Would You Do It?

[SharpsDressedMan]

Why not? Save lives, be a hero, and maybe even live though it? If you die, trying to stop a killer, would there be a better way to die? Besides, after carrying a gun most my life, and practicing all my life, I'd be embarassed if I DIDN'T do something. Being a "protector" is what I was born to do.

 

[Dnaltrop]

There are limits to what any one person can do, I have enough trouble walking unsupported as it is, and with only one fully semi-functional arm, fast movement is not something I'm capable of, much less holding a gun and using a cane at the same time.

We each must do what is within our abilities however, and that varies greatly between mindsets and physical restrictions.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Rail Driver: 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.

That's one unlikely possibility. Also consider the possibility of shooting an off-duty policeman (we have discussed just such an incident here); a security guard; a citizen defending himself; or a person involved in consensual combat, whom you would not be justified in defending.

The point is, you had better be very sure, and not act on the basis of appearances.

#1, a reasonable alternative - that only LEGALLY applies in states that require citizens to retreat before using force -

That is completely untrue.

It is NEVER wrong to defend an obviously innocent person's life if they are in immediate/imminent danger of death or great harm.

That is true by definition; at least, I cannot argue with it.

It is, however, wrong to recklessly injure one innocent person in order to protect another.

How wrong? That would be for others to decide. Complete or near complete disregard would be one thing, and we can hope that most of us here wouldn't get into that one. Acting in spite of risks that a reasonable person would have mitigated would be something else; the threshold for deciding that in civil court would be a simple preponderance of the evidence, and you can bet that there would be no one with a CCW permit on the panel.

Thus, your point that

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.

...is of utmost importance in the decision process.

 

[Skribs]

I don't think I've ever heard the term "consentual combat". Is that related more to gang warfare or the like? If I see someone randomly or systematically shooting unarmed folk, I think it's pretty obvious that whatever their motivation is, it isn't justified.

 

[slidemuzik]

Shooter! Now what?

I hope my post is appropriate in content and placement for the ST&T forum.

Using the Portland OR mall incident as an example, what advice do the experts here give for what to do should you find yourself in a similar situation?

I'd like to begin by offering my thoughts for scrutiny.

Upon hearing shots, I would immediately drop to the ground and find cover. I'd probably advise others around me to get down for two reasons. 1) Their personal safety. 2) The safety of everyone by not drawing the shooters attention in our direction to easy targets.

I would focus my attention in the direction that the shots were coming from, but continually scan quickly in all directions in case there are multiple bad guys. If carrying a firearm I think it would be wise to keep it concealed UNLESS the threat
was immediate and you have or anticipate having eminent contact with the shooter. ie you can hear the shooter coming around a corner. I don't want my actions to distract responders or give them any reason to believe that I am part of the threat.

My goal is to keep a clear head to determine the best way for me and the people I am with to escape. I want to avoid moving too quickly so as not to flee into danger instead of away from it.

If I am in a store I'm probably going to try to flee out the back. I don't want to be in a crowd of people that are all trying to get out the same egress. You're too vulnerable. The danger in escaping through the back in most mall type buildings is that the back doors usually open into long hallways that could make you an easy target with no where to escape should you encounter a shooter in the hallway. If an outside exit is within sight of the back egress from the store, I would cautiously make my way to the door, check for threats, secure the exit so others can follow when it looks safe to do so.

It seems to me the important things to remember are to avoid being a stationary target. Don't attract attention of the shooter. Don't take any action that could distract or confuse efforts to interdict the threat by responders. I feel like if the shooter can't find you they can't hit you, so I'm probably safer in place than running in the open, even if that's out the door to the parking lot.

The importance of situational awareness to avoid finding yourself in a bad situation is obvious. What actions to take if you actually encounter the shooter is probably an entirely different discussion. My purpose with this thread is to exchange ideas on how best to react to the unlikely chance you find yourself in a similar scenario as the Portland mall shooting.

I appreciate your thoughts.

 

[littlebluevette]

I don't know what I would do but I do know in that situation if you are trying to help and have a gun in your hand that you are likely to get shot by the cops when they bust in.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

How about this? "Citizen With Legal Concealed Weapon Stands by and Does Nothing as Others are Slaughtered Nearby." Great headlines. Or, "Man with Legal Concealed Weapon Ends Rampage." Which do you want to be? If you want to eventually lose the right to bear arms, repeated incidents of doing nothing might just bring it on. If armed citizens do nothing, why have them armed?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Skribs: I don't think I've ever heard the term "consentual combat". Is that related more to gang warfare or the like?

And to anyone else who gets into a fight.

If I see someone randomly or systematically shooting unarmed folk, I think it's pretty obvious that whatever their motivation is, it isn't justified.

No, it is not justified. It is illegal.

But in a case of consensual combat, unless one party breaks off combat, announces his intention to do so, and is pursued by the other, any notion of a defense of justification by claiming self defense goes out the window.

And if neither party is justified in using force in self defense, no other civilian is justified in using force to defend him.

That's one issue. Another is that is really going on may well be more than what meets the eye. Mas Ayoob tells of witnesses who were completely convinced that they "saw" someone shooting an unarmed man.

But in fact, they just did not see the other man's weapon.

The other man was a criminal, and the shooter fired in justified self defense.

 

[Skribs]

But in a case of consensual combat, unless one party breaks off combat, announces his intention to do so, and is pursued by the other, any notion of a defense of justification by claiming self defense goes out the window.

Fair enough. And I guess if say I saw one gang member start shooting, and then a bit later another shoot back, it would be hard to tell if gang member #2 is engaged in combat or is defending himself. And I see your point in that if I step in and help gang member #2, it makes it look like I'm part of that gang.

With that said, I do think it would be somewhat apparent the difference between consensual combat and a mass shooter.

That's one issue. Another is that is really going on may well be more than what meets the eye. Mas Ayoob tells of witnesses who were completely convinced that they "saw" someone shooting an unarmed man.

I think it would be different with a mass shooting, especially if (like most recent shootings) a long gun is involved. It would be quite easy to say "well, we have about three dozen 5.56mm shells and four 9mm shells, this body has a rifle next to him and 4 pistol wound tracts, the rest of the bodies have no guns and have been hit by rifles...hmmm..."

I mean it's possible that the situation is different, but there is a difference between John attacking Mike with a knife that people didn't see, and Mike shooting him, vs. John going on a shooting spree and Mike shooting him.

 

[dark.zero.x]

That's why you don't go running around with your gun drawn. Wait till there is a threat, and when that threat is neutralized, re holster and wait for the police. I personally would not be looking for said shooter guy, I would be more concerned for getting me and mine out of the REALLY REALLY bad place. I would only intervene if said shooter was a threat to me or the people I am with.

 

[45_auto]

Upon hearing shots, I would immediately drop to the ground

I wouldn't make dropping to the ground your first priority in a crowded mall unless you like getting trampled.

 

[Rail Driver]

That's one unlikely possibility. Also consider the possibility of shooting an off-duty policeman (we have discussed just such an incident here); a security guard; a citizen defending himself; ...
Thus, your point that ...is of utmost importance in the decision process.

Tell you what - how about we simply agree to disagree - The deeper into this discussion we get, the further we are from being on the same page - you don't seem to understand or care about anything but the risks you might face, or at least that's how you're portraying yourself by your statements, and the same goes for the rest of the "run and hide, be a good witness" crowd, so don't take this as a personal attack.

Personally, I'd rather take some of those potential risks and even suffer the consequences so I don't have to wake up every night with nightmares seeing the bloody faces of innocent men, women and children I could have done something to help.

You're coming off like you're saying "Don't intervene whether you're in a position to or not" and that's simply wrong. It's worse than reckless. It's downright immoral, and borderline evil. If you have the ability and opportunity to act decisively to defuse a situation and save a life, and you choose not to, you're partly to blame for what happens after that point.

Ragnar Danneskjold had it absolutely right. It's not about being the hero, it's not about consequences or risks - it's about humanity. Allowing another human being to die when your intervention could save their life is plain wrong. That's what you and everyone else spouting "Law this, Law that" doesn't seem to understand - Some things are more important than what some rich, greedy, power drunk government suit sitting safe in an office surrounded by secret service agents with fully automatic weapons thinks I should be able to do in a life or death situation.

 

[Texan Scott]

Dark zero x, YES. That, exactly. Some will call it cowardice, but I'll point out that my CCW piece is not fit for SWAT duty, and my permit does not make me a law officer. Pursuing someone who has not directly threatened me is NOT within my normal legal purview. Not only am I not OBLIGATED to go playing hero, in many cases I'm not ALLOWED.
Of course if someone DID, and managed to save the day, we'd hail them as a hero; but if they got killed or, heaven forbid, compounded the problem by hitting other bystanders, they'd be branded something ranging from "the poor brave idiot" to "an ignorant public menace".
My gun is for protecting me and mine; I'm neither required nor authorized to do otherwise. If I can get my wife and kids out, I will.
Sheepdog? Sure... but I'm tending my own lambs first.

 

[Sky]

The mall, or so I was told is a gun free zone. There was an armed CHL individual in the mall but he did not engage the shooter.

 

[buck460XVR]

Sorry, I'm a family dog, not a sheep dog. My first instincts/concerns would be for those with me. Next would be the safety of other folks next to me. Being one person in a crowd of 10000, as in the Oregon shooting, I doubt very much if I could save those on the other side of the mall, without knowing where the shooter was or who he was, without leaving those already at my side unprotected. Hard for me to believe that outta those 10000 folks there at the mall yesterday, that no-one had a concealed weapon and did not have to make a similar choice.......

 

[Rail Driver]

To clarify, I'm not saying it's wise or sensible to go charging across the entire mall with gun drawn, firing at the sound. I'm saying that intervening *if you're in a position to do so* is not wrong, and failing to do so if you have the chance is wrong.

 

[slim76]

An on duty law enforcement officer would call for backup and if they had been trained in active shooter situations they may go towards the problem or they would follow whatever policy their agency dictates in that situation. If they were off duty they may decide to do whatever they felt would be most beneficial.

A civilian may or may not be in an immediate situation to deal with the threat. Will they move towards a violent situation while everyone else is moving away from it in a very chaotic manner? Will they possibly face rifles or shotguns with their concealed carry? Law enforcement is trained to do this, to use verbal commands, to self identify, to radio in backup. How will the civilian be perceived as they move to engage the threat.

Certainly there are imaginable circumstances where one family member would leave the sporting goods store and try to find the other member who told them they would be at bed bath and beyond, for example. In these chaotic situations you can expect there will be well meaning individuals who will not listen to your explanation of why you are moving against the herd. Security for instance and other well meaning civilians. They will try to push you towards the path of safety away from the situation.

A secondary problem is that law enforcement, if they are on the scene yet, will focus on the individual moving towards the problem who they cannot identify as a friendly, this could be bad, especially if a weapon is visible.
Remember an LEO will fall back on there training and begin giving you verbal commands. They will tell you, then they will make you do it. This is not a discussion, compliance is expected and they are not trained to listen to anything you have to say in this situation...at least not until you pose no threat to them and the situation has calmed.

Unless a civilian had no other choice they may not want to be a "man with a gun" in this scenario. It might best to have a predetermined plan with you and your family on what to do in that situation...pick the nearest store and hide under the checkout counter, only engage if the threat comes to you, etc.

 

[xwingband]

Seeking it... no. The prudent thing would be to leave if possible. If in the process of leaving the shooter is between you and the exit, yes.

Honestly I don't get the discussion of qualification and training. The shooter isn't going to ask if you're qualified and trained to respond. Of course I therefore feel a drive to be as proficient as possible with my firearm, but by being there I'm, for a lack of better words right now, eligible to respond, which doesn't necessitate firing back but it certainly isn't precluded.

 

[Cosmoline]

Best way to not get shot is to not be there. Find an exit or make one and leave the area as quickly as possible. Responding LEOs are so high strung they're almost as big a threat as the shooter. Not being there when they arrive is also important. The sidearm merely guards your retreat. Get out, make no statements to authorities (you don't know anything anyway) and never speak of any of it again.

There are some situations where there is no exit, and shooting back is the best bet for survival. The theater example is a good one. But in this case unless you're already right next to the shooter, there's no reason to try to engage and every reason to bug out of the mall and the area as quickly as possible. Just leave your car. You can get it later on. Hunkering down is a bad second choice, since it leaves you open to further attack by the shooter or an LEO.

Breaking windows, kicking down doors and otherwise inflicting property damage to escape is fine and dandy. In most states I'm aware of imminent death is full justification for property damage and if not it's just money.

Trying to run towards the scene can lead not only to getting shot by LEO's but to misidentifying the target as occurred in Arizona.

 

[GEM]

Personally, I'd rather take some of those potential risks and even suffer the consequences so I don't have to wake up every night with nightmares seeing the bloody faces of innocent men, women and children I could have done something to help.

That is not a good reason. It is not about you. It is about whether you can help the situation.

As I said before, modern psychological techniques can deal with the acute stress disorders and the long term ones like PTSD. Others see such from being raped, watching loved ones killed, making tragic mistakes (such as a mistaken police shooting). Sometimes men especially are unwilling to seek help because of their social viewpoints and macho attitudes. This is a terrible mistake. One should read up on such in books like Deadly Force Encounters by Arthwhol or Klinger's In the Kill Zone.

I've worked with folks who deal with cops after deadly force encounters, it can work. Thus are you saying that if you make a rational decision not to intervene, you are not able to take the steps needed to deal with the psychological consequences. Thus, you do the irrational or suffer psychological problems later which hurt yourself or impact your loved ones?

That is being weak.

So rather than feeling bad - the decision to act is what helps the situation or makes a decision for yourself and your loved ones that is rational and not emotional. If you want to die for emotions that you can't deal with, decide that before you decide to carry a gun.

You need to decide your goal state - if that is to intervene with a powerful risk to yourself, that is your decision. It is heroic and many have made that. Altruism for the greater good and sacrificing yourself is and has been a good thing.

My subtle point is that saying you would act because you will feel bad - doesn't really work. Act to save others or yourself - that's the choice.

As far as always jumping in - that's not supported by reality. You might jump into a swimming pool to save a kid. You probably wouldn't jump into a lava pool or dive over Niagara Falls. Actions to save others which result in your death usually have some degree of success probability. The decision is complex and folks ignore the complexity for the cliches at times.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

These thread always bring up a duty to loved ones as one the biggest most important reasons not to act.
What about for those of us with zero loved ones. Any logical reasons that don't mention that at all?

 

[Rail Driver]

That is not a good reason. It is not about you. It is about whether you can help the situation.

You're reading something into my statements that isn't there. Never said I'd base my decision to act or not on that, though it is a consideration. I never said that a rational decision NOT to act was out of the question.

As I said before, modern psychological techniques can deal with the acute stress disorders and the long term ones like PTSD. Others see such from being raped, watching loved ones killed, making tragic mistakes (such as a mistaken police shooting). Sometimes men especially are unwilling to seek help because of their social viewpoints and macho attitudes. This is a terrible mistake. One should read up on such in books like Deadly Force Encounters by Arthwhol or Klinger's In the Kill Zone.

I've read Deadly Force Encounters, but I haven't read Klingers - Regardless, you assume a lot if you think I wouldn't seek help dealing with something I found too difficult to deal with on my own - I'm a man, but I'm not superman, and I know when I'm in too deep. That said, modern psychological techniques are overblown in my opinion - 90% of the "therapists" I've met, discussed things with, or had experience with in any capacity only want to prescribe medications and get paid.

I've worked with folks who deal with cops after deadly force encounters, it can work. Thus are you saying that if you make a rational decision not to intervene, you are not able to take the steps needed to deal with the psychological consequences. Thus, you do the irrational or suffer psychological problems later which hurt yourself or impact your loved ones?

That is being weak.

It would behoove you to stop assuming things about me, and further it's rude to insult someone in the manner you just did and I don't appreciate it. I never said that I wouldn't be able to deal with the consequences of a rational decision not to intervene - like I said, I'm not about to go charging across the mall to the other end in order to be a hero, that's not what it's about - I said that I would prefer to act and face any consequences IF I WERE IN THE POSITION TO AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO. That doesn't imply that I would make an irrational decision, nor does it imply that I would suffer from psychological problems because I wasn't in a position to help.

My subtle point is that saying you would act because you will feel bad - doesn't really work. Act to save others or yourself - that's the choice.

Again - I didn't say I'd act because I'd feel bad if I didn't, I said I'd prefer to act and face the consequences either good or bad, versus not acting and spending the rest of my life wondering what might have happened.

As far as always jumping in - that's not supported by reality. You might jump into a swimming pool to save a kid. You probably wouldn't jump into a lava pool or dive over Niagara Falls. Actions to save others which result in your death usually have some degree of success probability. The decision is complex and folks ignore the complexity for the cliches at times.

Once again - you assume that my statements mean I'd always do one or the other - I stated SEVERAL times that EACH UNIQUE SITUATION DICTATES THE RESPONSE. Please read what I say before trying to put meaning to my words that simply isn't there.


Edit to add: By the way - You might consider that people are, by nature, creatures of emotion. You might also take the time to get to know a person before you get all high and mighty and make ridiculous implications regarding an individual's emotional stability before you start advising them on whether or not they should be carrying a firearm - you don't know me, and it's not your place to decide whether or not I'm emotionally stable enough to carry a gun (which for your peace of mind, I'm quite emotionally stable and have been judged so more than once by actual professionals in the mental health field throughout my life for various reasons that are none of your business)

 

[mljdeckard]

You do not know that you will make the situation better. You don't know that you won't hit someone you didn't WANT to. (ESPECIALLY in a situation like that.) You don't know if you will distract the police from finding the bad guy, when people start calling 911 and saying YOU are the bad guy.

It is just too difficult to say, without being there, whether or not you are in a position to do any good at all.

 

[jcwit]

Exactly!

 

[mljdeckard]

Maybe I've just spent enough of my life running towards the fight, I have actually started to realize what I would lose if I got killed.