Would you take the shot?

[DeerSlayer7600]

You better believe i'd take the shot, a threat is a threat no matter if its back is to you or not.

 

[3KillerBs]

Of course.

If he's shooting innocent people and you can stop him by shooting him in the back why wouldn't you do it?

This is life and death, not touch football. You stop the shooter any way you can or you get to spend the rest of your life trying not to look yourself in the eye when you shave and never quite being able to wash away the blood of the innocent people who died because you wanted to be sportsmanlike towards a bloodthirsty maniac.

As Kipling noted in The Female of the Species, women are MUCH more practical about these things than men.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger — Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue — to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity — must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions — not in these her honour dwells—
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

http://www.corneredcat.com/Fun/kipling.aspx

 

[camoman33935]

I guess you should stop the threat but is it just the "Old West" speaking about not shooting some one in the back that makes me uneasy.

Well.... most of the outlaws or criminals in the Old West were shot in the back

 

[mr.scott]

Well.... most of the outlaws or criminals in the Old West were shot in the back

If you're a Star Trek geek like me you'll recognize this quote:
Odo: You'd shoot a man in the back?
Garak: It's the safest way, isn't it?

 

[John_galt]

If I was sure he was a shooter yes. Consequences be what they may. There are things that are morally the right thing to do. To stop the killing of an innocent person is one of them. That said in total honesty two things need to be added; first I hope I could manage to do the right thing if the situation ever came up (if I ever say I know I could please smack me up side the head and call BS) second I hope it never does. The only way I'll ever know is if it somehow it would happen.

 

[camoman33935]

If you're a Star Trek geek like me you'll recognize this quote:
Odo: You'd shoot a man in the back?
Garak: It's the safest way, isn't it?

to tell you the truth i've never watched star trek

 

[JesseKM]

Under those circumstances, I would take a shot. I base that on the answers to the following questions.

1. Is the person a threat to me or anyone else? (Bear in mind that your perception of the threat is a subjective, on the spot call. It has to be.)

In this case, yes, he is a threat to other people. If you are within sight, then he's also a threat to you. If there's no way for you to hide before he could turn around, then yes he's a threat. If he's expressed intent to shoot someone and has not done it yet, then yes he's still a threat.

2. Is it alright to shoot someone without giving them the chance to shoot back, react, possibly surrender etc...? I think that this is the main question that you're asking. Obviously the person in the situation that you've mentioned was a threat to everyone involved. My personal viewpoint on it would be this: His decision on surrender, being shot at, and shooting at other people has already been made. He has made choices to harm other people that have automatically put him in harms way and against the law. He is using deadly force and certainly warrants a reply in like manner. My personal judgement is that at that point I would try to kill him in such a manner as to reduce the likelihood of further injury to anyone (including me) as much as possible and increase the likelihood and certainty of his demise as much as I can. I would do my absolute best to shoot him without him seeing me. I would do my absolute best to do it quickly before he shot someone else. I would do my absolute best to insure through shooting him that he would be incapable of continuing to shoot at anyone again. He has absolutely no right to threaten, attack, or kill innocent people and I believe he lost his rights immediately when he removed those of others.

 

[Oana]

The given situation isn't:

A) A duel
B) Sneaking up on someone to vengefully murder him (on your part, anyway)
C) A burglary where an unarmed man is running away from the house he intended to burgle
D) A movie

If the shooter is carrying a weapon, is shooting students, and is a threat, then shooting him in the back is no different than shooting him from the front - except for the fact that you're a little safer.

You don't owe a criminal who's killing students a "fair fight". He's already ignored any "fair" part by committing murder, and "fight" is all that's left.

 

[AndyC]

Shoot him - no warning, either. Ain't a game.

 

[ctdonath]

He's killing people, right now.
What does his orientation relative to you have to do with anything?

 

[Jst1mr]

Is the BG facing an arena full of students? In other words, will your shaky, adrenaline-charged hand ( assuming you're not 100% combat trained)result in a miss (or more) that may kill innocents? (Especially with those +P+'s that you just had to have?) Can you get a better angle that makes you sure of what's going on and presents a better shot? What happens when they find dead or injured students w/ your lead in them? "Make sure of what is behind your target"

 

[rondog]

Shoot him at least twice ASAP, and start rapidly advancing on him as soon as he begins his journey to the floor. Keep him covered and close the distance. The closer you are, the better your position for any follow-up shots. And constantly look around for other BG's! Don't fire any more shots than you have to, because of the innocents about, and you might need the rounds for BG#2, or #3.

And I personally would do this ANYWHERE.....mall, store, restaurant, bank, anywhere it was happening. And holster your weapon as soon as it's safe. You don't want to be standing there with a pistol in your hand when the responders arrive.

JMHO's.

 

[Zedo]

This brings up the "issue" of a second person with a firearm being perceived as a threat. This idea gets tossed around a lot -- that you pull a gun in a "shooting scenario" and you're viewed as being one of the "shooters."

No easy answer for that one.

When someone is shooting innocent bystanders there are no "ethical rules of engagement." You shoot to stop the threat. When they're dead they generally stop shooting.

My personal view on "campus carry" is that it serves as a deterrent. John R. Lott in More Guns, Less Crime U. of Chicago, 1998 notes a "shirtail effect" -- that when people are allowed carry potential attackers decline risking being shot because they don't know if their target has a gun or not. On a disarmed college campus, there's a pretty good chance that the "target" is unarmed.

That needs to change.

 

[1911 guy]

If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

Of course I'd pop him in the back of the head. The point is to save innocent lives, not be all chivalrous and crap. Ever seen a street fight observe Marquis of Queensbury Rules? Didn't think so.

 

[Realbigo]

I hope if i'm ever in this situation I have the guts to act, whether i'm armed w/ a firearm, knife, a bag, or just my hands and feet.

 

[deaconkharma]

shoot

In SC we have something oh what is the term. Vicarious self defense or whatever. I forget the term but the jist is this, if you see someone in imminent danger of life then you can shoot in "self defense" because you take on their role victim.
"killing in defense of another cannot be justified unless the person being defended would have been justified in killing the victim."

so yup, provide him the contents of your firearm.

 

[ronwill]

I understand your thinking about shooting someone in the back, it's my way of thinking also. However, if it was the only way to prevent an innocent bystander from getting killed then most definitely.

 

[JDoe]

Shooting the above mentioned active shooter in the back until he is no longer a threat is just like getting enough fiber in your diet. It's the right thing to do.

Would I take the shot if I was carrying? I really don't know but I hope someone would.

 

[FerFAL]

Take advantage of your unexpected good luck during an unfortunate incident: Take aim and shoot him in the back of the head.

FerFAL

 

[RobNDenver]

Yes, you should do whatever is necessary to end the threat.

 

[mgregg85]

Yeah I would definetly shoot until he was stopped.

It isn't dishonorable if thats what your worried about. Someone shooting unarmed people deserves a shot or two in the back.

 

[mljdeckard]

This is a fundamental example of the perceived "Gentleman's code". John Wayne never shoots in the back.

When Don Siegel directed John Wayne in "The Shootist", he wanted to include a shot of him shooting someone in the back. Wayne refused, and when he made the mistake of telling him, "Well Clint Eastwood would do it," Wayne lit into him. Siegel had directed other Eastwood movies, including "Dirty Harry", and was overlooking a different generation of ethics.

I THINK, this old west ethic is largely mythical, that the real cowboys didn't shoot someone in the back. The REAL cowboys were the ones who did whatever they needed to to survive.

The whole point of getting a man down is so you can kick him some more. There is no Samurai code where you allow your opponent a fair chance to escape. This isn't about honor, it's about survival. If you are so unfortunate as to be in the situation where you need to use deadly force, BUT, by the grace of whomever you pray to, he's concentrating on SOMETHING BESIDES YOU AT THE MOMENT, take the shot, acknowledge the miracle, and become a priest. IT DOESN'T GET ANY BETTER THAN THAT. Don't let your elation because you might actually walk away from this cause you to hesitate.

If I had been in a position to stop either of those shootings, my explanation to someone's family would NOT include, "I'm sorry Mrs. Jones, I saw the bad guy shooting at your daughter repeatedly. The first few shots didn't hit her. I couldn't stop him from firing the two that did, because I was waiting for him to turn to face me." TAKE THE SHOT.

 

[GEM]

I think you should talk to him calmly

or

google the Tacoma mall shooting - check it out.

Then decide.

 

[Deleted member 66305]

That was my thinking but then something made me think shooting someone in the back was somehow unacceptable!!

For the scenario described in the OP, where your target is not merely fleeing, but actively and currently engaged in the process of hunting and killing other human beings shooting him in the back is tactically sound. If he's within handgun range of you, then you are within handgun range of him, so I would personally consider it an act of self-defense -- I don't know he's not going to turn around and start shooting at me. I might as well take the shot that opportunity offers.

It does depend, though, on whether I've got cover, and whether a missed shot would likely end up in an innocent person.

 

[BADUNAME37]

I'm assuming, like others have mentioned, that it is PERFECTLY CLEAR in this scenario WHO THE PERP IS...in which case, I wouldn't want to shoot him in the back out of fear that the bullet would exit the front and hit some more students.

So, in the scenario presented, I suppose it would have to be a well-thought-out shot---hoping the bullet would either stop or hit something that didn't matter afterward.

I suppose you could yell "hey" and as soon as you yell it, before the perp has a chance to move, you take the shot. At least then you could say you "warned him." However, in the scenario given, I don't think warning the perp is in order and, if this were to ever happen in a real-life situation, the person taking out the perp would hopefully be honored for apparently saving lives and putting a quick halt to the carnage.