WayneConrad
Member
You're not a police officer with a duty to society.
False dichotomy.
Assuming police officers have a duty to society, that does not imply that individual citizens do not share that duty.
You're not a police officer with a duty to society.
Not that I am disagreeing with making sure your family is safe first, but once they are safe, I would hope that a CCW holder is going to help protect the public instead of turn their backs on the situation. I guess I am in the minority in that if it is in my power, I am going to try to save lives, even if I pay the price. I talked to my wife about it too and she is in full agreement.
WayneConrad said:False dichotomy.
Assuming police officers have a duty to society, that does not imply that individual citizens do not share that duty.
Assuming police officers have a duty to society, that does not imply that individual citizens do not share that duty.
Didn't some court rule that the police are not obligated to help you?
I'll pop back in for a comment at the risk of going off topic. This is an interesting concept commonly known as the "Good Samaritan Law"Laws must be passed nationwide that exempt legally armed citizens who act in good faith in such situation from both ALL criminal and civil repercussions .
In a public shooting while it would be completely unfair if you were to miss with a round and cripple or kill someone even a child , you would need to be free from responsibility if you were firing at a known threat that was already using or about to use deadly force upon defenseless people .
CCW holders are licensed to carry a firearm concealed, not to use a firearm to intervene. Other laws and requirements protect us in that circumstance. A CCW holder has no "scope of practice", no license to intervene on another person's behalf, and there are no reasonable and prudent guidelines for intervention during a criminal act. Saying a CCW holder is competent to intervene in such an instance is tantamount to saying a person is competent to practice medicine because he or she possesses a stethescope and can legally carry it about.
Until the Sheeple understand , accept and acknowledge that we aren't the true danger here and in doing so demand a change in the laws that govern such situations we all have to operate under the CYOA rule !
Laws must be passed nationwide that exempt legally armed citizens who act in good faith in such situation from both ALL criminal and civil repercussions .
Secondly, for your idea for Good Samaritan type laws to protect you from criminal and civil liability should you intervene in a situation, you would have to agree to changes in the CCW system that would make a CCW so hard to get that most people wouldn't bother.
I thought the purpose of the thread was to discuss the moral obligation, not the legal limitations.
I did not say it made the activity incorrect.Just because a "scope of practice" is undefined, and guidelines and procedures haven't been set up does not make an activity incorrect - unless you're a career bureaucrat.
In this instance, existing laws protect you. It is up to you to know, follow and not exceed them, just as I must know, follow, and not exceed my scope of practice in a medical emergency. Yes, I assist in surgery, but If I slice open a person in the middle of a life threatening MI to perform a bit of hands on cardiac massage, I will be in a lot of hot water, whether I save their life or not.IIRC, some states specifically state that deadly force can only be used to protect yourself or family, right? But if one is not in one of those states?
Sometimes the only stipulation for "competent to intervene" is "is the person breathing?"
Precisely. Thus "Good Samaritan Laws" can be enacted to protect the medical emergency responder, but are difficult to apply to the CCW holder's intervention in a criminal life threatening emergency.Giving CPR is little different then jumping into a gunfight.
Giving CPR is little different then jumping into a gunfight.
A person's moral obligations would be off topic anywhere on THR.
I somewhat disagree with Damien45, on the obligation. Morally, yes, legally no.