Years ago I was working in a fast food restaurant when it was robbed. The gunman laid his weapon on the counter to grab money from the till I sat down in front of him. I picked up the weapon, pointed at him, he ran to the door, running into a customer entering. I dropped the weapon to my side ... so, I can say, NO - did not take the chance, and WON'T in the future.
Chased him out the door, where I dropped the weapon on the grass, and tackled him. Weapon ended up being a BB gun. He got probation and a slap on the wrist.
sent from my sending device
How's about you tell me? Fair enough? I think it is.Quote:
Is a stray round/casualty ever acceptable?
You want to know the risk of one life to save 10.....100.....1000?
You make the call.
People are not my pawns in a game. I cannot sacrifice anyone else' life for an end means. Life is not a gamble, and it's sure not something left for us to decide. You'll never be a hero at others' expense. Get that notion out of your mind right now.Quote:
Could you shoot knowing that you might sacrifice 1 person to save 11 more, or 50 more.
However....if you would kindly post a list of your criteria of 'at risk' folks to sacrifice.....it's possible that you and I might come to terms in a hostage situation. For the time being, I think you an I are on different sides, and I would be more than happy to shoot through you in order to stop a massacre. How do ya like me now?
There are way too many variables in those situations,I don't really know what my response will be,but if I'm armed and have a clear shot I'm gonna shoot til the threat is stopped or I'm dead
I'm sure this will draw me lots of condescension and even ridicule, and no, I have not had to face death, but I would be willing to sacrifice myself to save others. I am confident in my eternal salvation. To give others a chance to continue on and find that same peace and salvation is a worthy cause.
I can sacrifice what is mine to give, but I would not presume to make that decision for another individual. I was just looking for others' perspectives and thought I would ask a difficult question. I have always been facinated by utilitarianism, and the thought of sacrificing one for the good of many has merit (que cheesy Star Trek quote). While I don't necessarily agree with the idea, it is an interesting concept.
The question "kill three to save twenty" is purely theoretical, and better suited for the classroom. This is not a moral reasoning question we have to consider at all.
All you know, at any given moment, is whether or not you have the shot; whether or not you have the ability to make that shot; what your carry ammo can and cannot do. Don't shoot if you don't have the shot. I don't think we should start out thinking, if I spray some bullets in his general direction, maybe it will all work out, cuz it's OK to kill three to save twenty!
While it is unacceptable, the fact is real fights are fluid and dynamic.
It may very well be that both parties are moving and shooting. It may be dark and/or bad weather.
And you may very well miss with your shot(s).
It won't be anything like shooting at a stationary target on the square range.
Real life just sucks sometimes.
A casual look at the replies tends to agree with my assessment of the question. If I, as a reasonable person, can presume that I am in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury (that is the way it is stated in the gun law of SC), I can discharge my firearm and, in the process, if I should injure or kill someone else, but can really prove my "reasonable presumption" within the law, I do not believe that criminal charges, per se, are in the future--not so sure on civil repercussions, however, even though civil possibilities filed by the BG or his family cannot be sustained. In SC we also have the alter ego rule that allows you to intercede in a "situation" where you, as a reasonable person, can act with your firearm in the assistance of someone else who is in imminent danger (say in a movie theatre in Aurora), as if that person is yourself. In this situation, you not only have to prove that you acted reasonably but that you reasonably interpreted what was happening to someone else--if this situation ended with an errant shot and an injury or death, you have additional problems. Bottom line as some have said--bullet leaves your firearm it is your responsibility--before and after. In this country these days, which has turned into an asylum run by inmates, you can never be sure of anything about anything as long as there is a lawyer or a democrat or a liberal out there.
This is a REALLY good question.
This IMO is a question that would be best answered by speaking to a local lawyer, or studying the local laws governing the use of deadly physical force.
However like everyone else I have an opinion. I have spoken before about the various culpable mental states of mind having a lot to do with justification or criminal charges. While intent being the major player... Recklessnes, and neglect may also be considered.
In such a case a CCW shoots a person actively shooting other people shoots several rounds, and one of those rounds ACCIDENTALLY kills an innocent. The CCW's intent was to shoot to stop a real ongoing threat to life of himself and others. The innocent was killed by ACCIDENT. There was no intent to do so. The question would be was the CCW'er reckless, or negligent? If the CCW shot while the shooter was shooting there would need be some really critical level of circumstance to justify an accusation of negligence, or recklessness. A standard used to prove these issues is the question "DID the CCW pose a greater threat or cause a greater likelyhood of death than the shooter"
While I have not read all post in this thread, my take on is the shooting of another worth the risk to stop the attack. Ask the family of the 5th-12th to die that night in CO.
I did read that the attack in CO was not WAR will I think it is IT'S WAR BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL. And all of us that are good at heart are in the fight to the end. Whether we want to be or not. So prepare to become a Warrior for good.
Frankly, if the choice of evils is oh-so clear, then that has justifiability ... whether we're speaking of a police, military or citizen action pursued to stop carnage around us. IMO, there's good reason that "choice of evils" statutes exist and are worded the way they are.
No, I wouldn't be happy with any outcome in which my own actions ended up harming the proverbial 3yr old child bystander. But I can see how stopping continuing carnage might justify an action that could result in increased harm to one or two nearby people. And no such solution to a tough problem would preclude the rightful claims of unjustifiable contribution to harm that was sustained by those nearby people.
Example: Flight 93, and the actions taken by those who attacked the hijackers. Who were they, the folks who rose up, to put at risk the potential survival of the remaining hundred passengers, and to increase the risk of those on the ground if it catastrophically failed (and they plummeted to the ground)? And yet, they're nearly universally hailed as brave souls for daring what they did. Point being, there IS a dividing line somewhere in there, in situations where the choice of evils is terrible and impactful.
For myself, I'm thankful I have not yet been forced into just such a situation.
I will go ahead and put on my asbestos suit now.
For all of you who say it is never acceptable to even consider engaging the BG if there is a chance that you might have a stray bullet that injures an unintended person, go lock your guns up right now.
Why? Because the facts are in most all gun fights there are stray bullets. Whether it is every day Joe at home, a CHL holder, a LEO, or military, there are stray rounds. That is the way it happens. So to think that every round fired is going to be with perfect accuracy and hit COM taking out the BG is simply ridiculous. Based on this, you should never take a shot since it is likely that you will have a stray round.
Yes, I too teach that every bullet has to be accounted for and that the future CHL holder is responsible for all the bullets fired, and that lawsuits will be faced if they miss and hit someone unintended. However, I know that it is likely if one of them ever is engaged in a firefight they will miss at least once while shooting.
I also know that situations like CO are pretty rare. That level of chaos is going to make things that much harder to put rounds on target for the average person. That many people panicing trying to get out of the line of fire is going to make things close to impossible to take the perfect shot. However, in a situation like that people will be running away from the BG and quite possibly towards you, so it may be possible that the odds of having a stray bullet hit an innocent are actually deminished by that type of incident compared to the stop and rob or whatever where folks tend to simply stand around looking like "wow he is robbing the place". Go back and look at the video of the attempted robbery of the internet cafe and what those people were doing. Remember the ostrich lady?
So to answer the OP's question. Yes it is an option for me. There are times like ccw9mm's reference to the plane over PA when the greater good has to be considered. I would not intentionally shoot an innocent person, but I can think of plenty of situations where stopping the threat of multiple or dozens of murders or injuries to innocent people would allow me to risk injuring or God forbid killing another innocent person unintentionally.
Again, if you aren't willing to accept some risk, you need to put your guns up right now because this isn't the movies and you aren't a superhero that can place every shot exactly where you want it. This is real life and the odds are you will miss.