Is a stray round/casualty ever acceptable?

This is a discussion on Is a stray round/casualty ever acceptable? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by OPFOR I would have to weigh the risks as best I could and, if I truly believed that putting one person at ...

Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 187
Like Tree102Likes

Thread: Is a stray round/casualty ever acceptable?

  1. #106
    Member Array Calling45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    I would have to weigh the risks as best I could and, if I truly believed that putting one person at risk would lead to saving the lives of a dozen...well... We used to have a saying, which sort of applies here (though it sounds incredibly callous, it really isn't): "Being a hostage is a dangerous job."

    The problem with this is that it's not your job to decide who lives and who doesn't.
    Would your casual attitude towards having to kill an innocent person change if that innocent person was your mother or your child, or would it still be, "hey sorry had to kill you because I decided so"?

    It's not our job as CC's to decide this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #107
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,709
    If you had bothered to read any of the rest of the thread, you would realize that I am not a "civilian." I don't, however, think that that changes anything. In short, YES IT IS OUR JOB to decide "who lives and who dies." If it isn't, then - once again - don't carry lethal force, because it's "not your job" to use it. By definition, if you employ lethal force, you are deciding who lives and who dies. I choose to do whatever is in my power (in an obvious GG/BG situation like a rampage shooter) to ensure that the BG stops his attack (if he dies in the process, that is a byproduct of his choices) and that the GGs live. If that isn't your mindset, quit now.

    And yes, as I stated quite explicitly elsewhere in this thread (again - Reading is Fundamental), I WOULD make the same call regardless of who the "bystander" was, assuming that the same risks for NOT taking the call existed. Take a shot where one loved one might be hit to stop several loved ones from being gunned down, or let ALL of them be gunned down? How is this even a question?

    And, for the record, my attitude is ANYTHING but casual. It is a specific decision reached after a long period of soul searching, introspection, and logical considerations vis a vis my training, background, abilities, responsibilities, and sense of morals. Dismissing my decision without reading past the fist page in the thread is what I would consider "casual."

    ETA: I guess it bears repeating for those who aren't bothering to actually read what they are responding to... I am NOT saying that I WOULD take "the shot." I am saying that I would consider as much information that was available to me, and make the best decision that I could to ensure that the least total harm is caused (BG excluded). If that is not YOUR stance, so be it. But it should be.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  4. #108
    Guest Array Guest1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    home-astan(FINALLY)
    Posts
    1,125
    Experience takes this one,call me an animal,If i have to,I take the shot.I know some will gasp,and the loss of an inocent life is hard to stomach for some,but,if you save the lives of countless.......!

  5. #109
    cj
    cj is offline
    Senior Member Array cj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,006
    I think the problem is...say someone in the CO theater DID have a pistol, took a shot, hit a bystander who stepped at the wrong time with the first shot, and stopped the BG with the second. Say the BG only managed to kill...say...2 people at that point. Will everyone be saying you saved the lives of 10 people? No, they'll likely point out that your hit rate was a significant percentage of the BGs. Once you stop a threat, everything else is conjecture...would he have stopped shooting and left if you hadn't engaged? Would he have proceeded to kill a number more people? No one will be able to answer, but you can bet they'll know for sure that you hit someone else.

  6. #110
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    6,941
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    If you had bothered to read any of the rest of the thread, you would realize that I am not a "civilian." I don't, however, think that that changes anything. In short, YES IT IS OUR JOB to decide "who lives and who dies." If it isn't, then - once again - don't carry lethal force, because it's "not your job" to use it. By definition, if you employ lethal force, you are deciding who lives and who dies. I choose to do whatever is in my power (in an obvious GG/BG situation like a rampage shooter) to ensure that the BG stops his attack (if he dies in the process, that is a byproduct of his choices) and that the GGs live. If that isn't your mindset, quit now.

    And yes, as I stated quite explicitly elsewhere in this thread (again - Reading is Fundamental), I WOULD make the same call regardless of who the "bystander" was, assuming that the same risks for NOT taking the call existed. Take a shot where one loved one might be hit to stop several loved ones from being gunned down, or let ALL of them be gunned down? How is this even a question?

    And, for the record, my attitude is ANYTHING but casual. It is a specific decision reached after a long period of soul searching, introspection, and logical considerations vis a vis my training, background, abilities, responsibilities, and sense of morals. Dismissing my decision without reading past the fist page in the thread is what I would consider "casual."

    ETA: I guess it bears repeating for those who aren't bothering to actually read what they are responding to... I am NOT saying that I WOULD take "the shot." I am saying that I would consider as much information that was available to me, and make the best decision that I could to ensure that the least total harm is caused (BG excluded). If that is not YOUR stance, so be it. But it should be.
    Glockrocker:Experience takes this one,call me an animal,If i have to,I take the shot.I know some will gasp,and the loss of an inocent life is hard to stomach for some,but,if you save the lives of countless.......!
    In my first post I said I wasnt sure if it was acceptable, and Im still not. That being said I agree with the two posts above. When the fight is on, you have to use your head. In a situation like this, you can still think, if there is one thing that I have learned, experience can be a good teacher.....
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

  7. #111
    VIP Member Array 10thmtn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,843
    If there is unintentional injury to an innocent bystander when someone defends themselves with force from a deadly threat...should not the law place the blame for the injury with the criminal actor who created the need for the use of force?

    For example - BG1 and BG2 commit a crime, during which BG2 gets killed by the intended victim, who defended himself. BG1 can be charged with murder, even if he wasn't the one who pulled the trigger, because he created the situation where his partner in crime was killed.

    Criminal goes to theater, and opens fire. CCW returns fire, injuring both the criminal (ending the threat) and a bystander. Should not the blame for the injured bystander rest with the criminal? He created the situation.

    Hmmm...
    tcox4freedom, jace33 and nedrgr21 like this.
    The more good folks carry guns, the fewer shots the crazies can get off.
    www.armedcitizensnetwork.org - member
    Glock 30, 19, 26; Ruger SP101, LCR, LCP (2), Mini 14; Remington 870; Marlin 336 .30-30
    CT Lasers

  8. #112
    Ex Member Array ScottM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by 10thmtn View Post
    If there is unintentional injury to an innocent bystander when someone defends themselves with force from a deadly threat...should not the law place the blame for the injury with the criminal actor who created the need for the use of force?

    For example - BG1 and BG2 commit a crime, during which BG2 gets killed by the intended victim, who defended himself. BG1 can be charged with murder, even if he wasn't the one who pulled the trigger, because he created the situation where his partner in crime was killed.

    Criminal goes to theater, and opens fire. CCW returns fire, injuring both the criminal (ending the threat) and a bystander. Should not the blame for the injured bystander rest with the criminal? He created the situation.

    Hmmm...
    There you go - trying to be logical...
    10thmtn likes this.

  9. #113
    JD
    JD is offline
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    19,130
    Quote Originally Posted by 10thmtn View Post
    If there is unintentional injury to an innocent bystander when someone defends themselves with force from a deadly threat...should not the law place the blame for the injury with the criminal actor who created the need for the use of force?

    For example - BG1 and BG2 commit a crime, during which BG2 gets killed by the intended victim, who defended himself. BG1 can be charged with murder, even if he wasn't the one who pulled the trigger, because he created the situation where his partner in crime was killed.

    Criminal goes to theater, and opens fire. CCW returns fire, injuring both the criminal (ending the threat) and a bystander. Should not the blame for the injured bystander rest with the criminal? He created the situation.

    Hmmm...
    From a prosecution stand point, in most states that's the way it works, civil suits are a different story. In Iowa if that scenario were to play out criminal charges would be on the bad guy but I could still possibly be sued by any innocent party wounded or family of for my actions.

    Sent via Tapatalk, and still using real words.

  10. #114
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by 10thmtn View Post
    If there is unintentional injury to an innocent bystander when someone defends themselves with force from a deadly threat...should not the law place the blame for the injury with the criminal actor who created the need for the use of force?

    For example - BG1 and BG2 commit a crime, during which BG2 gets killed by the intended victim, who defended himself. BG1 can be charged with murder, even if he wasn't the one who pulled the trigger, because he created the situation where his partner in crime was killed.

    Criminal goes to theater, and opens fire. CCW returns fire, injuring both the criminal (ending the threat) and a bystander. Should not the blame for the injured bystander rest with the criminal? He created the situation.

    Hmmm...
    I would say that is the way it should work out, but depending on the local laws, prosecutor and the exact situation, it would most likely still go very badly for the responder. And even if you don't get hit with criminal charges, I think JD is right about the civil case. Although, some states have laws prohibiting civil charges when acting in self-defense... but I think those might only apply to the agressor/shooter. Not sure.
    Walk softly ...

  11. #115
    Ex Member Array ComplexKaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    West coast
    Posts
    131
    If my life is in imminent danger then yes I will shoot to save my life and family/friends.

  12. #116
    Ex Member Array ComplexKaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    West coast
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by 10thmtn View Post
    If there is unintentional injury to an innocent bystander when someone defends themselves with force from a deadly threat...should not the law place the blame for the injury with the criminal actor who created the need for the use of force?

    For example - BG1 and BG2 commit a crime, during which BG2 gets killed by the intended victim, who defended himself. BG1 can be charged with murder, even if he wasn't the one who pulled the trigger, because he created the situation where his partner in crime was killed.

    Criminal goes to theater, and opens fire. CCW returns fire, injuring both the criminal (ending the threat) and a bystander. Should not the blame for the injured bystander rest with the criminal? He created the situation.

    Hmmm...
    It should but that most likely won't be the case.

  13. #117
    Senior Member Array kerberos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    744
    We all gotta die sometime...

    Having said that, I will not make the choice to send someone to meet their maker unprepared unless they force me to do so...

    Would I take the shot?

    Only if at point blank range I guess; who knows 'til you're there...

    What I like least is that the discussion in this thread isn't even remotely hypothetical.

    Good discussion and food for thought.
    "Death is lighter than a feather, but Duty is heavier than a mountain" Robert Jordan
    USMC veteran
    Glock 19 Gen 4
    Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes

  14. #118
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,031
    Well this is a good discussion.

    Like Suntzu I do not want to turn this into a training debate. So lets look at the facts.

    The OP was in reference to the CO theater so you are dealing with smoke, panic, being outgunned. It is possible you would not be charged criminally or a reduced charge. To some you would be labeled a hero to others a murderer. I do not feel you could avoid, or win, the civil suits following the incident from the family of those that you shot. The premise would always be "they could have survived" but you chose to take the chance that ended in there death, all depending on your state laws and a dozen other factors.

    Having been a member here for quite awhile I have been in many debates in reference to members duty, legal obligation, or lack thereof and their personal decision to intervine in any given situation. Some would act and some would not unless they were under direct attack. You would have to first make the decision to act that in itself would eliminate many. Secondly would you have the skill to react, with any sort of precision? That in itself would eliminate others. Finally would your weapon, be it a pocket rocket or full size gun, be effective enought to end the threat?

    To those who stated they would take the shot I would like to pose these questions. Suppose it was another CC holder in that situation would you want them to shoot to save you or one of your loved ones knowing the potential was there for them to hit you or you loved one? The next one is probably more difficult. Suppose the hostage, person in the way or the innocent bystander was your wife, child or relative that could potentionally be the one hit? Would you be so quick to take the shot?

    Many here train only at short distances or carry only a pocket gun, not knocking anybody's choices, for their self preservation only. In a tactical situation such as this being he has superior firepower and greater range in order to be effective you would have to close the distance to your effective range, would you be willing to do that?

    These above questions would all have to be answered in a split second at the time or through prior training or discussion with family, attorney's and so on. In the end it would be a decision only you could make. I consider myself well trained but I would not take the shot unless the odds were in my favor. If I had to wait for those odds to occur I would. Would/could that cost further lives? Yes it probably would but unfortunetely that would be another fact of life.
    Bill MO likes this.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  15. #119
    Distinguished Member Array Bill MO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,389
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Well this is a good discussion.

    Like Suntzu I do not want to turn this into a training debate. So lets look at the facts.

    The OP was in reference to the CO theater so you are dealing with smoke, panic, being outgunned. It is possible you would not be charged criminally or a reduced charge. To some you would be labeled a hero to others a murderer. I do not feel you could avoid, or win, the civil suits following the incident from the family of those that you shot. The premise would always be "they could have survived" but you chose to take the chance that ended in there death, all depending on your state laws and a dozen other factors.

    Having been a member here for quite awhile I have been in many debates in reference to members duty, legal obligation, or lack thereof and their personal decision to intervine in any given situation. Some would act and some would not unless they were under direct attack. You would have to first make the decision to act that in itself would eliminate many. Secondly would you have the skill to react, with any sort of precision? That in itself would eliminate others. Finally would your weapon, be it a pocket rocket or full size gun, be effective enought to end the threat?

    To those who stated they would take the shot I would like to pose these questions. Suppose it was another CC holder in that situation would you want them to shoot to save you or one of your loved ones knowing the potential was there for them to hit you or you loved one? Yes, if they felt they had a better chance of stopping the act of violence than not. The next one is probably more difficult. Suppose the hostage, person in the way or the innocent bystander was your wife, child or relative that could potentionally be the one hit? Would you be so quick to take the shot? Again yes, If I felt the odds and chances where in the Pos more than the Neg. There are times one has to put ones own personal beings and life in threats way to stop what is evil.

    Many here train only at short distances or carry only a pocket gun, not knocking anybody's choices, for their self preservation only. In a tactical situation such as this being he has superior firepower and greater range in order to be effective you would have to close the distance to your effective range, would you be willing to do that? I see it as about the only way to win in this situation. You therefore do what needs to be done or die trying. Or you run a hide and then try to live with yourself the rest of your life. For me there is worse things than death and not trying.

    These above questions would all have to be answered in a split second at the time or through prior training or discussion with family, attorney's and so on. In the end it would be a decision only you could make. This is something we all need to make a choice on and the sooner the better. Because when you are standing there deep in the situation is to late. I consider myself well trained but I would not take the shot unless the odds were in my favor. If I had to wait for those odds to occur I would. Would/could that cost further lives? Yes it probably would but unfortunetely that would be another fact of life. There in lies the answer, when do you feel you can have the advantage and the best chance of winning. And that will be different for us all. But I do think we would all have that time only for some it may be to late, for them and all the others.

    Tac, my thoughts to your post in red.
    tacman605 likes this.
    It's gotta be who you are, not a hobby. reinman45

    "Is this persons bad behavior worth me having to kill them over?" Guantes

  16. #120
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,802
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Sir, you may take risk with your own families lives but no one has the right to put the risk of my family in their hands because what they feel they are doing is for the greater good. By the actions of the well intentioned person he may end up having someone killed that would have otherwise survived or could have been in a realtive position of safety that he was not aware of.

Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

are ploice responsible for stray rounds
,

powered by mybb fire place

,

powered by mybb general insurance

,

powered by mybb general tool

,
powered by mybb hiding place
,
powered by mybb legal hold
,
powered by mybb life
,
powered by mybb my way
,
powered by mybb number of people in
,
powered by mybb people on twitter
,
powered by mybb post operative
,

powered by mybb sad movies

,
powered by mybb show me pictures of
,

powered by mybb the hiding place

,
powered by mybb time share
Click on a term to search for related topics.