View Poll Results: Intervention Rule?
- 378. You may not vote on this poll
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.
March 7th, 2006 07:25 PM
+1 and Amen!
Originally Posted by Rob72
March 7th, 2006 07:38 PM
I voted #3 thinking we are talking deadly intervention. Now that Iíve read a little more, and in response to Betty & others, in the case of non-deadly (a 911 call, a little display, shouting or something) itís a definite #2.
The state of Colorado gives me permission to use deadly force if I reasonably perceive that myself, or someone else is in danger for my/their life. (That reasonably thing will be up to the jury of course.)
My natural response to a perceived threat or danger is to leave the area to a safer place. I donít know what I would do, if I saw a dangerous situation, I was alone, and left to go home and see ďbreaking newsĒ of people murdered that I could have prevented. It might haunt me, although I have absolutely NO intentions of being a hero, nor am I an LE wannabe. I think I would at least make a 911 call on my way home. Iíve done things like that before.
I have also thought to myself, while standing in line at the bank, ďwhat if a bank robbery starts to go down now?Ē I figure, if the robbers want $$, they can have it and LE will catch up to them in time. Iím NOT going to draw and have my picture on the same tape with them ya know.
Now if they start shooting in the air, probably still not.
If they start shooting people, well now that is a BIG PROBLEM. If they are bad enough to shoot people for the loot, we are all dead and Iím not going without a fight.
Thatís my story & Iím sticking to it.
Itís so much easier now days, to "Love and honor" my wife, when she is armed, and shoots a better group than I do. (Till death do us part, eh?)
ďThe way you get shot by a concealed weapons permit holder is, you point a gun at him,Ē the Sheriff said.
March 7th, 2006 08:54 PM
It was far different when I was in the service, and any lifer will tell you how difficult acclimating to a more passive stance in life can be. There were numerous occasions where a split second response was necessary and since the rules were relatively simple so was the reply. If an armed individual, or individuals, were threatening a fellow service member, or civilian, they were dispatched without hesitation. It is no longer my job to engage and offer a hard solution. I would protect my family and friends to the best of my ability, but understand that my entering the fray might very well result in injury or worse should they be in the path of return fire. There is no definitive response to this query, and you can do everything right and still have the situation turn out wrong.
March 8th, 2006 02:00 AM
Your statement, "There is no definitive response to this query," is exactly why I started this thread. I read one too many "I'd never get involved," or "You should never get involved," post and the sentiment just didn't sit well with me, as it was an "absolute."
Having read a great deal on this Forum, I found it very hard to believe that people really would follow a "rule" like that, without exception. And sure enough, it now looks like most all qualify that "rule" with some form of exception.
I was pretty sure that something other than icewater flowed in those veins, now I'm convinced of it.
As for the rest of the quote from your post, "and you can do everything right and still have the situation turn out wrong," that is most certainly TRUE.
You can also stand down, and just watch the situation turn out wrong.
I kind of think you are the kind of person that just might decide against the latter, because even though the former "can turn out wrong," your actions could affect the outcome for the better.
If the "sure thing" isn't good, tilt the odds if you can.
I base that on reading post you've made here, and on another forum.
Political Correctness has now "evolved" into Political Cowardice.
March 8th, 2006 03:14 AM
1952 - 2006
Reading the recent posts made me think of one of the collaries to Murphy's Laws of Combat.
"Anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing at all."
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
March 8th, 2006 03:39 PM
I'm an LEO. I *can't* stand idly by.
March 8th, 2006 04:16 PM
I voted #1, I may be in the minority, but unless its me or mine, they only get a phone call to 911. Sounds mean, but if i am not in harms way I'm not putting myself there for someone I don't know and love.
March 8th, 2006 08:03 PM
I'm on the edge of 3/4, voted 4.
I feel like I really won't know until I am in the situation.
March 8th, 2006 11:07 PM
Welcome from North Texas, Curmudgeon1. Pop over to "New members" and intro yourself there too! Glad you're posting already!
July 28th, 2006 05:14 PM
I came here to post a very similar question, but decided to search first .. fortunately.
Originally Posted by madmike
I voted #3, and I haven't read a single post in this thread, but will get through every one tonight.
I'm sure that in a situation which could go bad very fast, possibly faster than I can contain it, I will probably act before I should in order to INSURE my family's safety. I do believe after all, that's why I was put in this earth. Knowing that my family is safe, and I acted in good faith, even if I was wrong ... well, let's just say I can live with that MUCH better than I could live with containing the situation AFTER a familiy member was harmed.
The second half, is much harder ... since every situation is different. I fall back to my reason for being here ... I've got to take care of my family, and even a good shoot can go bad in court, which could deprive me of that ability. And, we all know that noble intentions can get you killed. If my family was present and a situation arose, their safety has got to be first so ... that would be insured before I assisted anyone else.
My "protective inclination" tends to go out toward children and the elderly, with grown, healthy men & woman a distant second. In my mind, they at least have the ability to defend themselves if they so choose ... the elderly and children may not have those options.
I won't shoot in defense of someone's property or money. And, even if someone broke into my home, if he was stealing only property AND I have the tactical advantage, he'd get a pass. If however the situation was highly dynamic .. low light, unknown # of BGs, near my kids' rooms, etc., then I won't hestitate to do what I was put here to do. And, again, if there was ANY question in my mind ... front sight, preeessssssssss. I will always err on the side of caution when I KNOW I'm right.
Luby's Cafeteria: .. I'm afraid the first person would have died. But if there was anything I could do about it, that would be it.
My two cents folks ...
July 28th, 2006 05:58 PM
Primarilly me and mine. I carry a cell phone so I will call 911 first. Then depending on the circumstances I will make a decision AFTER contacting, or at least attempting to contact, 911. The only acception I can think of is that I don't think I could stand by and watch a small child being abused or hurt.
July 28th, 2006 06:01 PM
Primarily "for me and mine," but may intervene under certain conditions is my vote
My concealed carry is primarily for me and mine, but as a decent human being, I don't think I could or would just stand by and watch as someone elses life was being threatened by some BG. That being said, when you see what you perceive is a threat to someone else, you better make darn sure that the situation is what it seems Before you draw your weapon. If you're not sure then be a good witness and call 911 immediately.
"I'd rather have my gun and not need it, than need it and not have it"
July 28th, 2006 07:17 PM
I'll go with option #3.
Minor correction. The Just War Theory was profferred by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologicae not Saint Augustine.
Originally Posted by chiefs-special-guy
July 28th, 2006 09:04 PM
I have not read anyone else reply yet but here is mine:
Of the four choices
1. Absolutely "For me and mine, ONLY."
2. "I will NOT stand idly by"
3. Primarily "me and mine," but may intervene under some conditions.
4. I honestly do not know.
I have to pick two of them. I would like to think number 2 is the right answer for me.
As a Christian it is our responsibility to help others, mostly those that can not help themselves (notice I said can not help themselves not refuse to help themselves).
As a retired soldier I still have the mindset of protecting innocents against all enemies foreign and domestic.
As a father I can not expect other to protect my family if I am not around, if I don't protect yours when you are not around.
This is the greatest country on earth and we all need to make sure it stays that way and that is why I have a CHL, to protect and serve my fellow humans.
The second answer has to be number 4 I just don't know and I hope I never have to find out. Until that time comes when I have to draw my Kimber and pull the trigger to kill another human being we just never know.
If it is not in the US Constitution then the Federal Government should not be doing it.
"Carrying a gun is a social responsibility."
July 28th, 2006 10:15 PM
No surprises, I chose # 3 and as echoed constantly here: it depends on the situation.
Great replies and posts on this thread!
It's not about the caliber you carry, it's about how you USE it.
1988 DIE HARD 2008
By oneshot in forum Bob & Terry's Place
Last Post: January 10th, 2010, 09:48 PM
By seawolf1956 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Last Post: April 20th, 2009, 11:28 AM
By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: June 25th, 2006, 11:25 PM
By Miggy in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Last Post: October 20th, 2005, 10:46 PM
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors