Would You Do It?

[Apachedriver]

Based on the responses in this thread:
- some believe they will unequivocally go on the hunt,
- others are planning on protecting their own first and help others as able,
- most are willing to engage if the bad guy is an immediate threat,
- some realize they may not be able to establish PID on anyone with a gun within their line of sight.

If you see someone running towards you with a gun or two in their hands acting paranoid, peering into stores, and sweeping everything they look at with their firearms, at what point do you engage them with your weapon?

ETA: What if the man is grabbed onto a panicked/hysterical/crying woman and child while holding a gun in the other hand as he pushes them down the corridor? Is he holding onto them for cover or evacuating them?

I'm not saying don't act. I asking what will be your act beyond saying I'm going after the bad guy.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Rail Driver: It is NEVER wrong to defend an innocent person from harm.

True--unless the actor (1) uses force when there is a reasonable alternative (preclusion), (2) uses excessive force, or (3) harms others by reckless disregard of risks.

Of course, there is the other issue--that of knowing that the person is in fact innocent.

Generally, one may use force when it is immediately necessary, to protect someone else from imminent danger--provided that that person would be lawfully entitled to use force himself. In some jurisdictions a reasonable belief may suffice, but in others, it will not.

We have often spoken here of the legal liabilities, both criminal and civil, attendant to intervention by the citizen who uses or threatens force. It is extremely important to realize that that risk is not the result of a legal system that just refuses to realize that the person who intervenes is the modern day equivalent of a benighted cavalier or the masked man with his faithful companion; rather, the risk lies in the very real possibility that the actor will turn out to be mistaken, or will otherwise muck it up. The legal system comes into play after there is evidence that the actor has improperly threatened or harmed someone else, whatever his perception of the situation or of his moral duties may have been.

 

[Skribs]

I think an active shooter would be abundantly clear as to what he is. If someone is just walking through and shooting people at random, especially in the back as they try to flee...well, you see my point.

 

[Rail Driver]

True--unless the actor (1) uses force when there is a reasonable alternative (preclusion), (2) uses excessive force, or (3) harms others by reckless disregard of risks.

Of course, there is the other issue--that of knowing that the person is in fact innocent.

Generally, one may use force when it is immediately necessary, to protect someone else from imminent danger--provided that that person would be lawfully entitled to use force himself. In some jurisdictions a reasonable belief may suffice, but in others, it will not.

We have often spoken here of the legal liabilities, both criminal and civil, attendant to intervention by the citizen who uses or threatens force. It is extremely important to realize that that risk is not the result of a legal system that just refuses to realize that the person who intervenes is the modern day equivalent of a benighted cavalier or the masked man with his faithful companion; rather, the risk lies in the very real possibility that the actor will turn out to be mistaken, or will otherwise muck it up. The legal system comes into play after there is evidence that the actor has improperly threatened or harmed someone else, whatever his perception of the situation or of his moral duties may have been.

I repeat in very clear words: It's not about being a hero, like you and others here seem to be repeatedly implying.

Some risks are worth taking. What those are, is for each individual to decide for himself.

The possibility of being confused about whether the guy standing on a table in the food court spraying bullets into a crowd of teenagers is certainly a real possibility Now while that smart remark I just made applies to your statement, I'm also well aware that it may not be immediately obvious in a shooting situation who is doing the shooting. Sure, I could be completely off base and shoot another CWL holder who also decided to respond instead of the actual threat - A situation like that is even less likely than you and I ending up in an active shooter situation together at the same time, or even both of us being involved in separate situations at separate times.

In any case, I'm well aware how the legal system works - One must first make some sort of mistake in order to end up on the defendant bench.

There are a great MANY different issues to consider that will be different in each situation - If you go back and slowly read my comments, you'll see that I stated more than once that the reaction should be dictated by the situation, not by a one size fits all response. Your entire response seems to be nothing more than the 5th or 6th time someone has brought up potential legal ramifications.

I'm sure that since I'm a regular average joe and not employed in a first responder profession, that if I choose to respond, that will be a mistake. Everything I attempt will be a mistake, I'll shoot the wrong people, I'll use too much force, I'll find myself actually defending the bad guy instead of shooting him, I might even shoot myself. I'll surely end up dead and in jail though.

Seriously though, to get back to your list at the beginning of your reply - #1, a reasonable alternative - that only LEGALLY applies in states that require citizens to retreat before using force - I don't live in such a state. #2, in an active shooter situation, with someone shooting at me or others, deadly force is justified according to statute in my jurisdiction - so excessive force is irrelevant UNLESS I were to continue shooting after the subject was no longer a threat - I've been in only a couple use of force situations, but I'm pretty secure in my ability to judge when a person is a threat or not, especially if I'm the one dealing with that threat. #3 is the only caveat that fully applies, and only if my actions are judged reckless - Being former military with significantly more extensive firearms and tactical training than just the average guy on the street will aid me in avoiding the "reckless" judgement, and not simply by virtue of name dropping or whatever, but because I adhere to my training. While it's possible that a CWL holder accidentally shoot a bystander in such a situation, the bottom line is that in a situation like that, the Florida Stand Your Ground law protects me from litigation UNLESS I was truly reckless in my response to the threat.

Your comment seems to imply that no matter what a person does, if they choose to act in defense of others in an active shooter situation, they are making a mistake. I respectfully submit that you are wrong. Your arguments against acting all depend on the relevant use of force laws in your particular jurisdiction, and if legalities are important enough to a person that they would stand by and watch someone shoot an obvious innocent because it wouldn't be legal to respond, then that is not the kind of person I want anything to do with.

So in respect to your picking apart that generality I made, allow me to rephrase: It is NEVER wrong to defend an obviously innocent person's life if they are in immediate/imminent danger of death or great harm.

"The Law" has no bearing on that statement, and if there are consequences to doing the right thing, then so be it. Some things are worth dying for, and some things are worth stepping outside what society dictates we should do. After all - doesn't society say those of us who carry guns are wrong?

Further, I seem to notice everyone assuming "Shoot, shoot shoot" - I don't know about the rest of you, but I carry at least one knife, and a non-lethal option or two as well as my pistol. Even in an active shooter situation, shooting might not be the right answer.

 

[mljdeckard]

I normally prefer ro respond earlier in these threads.

Of course recent events have me thinking a lot. But I don't really change my mind. The answer is not likely. I will get my family to the nearest exit. If it were a situation where I could tell the bad guy was in one section, and I could isolate another section, I might tell everyone with me to get out and try to cover them as we left.

I would say that I would never chase the bad guy, but there do exist very narrow possibilities where I might go back in. If, say, it was a situation where I was free and clear, and the bad guy was still shooting, and I knew that I was absolutely the only thing that could prevent the situation from getting worse, I might go back in, cautiously, mostly to see if I had any opportunity to shoot. If the police were already on-site, I wouldn't.

Something that has recently emerged and was practiced last night, is the new 'active shooter' tactics that police departments are adopting. They have acknowledged that assembling the SWAT team takes too long, so basically every badge in the viscinity responds. Which is certainly faster, but it also makes it less likely that they are trained to pick an armed good guy from the bad guys. Meaning, you would be more likely to get in the way, get shot, or both. It's becoming an increasingly bad idea.

 

[mljdeckard]

Something else to consider, while most of these shooters work alone, if one had a partner, and you didn't know it, or know WHERE they are, what could you do by yourself?

 

[blarby]

Would you use your CCW to stop a public shooting?

If it were tactically prudent to do so, yes.

 

[GEM]

There is no correct answer. It is easy to opine. Some experiences that are useful is to do FOF where you are in a rampage (without or without a gun and with or without someone loved to protect) and another where you are the shooter. Fun to see how the plans of the worthy can be short circuited.

You can't have a set answer - you can have mindset, skills and have thought of the consequences for your actions.

What is your goal state for an action and the results? What is the moral road to take - self-sacrifice vs. leaving your family alone? Of course, easy to say you don't care if you die - on the Internet.

Ayoob mentions a case where a gang mall shootout, an off duty cop put his little girl in a safe position and then went to intervene. A BG found her in the melee and killed her.

As far as not living with yourself, I discussed that in depth on TFL. Frankly, that's baloney as we can treat mental trauma very well. If you say that even with such you can't live yourself, you just announced that you are weaker than the folks who survive combat, disaster, doctors who lose a patient, folks who make it back from terrible injury, etc.

So, I ask you this counterfactual. A man or woman intervenes to save you or your loved one and dies. Do you commit to supporting that person's loved ones as they lost the breadwinner? Interesting moral problem.

 

[Skribs]

Something else to consider, while most of these shooters work alone, if one had a partner, and you didn't know it, or know WHERE they are, what could you do by yourself?

The problem is that while you're assessing the situation, this would be impossible to predict. That said, if you stop one of the BGs and the other stops you, well...you stopped one of the BGs.

Rail Driver, I'm not so sure that non-lethal alternatives or melee weapons would be the better answer unless you are REALLY good with them and the tactics involved, and even then they still wouldn't be as good.

Overall, I think that with all of the "if you shoot you're just a pretend cop" and "you're just a sheeple if you run away" (I'm paraphrasing, obviously), it really boils down to 2 viewpoints that I am assuming people actually mean:

1) The "sheeple" or "bodyguard" approach (depending on who you ask): Avoid direct confrontation with the active shooter. Call 911, escort your family to safety. If forced into a confrontation, shooting may be prudent, but only in defense of you and those in your charge.

The advantage here is self preservation and low risk of lead, legal, or financial recourse against you, both from the shooter, or (less likely) the police, or (even less likely) another CCW holder. Self preservation helps the situation by providing a witness (if you got a good look) and it prevents you from causing more trouble by ensuing more panic or accidentally hitting bystanders.

2) The "vigilante" or the "armed responder", who may not just walk blindly into the line of fire, but who desires to stop the subject before they can kill even more people. This line of thinking is based on the idea that we carry guns to stop attacks.

The disadvantage here is that it is high risk for ourselves, and that saying we carry so we can protect others makes us look like wannabe vigilantes.

As said above, I am more of a #2 philisophically, but I'm not sure in a real situation what I would do. I'd just like to highlight, though, that people in Camp Runtocoppy and those vacationing in Chestthumperville are both probably weighing the risks and what is important to them (survival, family, stopping evil), and I think the majority of us, in both camps, would assess the situation instead of blindly running towards or away from the bullets.

 

[Rail Driver]

Rail Driver, I'm not so sure that non-lethal alternatives or melee weapons would be the better answer unless you are REALLY good with them and the tactics involved, and even then they still wouldn't be as good.

The same can be said about MOST concealed carry guns. A significant number of concealed carry guns in this country are the smallest, lightest, most comfortable gun they can carry and still have something that spits lead. Not everybody carries a full size service pistol in a "reasonable" caliber (ie, 9mm or larger).

I'm more skilled with my pistol than I am with a stun gun, OC spray, or baton, but I've trained with and carried all of them at one time or another, and I'm comfortable using any of them if the situation calls for it, but still irrelevant.

"Good" in this situation is relative ... Whatever works is good enough, even if it's just tossing a slice of pizza under the BG's feet as he's approaching someone trying to confront him, or throwing fresh hot coffee in his face when he's paying attention to something else.

 

[Skribs]

Yes, but even something like an LCP, which isn't very accurate or powerful or easy to control compared to other options, is better than a knife. At 5 yards, I'd much rather have the LCP. At contact distance, well they'll both work, but I don't see a disadvantage to the pistol.

 

[Rail Driver]

Yes, but even something like an LCP, which isn't very accurate or powerful or easy to control compared to other options, is better than a knife. At 5 yards, I'd much rather have the LCP. At contact distance, well they'll both work, but I don't see a disadvantage to the pistol.

This brings up the whole "My gunfight" phenomenon - you've assumed that the active shooter isn't going to be the guy that just walked out of the store right next to you, or that you'll be able to distance yourself.

One significant drawback to using a pistol in a crowded mall is the risk of hitting a bystander, either via pass-through, or by missing the BG entirely. With a knife, stun gun, baton or cane that's not nearly as much of a concern. The items can also be used in conjunction with one another - OC spray to the face while disabling the assailant with your cane/baton for example.

 

[Skribs]

No, I'm just assuming that out of the large amount of floorspace, it's very likely that the active shooter will not be in melee range.

 

[HoosierQ]

The thing of it is, it never happens that I can see from any reliable source. I think if any of "us" have been at any of "these" things, "we've" opted out on acting. There is an assumption I think here that none of "us" are ever at the right place at the right time. I submit the time would seem to be right to consider dropping the whole "if there were more CCW people, there'd be less mass shootings" line of RKBA support arguments in the interest of credibility. Conversely, I would also submit that we should not and cannot drop the much cited (and often videotaped) line of reasoning, supported by fact...just as an example...in which "There have been many late night gas station clerks saved by their CCW"...there is probably a terabyte of video on Youtube showing clerks defending their lives with their weapons and sometimes defending the till, which is often their own livelihood if they own the place.

 

[Skribs]

I don't know, Hoosier. I never see interviews in the newspaper where the patrons are saying "I have a CCW but I did not shoot back for fear of hitting someone else." I usually see "I couldn't do anything" "we were all helpless." As someone posted in the Debating Anti-Gunners, Part 3, only about 3% of the population have carry permits, and I can guarantee you that a small percent of that actually carry every day. Add in the fact that at a lot of these places we have to disarm, and there is very little chance a CCWer was even there.

You are right, though. We don't have evidence to back up that we can stop a mass shooting. Conversely, there is no evidence we would make it worse. What we can do is assess the possibilities and risks.

I'll also suggest that if someone goes in to do a mass shooting, and is quickly stopped by a CCW, there is a good chance the story will remain local, for 2 reasons. #1: Money. "16 dead in mass shooting" vs. "3 dead, including shooter"...which one will make headlines for weeks? #2: Agenda. The media wants to show that guns belong in the hands of police and military, and everyone else needs to give their guns up. Saying that civilian guns took down a bad guy (which happens quite a bit in more personal assaults) generates a local story and maybe attention through an affiliates page on a big news site. Saying the evil gun killed a large number of people is a good time for the media to promote gun control, so it gets more coverage.

I'm not saying it HAS happened or that there's a conspiracy here, but the media predominantly wants to show guns being used badly in the spotlight and have guns being used goodly as a sort of rare occurance.

 

[GEM]

I never see interviews in the newspaper where the patrons are saying "I have a CCW but I did not shoot back for fear of hitting someone else."

Tacoma Mall and Tucson - CCW types decided not to shoot.

 

[HoosierQ]

I don't know, Hoosier. I never see interviews in the newspaper where the patrons are saying "I have a CCW but I did not shoot back for fear of hitting someone else." I usually see "I couldn't do anything" "we were all helpless." As someone posted in the Debating Anti-Gunners, Part 3, only about 3% of the population have carry permits, and I can guarantee you that a small percent of that actually carry every day. Add in the fact that at a lot of these places we have to disarm, and there is very little chance a CCWer was even there.

You are right, though. We don't have evidence to back up that we can stop a mass shooting. Conversely, there is no evidence we would make it worse. What we can do is assess the possibilities and risks.

I'll also suggest that if someone goes in to do a mass shooting, and is quickly stopped by a CCW, there is a good chance the story will remain local, for 2 reasons. #1: Money. "16 dead in mass shooting" vs. "3 dead, including shooter"...which one will make headlines for weeks? #2: Agenda. The media wants to show that guns belong in the hands of police and military, and everyone else needs to give their guns up. Saying that civilian guns took down a bad guy (which happens quite a bit in more personal assaults) generates a local story and maybe attention through an affiliates page on a big news site. Saying the evil gun killed a large number of people is a good time for the media to promote gun control, so it gets more coverage.

I'm not saying it HAS happened or that there's a conspiracy here, but the media predominantly wants to show guns being used badly in the spotlight and have guns being used goodly as a sort of rare occurance.

Well some parts of that are well reasoned, I'll give you that. I am not so sure about what the media wants or doesn't want...their agenda. I do agree that there have probably been any number of self defense shootings that stopped at 1...and where the alternative number of injured or killed people cannot be known...if I am reading you right. But that's a little out of the mass shooting scenario. I am more that confident that if a mass shooting of some sort broke out and a CCW holder stopped it, it would be all over the news. It would be a good story and a good story is money. Money, not an agenda is the media's number one master.

 

[Skribs]

But still, it's the headline. "Armed citizen stops mass shooting" is a decent headline, but "16 dead in mass shooting" is a bigger headline. It generates a reaction TOWARDS their line of thinking. I'm also pretty sure most reporters think that the general public thinks like them, and they would rather outrage the public than praise a vigilante.

That's just my opinion, anyway. And like you said, if Joe Snuffy walks into a mall and shoots Mr. and Mrs. Smith before Billy Bob puts him down with his CCW, we have no way of knowing if Snuffy was planning on shooting another dozen people or if the Smiths were his only target.

GEM, I did say I haven't seen those interviews, not that you haven't seen them

 

[allaroundhunter]

I will get my family and those with me to safety first. Once there, I will not proceed to move back towards the threat.

However, if the threat continues to move towards my safe position, I would like to think that I would move to a more advantageous position to engage the shooter. The benefits of moving are twofold:

1. I get a better shooting position on the threat.
2. I am away from my family so that any return fire that comes at me *hopefully* will not also be in their direction.

 

[Skribs]

2. I am away from my family so that any return fire that comes at me *hopefully* will not also be in their direction.

That is part of why I said I would not escort my friends/family. They can call 911 and get to safety. If I'm going to return fire, I'm doing it away from them.

If I decided to retreat instead of attack, I'm not sure which would be better.

 

[mljdeckard]

The thing is, if an armed citizen stops it, most of the time it won't BE a mass shooting. They stop it BEFORE it becomes one. (I don't even call THIS event a mass shooting. you have conventional homicides with more dead than 2+1 frequently.) Armed citizens never make headlines for what they PREVENT.

 

[Dnaltrop]

2 decades ago, Clackamas Town Center was my workplace.

Today, it's where the wife often takes the kids to play in the indoor playground when the weather is too nasty (or hot) for even a hardy Oregonian. The food court has a carousel and a small Ferris wheel, and if it weren't for our tendency to avoid large crowds, it's entirely possible that we could have been wandering around, running the kids' batteries out.

Things like this are only a remote possibility until it happens, then it simply becomes tragic.

If a shooter presented themselves in my immediate vicinity, I would NOT give them free reign to fire on my family as we retreated.

I would not however go looking for the shooter in another part of the mall. I would get as many people as possible into the nearest storefront, drop the security gate, and cover the entrance while people either tried to evacuate out the Service door in the back, or barricade the entrances.

I don't miss working loss prevention one bit now.

 

[HoosierQ]

The thing is, if an armed citizen stops it, most of the time it won't BE a mass shooting. They stop it BEFORE it becomes one. (I don't even call THIS event a mass shooting. you have conventional homicides with more dead than 2+1 frequently.) Armed citizens never make headlines for what they PREVENT.

Excellent point and I agree. Well said. Complicated, very complicated.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Yes I absolutely would, as long as I could identify the wrong-doer. And in a mass shooting, I imagine that would be pretty easy. Also, I do not have a family at all, so getting them to safety is a total non-issue for me.

No, a CPL doesn't make you a police officer.
Good thing that's completely irrelevant since stopping a mass shooter isn't just enforcing laws and processing criminal cases. It's exercise your humanity. It's taking stock of your own moral compass and values, and making the determination that the lives of innocent people might just be more important than a possible risk to yourself. Being able to act in ways that put ourselves in danger but protect strangers is one of the things that makes us more than just primates who walk on two legs. It's that inherently self-less and instinctually-irrational act that makes being a human something special. Animals preserve themselves. Animals protect their young. Humans have compassion. I choose to act humanely and not just with instinctual self-preservation. It's not the CPL that enables me, though my state law does state that firearms are NOT just for self-defense. It's my ethics that drive my actions. It's not being a cop. It's not being Rambo. It's not taking the law into my own hands.

It's seeing "Here is a problem. I have the ability to solve it or to walk away and let strangers suffer". I choose to attempt to solve it.

 

[Skribs]

If a shooter presented themselves in my immediate vicinity, I would NOT give them free reign to fire on my family as we retreated.

I would not however go looking for the shooter in another part of the mall. I would get as many people as possible into the nearest storefront, drop the security gate, and cover the entrance while people either tried to evacuate out the Service door in the back, or barricade the entrances.

I guess the question is where do you draw the line between "that guy might be able to shoot my family" and "okay, we're safe, just call 911." I'm not saying any judgment or anything, but there is a lot of room between "he opened fire two feet in front of me" and "we were in Macys and heard someone was shooting up Gamestop".

Mjldeckard and Ragnar, very good posts.