Would you intervene with deadly force on a stranger's behalf?(poll added)
This is a discussion on Would you intervene with deadly force on a stranger's behalf?(poll added) within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Although I voted yes in the poll. the real answer is, it depends.
Would you have to leave your family unprotected? Even for a short ...
View Poll Results: Would you intervene with deadly force on a stranger's behalf?
- 150. You may not vote on this poll
October 26th, 2012 12:16 AM
Although I voted yes in the poll. the real answer is, it depends.
Would you have to leave your family unprotected? Even for a short time? To protect a stranger?
The possibilities, like the answers, are endless.
October 26th, 2012 01:03 PM
I answered the poll "yes" because there are some cases where I would. But I would have prefered an "it depends" option, because that is the real answer. It would need to be an obvious sittuation, and it is still scary, because what sometimes seems obvious, is wrong.
My budy almost got into a messy sittuation where he heard screams, saw a guy on top of a girl in a ditch beating her. He intervened, but it turned out the girl was trying to kill herself with a knife and the guy was strugling with her trying to stop it. But she stopped trying when my buddy showed up. He thought he was trying to stop the guy, and held him off at gunpoint until they were able to explain the sittuation, then the guy and the rest of the family got real upset and jumpy and kept pressuring my buddy to drop the gun and leave them alone, but the girl on the ground was asking for help. So he was in a real messy sittuation until the police showed up that could have ended badly.
Would I have intervened in the same sittuation? Probably, but as I said, it can get really messy, even when it seems straightforward.
October 26th, 2012 09:29 PM
I think the question speaks to a much larger philosophical debate, which can not and should not be answered with an single Yes or No response. Ultimately I think as an individual I'd have to say "More than likely not", but would never say never.
Originally Posted by tacman605
Sometimes there is never a right answer, and sometimes there is never a wrong answer.
Just because you can, should you?
Just because you should, can you?
Is it legally right but morally wrong?
Is it morally right but legally wrong?
As individuals I don't think we have any obligation to help anyone else, other than perhaps our own children up until the point they are able to help themselves. It may be in our best interest to do so in many situations, either individually or more likely from a larger social context. It may also not be in our best interest, but have some sort of desire or sense of self duty to do so anyway. I genuinely care about others in various less than "good" situations, ranging from the benign bad day at work to the other extreme of being under direct threat of violence/death, but that doesn't translate to obligation to help them, or define who when where why I would or wouldn't help.
"Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense."
October 26th, 2012 11:36 PM
BigFish. There is absolutely no obligation to help you are correct.
Hopefully we as individuals have thought about the basic premise though, it all has to start somewhere.
"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
October 27th, 2012 11:37 AM
Tough question...no matter what I answer right now, in the comfort of my office, I' would probably do something different in the heat of the situation.
October 27th, 2012 10:28 PM
Like Fellow Floridian OldVet
I would intervene, based on the concept that though I may not be the initial or primary threatened individual, I am responsible for my own personal security, and by inference the security of the space and time I am in. If the legal conditions for using deadly force are met, and as long as they are met, it would be a tactical decision on if it was possible to fire.
George H. Foster
October 27th, 2012 10:52 PM
YES - even if I did not have my weapon with me. `
October 28th, 2012 07:54 AM
You and your mind are the weapon, anything else that you use are only tools.
Originally Posted by tony1990
It's gotta be who you are, not a hobby. reinman45
"Is this persons bad behavior worth me having to kill them over?" Guantes
October 28th, 2012 08:37 AM
Perhaps. Depends on the situation and circumstances.
If with my family and needing to protect them first, very likely not, and almost certainly not if any of them were at direct risk of harm from the situation.
If out on my own, perhaps, so long as I felt there was a good chance of my making a difference and being able to successfully assist (including avoiding collateral damage, surviving the encounter).
Frankly, if we as a culture rewarded such folks consistently and protectively for their aid and assistance, I'm sure we'd have people willing to step up in many (most?) situations without so many qualms. But in this climate of lawsuits, do-gooder DA's and statutes that encourage backlash on those left standing, particularly after willingly and knowingly jumping into the fray, much has conspired to ensure that sometimes it's just not worth it. Sad, but it's reality.
October 29th, 2012 02:16 AM
I answered maybe
You never really know how you will react to a situation until it rears its evil self.
Heck some people wouldn't simply volunteer any information as to what they saw as a witness to LEO's to help someone out. Now you want them to intervene?
Depending on the real life circumstance, some people that answered yes may not and those that answered no just may. As I’m sure that there might be a few here that CCW, and may not be able to actually shoot someone if the need may ever come to light someday. Some have experienced trained military personnel and LEO’s freeze under fire, so no one can really tell how they will react in real time life; until their clock strikes 12.
Would I intervene? Maybe yes, maybe no? It all depends on what the situation is? But I would definitely call the police and volunteer any information as to what I saw as a witness to LEO's.
Then again, if one of my loved ones was in a situation and, there was someone there that could do something to help them out, I would want them to intervene.
Wouldn’t we all?
October 29th, 2012 12:06 PM
i hate to say it, but i would probably only shoot second if the gun was pointed at someone else. you just never know. could be an airsoft gun. could be something other than what it looks like. i answered no. but it could be yes. just really depends. bottom line, i would not stand by and watch people die, but i would not start shooting at what i assume is someone using deadly force by pointing a weapon at someone else.
i am not a cop. it is not my job to stop a robbery (which is the most likely scenario in this question). it is my job to keep myself and my family alive.
edit: 500 posts on this one. i am now a senior member. look at that...
October 29th, 2012 12:23 PM
I do not think I could live with myself if I knew someone died and I could have possibly prevented it. That doesn't mean I would go John Wayne on someone's ass. Cause every case is different. But to answer the question..... If I was justified and knew with 100% certainty my bullet would not hit anyone but the perp and there is no other solution then bang bang he's dead!
October 29th, 2012 03:26 PM
You can simplify the situation by deciding: would you ever intervene with deadly force on a stranger's behalf. If you cannot picture yourself ever intervening, then the answer is '"no". But if you can think of a situation where you might intervene, then you can honestly answer "yes".
Originally Posted by NiceAsh
Cogito, ergo armatum sum. I think, therefore I am armed. (Don Mann, The Modern Day Gunslinger; the ultimate handgun training manual)
October 29th, 2012 06:32 PM
Like most answers to hypothetical questions, "it depends" (unfortunately, that wasn't one of the answers)
Philosophically, I would want to--however, we live in a world with consequences. This is not how I would have answered the questions 10-15 years ago. Experience and wisdom are great teachers.
On the battlefield, deployed in a faraway land--you bet. I'll go to the wall to defend a stranger (wearing a U.S. service tape, or allied uniform; or even a host nation civilian)
At home, "it depends"
As explained in other threads, you don't know the totality of circumstances between two combatants. Domestic violence between two family members is not anything I want to get in the middle of...(God bless you LEOs who do)
If it was a circumstance of "mutual protection"--like the Colorado movie theater scenario where one guy is looking to kill everyone--then yes, I would use deadly force to defend a stranger.
A Yes/No poll question doesn't address the spectrum of answers--maybe adding "It depends..." would be helpful.
- know the difference
is a fancy name for crappy fighter
You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know
October 29th, 2012 07:22 PM
With best friends like that, who needs enemies?
Originally Posted by First Sgt
" Blessed is that man, who when facing death, thinks only of his front sight"
Search tags for this page
can a cotizen use deadly force to protect the life of a stranger
can you use deadly force to can you use deadly force to save a stranger? save a stranger?
can you use deadly force to protect others
concealed carry use of deadly force wa state
hypothetical situations for the use of deadly force
intervien in robbery in washington state
wa state deadly force laws
washington state use of lethal force
when can a citizen in mi use deadly force
when can you use deadly force in arkansas
when can you use deadly force in wisconsin
when you can use deadly force to protect another person
Click on a term to search for related topics.