WayneConrad
Member
False dichotomy.
Assuming police officers have a duty to society, that does not imply that individual citizens do not share that duty.
Morally obligated?
- Thread starter SaintofKillers
- Start date
- Status
False dichotomy.
Assuming police officers have a duty to society, that does not imply that individual citizens do not share that duty.
brownie0486
Member
Assuming police officers have a duty to society, that does not imply that individual citizens do not share that duty.
If that were true, the gov types would allow for everyone to carry a weapon. As they do not, and have not for a long time, you might run afoul trying to tell a jury you had a "duty" to act on someone else behalf.
Big can of worms gets opened if your thought process is citizens have a "duty" to act IMO. Not saying one should not act or not, just that one would be wise to not claim their actions as a duty.
Brownie
If that were true, the gov types would allow for everyone to carry a weapon. As they do not, and have not for a long time, you might run afoul trying to tell a jury you had a "duty" to act on someone else behalf.
Big can of worms gets opened if your thought process is citizens have a "duty" to act IMO. Not saying one should not act or not, just that one would be wise to not claim their actions as a duty.
Brownie
While this is a position that everyone with a CCW has asked themselves to the point of wrestling with it , the ugly realities of having you life ruined are just that realities . Being 25 and gung ho are quite different than being in your late 40's or older with retirement looming on the horizon and the possibility of being even financially ruined would be devastating .
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 .
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 .
That day is a very long way off !
JesseL
Member
WayneConrad said:
I assume police officers have done something to the effect of swearing an oath to protect the public.
While you may or may not have sworn such an oath, I (and most others) have not. I have sworn to protect my family.
As far as I'm concerned, the only duty that I believe everyone has, is the duty to leave each other the heck alone.
WayneConrad
Member
I'm not sure how to say this so it makes sense. But let's try.
It is one thing to hire people to do certain of our duties for us.
It is another to decide that, once hired, those things may no longer be done by us, but only by the hireling.
Hiring policemen is smart. It's capitalism. It's getting those who want to do the hard thing connected with the hard thing that needs doing. A policeman exercises powers no different than yours, because in natural law, he has no powers you don't also have. It is every citizen's power to enforce the law (and to suffer the consequences if enforced wrongly, just as the police officer would).
I might add that the recent crop of laws giving policemen special powers and protections not afforded to other citizens are contrary to natural law. They are, even if well intended, wrong. They don't lead to a happy outcome for your rights and for your country.
Hiring policemen and then making them the sole moral and lawful exerciser of police power isn't smart. It's voluntarily giving up a power that by rights belongs to all citizens. And once given up, you don't get it back easily.
Look, I'm not saying I want to do what police do. Having a professional police force leads to far better law enforcement than we'd have if I did it. But I cannot make the leap across the logical chasm from "Bad idea for me to do it" to "It's immoral for anyone but a cop to do what a cop does." Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what I'm reading. Probably I am.
It is one thing to hire people to do certain of our duties for us.
It is another to decide that, once hired, those things may no longer be done by us, but only by the hireling.
Hiring policemen is smart. It's capitalism. It's getting those who want to do the hard thing connected with the hard thing that needs doing. A policeman exercises powers no different than yours, because in natural law, he has no powers you don't also have. It is every citizen's power to enforce the law (and to suffer the consequences if enforced wrongly, just as the police officer would).
I might add that the recent crop of laws giving policemen special powers and protections not afforded to other citizens are contrary to natural law. They are, even if well intended, wrong. They don't lead to a happy outcome for your rights and for your country.
Hiring policemen and then making them the sole moral and lawful exerciser of police power isn't smart. It's voluntarily giving up a power that by rights belongs to all citizens. And once given up, you don't get it back easily.
Look, I'm not saying I want to do what police do. Having a professional police force leads to far better law enforcement than we'd have if I did it. But I cannot make the leap across the logical chasm from "Bad idea for me to do it" to "It's immoral for anyone but a cop to do what a cop does." Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what I'm reading. Probably I am.
WeThePeople
Member
I'm not sugesting that we have no duty to protect others. What I am saying is that in many circumstances, the best way for a non-LEO to do so is to notify the actual LEOs that there is a threat.
If there are no LEOs, then you need to undertake some serious introspection before deciding that you are the right person to pull the trigger with citizens downrange.
If there are no LEOs, then you need to undertake some serious introspection before deciding that you are the right person to pull the trigger with citizens downrange.
bogie
Member
I think the time for introspection is now. If something happens, you're not going to have time for a lot of deep thought.
It's gonna be "that person is about to get hurt. I can stop it. Should I?" and then either bang or no bang. Because that's likely all the time you'll have. Maybe less. Do your thinking now.
As for waiting and letting the only people on the way to the situation who are qualified to handle the situation handle it... Well, I've shot next to some of 'em... And wondered where the odd unexplained fliers on my targets were coming from... Then I realized that those were 9mm holes and I was shooting a .45...
It's gonna be "that person is about to get hurt. I can stop it. Should I?" and then either bang or no bang. Because that's likely all the time you'll have. Maybe less. Do your thinking now.
As for waiting and letting the only people on the way to the situation who are qualified to handle the situation handle it... Well, I've shot next to some of 'em... And wondered where the odd unexplained fliers on my targets were coming from... Then I realized that those were 9mm holes and I was shooting a .45...
toivo
Member
It's not quite that extreme. They can't be held legally liable for failing to protect individuals against crime: the "sin of omission." The rationale for this is the sheer impossibility, given the number of police, of adequately protecting everyone. To do this effectively, we'd each need an officer to escort us everywhere we go. However, if a police officer sees a crime in progress, he/she definitely is obligated to respond.
XavierBreath
Member
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"
As a health care professional, if I encounter a person in an auto accident, having a heart attack, or other medical emergency, I can intervene to save their life without fear of legal repercussions or civil litigation. It matters little whether they live or are injured by my efforts.
The "Good Samaritan Law" does however have some requirements. First, I cannot exceed the scope of my practice and licensure. My actions must meet reasonable and prudent guidelines using the equipment I have available. I must perform the service voluntarily and in good faith. The victim must not object. I cannot leave the victim until care is transferred to an equal or greater level of professional competence.
Good Samaritan Laws vary a bit from state to state, but that is the gist of it.
The problem with allowing the same protection for a CCW holder in a criminal intervention lies in determining the responder's level of competence, the reasonable and prudent guidelines, and of course, the "scope of practice" and licensure.
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.
Correct me if I am wrong here LEOs, but police officers are commissioned by our government to use a firearm to intervene if necessary. Whether they use it or not is at their discretion, but the fact that they are officers of the law gives them much more protection from litigation. Even then, they are at risk legally because of the same "scope of practice" and reasonable and prudent action conundrum.
bogie
Member
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. 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?"
Were the passengers of Flight 93 competent to intervene? Heck, we don't know. But at least it didn't hit anyplace useful.
Big001 said;
First off, that's the last time I want to see the term sheeple used to identify someone who doesn't choose to be armed. The fact that we have made the decision to be armed doesn't make us any better or more of a citizen then someone who doesn't. If you think that the state annointed you with a special status when you were issued your CCW permit you are wrong. A CCW permit is nothing more then a license to carry a firearm. It's not a peace officers commission nor does it make you any different then anyone else.
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.
Peace officers must have between 24 and 40 hours of initial training (depending on the state) before they are certified to carry a firearm. On top of that there is usually 24 to 40 hours of defensive tactics training on empty hand techniques and use of other force options such as the baton and chemical weapons. Add to that hours of training in verbal judo and other non-violent conflict resolution. 20 or more hours on law as it applies to use of force.
Are you willing to take a course like that to get your CCW permit?
Most police departments conduct 24 or more hours a year of inservice training on use of force issues with updates on recent court decisions and other issues. This isn't mandated in many states but there have been court decisions where departments have been found negligent for failure to train their officers.
Are you willing to train annually to keep your CCW?
I am really concerned by all of the CCW holders here who seem to think that they were issued blue tights and a cape along with their CCW permit. I swear from reading the posts in many of these threads, some of you either are looking for a chance to shoot someone, or you haven't really thought the issue through and think a bumber sticker answer sounds neat.
The decison to intervene with any type of force is one that each person must make on their own. The decision should be based on the circumstances you face at the time, your own skill level, your knowledge of the relevant laws, and your own moral code.
Jeff
First off, that's the last time I want to see the term sheeple used to identify someone who doesn't choose to be armed. The fact that we have made the decision to be armed doesn't make us any better or more of a citizen then someone who doesn't. If you think that the state annointed you with a special status when you were issued your CCW permit you are wrong. A CCW permit is nothing more then a license to carry a firearm. It's not a peace officers commission nor does it make you any different then anyone else.
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.
Peace officers must have between 24 and 40 hours of initial training (depending on the state) before they are certified to carry a firearm. On top of that there is usually 24 to 40 hours of defensive tactics training on empty hand techniques and use of other force options such as the baton and chemical weapons. Add to that hours of training in verbal judo and other non-violent conflict resolution. 20 or more hours on law as it applies to use of force.
Are you willing to take a course like that to get your CCW permit?
Most police departments conduct 24 or more hours a year of inservice training on use of force issues with updates on recent court decisions and other issues. This isn't mandated in many states but there have been court decisions where departments have been found negligent for failure to train their officers.
Are you willing to train annually to keep your CCW?
I am really concerned by all of the CCW holders here who seem to think that they were issued blue tights and a cape along with their CCW permit. I swear from reading the posts in many of these threads, some of you either are looking for a chance to shoot someone, or you haven't really thought the issue through and think a bumber sticker answer sounds neat.
The decison to intervene with any type of force is one that each person must make on their own. The decision should be based on the circumstances you face at the time, your own skill level, your knowledge of the relevant laws, and your own moral code.
Jeff
markk
Member
YES
A person's moral obligations would be off topic anywhere on THR.
Jeff
XavierBreath
Member
I did not say it made the activity incorrect.
I stated that it makes it difficult to apply "Good Samaritan Laws" when there is not a well defined reasonable and prudent action in a criminal encounter, no governing body for the CCW holder, and no defined courses of action in response to this type of emergency. Because of that, "Good Samaritan Laws" would be extremely difficult to enact for a CCW holder.
By contrast, medical emergencies do have well defined courses of action to reach a positive outcome. If I, as a professional, am assisting a person in need, in a medical emergency, and I do not follow those guidelines, then I am held professionally, civily and criminally liable, regardless of any "Good Samaritan Law". By their very nature, criminal actions and interventions do not follow algorithms that can later be analyzed to determine if the person intervening was reasonable, prudent, and within the limits of his or her training. As a result, such an intervention is scrutinized by the DA, a grand jury, or a jury of one's peers to determine appropriateness.
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.
Thanks, Jeff, for your example of what goes along with a LEO's additional authority and responsibility. I hope my analogy re: LEOs was near the target.
bogie
Member
Splitting hares, and how many pinheads can dance on an angel?
Scenario: You're in the mall in Atlanta, right under CNN... Some lowlife is dragging a woman by the hair through the mall.
Should an "ordinary citizen" intervene? Go forward, or move back?
Scenario: I'm in the mall closest to me, and a guy wearing a trench coat walks by, and I get a bad vibe... I keep an eye on him, and when he reaches the center of the food court, a shotgun comes out, and he starts screaming at a girl at the earring stand.
Should I intervene? Go forward, or move back?
When is the line crossed?
Scenario: You're in the mall in Atlanta, right under CNN... Some lowlife is dragging a woman by the hair through the mall.
Should an "ordinary citizen" intervene? Go forward, or move back?
Scenario: I'm in the mall closest to me, and a guy wearing a trench coat walks by, and I get a bad vibe... I keep an eye on him, and when he reaches the center of the food court, a shotgun comes out, and he starts screaming at a girl at the earring stand.
Should I intervene? Go forward, or move back?
When is the line crossed?
bogie
Member
Xavier, I'm not currently certified, but I do remember a fair amount about CPR from red cross/scouts/army stuff...
I used to work with a few folks who likely would have had a meeting about what to do if someone had keeled over with a heart attack in the middle the room... I figure, anything like that happens to me, I want at least one person in the room who'll say the heck with it, and go to work.
I used to work with a few folks who likely would have had a meeting about what to do if someone had keeled over with a heart attack in the middle the room... I figure, anything like that happens to me, I want at least one person in the room who'll say the heck with it, and go to work.
XavierBreath
Member
Bogie,
Everyone should be CPR certified in my opinion, as well as know how to use an AED. In a medical emergency, the standards set by the AHA, Red Cross and other entities for CPR must be followed, right?
If you keeled over from a CVA instead of a heart attack, and somebody did CPR, breaking your ribs puncturing your lungs, and stopping your heart, killing you, should your "rescuer" be protected by a "Good Samaritan Law" because they saw CPR done on Grey's Anatomy?
Everyone should be CPR certified in my opinion, as well as know how to use an AED. In a medical emergency, the standards set by the AHA, Red Cross and other entities for CPR must be followed, right?
If you keeled over from a CVA instead of a heart attack, and somebody did CPR, breaking your ribs puncturing your lungs, and stopping your heart, killing you, should your "rescuer" be protected by a "Good Samaritan Law" because they saw CPR done on Grey's Anatomy?
bogie,
Giving CPR is little different then jumping into a gunfight.
Jeff
Giving CPR is little different then jumping into a gunfight.
Jeff
Damien45
Member
Agreed, plus some who are CPR qualified are obligated to jump in and assist. I have yet to meet the CCW carrier that was told they had to do likewise.
Truth is, in the situations bogie mentioned, I would personally try to do something. You can casually follow someone in a Mall, especially to a food court, without notice. Plus, it would depend on how focused the BG is, they may never notice you.
Fact is, to me, life is valuable. I mean to protect mine and those who can't. Does that mean I look for it every chance I get? No way, I don't want trouble any more then most.
Truth is, in the situations bogie mentioned, I would personally try to do something. You can casually follow someone in a Mall, especially to a food court, without notice. Plus, it would depend on how focused the BG is, they may never notice you.
Fact is, to me, life is valuable. I mean to protect mine and those who can't. Does that mean I look for it every chance I get? No way, I don't want trouble any more then most.
XavierBreath
Member
Gents, the concept of Good Samaritan Laws which protect medical responders, being enacted to protect the intervening CCW holder is an interesting one, but it is late, and I must get up early to go......save lives. 
I somewhat disagree with Damien45, on the obligation. Morally, yes, legally no. Life is valuable to me as well. The choice of whether one responds in such an instance does not reflect their views of the sanctity of life, but rather their view of their ability to accomplish the task at hand. One cannot make that judgement until one is actually viewing the task. Scenerios are a poor substitute for reality.
Jeff,
Goodnight gentlemen.
I somewhat disagree with Damien45, on the obligation. Morally, yes, legally no. Life is valuable to me as well. The choice of whether one responds in such an instance does not reflect their views of the sanctity of life, but rather their view of their ability to accomplish the task at hand. One cannot make that judgement until one is actually viewing the task. Scenerios are a poor substitute for reality.
Jeff,
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.
Goodnight gentlemen.
markk
Member
very true Jeff
but NOT doing something (anything) that you know is right simply out of fear of legal or social ramifications is the same no matter what the details
but as you said
so ill be quiet again
chas_martel
Member
Mr. White, Sheeple is exactly the correct term for those that have
not exercised a right to protect themselves. Do you not understand
the basis for the word?
And about LEO's and obligations, the SC has found there is no
obligation to individuals at all.
About flexibility, LEO's have more restrictions on action involving deadly
force than non-LEO's in Texas.
And to skypirate7 the muslim dude, your yanking our chains with
your screen name, right?
not exercised a right to protect themselves. Do you not understand
the basis for the word?
And about LEO's and obligations, the SC has found there is no
obligation to individuals at all.
About flexibility, LEO's have more restrictions on action involving deadly
force than non-LEO's in Texas.
And to skypirate7 the muslim dude, your yanking our chains with
your screen name, right?
Damien45
Member
Actually, once we complete the CPR training and get the cards, we (in the Military) are told that we are obligated to assist. So long as we are the most trained individual there. If someone with more experience/knowledge is available we must back out and allow them to proceed.
As for CCW, no there is no obligation. Just as there is no obligation that someone carry a gun. It is a choice made by all individually.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
