re: mall shooting, and CCW holders

[torpid]

Sorry, but other armed good Samaritans, undercover officers and DEA agent aside, I'm pretty sure that if I had a CCW and was near a person shooting unarmed men, women and children, I'd take the hypothetical risk of being mistakenly shot by late arriving SWAT teams in order to try and stop the slaughter.

Yes a person with a gun shooting out with another person with a gun may be confusing enough to give one pause as to who is actually the threat, but a person with a gun shooting cowering and fleeing folks is a pretty big "stop this person" arrow in my opinion.

I don't think I'd be able to look myself in the mirror ever again if I thought that I could have stopped a massacre of innocent folks, but chose not to.

 

[karz10]

I tend to agree with Coyote and some of the other similar posters, it's kind of one of those things where each scenario could be different. The same scenario might be approached differently if I was by myself, if I had my wife w/ me, or whether my child was also there, how close you were, what the shooter was doing (threatening vs shooting, etc.), way too many variables, IMO, to give a concrete answer, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask yourself the question, to contemplate your response...

As for scenarios, I remember over the last few years, there have been some shootings at a mall nearby, usually not this kind of lone gunmen situation though, a couple robberies, and a couple gang violence type situations.

One incident I recall happened in November a couple years ago (I believe, as it was Christmas shopping time) where a couple groups of guys got into an argument that escalated into gunfire. This happened on the East side. Later that night, North of downtown, a couple (or more) vehicles got into a shoot out with eachother while going down a major road towards downtown. As I recall, turns out some of the people involved in this incident were also involved at the mall shooting. While some of these people were thought to be gang members, as I recall, I think there was speculation that the argument may have been over, or related to, a female, as opposed to specific gang business, per say.

Anyway, I think this scenario is different, it may have been clear that armed people were shooting at each other, and there were more than one armed person, so since you're not involved, the only likely way you would be injured would be to stay in proximity to the situation and catch a stray bullett, so it might be best to get cover, or exit, whichever option is best at the time.

Good question though. Everybody just be safe and make your best judgement, but I also like the quote about not letting evil prevail...

Karz

 

[steveracer]

When asked...

...this question, there's only one answer. I will do all I can for those who cannot. It is because I can that I must.

If you and I were friends, and you were there, and you didn't stop the shooter, or at least try, we would cease to be friends. I am fortunate to be surrounded by good men and women who go in the way of danger every day. I am humbled by their friendship, and warmed by their devotion to duty. Each of them has a family of their own, and I have no doubt whatsoever that if your families or yourselves were in danger, any one of us would defend them, in any manner possible.
If you have a CCW, and you are in a mall, and there's a shooting, and you don't come to the aid of the people around you, then you have to face youself every day knowing that there may be some innocent person who is dead today because you ran.
I pity you.

 

[NevadaDep]

Unless my family was in direct and immediate danger, I would do nothing except be a good witness.

It does not matter how good of a shot I thought I was the risk of hitting a bystander is just too great.

 

[Heavy Metal Hero]

Steveracer you may think a little differently if you were there, however. Not to rain on your parade, but a CCW does not give you the responsiblity to protect the world. If someone is not capable of stopping the threat the best thing they can do, for themselves and others, is not to intervene.

 

[enkindler]

I have thought about this a lot, not due to this particular incident but due to my personality and beliefs. I am not looking to be a hero but the reality is that I am a male who is unable to reproduce. Not that my life is not of value but that if one group of society should take risks in order to help others is is my group IMHO. I would not charge into a situation which was a total suicide mission but I have and will put my life on the line for others. Once again this belief is not based out of any desire to be famous or a hero, it is just based on a deep seated personal value.

 

[cgraham]

The OP said "I don't see the "reward" part of the risk/reward equation in getting involved in such a horrible situation".

People do not normally do good deeds for any reward (at least conciously). To come to someone's rescue is an altruistic act that potentially costs you something. Altruism is something embedded in the DNA of some primates, especially man.

So, there is no reward. The question is, are you morally driven to intervene, knowing that more innocent lives will certainly be lost if you don't, and are the odds of a successful outcome sufficiently favorable?

There may be a PENALTY for NOT acting: if you see several more innocents go down, and you know you could have prevented it at limited risk, how would you feel, and for how long?

On the practical side, the factors one should weigh in assessing risk and practicality of intervening were admirably summed up by Coyote3855.

In this mall shooting, it was obvious who the shooter was (anyone shooting people with a shotgun is not a CCW). By luck or intent, it appears that a shot from the cop forced the perp to take cover in a shop. The cop had the wisdom to keep him pinned there until backup arrived, rather than attempting to finsh the shooter.

From reports I have read, the cop did not have a spare mag, so he was limited in what he could do with his 1911. That meant he had to avoid a full-fledged fire fight where he did not have a tactical advantage. He was concerned about not having enough suppressive fire, should the perp have come after him. (It turns out to be an example of an instance where a spare magazine could have been important, unlike the majority of shootings, where just a few shots are fired).

No question there are many factors that affect the wisdom of intervening if you feel your duty extends beyond protecting your family. Firepower (number of shots available and effective range) is just one of them. To be proactive you need a weapon with some offensive potential. Snubnoses and .380s are better suited strictly for last-ditch self-defense.

If the perp is approaching you, the dynamics are entirely different, as you are then in a self-defense mode. You may have to take a higher risk (expose yourself) to eliminate the threat in order not to become a victim.

C

 

[Jeff White]

That will be enough name calling. There will be no more insinuations about anyone's courage. The decision to engage or not to engage a shooter in this situation is one that everyone will have to make for him or herself. That decision must be made based on the experience, training and perceptions of what's actually coming down made by the person on the scene.

No one here on this or in any other forum will ever be in a position to second guess anyone's decision in this type of situation.

A CCW permit does not come with a peace officer's commission, a badge and a duty to act. It permits you to legally carry an effective means to defend yourself. That's it. That's all that it is about. There is no public safety gained by a state permitting CCW. Public safety is not the reason that CCW permits exist. They exist for the sole purpose of giving law abiding citizens a legal means to caary firearm for self defense.

If your primary reason for having a CCW is so that you can jump into a gunfight and become a hero, then perhaps you should re-examine your reason for having one.

The Ogden officer, off duty, out of his jurisdiction and in the company of his wife, had no duty to act. No officer I know would have looked down on him or said anything about his lack of courage had he decided not to act.

Taking action in a situation like that is an individual decision.

This one is closed.

Jeff