I voted #3. I can envision some circumstances where I would intervene, but I do what I do primarily for my wife and myself.
This is a discussion on Intervention Rule? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I voted #3. I can envision some circumstances where I would intervene, but I do what I do primarily for my wife and myself....
Absolute "For me and mine, ONLY!"
I'll NOT stand idly by.
Primarily "for me and mine," but may intervene under certain conditions.
I don't honestly know.
I voted #3. I can envision some circumstances where I would intervene, but I do what I do primarily for my wife and myself.
I voted #2. I'll use whatever is necessary, from calling 911 and telling everyone that I've done so, up to and including taking out the scumbag. Anyone wants to sue me in court, go right ahead. I've got nothing. I don't own any real estate, and I'm currently unemployed, so as the saying goes, you can't get blood from a turnip.
I like how this thread has developed. A well done to all.
I also like the Edmund Burke quote about the success of evil. Have known the quote and believed in it for many years.
I truly respect the honesty of those who voted that they don't know. It's really impossible to know until you've had to do it.
I voted earlier on #3, but if circumstances dictated it, I would jump into #2 in a hurry. As one of the posters above said training dictates action. What you are willing to risk. But what I would do would be to think of the minimal thing that could be done to preserve life and see the BG caught. That could be anything from calling 911, to following at a discrete distance while talking with 911, to finding myself at slide-lock.
This is largely my opinion on the application of force anywhere and any time.
THE MORALITY OF DEFENSE
No man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man – or group or society or government – has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force ONLY in retaliation and ONLY against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. ~Ayn Rand.
Heroes are people who do what has to be done, when it has to be done, regardless of the consequences
"I like when the enemy shoots at me; then I know where the ******** are and can kill them."
DE OPPRESSO LIBER
(I'm posting this before I read everyone else's responses)
I voted #3
I carry primarily for defense of myself and those who I feel the duty to protect (family, friends, etc.). However, I would intervene in a situation if I felt that I had a clear picture of the situation and that my intervention was necessary to save someone from serious injury or death. For example: a public shooting (school, church, restaurant) with an obvious "bad-guy," a LEO in distress, etc. This is a tricky subject because there's often no way to know what's really going on. As third-party observers, we don't know what chain of events led to the current "fight." As a result, I'd really hate to shoot the wrong person.
edit: Now that I've read the other posts...
I like Betty's point about intervention meaning different things. I can easily imagine scenarios in which I wouldn't personally intervene due to lack of information or other factors. However, I would (and have in several occasions) called the police, told them what was going on, and continued to observe from a safe distance to see how the situation developed. There was another situation once where I saw a couple of guys fighting in a parking lot (no way am I getting involved) but I yelled at them to quit fighting and that I had called the cops (I hadn't actually gotten around to it yet ). When they heard this, they both took off in opposite directions. Problem solved.
"Being a predator isn't always comfortable but the only other option is to be prey. That is not an acceptable option." ~Phil Messina
If you carry in Condition 3, you have two empty chambers. One in the weapon...the other between your ears.
I voted #3 because I feel that I should stay out of the altercation unless somebody's going to get seriously injured or killed. No need to be the hero/referee unless it escalates. besides, you never know, it may be staged in order to injure/rob/kill ME, my family members, or another unsuspecting individual. I know, maybe you're thinking I'm weird in my thought train here, but after all, you NEVER know what the BG is thinking.
Why Waltz when you can Rock-N-Roll
Originally Posted by CLASS3NH
Your very right there you can never know what the other people are thinking which is what makes it hard to act ..
Especially if you walked up on something all ready happening Like a brawl .. Now if ya saw it start ya would have more info but doesn't always work like that.
I voted #3 for the same reasons as others, situations re fluid and vary. Each must be assessed on its own merits. I hope and pray that I have the courage to do what is right when presented with the dilemma. As Betty said, the intervention may vary depending on the threat. I would not shoot in the case of a fist fight without at least giving verbal warning first, if the victim is just catching up then I would think they would stop at that warning. It is a tough call and will surely depend on how I perceive the situation at the moment I have to make the decision but again, I hope that I have the intestinal fortitude to do what is right, as I see it and the moral foundation to accuratley determine what is 'right'.
Bob McDuffee, co-host DogWatch Social Club Podcast
Thoughtful Conversation, Considered Opinion and a Touch of Insanity
"He who goes about unarmed in paradise, had better be sure that is where he is!" James Thurber
I can't say "absolute" for me and mine only, but i'm pretty close. Probably about 75%. Depends on the situation. For me, location matters a bit more.
For example, say an ex-coworker comes into my office building, shooting.
I'd intervene, even if not directly threatened.
Now, if I was in a resturant, i'd be less likely to intervine unless directly threatened.
It depends on how many unknown to me people are there. If it's all people I know decently, i'd be more likely to intervine than if surrounded by mostly strangers.
יזכר לא עד פעם
Yizkor. Lo Od Pa'am.
Remember. Never Again.
I voted #2 because I could not ignore a crime in progress. I would have to do something, but my intervention could take any of a number of forms. My responsibility to my family would be a major consideration in determining what action to take.
You have the power to donate life.
I voted (I truly don't know)
I guess I would lean towards the (under certain circumstances) if I was 110% sure that the wife and son were safe or not around al together, then and only then would I even consider stepping in. Their is always the possibility that one of the involved parties could have friends coming up behind you and you and yours end up in a cross fire. So until the family is with out of any chance of danger, It's (Me and My Own) then we will see what the situation looks like.
"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand
MadMike, thanks for starting a great thread. I have been really interested in reading all the comments. I'm also glad that most of the people who choose 3 end up in their comments being more like 2.25. Their comments reveal the same considerations that I went through only I decided to go with 2.
I will not stand idly by, but the type and level of intervention will be determine by what those of us who spent a good deal of time in the Army call "the Ft. Benning solution" - it depends on the terrain and the situation. My intervention will be determined by what I know about the situation. The less I know about the situation and/or the less likelihood of the situation resulting in major injury or death the lower will be my level of response. Like Betty my intervention may be dialling 911 and watching until the police arrive. In the case of someone going postal I will try my best to render that person incapable of hurting anyone and will worry about the conscequences for myself at a later time. My position is like that of James and John in the book of Acts when they asked, "Is it better to obey God or man." I'll obey God and accept what results from my action.
Thanks again for starting this thread.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein
I had to take 3. That said I would get involved if it was a clear issue, for example a terrorist, or a shooter. Otherwise, I'd just be a good witness.
“The highest obligation and privilege of citizenship is that of bearing arms”. General George Patton—US Army
Vis et Veneratio
"So this is how democracy dies: to thunderous applause." Actress Natalie Portman as Padme in Star Wars Revenge of the Sith
I voted for "Primarily Me & Mine" but may intervene under some conditions. Those conditions are; if it is obvious who the BG is, as in the Luby's situation or in the Columbine shootings. If I happen across 2 people struggling without being sure who is who, I'll just be a good witness.
I have to say I am quite pleased that everyone who posted was able to express their thoughts on the subject while showing a certain respect for those who feel differently.
Pleased, yes. Surprised, NO. This is due to the prevailing "tone" of this Forum. For my purposes, it is the BEST.
Although I'm no statistician, I think the prevailing tendency is towards coming to the aid of others, even complete strangers, provided certain conditions are met.
These "conditions" vary a bit from person to person and in some instances, they may be influenced by state law. Overall, however, people do tend to rely more heavily on their own sense of "justice" or moral obligation.
This seems to be true of even those who chose "Me and mine, alone." If I read the post correctly, some who made that choice did offer up a "qualifier."
Some states spell out quite clearly under what conditions deadly force may be used to protect another, some leave it quite murky and vague.
I am of the opinion that unless a law specifically precludes an action, then said action is legal. In fact, that is one of the differences between life in the US of A, and the old "Evil Empire.
In the old "EE," anything not permitted by law was deemed "illegal." Here, anything NOT forbidden by law is assumed "legal."
I've NO idea how that logic would play in court, I suppose it would differ from local to local. . .
In short, when the law clearly states, "You can NOT," then, you can't. If the law does NOT make that clear statement, and your intended action isn't prohibited by any other law, then you most certainly CAN.
Laws are rare that actually forbid one person from coming to the aid of another. Any such law should be removed from the books.
How we come to the aid of another? Although I was thinking of events that included the potential use of deadly force when I started this thread, its been pointed out that intervention can take many forms.
A simple call to "911." If you carry a cell phone, this may be all that's needed. Stand by in a secure position and start being "a good witness."
It can be taken to a higher level by announcing the fact that the call has been made, so that the parties concerned know an LEO is on the way. This may be all it takes to defuse a situation. But maintain vigilance!
If things are happening fast, all you'll have to go on is what you see, hear, and think at that time. Everything you know, have learned, trained for (or not!), think you know, thought you'd learned, will likely play a part in your reaction. (Or non-action.)
If you are too full of self-doubt about making a split-second decision, then you might need to re-evaluate your "need to carry." If you are overly confident, you may learn what is meant by "pride goeth before a fall." Either way, is not good.
I hope I NEVER have to pull my gun, to protect myself, my family, or a stranger. But if I should, I will make my decision without hesitation and do whatever I must to fulfill my personal obligation.
One other thing that this thread has made clear to me is that the possibility of being sued by a BG or his survivors, even after a "justified" ruling, plays a role in the decision making. Laws preventing that, such as we have here in Florida need to be enacted in all states.
Even a failed lawsuit can cost you time and money. Call me "reactionary," but I place the blame for the lawsuits that so many fear, squarely on the legal profession. I'd love to see the lawyers who file such suits being counter-sued, even more so that the "opportunist" they represent!
But, that would be a whole 'nuther thread.
I'll climb down off my soapbox now. I held off adding my two-cent's worth as long as I could. No matter what your vote was, I'm very glad to find I'm in the company of thoughtful, honest, and passionate individuals.
We don't walk in lock-step, but we do walk together!
Political Correctness has now "evolved" into Political Cowardice.
Originally Posted by chiefs-special-guy
EDIT NOTE (Tuesday) from RnG :
I copied this to another forum because it struck me as a very insightful response to a similar discussion. I failed to attribute it to you at that time. I am sorry. Please accept my apologies. I have corrected my error on the other forum with the following post:
This was copied from another forum without attribution originally. The writer was "chiefs-special-guy" and I want to publically apologize for the failure on my part to attribute it to him. My apologies, CSG!
The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ― The Journals of Kierkegaard