Dismantler
Member
I read a good article about a year ago (forget the magazine) in which a firearms instructor (forget who) listed advice that he gives to his students about intervening in the affairs of others. He gave examples of armed citizens that were jailed or shot because they inserted themselves into situations where they could have left, did not belong, or did not really know what was going on.
There are threads about "What would you do if...?" on gun web sites. Of course the poster says that the situation is hypothetical, but they try to use common violent situations as examples. Here are my thoughts...
My first rule is not to get involved in the problems of others. This thought needs some qualification, so do not trash me unless you have read the entire post. I have seen some examples of where a person may have been justified in intervening, but probably should not have. In one instance, I saw a couple of a different race and color having an active debate on the street...a very busy main street in a city of 100,000. It appeared that the male had hunted for and found the female, and he gave her a few swats to emphasize whatever point he was making. I stayed the hell out if it because he was a lot bigger than me, deadly force was not justified, and I would probably not have been welcome in the internal and marital affairs of a couple from a different race/culture. I'd have probably just gotten beat up.
In another case I saw what was clearly a custody dispute in which a father snatched a kid from the mother. This was also on the street. The mother was arguing with the father in a very familiar manner. They obviously knew each other. Was this a kidnapping? It would be a stretch to say that. I did not get involved. He was absolutely snatching the child, but it looked like a matter that was best left to the police and courts to handle. Again, this was a large and fearsome individual, and I did not think that I had reason to pull a gun. So I would have just ended up getting in a fist fight that I was sure to lose...probably badly.
We clearly do not owe a legal duty to intervene in the affairs of others. Whether we have a moral duty is up to each individual to decide. Of course, if I saw an LEO scuffling with somebody, and it appeared that he was in trouble, I would intervene. I have a pretty good idea who the bad guy is in this scenario. But what about other responding officers? They do not know what my intentions are as the arrive at the scene of the scuffle. Good idea to have a gun out?
If I see a child being dragged across a parking lot and he is screaming "This isn't my daddy!" as they are supposed to do, I would certainly intervene. But if I am in a convenience store and it is being robbed, I plan to be invisible. Why? Well, while it is tempting to all of us to be a hero (especially when we are younger) the consequences can be dramatic if things go wrong. If you shoot an innocent bystander in a fire fight that you started...or if you are shot and paralyzed...
Do not think that the police will be happy if you do their job for them, especially if things go wrong. This is not in the context of personal defense, but in the context of intervening because you are armed, and can intervene.
LEO's say that their first duty is to make it home safely at night. Well, so is mine. I have a duty to my wife. It is not to get shot in the spine and paralyzed while intervening in a robbery that I could have sat out. My wife will NOT be happy
if I lose our estate because I intervened in the affairs of others and then face a ruinous lawsuit.
With very few exceptions my gun is there only to protect me. If I can see that somebody is clearly resolving personal problems in public, I am staying out of it. If I see a robbery in progress, I am going to "slip on out the back door" as George Thorogood would say. If I see a maniac shooting up a schoolyard, I will engage him. You get my point.
A lot of emphasis is placed on what tactics we will use to resolve "The Problem." I think that we also need to focus on whether we should be involved in The Problem in the first place.
There are threads about "What would you do if...?" on gun web sites. Of course the poster says that the situation is hypothetical, but they try to use common violent situations as examples. Here are my thoughts...
My first rule is not to get involved in the problems of others. This thought needs some qualification, so do not trash me unless you have read the entire post. I have seen some examples of where a person may have been justified in intervening, but probably should not have. In one instance, I saw a couple of a different race and color having an active debate on the street...a very busy main street in a city of 100,000. It appeared that the male had hunted for and found the female, and he gave her a few swats to emphasize whatever point he was making. I stayed the hell out if it because he was a lot bigger than me, deadly force was not justified, and I would probably not have been welcome in the internal and marital affairs of a couple from a different race/culture. I'd have probably just gotten beat up.
In another case I saw what was clearly a custody dispute in which a father snatched a kid from the mother. This was also on the street. The mother was arguing with the father in a very familiar manner. They obviously knew each other. Was this a kidnapping? It would be a stretch to say that. I did not get involved. He was absolutely snatching the child, but it looked like a matter that was best left to the police and courts to handle. Again, this was a large and fearsome individual, and I did not think that I had reason to pull a gun. So I would have just ended up getting in a fist fight that I was sure to lose...probably badly.
We clearly do not owe a legal duty to intervene in the affairs of others. Whether we have a moral duty is up to each individual to decide. Of course, if I saw an LEO scuffling with somebody, and it appeared that he was in trouble, I would intervene. I have a pretty good idea who the bad guy is in this scenario. But what about other responding officers? They do not know what my intentions are as the arrive at the scene of the scuffle. Good idea to have a gun out?
If I see a child being dragged across a parking lot and he is screaming "This isn't my daddy!" as they are supposed to do, I would certainly intervene. But if I am in a convenience store and it is being robbed, I plan to be invisible. Why? Well, while it is tempting to all of us to be a hero (especially when we are younger) the consequences can be dramatic if things go wrong. If you shoot an innocent bystander in a fire fight that you started...or if you are shot and paralyzed...
Do not think that the police will be happy if you do their job for them, especially if things go wrong. This is not in the context of personal defense, but in the context of intervening because you are armed, and can intervene.
LEO's say that their first duty is to make it home safely at night. Well, so is mine. I have a duty to my wife. It is not to get shot in the spine and paralyzed while intervening in a robbery that I could have sat out. My wife will NOT be happy
if I lose our estate because I intervened in the affairs of others and then face a ruinous lawsuit. With very few exceptions my gun is there only to protect me. If I can see that somebody is clearly resolving personal problems in public, I am staying out of it. If I see a robbery in progress, I am going to "slip on out the back door" as George Thorogood would say. If I see a maniac shooting up a schoolyard, I will engage him. You get my point.
A lot of emphasis is placed on what tactics we will use to resolve "The Problem." I think that we also need to focus on whether we should be involved in The Problem in the first place.
Last edited:
