This question was triggered by my thoughts on the CO incident in another thread. If you could have stopped the shooter in CO right after he started shooting, but there was an innocent person right next to him that you might hit, what is the right thing to do?
I am not 100% sure how I feel and am looking for honest evaluation, not platitudes about the basic firearm rules. What is the right thing to do, and what should you do legally?
We know he shot 70 people. If you could have stopped it at 1 or 2, would it be worth it? Could you shoot knowing that you might sacrifice 1 person to save 11 more, or 50 more. Could you emotionally handle the one death by your hand to prevent more deaths by his?
The family of the person you might hit would probably say don't do it, but how do you know that he won't just turn and gun her down next anyway? But they would ask who you are that you should play God and decide who lives or dies. Is it better for me to make that decision about 1 person, or let the madman continue to exercise that decision about many many more.
Could you handle being villanized by the anti's and the hindsight is 20-20 people who would then not know how many lives you had saved, because you did not allow the madman to continue. There would surely be jail time for you if they figured out that it was your gun that killed this person, especially if the media got wind of it.
I understand that as a random citizen we do not have the "responsibility" to intervene, we are not police, and many will say that my responsibility is to my family and myself, but even so, I feel at least some responsibility as a human to not let bad things happen if I am in a position to stop them. I guess this is part of my cost/benefit analysis on this type of sittuation. From the LEO or military in the crowd, how are you guys trained on this topic, and do they explain how that training might apply to average citizens?
What do you all think?