My answer in the McDonald's thread was that I would get involved and use non-deadly force to try and stop the attack. I based this decision primarily on the fact that the attackers were not armed, they were female, and it looked like a situation in which I could help.
Here, the situation is much different given that deadly force has been introduced with firearms.
I doubt very seriously if I am getting involved here. Once a gun is introduced, I don't know if I want to be playing police officer. My assumption that the gun isnt working could be a fatal one if I get involved. If I do feel brave, then I am drawing my firearm, and I am looking to shoot the attacker if he doesn't stop hitting the alleged victim. I am not taking the chance that he will pistol whip me, get the gun working, or pull a knife when I jump in the fracas.
Same as above in almost all aspects. I really don't want to play Superman here, but if I do, I am drawing and firing to stop the attack. I am not a fan of shooting a firearm in a crowded restaurant under any circumstances.
I probably am a spectator in both of these situations, but I am more likely to get involved in Situation 1 than 2 because of the amount of restaurant patrons and possibly missing my target.
1st scenario: If the incident is obviously gang-related, (say for instance the victim trips over his sagging jeans while being chased and shot by a "Lil Wayne" look-alike holding his gun side ways) then I duck for cover, draw my weapon, and giggle while these puke stains on society kill themselves. If anyone outside of the event comes under threat I shoot to kill the aggressor, and dial 911 as soon as the threat/s have been neutralized. My state allows me to come to the aide of another citizen if a assault or felony of any sort is in progress. Thank God I don't live in one of those whiny-vagina states that hamstring their law-abiding citizens into powerless by-standers in the face of violent crime!
2nd Scenario: If a gunman is firing his weapon beyond what would be necessary in a typical self-defense scenario, and he is within close proximity of my wife or loved ones, He HAS BECOME a THREAT. If the gunman's actions exceed what it would take to neutralize a potential threat, he has crossed into the criminal arena. I cannot assume that he will not turn on my loved one or another innocent by-stander, I cannot assume that his excessive firing of a firearm in a crowded public place will not expose innocent people to ricochets or cross-fire. His actions have turned criminal and he can now be legally dispatched or neutralized (at least in my state). I crouch, move in and fire 3-4 shots center-mass, I access the situation and fire head shots if needed.
The only thing good to come from Colombine, Virgina Tech, the Arizona shooting, etc... is that someone firing a gun in a public place beyond the few shots that would be needed in a self-defense scenario CAN be justifiably labeled a threat and handled accordingly. Your responsibility as a law-abiding armed citizen is to not make the situation worse. Don't engage him unless you are 100% SURE that you can safely dispatch him without harm to others, (i.e.) Don't fire at the criminal if by-standers are behind him, etc... If the situation is too hairy for you wait for law-enforcement. However, if you can safely take out a criminal gunman who is putting you, your loved ones, and/or innocent by-standers at risk...TAKE HIM OUT. Provided that you don't live in one of the hippy-ass states that require you to wait until people are injured or dead before you use deadly force. In that case you might want to give him a flower (as a peace offering), and compliment his shooting. Maybe he just needs a hug.
RugerRon is dead on...exactly what I would do.
It's not my problem until it becomes my problem.
My carry is for me and mine.
Don't get involved in other peoples :censored:
If you don't know all the players and were not there from the beginning, stay the heck out of it.
Scenario 1: All of the above qualify, call 911, observe and report. Might be appropriate to yell out from COVER "Police are on the way, he's done, back off!"
Scenario 2: All of the above qualify barring the Me and Mine to a point (given that mine are in the neighboring booth). Draw, aim from cover, if the shooter then starts aiming or shooting willy nilly at other booths/patrons, now it's my problem.
you described this situation exactly.
Originally Posted by limatunes
Because it has been stated over and over on internet forums, "be a good witness", people have adopted this as their one and only reaction. Hell I've probably said it a time or two. My problems though, is that we are all too afraid to get involved these days and help someone that needs it.
This "one for all and all for one" mentality is going to be the downfall of our country. Once in a while more people need to man-up and do the right thing.
The legal aspect of it is quite clear- you can use lethal force to defend a third person if there is a reasonable expectation that they may suffer death or serious injury. Both cases apply that standard, so if you were to draw and fire and kill the assailant, you would have legal reason to do so. If you chose to warn before shooting, you could do that too.
Of course, the down side is that you will need a lawyer, you're out $10k or so in legal fees, all your time, possible arrest, and just because you thought it was reasonable doesn't mean a jury will see it the same way. Then you consider that it's likely gang violence and they would likely consider retaliation, and they would be able to find out who you are and where you live.
The second question is a moral one. Can you do nothing while someone is executed in front of you? Is calling 911 going to erase that image from your mind? Can you risk your own life, liberty and livelihood over people you don't know and a situation you don't understand fully?
So, even though I COULD intervene, I might choose not to. At a minimum I'm calling 911 and taking cellphone video from cover. In the second scenario, I'm moving my wife out of there before she takes a shot.
Scenario 1 is not my problem.
Originally Posted by limatunes
Scenario 2 is my problem due to the aforementioned hottie/coworker (who also may be hot, or have hot friends...).
That which is not my problem will not be addressed beyond being a good witness, calling 911 and so forth.
That which is my problem will be addressed agressively, from cover, sans warning.
If it's between A & B, I'll C you all later.
If it's involvin A & B want to involve ME, I'm a ******* to involve in your fight.
The trouble with these scenarios is I imagine how I would feel if I were reading the judgements of the jury on the case.
If it turns out a CCW holder shot a bad guy / murderer in either scenario I would have no problem sleeping easy if the jury voted not guilty, gave the CCW holder the key to the city etc etc etc.
If it turns out that in scenario 1 the barely moving guy was an armed and dangerous gangbanger/rapist/murderer who was pursued, shot and now trying to be covered by an undercover or off duty officer, and gangbanger was now barely moving a hidden gun out of his sweatshirt and the off duty officer started pistol whipping him until the CCW holder shot and killed the officer... CCW is probably going to jail, and its tough to fault the jury if the decide that way.
Scenario 2 is tough but again, if shooter is off duty officer assigned to desk job because of his shaky reload skills, CCW in bathroom missed the fact that bullet ridden guy just slit the throat of his wife who was sitting beside him until she collapsed underneath the table where he commenced choking her lifeless body, and CCW plugs off duty LEO who's dying words heard and recorded on cell phone by all the good witnesses were that he saw bullet ridden guy's hands were still firmly around her neck after reload, and bullet ridden guy was barely moving because he was concentrating all his energy on choking his victim (recall how disproportionate the energy in use is compared to your body's total visible movement when you are trying to twist the stuck lid off a jar) then CCW's poor bladder control likely means its bankruptcy followed by jail time.
One thing to imagine everything you would do if you know who the bad guys are. Tougher to imagine what you might be doing if you are wrong about your assumptions. Nothing to do with tough versus non tough state laws; rather whether you will actually be judged on what you thought was true versus what was actually true, and whether you will live only with the guilt of having killed a good guy who was trying to be a hero, or whether you will with the guilt of having killed a good guy who was trying to be a hero while also being poor and in jail.
Originally Posted by Harryball
Scenario 1 is assault with a deadly weapon if not attempted murder, deadly force is authorized in the defense of self or other if serious injury or death is imminent (atleast in Minnesota). Since the perp already demonstrated his intent and ability to cause great bodily harm, a reaction would be justified though not required.
scenario 2 would definately be due for an armed reaction since the perp is acting in the heat of passion by continually firing at the mob boss in the leather booth, for some reason "Godfather" came to mind, reloading and continuing to present a threat to others in the restaraunt. Though, the first I would do is get my girlfriend out ASAP.