When Engaging the Threat Goes Wrong
This is a discussion on When Engaging the Threat Goes Wrong within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; WOW ....... that's a bad situation gone way wrong.
I'm of the intervene camp of thought but only as I see fit. I dunno how ...
December 6th, 2007 12:29 PM
WOW ....... that's a bad situation gone way wrong.
I'm of the intervene camp of thought but only as I see fit. I dunno how I'd react if I was faced with the situation, but taking action like that while the BG's gun was still trained on the victim was a bad move.
"Most of the instructors I've trained under, Clint Smith being one of the more wel known, strongly discourage intervention unless you have no choice or are absolutely sure you know what's going on."
That sounds like a good school of thought follow.
"Just getting a concealed carry permit means you haven't commited a crime yet. CCP holders commit crimes." Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, quoted on Fox & Friends, 8 Jul, 2008
(Sometimes) "a fight avioded is a fight won." ... claude clay
December 6th, 2007 12:29 PM
December 6th, 2007 12:41 PM
Seems to me the outcome was inevitable, you don't shoot at someone when their weapon is pointed at the victim unless you have a rifle and hit the sweet spot (instant kill) criminals are on edge as it is, not to mention the fact that there was 2 BG how many other people could have been hit in a fire fight.
I would put money that says her husband and a friend wish he didn't get involved. Seems like the perfect wrongful death suite to me.
There were 3 people in the car that could have been CCWed and are responsible for their own wellbeing.
December 6th, 2007 12:47 PM
gotammo - see above. This happened in Recife, Brazil. Law suits are much less common, and CCWers are much, much less common (illegal in almost all cases). The point is valid for us (well, you) in the States, though.
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.
December 6th, 2007 01:34 PM
I agree that the citizen was trying to do a noble thing. But there's a good chance this guy will get sued. Did the citizen really think he was trying to prevent a murder, kidnap or rape? Or was he trying to catch a BG to help the police? We all want BGs either in jail or dead. If this happened in the U.S., there's a real good chance the good guy would get sued and most likely have to pay. I can't criticize those that say they would intervene. Maybe it appeared that the BG was going to kill or kidnap anyway. But, I don't want to put myself and my family in financial jeopardy to prevent a simple robbery. If it looks like a possible kidnap or murder is about to take place, I may be more inclined to step in. But hopefully, I would aim better while watching the muzzle of the BG's gun.
December 6th, 2007 02:30 PM
Originally Posted by pgrass101
Now he has that womans blood and death on his hands, the well meaning good guy.
Even worse her family will see him as being the catalyst toward her death, as opposed to the BG with his finger being on the trigger gun aimed at her neck.
Further the family and if in the US the Brady group would count this as not one but two 'guns on the street' that have caused a loss of life.
If you're going to insert yourself into a situation and play cop, then well you had better be damn sure _and_ be a much better shot than the average cop, who per every stat I've ever seen most often misses.
At a distance far enough away to miss the shooter should not have pulled his trigger.
"Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy
"A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing
December 6th, 2007 04:15 PM
Reading the posts on the various boards many times I think I am more afraid of the Dirty Harry Wannabes than the BG's. I don't think anyone is saying don't intervene but make dang sure that you know what you are doing when you do intervene. Be sure you know who is the BG and that your actions won't cause more harm than good.
December 7th, 2007 12:02 AM
Well, It's all well and good to try to armchair analyze a "Could Have Should Have" and nobody can predict what would have happened had the GG not intervened but, chances are likely that the victim would have been minus her purse and maybe her jewelry and the wallet belonging to hubby would be gone.
Sadly, she probably would still be alive and just on the phone cancelling her credit cards and crying over her stolen wedding ring right now.
So be very careful when you decide to interject yourself into somebody else's Bad Day Scenario.
Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ
December 7th, 2007 12:16 AM
A violent armed robbery in progress was witnessed and broken up. The mere fact that an innocent was struck by a bullet hardly means the innocents wouldn't have been harmed anyway, or that the GG did a bad thing. Reality is, the BG's caused the situation. BG's murder innocents for sport, these days, far too frequently for comfort. It's not possible to say how it would have ended, had the BG's been left to their own devices and timing. Unfortunate for the person who was struck, yes. And it currently sux to be the good sam in the position of having everyone claim he's bad for having stepped in. There simply isn't any way to say that armed robbers would let it go and that this guy caused anything. The robbers caused the situation and, IMO, the fault lies with them.
Compare to nearly any "friendly fire" death you can dig up, in war. It occasionally happens. Doesn't mean the GG's are automatically to blame.
That said, this does raise the spectre of a civil lawsuit, no matter how the Grand Jury review goes. People will hang their hat on anything. A friendly-fire fact should be tantalyzing enough for an earnest lawyer.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
How does disarming
the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
December 7th, 2007 12:24 AM
Murphy is the guy I probably worry about most - he is everywhere !
Chris - P95
NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.
"To own a gun and assume that you are armed
is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."
- a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.
December 7th, 2007 04:24 AM
I always plan for the Murphy Equation! Always! Always!
The guy is my friggon co-pilot and I can't seem to shake him!
That's why I am way, way leery of getting involved in 3rd party crimes and situations unless it is very compelling for me to do so!
I am a decent shot. But like most, don't get to the range nearly as much as I would like or even should. I have shot under stress and with adrenalin pumping hard. And guess what... My shot groups always open up instead of getting smaller when I'm under stress with adrenalin pumping.
Hmmm... I can only imagine how it may be if I am in Full Blown Body Alarm Mode.
I'm afraid, if I do intervene in some 3rd parties behalf, it will be done at contact distance out to maybe 3 or 4 feet. Which also means, it's probably not a 3rd party intervention... I'm smack dab in the middle of it myself if I'm that close!
I can say this for sure... I know I can live with myself much easier if I stop a bad guys killing spree after he has already begun shooting than I could if I shot and missed and was the cause of having the bad guy shoot and kill someone!
Even if he did the actual killing... if it was because of my actions that someone dies, I'd have a tough time living with it!
If someone dies because I didn't act fast enough, waited too long, or was in the process of trying to obtain a position of advantage, it is still sad, but definitely the fault of the bad guy, not because I screwed up and missed, didn't get a clean kill, or god forbid, actually hit the victim instead of the BG.
"The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."
December 7th, 2007 11:17 AM
Les Baer 45
N.R.A. Patron Life Member
December 7th, 2007 11:40 AM
You referring to Bark'n's post or the tragedy described in the opening post?
Originally Posted by Supertac45
I'm too young to be this old!
Getting old isn't good for you!
December 7th, 2007 11:48 AM
If this had occured in the US, there is a very good chance the GG would face some bad times in court, unless there was a good Samaritan clause in the law to prevent it. We are legally liable for every shot we fire.
Originally Posted by ccw9mm
Clint Smith says it this way. Suppose you see a BG shoot a person and it is more than clear that he intends to kill the family of four near him. You draw and fire a round that goes through the BG, deflects and hits a child in the eye. You will, lose your home, your car, you will be working for that family for the rest of your life quite likely.
Clint goes on to say, we are not policemen or protectors of strangers and society. The main purpose of carrying a weapon is for our personal protection and those loved ones around us.
When we venture into saving the public, who by the way has the same opportunity to carry a weapon and protect themselves, we risk our lives being dramatically changed for the rest of our lives.
Anything can happen, we could cause a death or injury that would not have occurred otherwise as in this example. A stray or deflected bullet could do more harm than good.
I know it sounds cold, but we really don't carry a gun to protect society.
Of course the BGs caused an incident, but it can easily be argued that the GG exacerbated an already bad situation. He probably acted with the best of intentions, but regardless of what intentions we have we are still 100% responsible for the outcome.
A situation like this is probably one of the toughest calls a CCWer would ever have to make. We need to be really sure our action is going to do more good than harm or not get involved. This guy is gonna have to live the rest of his life wondering if he caused the death of this woman.
We can say he did the right thing, but we don't know that. If he hadn't been there at all, the woman might still be alive. It is clear from the report that the shot caused the BG to shoot the woman.
I'm too young to be this old!
Getting old isn't good for you!
December 9th, 2007 09:42 PM
Intervention is risky at best. A lawsuit is always probable, regardless of where one lives.
Originally Posted by Tangle
BTW, there was no CCW victim in the March, 2005 Atlanta courthouse shooting. You're probably thinking of the Tyler, Texas in February, 2005. The CCW victim was shot and killed by David Arroyo, who was wearing body armor.
December 9th, 2007 10:07 PM
In a situation such as that, traffic, multiple people in the car and 2 bg's I don't think I would take the chance the gg did. It's hard to say, never being in a situation like that.
I hope I never have to find out.
Safe and sane shooting everyone,
By Rollo in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: December 20th, 2010, 12:35 PM
By tacman605 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Last Post: July 17th, 2010, 04:41 PM
By athos76 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Last Post: September 9th, 2008, 07:12 PM
By whyipackmy45 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: August 27th, 2008, 11:32 PM
By HollowpointHank in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
Last Post: October 17th, 2005, 05:03 PM