To be a Good Samaritan or not

[DeepSouth]

I have argued here before that there are times when we as carriers of deadly weapons should come to help of the innocent, the victims. I am always met with a lot of "be a good witness" talk that is certianly logical, I understand it is sometimes difficult or impossible to tell who is the "innocent victim" I am also a firm believer in minding your own business. I do not suggest, nor would I ever advocate running up in any and every altercation you happen to see. But my argument is that there are situations and circumstances when it is clear that a persons life is in danger, then it is my opinion there is a moral obgaltion to attempt to, well....... save a persons life. This frankly isn't even a gun related issue for me, as I would have the same moral obligation if unarmed.

I frequently feel like I do not convey my point adaquility, I'll say "I cannot be a good witness to a murder and do nothing more" To which some will reply that they will not go to prison for getting in the middle of someone else's domestic disturbances, which I do understand in some cases. I guess what I don't understand is how fear of a possible outcome can make someone simply closely watch as a horrific act is carried out on another human being.

Anyway, in the September issue of American Rifleman there was the following article in the Armed Citizen section. I found it online at this link and just copied it.

A woman and her son were driving around 11:30 a.m. when a vehicle cut them off and abruptly stopped in front of them. A man exited the vehicle, pulled the woman from her vehicle and held a knife to her throat. When the woman’s son got out of the car to confront his mother’s attacker, he was reportedly punched in the face. A passerby witnessed the attack and stopped to intervene with his .40-cal. handgun. When the suspect saw the firearm, he quickly returned to his vehicle and drove off. The good Samaritan who had stopped to help was able to get the suspect’s license plate number, which later resulted in the attacker’s arrest. He was charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature and assault and third degree battery. (WISTV.com, Richland County, SC, 6/5/13)

Now when I read this I couldn't help but think there are many here who would have stopped and been a good witness. I honestly hope I am wrong. I really wish I could do a simple yes or no poll because I fear that people are going to try to find a grey area that IMO doesn't exist, a lot of double talk if you will.


So I'll just ask, as far as this case is concerned I would like to know do you think the Good Samaritan did the right thing? Better yet would have intervened in the same scenario? Why? Why not?

 

[bigfatdave]

in the EXACT same scenario (or the way it plays out in my imagination)
knowing EVERYTHING from the article you posted

.... yes, I'd probably do the same
(well, not a .40, I have no use for fo-tay as I'm not "professional enough")

I wouldn't hang around for a hero's reward, though. I'd make the call myself on whether or not to involve police - and move on with my day. Waiting around for a trophy is also waiting around for second-guessing idiots to decide you're just a scary man with a gun.

===

But there are too many variables and unknowns to make a blanket statement on the subject.

And there is a legitimate argument for the position of:
"if they wanted defense with a weapon, they'd have a damn weapon"

 

[Deaf Smith]

To be a Good Samaritan or not

Let me tell you about a little Bible here.

The 'Good Samaritan' in the Bible found the guy half way beaten to death. The victim could not fight back at all and there was no danger for the Samaritan being robbed or killed by the victim he found. The Samaritan also had an entourage of people with him (and no doubt they were armed as they were in the wilderness.)

So, when talking about the good Samaritan, or being a Samaritan, keep that in mind.

I am all for helping people, but one does not jeopardize themselves or their loved ones to do this.

The Samaritan didn't either. And thus:

A woman and her son were driving around 11:30 a.m. when a vehicle cut them off and abruptly stopped in front of them. A man exited the vehicle, pulled the woman from her vehicle and held a knife to her throat. When the woman’s son got out of the car to confront his mother’s attacker, he was reportedly punched in the face. A passerby witnessed the attack and stopped to intervene with his .40-cal. handgun. When the suspect saw the firearm, he quickly returned to his vehicle and drove off. The good Samaritan who had stopped to help was able to get the suspect’s license plate number, which later resulted in the attacker’s arrest. He was charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature and assault and third degree battery. (WISTV.com, Richland County, SC, 6/5/13)

Yes the guy did the right thing. He was armed and, at least according to Texas Law, he could do this very thing.

BUT, if you do intervene, make sure you understand you might be dead in a few seconds if it goes south.

And unless you can articulate what happened to the cops, and have some proof, you can be in trouble.

I don't consider him a Samaritan, but just a good man who risked his life to stop what needed to be stopped.

Deaf

 

[DeepSouth]

But there are too many variables and unknowns to make a blanket statement on the subject.

I couldn't agree more which means in some situations, like the example above, the option to intervene is a legitimate one at least to me. Obliviously in other situations it would be incredibility stupid to even entertain the idea.

 

[DeepSouth]

Deaf Smith, they referred to the guy that helped the woman in distress as a "good Samaritan" in the article, that is where my reference came from.

I doubt seriously the guy was from Samaria. Lol

 

[MedWheeler]

The situation described, as I read it, was extremely clear at the time. This helped the "Good Non-Samaritan" make his decision. As has been pointed out, that will not always be the case.

Most of us who issue blanket-statements regarding whether we would "always" or "never" intervene are not telling the whole story. I personally think virtually all of us would evaluate, albeit nearly-instantaneously if required, the situation, and then decide.

In other words, we rarely know until the time comes.

 

[bigfatdave]

we rarely know until the time comes

Exactly

This is one of the hardest questions to provide a concrete answer on.

I've gotten between what looked* like a shouting match that was about to turn into a couples' beat-down before. I didn't sit around figuring it out ahead of time, it was the right thing to do at that moment.
If Mr Macho had taken a swing at me (or produced a weapon) I'd have been in a dicey situation, legally.
If Ms Victim had changed sides at that moment, I'd have been in a dicey situation, legally.

Luckily - a 6'3", 300#, angry-looking, giant stepping in front of Mr Macho and his upraised hand** turned the situation back into a verbal thing.
And I'm proud to say that Ms Victim moved on afterwards. I like to think that me looking her in the eye and saying "you don't deserve this <self-redacted fecal term>, you can do better" had something to do with it. I had to look at Mr Macho almost every day for about a year after that, too, and be polite/professional while doing so. Worth it.



* (to me, at the time, with some knowledge of the people involved and their history)
** (that came about to my shoulder, dude was tiny!)

 

[bigfatdave]

Oh, there was a point to the story above, not just an ITG story.

Point:
I didn't know if I would intervene in that until it was right in front of me, let alone how.

Looking back, I'm sure I made the right choice, even though I was technically on the clock in a (very) unarmed security job. At that time, I was armed with fists and a fast-opening lockback knife at most, I might have had a bonking-friendly flashlight (don't remember).

It wasn't about my toolset, it was mindset. I wasn't about to let a scumbag victimize someone smaller and weaker just for fun.
But I didn't know that for sure until the situation was dropped in my lap.

 

[PabloJ]

I have argued here before that there are times when we as carriers of deadly weapons should come to help of the innocent, the victims. I am always met with a lot of "be a good witness" talk that is certianly logical, I understand it is sometimes difficult or impossible to tell who is the "innocent victim" I am also a firm believer in minding your own business. I do not suggest, nor would I ever advocate running up in any and every altercation you happen to see. But my argument is that there are situations and circumstances when it is clear that a persons life is in danger, then it is my opinion there is a moral obgaltion to attempt to, well....... save a persons life. This frankly isn't even a gun related issue for me, as I would have the same moral obligation if unarmed.

I frequently feel like I do not convey my point adaquility, I'll say "I cannot be a good witness to a murder and do nothing more" To which some will reply that they will not go to prison for getting in the middle of someone else's domestic disturbances, which I do understand in some cases. I guess what I don't understand is how fear of a possible outcome can make someone simply closely watch as a horrific act is carried out on another human being.

Anyway, in the September issue of American Rifleman there was the following article in the Armed Citizen section. I found it online at this link and just copied it.



Now when I read this I couldn't help but think there are many here who would have stopped and been a good witness. I honestly hope I am wrong. I really wish I could do a simple yes or no poll because I fear that people are going to try to find a grey area that IMO doesn't exist, a lot of double talk if you will.


So I'll just ask, as far as this case is concerned I would like to know do you think the Good Samaritan did the right thing? Better yet would have intervened in the same scenario? Why? Why not?

I would hope most people would do something if case just like that one presented in front or near them.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

I would have helped.

 

[2A Citizen]

Now when I read this I couldn't help but think there are many here who would have stopped and been a good witness. I honestly hope I am wrong. I really wish I could do a simple yes or no poll because I fear that people are going to try to find a grey area that IMO doesn't exist, a lot of double talk if you will.

Why? Why not?

You state you've argued here before about; Moral issues. What you obviously do not understand that it is indeed a Moral question. And as much as you might like others to have your Moral outlook. They simply cannot. They are not you. Didn't have your experiences and upbringing and haven't seen the world with those experiences.

You have every right to judge others via the lens you see the world thru, but man can only answer to his own moral code, not someone else's.

 

[CA Raider]

I hope I would have done the same thing as the Samaritan.
and I hope it would have worked out the same way.

i do understand your concern about these situations.
practically anything can happen, and people tend to lie afterwards.
not always. but sometimes.

in the end it's a personal decision, and it's a gut judgment when you are there.

if you decide not to get involved - you can always make a cell phone call.

CA R

 

[ChaoSS]

Many people will spout off quotes like "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

Well, everyone takes that to mean fighting political battles, but to me it means much more.

It means that if we do not want a nanny state policing us, we need to police ourselves. It means policing your shooting sites. It means being vigilant about gun safety. It means being vigilant about helping those around you. With this sort of vigilance, the nanny state is no longer needed. Without it, it becomes awfully attractive to many.

So yes, using your gun to help someone else, even though it may mean some risk to yourself, is the right thing to do. Just be sure that you aren't sticking your nose into the wrong thing.

 

[skoro]

Getting involved in 3rd party situations is tricky, at best. Unless you KNOW who is who and what is happening, the advice to make observations and be a good witness for the police is sound.

 

[Buzznrose]

I truly believe I'd have stopped and helped that woman out. Biggest reason is because I truly hope, should my wife or daughter be in that same situation, that one of y'all would stop and help them.

I believe we reap what we sow. I also believe that all it takes for evil to flourish, is for good men and women to do nothing.

To simply pass by would invite that crazy biatch Karma into our world.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Let's stay on track.

This is not a discussion of the general topic of third party defense. That is a very broad and complex subject.

The OP's question is very specific and narrow:

So I'll just ask, as far as this case is concerned I would like to know do you think the Good Samaritan did the right thing? Better yet would have intervened in the same scenario? Why? Why not?

 

[DeepSouth]

Well I'm glad to see most say they would have stopped to help. I'm surprised how many of you refer to being a situation of some sort already. I have not been involved in any type of physical conflict since high school, I have witnessed more than one physical fight and chose to simply watch. Once I did start screaming POLICE!! as loud as I could just to disperse a mob, worked to even whe the police probably 3hrs away.


2A Citizen I do see this as a moral issue, and I do understand that no other person on the face of the earth has MY moral compass, so to speak. I just don't see your point. Something's are just flat wrong, no matter the moral point of view. Not saying this one of those things, just saying those things exist. So anyway, I'm curious, what would you have done in that situation and why?

 

[beatledog7]

Consider the quoted scenario, but with a twist...

A woman and her son were driving around 11:30 a.m. when a vehicle cut them off and abruptly stopped in front of them. A man exited the vehicle, pulled the woman from her vehicle and held a knife to her throat. When the woman’s son got out of the car to confront his mother’s attacker, he was reportedly punched in the face. A passerby witnessed the attack and stopped to intervene with his .40-cal. handgun.

...the woman then abruptly pulled from her clothing a handgun which she immediately fired several times at the passerby, hitting him at least twice and rendering him unconscious and bleeding from the chest and shoulder. The "attacker" man took the passerby's wallet, watch, wedding ring, and gun, and the trio high-fived each other and drove off in three cars.

This sort of set-up is why people are very hesitant to stop and help when someone appears to be in trouble. I consider the passerby somewhat lucky; this apparently was either a real attack or the "team" didn't count on the intervener having a gun and had not rehearsed that possibility. I would be a diligent witness.

 

[2A Citizen]

2A Citizen I do see this as a moral issue, and I do understand that no other person on the face of the earth has MY moral compass, so to speak. I just don't see your point. Something's are just flat wrong, no matter the moral point of view. Not saying this one of those things, just saying those things exist. So anyway, I'm curious, what would you have done in that situation and why?

My point was as stated in my original reply. You ,not me, but you say you come here and argue why we as carriers of deadly weapons should intervene. I just find that rather shortsighted. I am well aware that others of us carry weapons for personal defense. What I'm not at all aware of is if 'they' are moral people, trained, or sane. Intervening in any situation that did not involve you to begin with is tenuous. So many variables that can escape us or are not within our sight/grasp. Easy to play arm-chair shooter, but in the moment when it counts, it is dangerous, so dangerous that I find it hard to second guess folks decisions of whether to act or not.

But yeah. Reading that very lightly written article, I would think I would have acted similarly. Why? Same reason the guy did; He saw something going down that didn't look quite right and stopped to intervene.

 

[Fred Fuller]

One interesting thing about NC is that you can do criminal background checks for free at http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/offendersearch.do?method=view. Given enough identifying information in a news story, it's often possible to see the criminal background of anyone who is involved in a given crime, either as victim or perpetrator.

Can you do criminal background checks in your state? If so, it might be an educational experience to do so.

NOT that there aren't completely innocent victims of crime, of course - there certainly are. But the big question always is ... how can you tell?

 

[CA Raider]

as someone else mentioned ... the real problem is what you could be walking into.

1. The people could be involved in a drug deal "gone wrong". in that case any shred of honesty is gone completey, and it would be a mess.

2. The people could be involved in a domestic disturbance. those are very risky because of the high emotions involved. policemen die trying to handle those disputes.

i don't think this means that you never get involved. just be wary without knowing the facts.

CA R

 

[Bored1]

didn't work trying to quote.

 

[Bored1]

Quote:
To be a Good Samaritan or not
Let me tell you about a little Bible here.

The 'Good Samaritan' in the Bible found the guy half way beaten to death. The victim could not fight back at all and there was no danger for the Samaritan being robbed or killed by the victim he found. The Samaritan also had an entourage of people with him (and no doubt they were armed as they were in the wilderness.)

So, when talking about the good Samaritan, or being a Samaritan, keep that in mind.

I am all for helping people, but one does not jeopardize themselves or their loved ones to do this.

The Samaritan didn't either. And thus:


Quote:
A woman and her son were driving around 11:30 a.m. when a vehicle cut them off and abruptly stopped in front of them. A man exited the vehicle, pulled the woman from her vehicle and held a knife to her throat. When the woman’s son got out of the car to confront his mother’s attacker, he was reportedly punched in the face. A passerby witnessed the attack and stopped to intervene with his .40-cal. handgun. When the suspect saw the firearm, he quickly returned to his vehicle and drove off. The good Samaritan who had stopped to help was able to get the suspect’s license plate number, which later resulted in the attacker’s arrest. He was charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature and assault and third degree battery. (WISTV.com, Richland County, SC, 6/5/13)
Yes the guy did the right thing. He was armed and, at least according to Texas Law, he could do this very thing.

BUT, if you do intervene, make sure you understand you might be dead in a few seconds if it goes south.

And unless you can articulate what happened to the cops, and have some proof, you can be in trouble.

I don't consider him a Samaritan, but just a good man who risked his life to stop what needed to be stopped.

Deaf


I concur with this statement. Best explanation I have heard in many help or not help conversations.

 

[stressed]

It's a tough call when you don't know what's going on. Just do what you think is morally right.

 

[DeepSouth]

2A Citizen I see your point now I suppose, but I still hold to the position that there are times, admittedly few time when we "should" get involved. Some things are just wrong and can't be tolerated. For instance child abuse, if someone witnesses the sever beating of a child they "should" attempt to stop it. No matter their view of the subject, if they think child abuse is ok and a private matter. Well there just wrong, it's wrong and we as a civilized society have an obglation to not allow it.
Anyway we're veering off the point of the op. I don't want to discus the entire issue, that can't be done because every situation is different involving different people and its just a case by case problem.

In the situation as described in the article, I wouldn't have much problem with someone saying something to the effect of "I wouldn't stop because I know of people using similar tactics to stop passers by and rob them." That would be one of many possible logical conclusions, that's why I asked what and why. I personally can't imagine coming to that conclusion, and I feel like even if that we're a possibility in some situations we should still intervene. Like the child beating example, even if there is (and there always is) the possibility that someone is beating a child as a rouse to get someone to stop there is still an obglation to protect the child. IMO

Now I'm back to veering off my own point. :banghead:

By the way if anyone knows of a good book written on this subject I'd love to read it, no matter the author point of view.





I blame all typos on iPhones auto correct