"So whatya gonna do....?"

[OldMarksman]

Posted by zombietactics:

PLEASE judge, the world needs more (good) judgement, and we need to get used to - once again - recognizing good judgement vs, bad judgement.

Alrighty then. I think that in general, believing that one will be able to tell when intervention is "good and moral" is very unrealistic and extremely naive.

There are countless "what if"s which can imagined on any side of any question.

More accurately, there are countless possibilities.

There are so many, inf fact, that the only time I will intervene on behalf of a third party is when I know that third party very well and when it is crystal clear what is happening. Not very apparent, but crystal clear.

However, I do believe that "what if" is seldom the basis of good judgement.

"What ifs" are the very basis of sound risk management.

Rob Pincus happened to put out the following to today.

This timely article is worth reading, slowly and more than one.

 

[2damnold4this]

That is a really good article by Pincus. Thanks for the link.

 

[zombietactics]

I closely align with the following from Rob's article:

... None of us should want to live in a society where people refuse to get involved because they fear solely for their own safety. None of us should want to live in a society where people roam the streets looking for opportunities to use force against their fellow citizens without regard for solid observation, critical thinking, their own safety and that of those around them, and the rule of law and due process. Somewhere between these two scenarios is the society that most responsible gun owners want: one where the evil that exists in this world is tempered by good people with the training, tools and willingness to act prudently on behalf of good. ...

Some earlier comments seemed to me to recommend the complete opposite of the underlined text (the UL added by me). That forms the context for my statements to the contrary.

 

[Snyper]

Alrighty then. I think that in general, believing that one will be able to tell when intervention is "good and moral" is very unrealistic and extremely naive.

I think you are 100% correct

To those who would draw their gun to prevent escape, just stop and think what will happen if someone with your same ideas steps around the corner when you draw

In their eyes, YOU could be the "bad guy with a gun"

 

[OldMarksman]

Zombie, I'm afraid you missed the main points of the article completely.

 

[JohnKSa]

There was a study done awhile back that showed police officers tend to shoot the wrong person (identify the wrong person as the bad guy and shoot him) more often than armed private citizens do.

The analysis indicated that the reason for the difference was that an armed citizen had a better chance of seeing the incident develop and therefore had a better chance of actually understanding what was going on, who was in the right and who was in the wrong.

Cops tend to show up after being called to the scene and must make a rapid assessment of the situation with very little information and while under considerable stress. Not surprisingly it can be extremely difficult to do that accurately and sometimes mistakes are made.

We have to understand that unless we see the situation develop and therefore have a reasonably accurate picture of what's actually going on, that there is significant potential for trying to rapidly assess a stressful situation and getting it wrong.

Does that mean we shouldn't act at all? No. But it does mean we must be very careful about deciding when to act and how that action should be carried out. It's one thing to point out the wrong guy to the cops when the evidence and other witnesses will likely sort things out in the end. It's another thing entirely to end up in a situation where you would like to "unshoot" someone now that you know all the facts.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Double Naught Spy

If he is still deploying force as he withdraws then jeopardy still exists...

I am glad you clarified your point, garryc, because your original statement...

Let's understand that when the guy is walking away the element of jeopardy is gone.

...was all inclusive and definitive and that just is not the case.

 

[zombietactics]

... Zombie, I'm afraid you missed the main points of the article completely ...

That's odd comment to make in response to a quote from the article itself.

I'm often enough in contact directly with Rob and/or his circle to believe otherwise.

 

[OldMarksman]

In my opinion, the main points are, in addition to those pertaining to personal risk,

Consider also the ways in which you might be mistaken about what you are seeing when you come across an incident and how that should affect your decisions and actions. What happened before you arrived? How can you be sure who the “good guy” is?

Consider that your actions could increase the risk to the person you are trying to help.

This one pertains to personal risk, but it is extremely important:

Remember that you are not alone in the world, and other bystanders may misinterpret your actions.

That brings to mind something that is not in the article--the risk that there may be a "tail gunner" looking for someone who may intercede.

I do believe I may have overreacted in my last post, but in addition to "personal safety" there is the issue of depriving those who depend on you of your support, in its entirety, either due to death or injury, imprisonment, or impoverishment due to the cost of a defense of justification. Which "third party" do you most want to protect?

 

[TimSr]

Every situation has to be judged individually, and at the time, as to whether or how one is to intervene. There are no hard fast rules that apply to all situations. Any advice that begins with "always" or "never" should be rejected on that basis alone. There is nothing wrong with discussing the criteria you should use when making your decision, but in the end, it will be your decision, and you will have to defend it after the fact. Whether you do everything right, or whether you do everything wrong, there is no way to predict how the courts will see it. You have to determine the extent of personal risk you are willing to endure in order to determine the amount of action, or inaction your conscious can deal with after the fact. The most common standard to be applied will be whether or not your actions are deemed reasonable by a panel of Monday morning quarterbacks. Sometimes people are punished for doing the right thing, and sometimes people are rewarded for doing wrong. Be thoughtful and use extreme caution, and make a decision that you can live with.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by TimSr:

Every situation has to be judged individually, and at the time, as to whether or how one is to intervene.

Very true.

There are no hard fast rules that apply to all situations.

Well, there might be a few. Try these:

• Use deadly force to defend a third person only whan you have reason to believe that the person you are defending is the innocent party, and that that person would himself be justified in using deadly force;
• use deadly force in such a matter that you do not recklessly put other innocent parties at serious risk.

Any advice that begins with "always" or "never" should be rejected on that basis alone.

Probably a good rule of thumb, but again, consider possible exceptions:

• never shoot at anyone whom you cannot see well enough to be certain that he or she is not a friend or family member;
• (the several safety rules).

There is nothing wrong with discussing the criteria you should use when making your decision, but in the end, it will be your decision, and you will have to defend it after the fact.

True--if you survive the event.

Several summers ago, I made the decision to use deadly force, if necessary, to prevent an armed robbery,for the reason that it could well have turned much worse, in a small store. I knew the employees very well.

A man buying one soda, not two, was looking out at someone whom I had seen acting as if he were 'up to no good"--and at the office where the cash was kept.

My first thoughts were "backstop" and "clear shot", and I moved accordingly.

In the event, I spooked the robber-to-be, and he took off, dropping his soda and his change.

Did I do the right thing? I don't really think so. When I saw the accomplice parked heading the wrong way in the lot outside, looking around very nervously, and watching someone inside very intently, I should have driven out of sight and called for help rather than going inside. I could have been shot. And my intervention in the store could have precipitated bloodshed that would not have occurred but for my intervention.

I did judge the situation individually, at the time.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Probably a good rule of thumb, but again, consider possible exceptions:

never shoot at anyone whom you cannot see well enough to be certain that he or she is not a friend or family member;

How about...never shoot at anyone whom you cannot see well enough to be certain that they are the target you want to shoot.

A high percentage of people know there attackers and those attackers often are friends or family members. It is very realistic to consider the fact that if you do have to shoot a person in self defense or defense of another, that person may be somebody you know and it may be a friend or family member.

 

[OldMarksman]

That's better.

 

[zombietactics]

... I may have overreacted in my last post ..."

it's just as likely you were misinterpreted.

 

[Frank Ettin]

A good discussion covering three pages and running more than a week. I think it's a good time to call it a day.