions of the supposed perpetrator placed yourself or another in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death? Or, if this person continues with his current actions, will it soon place you or another in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death?

Ability: Does the supposed perpetrator have the ability to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon you or another? Is he close enough? Are you backed into a corner or do you have a path of egress close by?

Means: Does the supposed perpetrator have the means to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon you or another? Does the perp have a deadly weapon of some kind, superior strength or skills, or perhaps superior numbers?

If the answer to all three of these qualifiers is "yes", then you are most assuredly justified in using deadly force.

It is for these reasons that these "what if" or "what would you do" hypotheticals rarely have much in common with reality. We simply cannot reconcile the J.A.M. elements in a dynamic incident without actually being there at the moment as a first-person participant. The best we can do is try to prepare by incorporating diversity and stress into our training and making sure our contingency plans are comprehensive and have a heavy focus on avoidance and situational awareness, first and foremost.

 

[trigtechr]

DILEMMA
In today's society the capability of protecting self, family and others is certainly not insignificant. With this in mind, consider a hypothetical scenario. I'm walking to my car in a dark shopping mall parking lot. I come upon an assault in progress. Two large unsavory characters are holding a young woman up against a car, and she is certainly not in favor of the probable outcome of the proceedings. I am armed. I can intervene to protect her virtue. I approach and inquire, "Excuse me, Miss. What are your views on gun control?" In a surrealistic diversion from reality she explains that guns are evil, and that civilians should not be allowed to own guns. At which time I depart the scene, leaving her to her fate.

This is, admittedly, an unlikely outcome. But consider, if you will……

trigtechr

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

 

[OLDFED]

Much advice here...much of it good, but...you'll never know until it happens. Always good to play "What if". Opens the mind to most possibilities. Just don't forget that even though you won't be prosecuted in criminal court, you may be in civil court. Just ask OJ.

 

[cshoff]

Much advice here...much of it good, but...you'll never know until it happens. Always good to play "What if". Opens the mind to most possibilities. Just don't forget that even though you won't be prosecuted in criminal court, you may be in civil court. Just ask OJ.

Visualization is certainly a viable training aid. Visualization allows us to mentally place ourselves in "what if" situations and contemplate how we would react to them. But we must always remember that we will never be able to accurately predict what our adversaries might do, especially if they happen to be high on drugs or alcohol, and therefore, the responses we are preparing ourselves to make to a given circumstance are, at best, a guess. That is why these internet "what would you do" hypotheticals can never really be answered with any certainty; there are just too many unknown variables. Like I mentioned above, the only way to really evaluate your actions/reactions to a dynamic incident is by being a first-person participant to it, and since these are the kind of situations that most all of us are trying to avoid, lets hope none of us ever have to find out. Other than being there as a participant, I think the closest we can come to experiencing the kind of decision making process that would be needed in a dynamic incident is through force-on-force training. That, at least, puts us against another unpredictable human being and forces us to think and react to his/her actions and reactions.

 

[carbuncle]

I will honestly say that I don't have a definitive answer on what I would do: it's dependent on an infinite number of variables starting with my responsibility for the safety of those in my immediate care at the time, ability to ascertain what was going on, tactical advantage or lack thereof and proximity of trained law enforcement personnel. It's an issue I consider frequently, as I work in a business in which we anger a lot of people and I'd say a workplace shooter scenario is not entirely unlikely someday.

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.

 

[Strato]

Much advice here...much of it good, but...you'll never know until it happens. Always good to play "What if". Opens the mind to most possibilities. Just don't forget that even though you won't be prosecuted in criminal court, you may be in civil court. Just ask OJ.

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.