Would You Do It?

[Sam1911]

If you could save one or more lives and didn't act how would you feel? That is another question embedding in the larger one.

And another good question is, if you end up leaving your children without a father, your wife without a husband, your family without a bread-winner, because you're dead or in prison...how do you think they'll feel.

(Remember, your gun isn't a bullet-proof vest. And you don't have a "white hat" that means you're automatically treated as the good guy.)

Sometimes it is hard to tell which is the "selfish" act. Risking your life and freedom to try to save others, or risking the ruin of the lives of your loved ones to assuage your honor and "need" to be a man and stand up to injustice.

Most folks usually answer something like, "Well, I hope my family would understand that I died (or went to prison) trying to do the right thing ... so they'd be ok with it." 'Course, I've never seen anyone's wife or children post that they're on board with that, so it's hard to say.

 

[Skribs]

Wow Sam, even mods can double post!

How does this priority system change if you do not have people in your charge? I, for example, am single with no kids. I quite often go out and do my errands by myself, and so I don't even have friends that I would have to worry about. That said, if I am there with my friend (who owns, but doesn't carry), chances are I'll have him call 911 while I assess what my move should be. He doesn't need me to hold his hand as he makes his escape.

The key thing to remember is that having a concealed-carry permit doesn't make you a policeman. It's for self-defense only. If you're not under direct threat, your recourse is to call 911. Anything else, and you're treading on some very slippery legal ground.

There's a difference between being a vigilante and stopping an attack. Acting like a policeman would mean after he stops shooting and gives up, you direct some recourse against him. In reality, it would depend on whether legally you can use lethal force to protect others, or if it must be yourself.

As to the possibility of shooting innocents, it was brought up in a previous thread (not sure if it was an armed robbery, mass shooting, or if it was the zoo thread we had a month or two ago) that while we still have to pay attention to Rule #4, if you can stop the BG, you're going to stop him from killing innocents. Depending on how long he would be able to go on his rampage, there's a cost/benefit analysis with the risks involved.

I also don't like when someone says they would try to stop the threat that they are just "chest thumping." I mean, yes, some people are brazen about it, but dismissing it as machoism is just as bad, IMO, as the "sheeple" comments.

As for me, personally, I don't know. I spend a lot of time here, but I don't get out to the range to practice very often. I don't think that's hypocritical, it's practical: THR is free. I know my skills are not up there with a lot of folks on this forum. I also know that at a reasonable distance I could hit a BG, and if his attention wasn't on me I could have a very clear advantage. Considering police response times, if I was able to bring down the BG myself, it would stop him a lot faster than if I were to wait for the police.

I was raised to stand up to bullies, and not just if I were being the one bullied. My parents think this is why I carry (not that I'm seeking out bullies to stop, but that I want to be prepared to stand up for myself if I need to). Alert the authorities if I can, but also if there's a way for me to mitigate the damage the BG can inflict, I think I would try.

Semi-related, I wish I could find the article again, but yesterday I read an article about a "hero" who "saved a woman" from being attacked. He heard his neighbor screaming for help, and saw a man on top her, so he called 911. But he didn't stop the assault, he just waited for police to get there. When the cops showed up, the attacker fled, and the neighbor tackled him. So my question is this: if he was willing to tackle the man AFTER police showed up, why couldn't he stop the attack BEFORE they showed up? I mean, I could have read the article wrong or they omitted that the assailant stopped when police were called, but that's how I read it.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by HoosierQ: Would you use your CCW to stop a public shooting?

• Would I have a way to know with certainty that the "public shooting" did not constitute a lawful act of self defense?
• Would I have a way to know with cetainty that the "public shooting" did not involve the actions of law enforcment officers?
• Would I have a way of knowing with certainty that the "public shooting" did not involve consensual combat by lawbreakers?
• Would I have a way of knowing with certainty that the "public shooting' did not involve domestic violence, with the likelihood that the suriving victim would likely ultimately testify against me?
• Would I have a way of knowing with certainty that I was not winessing a staged dramatization?
• Would I be able to fire without putting others at risk?
• Would I be highly confident that my firing would not attract gunfire in the direction of my family?

Unless the answer to each of the above is an emphatic "no", the answer is no, I would not.

If all are answered yes, the answer would depend on the circumstances.

 

[HoosierQ]

I can't stand it either. Thus my submission. A bunch of people who probably aren't qualified to intervene in any situation short of dire, immediate, risk to self calling themselves "sheepdogs" put on earth to protect the "sheep" is rediculous. I'm sure not qualified. I took Christmas presents to poor people this weekend...I'm qualified for that.

 

[JustinJ]

And another good question is, if you end up leaving your children without a father, your wife without a husband, your family without a bread-winner, because you're dead or in prison...how do you think they'll feel

There are valid arguments against acting but this one just does not resonate with me although it's used quite commonly used here. By this logic one with a family should never become a police officer, soldier, firefighter etc.

If all men with families failed to do what they believed right when there was associated risk the world would be a far worse place.

And if we go by what we read on internet forums most gun owners have far too little training and trigger time to do any good.

If we go by what we read on internet forums most cops don't seem to either.

 

[Robert]

And that selfless act had a bigger and better impact on the world around us.

 

[Robert]

Ok, compairing not getting in the middle of an active shooter in a mall and not standing up to a Stalin or some other despotic dictator is not really even in the same ball park.

Again, were I alone or they were in immediate danger I'd defend myself and them. But going to look for an active shooter is just asking to make the next set of FBI statistics. I will never go looking to be a hero. I will react to the situation before me in the best way I can.

 

[Sam1911]

There are valid arguments against acting but this one just does not resonate with me although it's used quite commonly used here. By this logic one with a family should never become a police officer, soldier, firefighter etc.

A very heavy question for any family, of course.

But remember, those PROFESSIONS carry with them a great deal of training, a great deal of direct support, official policies and indemnification, specialized protective equipment, etc. which help to greatly mitigate the risks. (And, often those persons are compensated for the risks they take, to include death and disability benefits for themselves and their families if the risks catch up to them.)

So, that's a bad analogy.

 

[JustinJ]

Ok, compairing not getting in the middle of an active shooter in a mall and not standing up to a Stalin or some other despotic dictator is not really even in the same ball park.

Police and firearm don't battle dictators. What is the line for deciding to assume risk? An individual saving the lives of a few civilians seems at least equally beneficial to being one solider in a mass of tens of thousands in a fight against a foreign dictator.

Again, were I alone or they were in immediate danger I'd defend myself and them. But going to look for an active shooter is just asking to make the next set of FBI statistics. I will never go looking to be a hero. I will react to the situation before me in the best way I can.

I agree with this but primarily because running into an unknown situation could be more harmful than helpful. But if i'm in a restaurant and lunatic barges in a starts shooting i would probably choose to act even if sitting right next to an exit. But that is only because me and probably everybody else know who the bad guy is.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: By this logic one with a family should never become a police officer, soldier, firefighter etc.

Tactically, there is a distinct difference between the level of risk to which an intervening civilian might be exposed and that assumed by someone who is properly trained and equipped and supported by team members and command systems.

And the consequences differ; indemnification, medical treatment, and protection against loss of livelihood, are just some of the things to take into account.

Spending a little time reading real accounts will make one aware that, even if an act of force was immediately necessary for self-preservation and judged to have been lawfully justified, the actor may well be regarded as a pariah, unable to find employment, and his family may effectively be excluded from society. That's before issues of conFinement and impoverishment are evaluated. That's also possible, but to a much lesser extent, with a sworn officer; a fireman or soldier is much more likely to be regarded as a hero.

If all men with families failed to do what they believed right when there was associated risk the world would be a far worse place.

When it comes to the use of deadly force, what people believe to be right had better turn out to be right.

 

[JustinJ]

But remember, those PROFESSIONS carry with them a great deal of training, a great deal of direct support, official policies and indemnification, specialized protective equipment, etc. which help to greatly mitigate the risks. (And, often those persons are compensated for the risks they take, to include death and disability benefits for themselves and their families if the risks catch up to them.)

So then if a person with a concealed weapon has sufficient training, something like Texas Law Shield and life insurance you would support him acting?

Regardless, per your statement kids with a father in the professions i listed could still become without a father and a wife without a husband.

 

[Alnamvet68]

Only if all the following conditions existed:

1. Immediate family members are not at risk.
2. Innocent bystanders would not be at risk whatsoever should I intervene.
3. That I am not at risk...that I would have the drop on the miscreant, and not the other way around.
4. Lastly, that I can feel reasonably assured that others who may be armed legally, (off duty LEO's, citizen ccw's) do not mistake me for being the shooter, or in partnership with the shooter....I'm really not looking for a personal bad day.

Of course, this is what I believe I would do should such an event occur, which is a far cry from what I would do, and have done, in the sandbox and in South East Asia.

 

[hq]

Citation fail.

If you expected a comprehensive scientific analysis of all similar incidents, maybe. To counter your claim of lack of mass murders stopped by civilians, I think not. Scratching the surface, even with an unlikely source like "daily anarchist" sufficed nicely.

 

[HoosierQ]

If you expected a comprehensive scientific analysis of all similar incidents, maybe. To counter your claim of lack of mass murders stopped by civilians, I think not. Scratching the surface, even with an unlikely source like "daily anarchist" sufficed nicely.

Fair enough. Debateable...but fair enough.

 

[Rail Driver]

(And, often those persons are compensated for the risks they take, to include death and disability benefits for themselves and their families if the risks catch up to them.)

Those "benefits" are largely overestimated. Many first responder families that experience that loss have no other choice but to resort to charity just to get through the immediate and ridiculously costly expense of burying said first responder. Those "benefits" are under control of insurance companies, whose automatic initial response is denial of benefits regardless of the situation.

In other words, those "benefits" are no better than yours or mine, and when it comes down to it, is money really sufficient relief when you've lost such an important part of your family? I don't think so. So really, Sam, not to come off as rude, but that argument still doesn't wash.

In regards to the OP - While each individual situation and set of circumstances MUST dictate an individual's response, I firmly believe that my life was a gift from god and with it comes a responsibility to defend other lives.

"Be a good witness" I can get down with that - Attention to detail is important in any situation, but in a high threat situation it's doubly important.

"Call for help" Absolutely - I have local emergency numbers in my speed dial - what happens if there's no signal, though? I know my Sprint phone doesn't get a signal inside most Walmarts, half the grocery stores in town, the shooting ranges, and Home Depot (and ironically also doesn't get a signal in my garage, roams in my bedroom, but has full signal everywhere else in the house).

"Get your family out of harm's way" Of course! This is step 1 - get down, get out. Doesn't mean I'm failing them if I cover their backs while they make their way to an exit.

Helping your family to escape alive and unharmed IS NOT mutually exclusive with taking action to end an active shooter threat.

Assuming the active shooter is actually one of those deranged criminal types, or false flag operators, or just some nut with a gun, and assuming I find myself in a position to do something about it, you're damn right I'm going to do something about it - I don't know how I'd live with myself if I allowed innocent men, women and children to be harmed because I failed to act when I had the chance.

On the other side of that coin, if I'm not in a position to do anything towards ending the threat, you can bet I'd be one of the guys helping get people to safety.

Personally, though, I find the "Be a good witness, call the cops and get out" policies of non-intervention to be heartless, uncaring, and one of the major problems with this society.

Part of the reason I say the things I say regarding this is the decision in the case of Warren v. District of Columbia where the decision states, in part it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

There are several other cases that say much the same thing.

Basically this means we have no reasonable expectation of a police response, and if they do show up, there's no telling if they're going to stop for lunch on the way or head right over (Police response times in my city are right around the 15 minute mark. In Tallahassee, half an hour away, the response times are well over 30 minutes if they show up at all) because multiple state and federal supreme court cases have decided that law enforcement is NOT REQUIRED BY LAW to protect anyone.

The point is, if you're in a position to stop an active shooter, have the skills and tools necessary to end the threat or save lives, then it's immoral NOT to act to save those lives. It's not about money, it's not about family before strangers, it's not about being a hero ... it's about doing what is right, doing what you would hope some other armed citizen would do if you or your family were being threatened or fired upon.

Anyway, off my moral soapbox - ya'll can do what you do... Chances are none of us will ever find ourselves in an actual active shooter scenario, but if that situation arises, I'll do what the situation dictates, whether that is hiding, getting my family out of harms way, or shooting that sick SOB to keep him from killing you and your family - what I won't do is be a heartless, selfish, uncaring coward and simply run away at the first sign of trouble, and I won't stand by and watch someone murder dozens of innocent people simply because I'm afraid someone might sue me or arrest me.

 

[Sam1911]

So then if a person with a concealed weapon has sufficient training, something like Texas Law Shield and life insurance you would support him acting?

Support him acting? No. I don't support him, nor stand in the way of him. He paddles his own canoe.

I may decide that those things tilted the balance of whether I would act if I were faced with a particular situation, or I may not. As I said, there are many things that would factor in that decision -- including whether I NEED to in order to protect myself and my loved ones.

Regardless, per your statement kids with a father in the professions i listed could still become without a father and a wife without a husband.

Certainly. And that's pretty far outside the scope of this discussion as in that case the person in question and his/her family are making decisions far ahead of time regarding the costs and benefits and compensations of such a choice of vocation.

 

[Sam1911]

Those "benefits" are largely overestimated. Many first responder families that experience that loss have no other choice but to resort to charity just to get through the immediate and ridiculously costly expense of burying said first responder. Those "benefits" are under control of insurance companies, whose automatic initial response is denial of benefits regardless of the situation.

In other words, those "benefits" are no better than yours or mine, and when it comes down to it, is money really sufficient relief when you've lost such an important part of your family? I don't think so. So really, Sam, not to come off as rude, but that argument still doesn't wash.

That's as may be, but now we're squarely in the realm of debating whether it makes logical, fiscal, and familial sense to choose to become a form of "first responder" or take some other job which carries the perception of elevated risks. That's getting pretty far off topic, even for THR in general.

And it certainly doesn't do anything at all to make the respond-to-active-shooter decision a better idea.

 

[Sam1911]

...because multiple state and federal supreme court cases have decided that law enforcement is NOT REQUIRED BY LAW to protect anyone.

Hold on. Let's not overstate this. The cases say they don't have a duty to provide protection for a specific person, and can't be held liable if they didn't manage to stop someone from being killed.

NOT that they have no duty to respond to a threat to public safety. These cases, which are a necessary and proper clarification of the idea that the police cannot be held liable for not being everywhere and stopping every crime before it happens, have been twisted via careless retelling to the point that they are used to suggest that police and other first-responders don't care, won't go out of their way (or put their lives on the line) to defend society from predators and killers, and might just stop for coffee and donuts on the way to the next school-shooting-in-progress. That's not fair, and not true, and we should be above such insinuations.

 

[Rezin]

I doubt I'd seek out the bad guy, but if the right situation presented itself, perhaps I'd take s shot, but too many variables to consider.

 

[Rail Driver]

That's as may be, but now we're squarely in the realm of debating whether it makes logical, fiscal, and familial sense to choose to become a form of "first responder" or take some other job which carries the perception of elevated risks. That's getting pretty far off topic, even for THR in general.

And it certainly doesn't do anything at all to make the respond-to-active-shooter decision a better idea.

Fair enough. That still doesn't change anything in my statement. My point wasn't whether it's fiscally responsible to be a first responder or anything of the kind, nor was that particular part of my comment meant to imply one way or another whether it's a good idea to act or not in the OP's hypothetical. It was in response to your comment stating that they are paid to take that risk and thus the implication that the right thing to do is just let them handle it (assuming they're even on scene, which isn't guaranteed).

Calling the police and running away is not always the right thing to do... it's just the best way to save your own tail with no regard for anything but yourself and your family. While each individual and his family is most important to him, it's not ALL that's important.

Acting in a situation like that (at least for me) isn't about being a hero, it's about doing what is right. It is NEVER wrong to defend an innocent person from harm. In some or even most circumstances it may be imprudent, dangerous, or even potentially fatal... but it's more dangerous to get in your car and drive to work every day seeing as you're a thousand times more likely to be killed in a car accident than you are to be killed in an active shooter scenario.

Hold on. Let's not overstate this. The cases say they don't have a duty to provide protection for a specific person, and can't be held liable if they didn't manage to stop someone from being killed.

NOT that they have no duty to respond to a threat to public safety. These cases, which are a necessary and proper clarification of the idea that the police cannot be held liable for not being everywhere and stopping every crime before it happens, have been twisted via careless retelling to the point that they are used to suggest that police and other first-responders don't care, won't go out of their way (or put their lives on the line) to defend society from predators and killers, and might just stop for coffee and donuts on the way to the next school-shooting-in-progress. That's not fair, and not true, and we should be above such insinuations.

Where does it say that police/first responders DO have a duty to respond to a threat to public safety? I've never seen that statute.

Now while I'm aware of the intent (the not being held liable for not being everywhere at once etc), this isn't about stopping every crime, and while I did make the tongue in cheek statement about police stopping for lunch on the way *which I have PERSONALLY experienced while holding a threat at gunpoint in front of my own home, waiting for police to arrive and take him away* I never stated or implied that first responders do not care and won't go out of their way to defend society from predators when there's a serious situation. What I was stating, was that while calling the police is prudent, and ONE OF the first actions an individual in an active shooter situation should probably take, it's certainly not the ONLY action a capable person equipped with a concealed firearm has at his disposal.

I never implied that all first responders don't care, I never implied that police make a habit of stopping for coffee and donuts on the way to shots fired calls (the officer that responded to my home last summer took around 30 minutes to arrive, and finished his lunch on the hood of his cruiser while his partner handled the situation - that lunch was fresh, hot, and from the Subway less than 2 miles away. It doesn't take 30 minutes to go 2 miles.)

 

[Skribs]

I kind of mentioned this earlier, but do you have to be the one to call 911? If you're with a family member who doesn't carry (or even if they do) or if you're near some bystanders, you could have them call 911. I'm not saying that it's bad for the CCWer to call 911, but just because calling the cops is the right thing to do doesn't mean that everyone involved should be calling.

I know it's probably a bad comparison, but in the Army, you don't have every troop calling in air support. You have the radio guy calling in air support while the rest of the squad is busy with the firefight.

ETA: Rail Driver, if you ARE in an active shooter scenario, you are more likely to be killed than you are just driving your car. But I do agree, out in the mall the same tactics apply as at home: a defensible position is better than seeking out the shooter.

 

[CommanderCrusty]

The Body Guard Mindset

I am an ordinary citizen who carries a handgun. I have carried a concealed weapon for 30 years. My pistol doesn't make me a policeman, or a solider. If anything more than an ordinary schmoe, my weapon makes me a body guard.

My job is not to arrest, or even assist in the arrest, of an active shooter. My job is not to mount an offensive against an active shooter and destroy him. My job is to stand between him and my family. If that means using a handgun against a rifle across a crowded food court or movie theater, well, I will do my best.

Since I have a bodyguard mindset, I do not leave my principle. I do not leave my wife's side, and I do not drag her into danger. I do not abandon my son or my mother to go off hunting--unless somehow that is clearly the safest course for me and my family. My primary job is to come home safe every night and, as much as is in my power to do so, to make sure THEY come home safe too.

Would I fight back? Yes. Would I go off looking for trouble? No.

 

[SSN Vet]

Eye witness report from evacuated woman said "hundreds of police were descending on the scene"....

The shooter was wearing body armor and deploying a semi-auto rifle (odds are pretty good it was an AK or AR based platform).

Even guys who train regularly are going to be pretty hard pressed to take a character like this down with a CCW piece without closing distance. That would probably mean going directly toward the bang bang noise with your piece in your hand.

Hmmm....
1 (lot's of keyed up armed police rushing into the mall looking for a shooter)
+ 2 (you running toward the bang bang noise with a gun in your hand)
= 3 (you are either shot by the BG or the Police)

How's the old proverb go? "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight"

Yet many sound willing to bring a CCW piece to a rifle fight.

How would I react? I don't know. And I don't think many here do either, unless they've been in a for real gun fight b4.

 

[Apachedriver]

I am an ordinary citizen who carries a handgun. I have carried a concealed weapon for 30 years. My pistol doesn't make me a policeman, or a solider. If anything more than an ordinary schmoe, my weapon makes me a body guard.

My job is not to arrest, or even assist in the arrest, of an active shooter. My job is not to mount an offensive against an active shooter and destroy him. My job is to stand between him and my family. If that means using a handgun against a rifle across a crowded food court or movie theater, well, I will do my best.

Since I have a bodyguard mindset, I do not leave my principle. I do not leave my wife's side, and I do not drag her into danger. I do not abandon my son or my mother to go off hunting--unless somehow that is clearly the safest course for me and my family. My primary job is to come home safe every night and, as much as is in my power to do so, to make sure THEY come home safe too.

Would I fight back? Yes. Would I go off looking for trouble? No.

Probably the most sane response I've read here and a mentality that many should adapt. Primarily those that chose not to accept responsibility for their own defense but instead rely on others and choose to live White.

I've done my duty and will do so again and again when it calls. But I'm not a Sheepdog, I'm a Sagittarius.

 

[Skribs]

Based on police response times, I don't think that the police shooting me would be a large factor to consider. Chances are either the active shooter or the armed citizen will be shot down before the police arrive.

Based on responses in this thread, I don't think getting shot by another CCW holder is a very likely scenario.