Would You Do It?

[Apachedriver]

While it wasn't a shooting, our nation is proud of the passengers on Flight 93, who DID step up to the plate and stop one of the four planes.

This is an excellent example actually. It demonstrates perfectly that employment of a firearm is not a prerequisite to taking offensive/defensive action on behalf of oneself or others.

 

[Warp]

This is an excellent example actually. It demonstrates perfectly that employment of a firearm is not a prerequisite to taking offensive/defensive action on behalf of oneself or others.

It certainly is not a requirement.

And when the opponents do not have firearms, it is easier to succeed while unarmed

 

[thefish]

Don't know. And I guess I wouldn't know until presented with the situation.
We all think we know what we would would do, or would hope to do, but until something like that hits you in the face, I think there's a level of uncertanty.

But I did read this last weekend about the shooting at new life church,
Very intresting read. I think it's OK to post the link?

If not, google "Jeanne Assam is Still Waiting"

http://www.5280.com/magazine/2012/12/jeanne-assam-still-waiting?page=0,0

 

[Apachedriver]

Warp, my point is there are plenty of actions that can be taken to in a scenario with an active shooter that are very effective towards the goal of aiding the helpless.

Actively pursuing and engaging the shooter is just one option.

 

[Plan2Live]

I sure hope if I am ever drowning some bystander with reasonably proficient swimming and water skills doesn't stand by and watch me drown simply because he or she isn't a trained lifeguard and isn't wearing the proper colored Speedo. And if I am in some type of accident involving massive blood loss I hope bystanders don't stand by and watch me bleed to death simply because they don't have the proper gloves or the shield of indemnification carried by a publicly employed first responder.

Sometimes a man's got to do what a man's got to do and sometimes that comes with risk. Personally I would rather take my last breath regretting the things I DID during my life, not the things I DIDN'T do. I have life insurance to financially protect my survivors. I would rather they remember me as someone willing to step in and help my fellow man than someone who wouldn't.

As for irritating monkiers, I'll take a dozen Sheepdogs over a single Fanboy any day.

 

[45_auto]

How do you let everyone else in the mall or theater know that you're a good guy?

Let's say that you've heard shooting, you've "got to do what a man's got to do" and you are hunting the shooter down. There's going to be a bunch of people hiding behind the same cover (planters, walls, in stores, lying behind seats, etc) you'll be using moving towards the shooter. Do you believe that they're all "sheep" just because they don't have a gun? Are you going to shoot the brave old lady who mistakenly attacks you to defend her grandkids?

If I'm unarmed and hiding with my family from a shooter, and some unidentified guy is skulking by me with a gun, I don't care what he's saying, I'm going to nail him. If possible I'm not even going to let him know I'm there. I'm not going to politely ask him not to shoot me. He won't even know I'm there until I brain him with the fireplace poker, hat rack, golf club, baseball bat, or whatever other improvised weapon is lying around. At a minimum I'll be on his back with the 5" folder I carry everywhere at (or possibly in) his throat as he goes by me.

At that point I now have a gun. That's a good thing as far as I'm concerned since I know that I'm a good guy. I'll make whatever apologies are appropriate IF you wake up once the emergency is over. If there are civil penalties involved so be it. If you were a good guy, so sorry. If you were a bad guy, I'm a hero.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Plan2Live: Personally I would rather take my last breath regretting the things I DID during my life, not the things I DIDN'T do.

Such as killing an innocent person because you misjudged a situation or fired errant bullets?

Those are the real risks that one who intervenes with deadly force in public incidents faces, and it is what has been has been under discussion here.

Of course, everyone who speaks of his moral imperative to heroically stop a bad situation believes he is both omnisciently infallible and too skilled to hit unintended targets when firing quickly under stress in a public setting....

 

[Sam1911]

I sure hope if I am ever drowning some bystander with reasonably proficient swimming and water skills doesn't stand by and watch me drown simply because he or she isn't a trained lifeguard and isn't wearing the proper colored Speedo.

Actually, that's a great example and one that I was considering posting a couple days ago. One maxim shared -- in lifeguard training, no less -- was that when a person without good training (and a PFD) enters the water to retrieve a drowning person, neither comes out alive. Many are compelled to act because they can't just stand there and let someone else drown. So instead of A tragic death, TWO families mourn and suffer the loss of their loved ones, bread-winners, husbands, fathers, etc.

And no one realizes the incredible risk they face when then enter the water to help -- or how unlikely they are to produce anything but an even more tragic outcome.

In the end, the right course of action is to find some other way to assist, that isn't so dramatic and heroic.

 

[CZguy]

In the end, the right course of action is to find some other way to assist, that isn't so dramatic and heroic.
__________________

What, for example?

 

[grubbylabs]

Actually, that's a great example and one that I was considering posting a couple days ago. One maxim shared -- in lifeguard training, no less -- was that when a person without good training (and a PFD) enters the water to retrieve a drowning person, neither comes out alive. Many are compelled to act because they can't just stand there and let someone else drown. So instead of A tragic death, TWO families mourn and suffer the loss of their loved ones, bread-winners, husbands, fathers, etc.

And no one realizes the incredible risk they face when then enter the water to help -- or how unlikely they are to produce anything but an even more tragic outcome.

One of the big training points for any first responder unit is, if you are not trained to do it, don't. There are countless training videos that show this in action. They feature every thing from people being hit on the side of the road at an accident to people drowning in water rescues. If you are not trained to intervene not only to you take your life in your hands but also those around you as well as the trained responders who are on their way.

The simple fact of the matter is that if you are not trained to act in a highly stressful and dangerous situation, you are only making it worse for those who are. Not to mention how your family is going to react to loosing you. I don't know about the rest of you, but after a few years working in an E.R. and watching people grieve for a lost love one, I don't know how any one would be OK with putting their spouse or children or parents though that.

 

[jhaines]

I'm with everyone that has stated "family first". I'm going to get my family to hard cover and the sidearm is staying in its holster. If the shooter actively engages my position then all bets are off, I'm pretty much out of options. If the shooter becomes a target of opportunity, ie presents his back to me at less than 5 yards with a clear background and I can engage without leaving cover I'd probably take the shot(s). Other than those situations I'm going home to kiss my kids goodnight and read what the armchair QB's think I should have done.

 

[Fred Fuller]

From Post # 87... 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.

Everyone is wired differently, of course, and different people react to trauma in different ways. For some people, just seeing such things as briefly described in the quote above will be sufficient to guarantee some residual mental effects, no matter what the observer does or doesn't do. In the course of my relatively brief career as an EMT, for example, I had people literally die in my hands as I was working to try and help them. Of course there were many more who didn't die, but it is the ones we lost that I remember most.

I remember very clearly every one of those people and the circumstances that brought me and my friends to their sides. Unless I become non compos mentis I will never ever forget those people and those circumstances so long as I shall live. Sometimes people toss off the phrase "indelible impression" as if it's a convenient literary device or something. It isn't - it's a real thing, at least for some people. I know it is for me. One of the things I came away with from my time as an EMT and a firefighter is a little library of tape loops in my head. Occasionally one or another of those tapes will run, almost always unbidden. They get triggered by sights or sounds or smells that trigger the memory. I'm fortunate in that none of the loops that have accumulated so far leave me with any feelings of guilt or concern. But I can imagine the burden of having to deal not only with the sort of circumstances that embed that kind of memory so indelibly, but having to deal with the knowledge that I somehow failed to do the right thing as well.

I prefer that my body not write checks my mind can't cash, for lack of a better way to put it. If there is ANY doubt whatsoever as to what's going on in front of me, I am simply not going to drop a hammer (or striker). Period. I have to be 100% certain I know what's happening and that what I am doing is the absolute right thing.

I know myself far too well to do anything less. I suggest considering that level of certainty as a minimum threshold for action on the part of anyone else as well. The 'four rules' ARE the "big boy rules," remember...

 

[Sam1911]

What, for example?

In the case of the water-rescue? While it's getting off topic for THR, that would be limited to throwing them a line, reaching with a branch or pole, or getting some buoyant item to them to hold onto -- but DON'T enter the water yourself, period.

In the case of responding to an active shooter? I think we've covered that. (ADEE, respond directly only if forced to, etc.)

 

[Skribs]

Actually, that's a great example and one that I was considering posting a couple days ago. One maxim shared -- in lifeguard training, no less -- was that when a person without good training (and a PFD) enters the water to retrieve a drowning person, neither comes out alive. Many are compelled to act because they can't just stand there and let someone else drown. So instead of A tragic death, TWO families mourn and suffer the loss of their loved ones, bread-winners, husbands, fathers, etc.

So what about someone who has had training in self defense (or even better, off-duty LEO/former military), and has the proper equipment to stop a BG (such as a firearm)? Wouldn't that be similar to a lifeguard WITH training and a PFD rescuing someone, in the metaphor?

Also, one person attempting to save one drowning person is a 1:1 risk:reward. One person attempting to stop an active shooter is a 1:X risk:reward, with the X being however many people the BG would shoot before either A) police arrive AND take action, B) he decides to give up and shoot himself, or C) he simply runs out of targets.

I see time and time again "what if someone else shoots you thinking you are the BG?" Well, if everyone has the attitude of "if I draw, someone else may shoot me," then NOBODY is going to draw. In order for someone else to shoot me when I draw my CCW, I would have to be in a place where 2 CCWers draw on an active shooter instead of one...and one drawing is rare enough.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Fred Fuller: If there is ANY doubt whatsoever as to what's going on in front of me, I am simply not going to drop a hammer (or striker). Period. I have to be 100% certain I know what's happening and that what I am doing is the absolute right thing.

An excellent philosophy.

Posted by Fred Fuller: I suggest considering that level of certainty as a minimum threshold for action on the part of anyone else as well.

So do I.

It is incumbent upon those who contemplate stepping into situations and using deadly force with the intention of "saving" other people to understand and consider the risks their actions may have in terms of injury to others before acting.

In medicine, there is an important precept described by the phrase "first, do no harm." It has to do with non-maleficence, a very important ethical concept. The gist is that in an emergency situation, it may well be better to not undertake an action than to risk doing more harm than good.

That philosophy applies equally to intervention in a situation involving violence, and to firing a weapon in a public setting.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Skribs: So what about someone who has had training in self defense (or even better, off-duty LEO/former military), and has the proper equipment to stop a BG (such as a firearm)? Wouldn't that be similar to a lifeguard WITH training and a PFD rescuing someone, in the metaphor?

It may be somewhat similar in a limited way, but there are several very obvious, critical differences that have to do with risks to others, and with the risk that, in spite of all appearances, the apparent "BG" may not in fact be one at all.

 

[Sam1911]

So what about someone who has had training in self defense (or even better, off-duty LEO/former military), and has the proper equipment to stop a BG (such as a firearm)? Wouldn't that be similar to a lifeguard WITH training and a PFD rescuing someone, in the metaphor?

Could be, to one degree or another. Would be MOST similar to someone with training, a gun (probably a sidearm AND rifle), a vest, a badge, communications link to other responders, and indemnification.

 

[Teachu2]

If I'm moving toward an active shooter, my gun will be out of sight until seconds before I take a shot. Having a gun in hand announces that you are armed, and moves you to the top of the target list. In this case, I expose my weapon only as an integral part of the action of shooting - I'm mentally committed and the training has taken over.

If someone is going to take action in a situation where serious injury or death is possible or likely, they need confidence. Sometimes that seems like chest-thumping, cockiness, or arrogance in the context of a discussion board, but without it, chances of success and survival are drasticly diminished.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Teachu2: If I'm moving toward an active shooter, my gun will be out of sight until seconds before I take a shot.

Seconds?

That's a very long time for the perp, or his tail gunner, or an off-duty policemen who happens to be present, or an arriving first responder, or another armed citizen to detect your action, perceive you as an accomplice or as a serious threat, and shoot you.

If someone is going to take action in a situation where serious injury or death is possible or likely, they need confidence.

Well, OK, but that "confidence" had better be matched by capability, accompanied by helpful circumstances, supported by having made a correct decision, and aided by luck.

 

[Skribs]

KB, "seconds" could be 2 seconds to draw and acquire a sight picture. I think the meaning was that instead of drawing and wandering around looking for the BG, he would draw when finding the BG.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

We advocate CCW as a means to discourage or stop mass public shootings, but if no one will take the shot even when it clearly presents itself - as seems to be the trend here - we might as well drop any and all such pretense.

 

[Sam1911]

We advocate CCW as a means to discourage or stop mass public shootings,...

We do?

We hear a lot of "our" side saying "Oh, if they'd let more good guys carry guns the crime rates would fall and there wouldn't be mass shootings..." but statistics never seem to actually support that, so I thought "we" had quit touting that as part of "our" platform.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by The Lone Haranguer: We advocate CCW as a means to discourage or stop mass public shootings, but if no one will take the shot even when it clearly presents itself - as seems to be the trend here - we might as well drop any and all such pretense.

Whether "we" so advocate or not, you have missed the points of those who advise caution.

Those points are that, should one shoot someone who had not in fact been involved in "mass public shooting," or if one causes mayhem among innocent bystanders by firing in a public place, his or her actions would have been ill advised. Examples and information regarding such occurrences have been provided here an on numerous threads in the past.

No one questions whether stopping a violent criminal actor would be a good thing to do. It's just that things may not be what they appear, and that risks to bystanders cannot be ignored.

Another part of the discussion has had to do with personal risk--the risk of being gunned down by the shooter or van accomplice, by law enforcement, or by an armed citizen. Whether to assume such a risk is a personal decision.

 

[Teachu2]

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." - Albert Einstein

 

[Sam1911]

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." -- Alexander Pope

My simplistic but catchy quote is three hundred years older. Does that mean I win?