Can/May/Should/Must

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kleanbore said:
Those are the real questions.

Don't shoot unless you believe you can hit and do so without hitting the wrong target.

And if the answer is that you can, do so only if it is immediately necessary.


http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=1574
Click to expand...


Playing the devils advocate.

What if you do not take that shot because there is a chance you will hit an innocent ----- and that allows / causes the death of many more ?.

There are so many scenario's that I could post,but I am pretty sure y'all can imagine enough to fill in the spaces.

The question is " the lesser of 2 evils ".

Can you live with that choice,and are you training to do so [ mentally & shooting wise ].
 
^^ I mentioned that in a breakdown of an ABC program discussing concealed-carry licensees in a hypothetical college active-shooter scenario. In one of the scenarios, acted out with college students defending against a bad guy (portrayed by a law enforcement firearms instructor, no less!), a girl was criticized for taking a shot against the shooter that passed close to a classmate. In my rebuttal, I mentioned that the shot was likely a "must", since not having taken it would certainly have led to more opportunities for the shooter to kill.
 
Its the law of competing harms, you should take the action that will result in the least amount of force and risk necessary. There are many, many possible combinations of actions that can be employed at the moment that may or may not be seen by observers as prudent. The key is can you explain how you knew what you knew at that moment and why you did what you did, and can you do it effectively.
 
To put it in painful words.

IF your only shot to stop a attacker that was about to kill MANY,could you shoot through a child to remove that threat.

ACTUALLY KNOWING [ not imagined ] that to do otherwise would cost many innocent lives,possibly even your loved ones.

Yea,a question that you should have a real grasp of if your planning to CCW and survive any and all situations.
 
scaatylobo said:
IF your only shot to stop a attacker that was about to kill MANY,could you shoot through a child to remove that threat.
Click to expand...
How could one ever know that someone was "about to kill many" but for one's immediate use of deadly force?

I can see great difficulty in trying to mount a necessity defense,,,,
 
^^ Same here, especially since, in such a scenario, it's extremely likely that neither the child nor the shooter would remain immobile for long, meaning an opening would probably be within a second or two (an exception might be if the shooter was carrying the child.)
 
Kleanbore said:
How could one ever know that someone was "about to kill many" but for one's immediate use of deadly force?

I can see great difficulty in trying to mount a necessity defense,,,,
Click to expand...

HARDLY, a madman that was actively shooting or stabbing innocents is a pretty good indication that your actions will save MANY.

Want to over think this,fine.

But the answer is hard,and yet one that you should at least be thinking about.

FAR TOO LATE when that moment appears.

OR how about a bomb vest in a public venue and your the only one that has ANY shot = child is hostage and or in direct line of fire.

AND overthinking how to explain your way out is not the answer.
 
scaatylobo said:
HARDLY, a madman that was actively shooting or stabbing innocents is a pretty good indication that your actions will save MANY.
Click to expand...
I would never shoot an innocent person for any reason, and I would NOT expect to successfully jstify such an action in the criminal justice system or in civil court on the basis of a "pretty good indication" that others might be saved from harm by my doing so.
 
Kleanbore said:
I would never shoot an innocent person for any reason, and I would NOT expect to successfully jstify such an action in the criminal justice system or in civil court on the basis of a "pretty good indication" that others might be saved from harm by my doing so.
Click to expand...

OK, so if you see that bomb vest and your at least "pretty sure" that the lesser of 2 evils is taking that shot ---- you have already decided to not.

My view is to not be caught flat footed and have as many plans on hand and to train to do what is required to survive.

Not your cuppa tea,fine .

After all it is your life and your choice.

I am not making up a scenario that was never seen,by either a cop or a soldier.

Not having the training or option is wrong in my book.
 
scaatylobo said:
OK, so if you see that bomb vest and your at least "pretty sure" that the lesser of 2 evils is taking that shot ----
Click to expand...
Do you really think that should you willingly and knowingly shoot through a child to "remove that threat" you would have any defense at all against a murder charge?
 
Kleanbore said:
Do you really think that should you willingly and knowingly shoot through a child to "remove that threat" you would have any defense at all against a murder charge?
Click to expand...
Kleanbore said:
Do you really think that should you willingly and knowingly shoot through a child to "remove that threat" you would have any defense at all against a murder charge?
Click to expand...

If I did not,I would not have posed that most horrible of situations to those here.
I honestly believe that I am dealing with VERY ethical people on here.
And as such I want to ask them the questions they might fear to ask themselves.
YES = if I cannot come up with another solution to that problem ,I will take that shot .
KNOWING that I saved countless lives and that I had NO CHOICE.
Other than to die, DOING NOTHING..
 
scaatylobo said:
if I cannot come up with another solution to that problem ,I will take that shot .
KNOWING that I saved countless lives and that I had NO CHOICE.
Other than to die, DOING NOTHING..
Click to expand...
That does not mean that you would have any chance of success in a defense of justification.

There is a reason for the law being what it is. It is to help us distinguish between rich and wrong.
 
scattylobo asked:
IF your only shot to stop a attacker that was about to kill MANY,could you shoot through a child to remove that threat.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the question of how you KNEW the attacker was about to kill others (something that a court, not you would adjudicate) the point that needs to be recognized is that at least two trials would ensure.

A criminal trial in which the shooter would need to convince a jury of the need to kill the child in order to avoid a greater threat to others. And you will need to answer why it was necessary to shoot an innocent child when you could have sacrificed yourself by interposing your body between the shooter and his intended victims. If you shoot the child, you will be portrayed as a coward unless you can convince the jury the child's life was "worth" less than your own. Good luck with that one.

A civil wrongful death trial in which the shooter would need to convince a jury that killing the child was necessary. And since the standard of proof is lower in a civil liability trial, kiss your retirement savings goodbye.
 
hdwhit writes:

And you will need to answer why it was necessary to shoot an innocent child when you could have sacrificed yourself by interposing your body between the shooter and his intended victims.
Click to expand...

To play his advocate for a minute, the response would be that "I believed that, once I had been shot dead in sacrifice, the murderous rampage would continue without me being able to offer any further intervention."

But, no, I don't see myself being able to take the shot described. Not yet, at least. I see from where he's coming, and his thinking is that, if he felt it necessary to sacrifice an innocent (already deeply against his convictions) to save "the masses", he must also be prepared to have sacrificed himself to the courts should it come to that. Perhaps he is.

That should reconcile the points on both sides (scaatylobo's and Kleanbore's.)
 
Last edited:
hdwhit said:
A criminal trial in which the shooter would need to convince a jury of the need to kill the child in order to avoid a greater threat to others.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about that. There are limits to the use of the necessity defense. For example, courts have ruled that an actor would not be justified in harming someone in response to a threat of serious harm to someone else.
 
MedWheeler said:
hdwhit writes:



To play his advocate for a minute, the response would be that "I believed that, once I had been shot dead in sacrifice, the murderous rampage would continue without me being able to offer any further intervention."

But, no, I don't see myself being able to take the shot described. Not yet, at least. I see from where he's coming, and his thinking is that, if he felt it necessary to sacrifice an innocent (already deeply against his convictions) to save "the masses", he must also be prepared to have sacrificed himself to the courts should it come to that. Perhaps he is.

That should reconcile the points on both sides (scaatylobo's and Kleanbore's.)
Click to expand...

THANK YOU,for the only voice of reason I have seen so far.

AND the request for me to interpose myself between the child and the perp is too silly.

IF there were any chance to do so,why would I be FORCED [ read that word again ] to take such a horrible shot ?.

And obviously,if there were not TOTAL & ABSOLUTE PROOF that the perp was about to commit a terrorist act and kill many = why would I take ANY ACTION ?.

And yes,if taking that shot [ that is not positive to kill the child ] was putting me at so many risks ---- then the old adage is true.

Better to be tried by 12,than carried by 6.

I would be also saving my life,and if I did not survive ----- then I have nothing to fear from the courts.

BUT the one point that is obvious is that if I do not take the shot,I will DIE for sure,as will any and all who are with me and in that whole AO.

I am amused at the fact that all here [ ok,most ] see no reason to ever consider the horrible choice of "the lesser of 2 evils ".

And please do note ,that I pray I am NEVER EVER forced to make that choice.
 
Kleanbore said:
I'm not sure about that. There are limits to the use of the necessity defense. For example, courts have ruled that an actor would not be justified in harming someone in response to a threat of serious harm to someone else.
Click to expand...

Correction on my point,it will not be "harm to someone ".

But to a large group ,possibly a mall full or theater full.

Bet the courts have not seen that one and will take a very long time to come up with that answer.
 
scaatylobo said:
Bet the courts have not seen that one and will take a very long time to come up with that answer.
Click to expand...
I would guess that the limits of the necessity defense have been rather well defined in court rulings over the last couple centuries.

If an actor shoots a third party in what would otherwise be deemed as an act of gross negligence, his having fired may well be justified, if he had been faced with immediate necessity to protect himself or a loved one.

To protect some other person from a crime? That may be stretching it too far in some jurisdictions.

If the harm to the third party was deliberate? I very much doubt that a necessity defense would apply.

scaatylobo said:
Better to be tried by 12,than carried by 6.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that those twelve may never be allowed to learn of your reasoning and motivation at the time. The judge will decide that.
 
Kleanbore said:
I would guess that the limits of the necessity defense have been rather well defined in court rulings over the last couple centuries.

If an actor shoots a third party in what would otherwise be deemed as an act of gross negligence, his having fired may well be justified, if he had been faced with immediate necessity to protect himself or a loved one.

To protect some other person from a crime? That may be stretching it too far in some jurisdictions.

If the harm to the third party was deliberate? I very much doubt that a necessity defense would apply.

Keep in mind that those twelve may never be allowed to learn of your reasoning and motivation at the time. The judge will decide that.
Click to expand...

OK, so by your judgement ,do not take the shot and die with the rest of the sheep.

Even with an option that is horrible AND distasteful to say the least.

My posting is just to let all see that some of your choices are NOT what anyone would actually choose.

But its called " the lesser of 2 evils " for a very good reason.

IF [ big if ] you were to survive,and allowed and witnessed the death of many ------------- that you could have prevented,hope you don't take a header off a tall building for failure to take action.
 
" Keep in mind that those twelve may never be allowed to learn of your reasoning and motivation at the time. The judge will decide that."

BUT ,that judge will not ever be in your head and know what you knew at the moment lives were at stake.

YOU WILL KNOW, and KNOWING you allowed many to perish --------------- my point ,s'all.
 
scaatylobo said:
IF [ big if ] you were to survive,and allowed and witnessed the death of many ------------- that you could have prevented,hope you don't take a header off a tall building for failure to take action.
Click to expand...
I would;t . I am realistic about things.

scaatylobo said:
YOU WILL KNOW, and KNOWING you allowed many to perish --------------- my point ,s'all.
Click to expand...
You may well believe that to be reasonably probable, but it may not be true. But if you deliberately shoot an innocent you will know that you did that.
 
Kleanbore said:
I would;t . I am realistic about things.

You may well believe that to be reasonably probable, but it may not be true. But if you deliberately shoot an innocent you will know that you did that.
Click to expand...

AND ,if forced to make that choice I am SURE that will haunt me as many things already do from the job.

But that is the price one pays for taking actions that others choose to not even consider of putting themselves in the position of .

AND if you know the law [ and I do believe you do ] your JUSTIFICATION is the act was the act of a "reasonable man".

Would not be an act I would ever choose to put myself or any other in.

Not by choice.

FACT IS --- it would only be for lack of ANY OTHER CHOICE.

Just a tool to add to your training and situational awareness.
 
scaatylobo said:
....your JUSTIFICATION is the act was the act of a "reasonable man".
Click to expand...
...As determined by other reasonable men, AND AS DEFINED BY the constructs of statutory and common law.

No. I would never even consider deliberately shooting an innocent person to protect myself, and I do not think that reasonable persons would deem that to be lawful.

To protect people whom I co not know? NO!
 
Last edited:
Considering the difference in sizes between an adult and a child, even one as old as 12-14, I find it hard to believe that shooting through that child would ever become a necessity. A perp using a child as a shield is going to be jittery and excitable, unable to remain calm or still. At some point, their extremities, esp. legs, will be exposed and a shot can be taken to disable the shooter. It won't be a "kill shot" but it will further distract them from their immediate situation, possibly allowing for a clean shot to the head or torso.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top