Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: to act or not

  1. #1
    Regular Member kryptonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    in this thread i want to inquire members ideas on IF they would choose to shoot or flee based on their involvement in an emergency. it's easy to make a justifiable draw and fire on an impending threat that is presented towards you or your family but what if it didn't involve you at all? we all train, practice, and know the legal elements necessary when we are threatened but if it's someone else you don't even know - would you intervene?
    legally you are responsible to protect your family. if threatened you wouldn't just leave a wife/girlfriend and kids to flee a scene of course. i read tons of stuff on here about the carrying aspects but not much about the actual use of your weapon for protection. the castle doctrine allows you to stand your ground and protects you from criminal and civil prosecutions in a justified shoot. shootings all have grey areas open to interpretations. not everybody will look at it the same. people sitting in comfy high back nice leather chairs in a climate controlled office will second guess for months your decision you had to make in a quick second. one of those questions is "why didn't you leave? you weren't threatened". you WILL be asked that. i sat in front of a county grand jury in texas where they slid the texas penal code book to me and said show me in this book where you were justified with your shoot.
    if you're in a situation where someone else is shot or stabbed and flees do you pursue? even if you had no duty to stop something would you? bystanders in an emergency would look to you for protection. it's a decision you may have to make and live with. interested in replies.


  2. #2
    Michigan Moderator Big Gay Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mason, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,954

    Post imported post

    If at all practical, I would act. I doubt I would chase anyone, since I am pretty much temporarily disabled, but I would come to the defense of anyone who appeared to be the innocent victim of an illegal attack.
    Big Gay Al
    Coordinator, Michigan Pink Pistols
    Big Gay Al's Big Gay (Gun) Blog
    Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal FNX-45 .45ACP 16 rounds of hurt.

  3. #3
    Regular Member malignity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,101

    Post imported post

    I am not interested in playing hero, however, depending on the situation, one could probably argue that my actions, given the situation were 'heroic'.

    If I am outgunned, or outmanned, I will do my best to avoid and/or leave the situation if at all possible. I'm not going to risk my life foolishly trying to stop someone if I'm not 100% confident I can do so. For example, if I'm staring down the barrel of an AK47, and someone wants my money, whether or not I'm carrying or not at that point is probably irrelevant, and I will hand over my wallet. Even with practice, if someone has their weapon drawn on me, for example, the chances that I'll get mine out, and will get a shot off before they can pull the trigger on their own firearm are slim to none. Would I risk my life over that? Doubtful. My wallet is a pain to replace, sure, but it's not worth my life. If however, my money is demanded, someone claims they have a gun, and I'm not visibly staring down the barrel of a firearm? Well, I might be able to give them a surprise double tap. It really depends on the situation for me.

    That being said, I will however, stand up for what I believe is right, and try to do my best when it comes to being a good samaritian. While this is not required, I feel that my generation of people (granted, I'm 26) have too much of the 'live and let live' mentality. I'm not sure if anyone heard about the homeless man recently in New York that was stabbed after breaking up a fight or robbery or something, and was bleeding out on the sidewalk for over an hour with people walking past him, and no one did anything about it. This man died, because no one cared enough to get involved. If someone else is in fear of their life and I have the opportunity to stop it, I WILL do so. Why? Because I believe it's my duty as a human being to do so. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I saw something happen to someone and knew that there was something I could do to stop it. Is this being heroic? Personally, I don't think so.

    This is just my opinion, and hopefully people understand what I'm trying to say.
    All opinions posted on opencarry.org are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of opencarry.org or Michigan Open Carry Inc.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Recoil88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Roseville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    112

    Post imported post

    I cant find the law atm but you are allowed to intervene and use deadly force if someones life is in danger or someone is being raped.
    In a situation when seconds count-The police will be there in minutes.

  5. #5
    Regular Member malignity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,101

    Post imported post

    Yep, it's part of the Castle Doctorine amongst other things.
    All opinions posted on opencarry.org are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of opencarry.org or Michigan Open Carry Inc.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

    Sec. 2.

    (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

    (a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

    (b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

    (2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

    History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047

    Post imported post

    It's a judgment call for each individual. I know my skills and I also know they will be reduced under stress. If the victims life is in immediate danger, and I can shoot with a clear area behind the criminal; then yes I would use deadly force. With all of those conditions, it is very easy to see why people are afraid to act. My 1st choice is always 911 if time allows, if not, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.:shock:
    “A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.” James Madison.

    “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.” “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” George Washington

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    malignity summed it up pretty well.

  9. #9
    Regular Member hopnpop's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Paw Paw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    635

    Post imported post

    So situationally dependent!! I can say with some certainty that I'd never pursue, and would recommend that most DON'T either. That seems to be when it starts looking like you're eager to use dealy force, rather than being simply prepared to. In the event that I were to witness a rape, I'd like to think that I'd intervene. I'd like to think the same in a hold-up scenario. If an armed robber had a clerk or customer at gunpoint or is threatening them with a gun, I'd like to think that I'd intervene. I can't say for certain, as I haven't been in one of those situations (thankfully). I'd really hate living with the guilt that would accompany me if I were in a situation like that and had the means to protect an innocent person, but didn't, and it cost the innocent person their life. I think I'd better handle the aftermath of having used necessary force on a BG to protect a victim.
    No one has ever walked away from a gunfight complaining that he brought too much ammo.

  10. #10
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    Of course, by law in Michigan we may justifiably defend ourselves or others and we do not have a duty to retreat from the places we are legally at. However, I can think of at least two situations where my response to a BG probably would be different:

    1)A BG is attacking myself or my family. My priority is protecting myself and my family. No matter how big the risk I won't make it out alive, I must engage the BG thusremoving his threat orbuying timefor my family to escape.

    2)A BG is attacking others than myself or my family. My priority is staying alive and going home to my family. If Ican immediately neutralize the BG without significant risk to myself, I will do so. Otherwise,I'mcarefully withdrawing, calling the police, and reporting my observations.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    Inaction equates guilt.

    For instance, if you are standing on a sidewalk, you see that the blind man is about to cross the street in front of a car and do nothing. If he gets hit by that car, IMO you are as guilty as someone who pushed the blind man into the street to be struck by a car.

  12. #12
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    DanM wrote:
    Of course, by law in Michigan we may justifiably defend ourselves or others and we do not have a duty to retreat from the places we are legally at. However, I can think of at least two situations where my response to a BG probably would be different:

    1)A BG is attacking myself or my family. My priority is protecting myself and my family. No matter how big the risk I won't make it out alive, I must engage the BG thusremoving his threat orbuying timefor my family to escape.

    2)A BG is attacking others than myself or my family. My priority is staying alive and going home to my family. If Ican immediately neutralize the BG without significant risk to myself, I will do so. Otherwise,I'mcarefully withdrawing, calling the police, and reporting my observations.
    Sums it up for me as well.
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  13. #13
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    stainless1911 wrote:
    Inaction equates guilt.

    For instance, if you are standing on a sidewalk, you see that the blind man is about to cross the street in front of a car and do nothing. If he gets hit by that car, IMO you are as guilty as someone who pushed the blind man into the street to be struck by a car.
    Unless there is a significant possibility action willcause great harm or death to yourself. If, in acting to keepthe blind man from beingstruck, you fear that you will be struck in the process, then inaction is wisest in order for you to take care of him immediately afterward, instead of there now being two casualtieswith, possibly, no one around to take care of either of you.

    If you meant, "Unjustified inactionequates to guilt" then that is what you should say. Words mean stuff.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    Well said Dan.

  15. #15
    Regular Member RenegadeMarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Fraser, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    80

    Post imported post

    DanM wrote:
    Of course, by law in Michigan we may justifiably defend ourselves or others and we do not have a duty to retreat from the places we are legally at. However, I can think of at least two situations where my response to a BG probably would be different:

    1)A BG is attacking myself or my family. My priority is protecting myself and my family. No matter how big the risk I won't make it out alive, I must engage the BG thusremoving his threat orbuying timefor my family to escape.

    2)A BG is attacking others than myself or my family. My priority is staying alive and going home to my family. If Ican immediately neutralize the BG without significant risk to myself, I will do so. Otherwise,I'mcarefully withdrawing, calling the police, and reporting my observations.
    I agree 100%!!! Don't forget you also have to evaluate the risk to innocent bystanders as well.

  16. #16
    Regular Member kryptonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    PDinDetroit wrote:
    DanM wrote:
    Of course, by law in Michigan we may justifiably defend ourselves or others and we do not have a duty to retreat from the places we are legally at. However, I can think of at least two situations where my response to a BG probably would be different:

    1)A BG is attacking myself or my family. My priority is protecting myself and my family. No matter how big the risk I won't make it out alive, I must engage the BG thusremoving his threat orbuying timefor my family to escape.

    2)A BG is attacking others than myself or my family. My priority is staying alive and going home to my family. If Ican immediately neutralize the BG without significant risk to myself, I will do so. Otherwise,I'mcarefully withdrawing, calling the police, and reporting my observations.
    well said danm. that is actually the response i was fishing for when i started the thread. thank you.
    Sums it up for me as well.

  17. #17
    Michigan Moderator Big Gay Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mason, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,954

    Post imported post

    malignity wrote:
    Yep, it's part of the Castle Doctorine amongst other things.
    I'm pretty sure it was part of the law before the latest castle doctrine law came about.
    Big Gay Al
    Coordinator, Michigan Pink Pistols
    Big Gay Al's Big Gay (Gun) Blog
    Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal FNX-45 .45ACP 16 rounds of hurt.

  18. #18
    Regular Member kryptonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    another aspect i thought of would be if you were intentionally brought into a situation knowing there was a potential for conflict. people caught up in a bitter divorce or custody battle or neighbor dispute. "hey can you come over and OC in case this thing goes bad.." this is putting you in a difficult situation. happened to me pre-OC when i was just CC. nothing happened but could have. was a VERY rural area and police help would be a while. now you're basically a bodyguard. legal and your right to do so but could be perceived as vigilante activity. food for thought.

  19. #19
    Regular Member kyleplusitunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lennon Michigan, ,
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    I don't think I'd ever go on a public forum and tell someone I was already prepared to kill or to not kill someone, seems like if I ever was in a situation where they monitored a site like this one, and the prosecutor said "oh hey look here is a post on this website from so and so date you were already looking to intervene in a situation so youre just a wild gun waitin to go off yada yada"

    be careful what you post!

  20. #20
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    RenegadeMarine wrote:
    DanM wrote:
    Of course, by law in Michigan we may justifiably defend ourselves or others and we do not have a duty to retreat from the places we are legally at. However, I can think of at least two situations where my response to a BG probably would be different:

    1)A BG is attacking myself or my family. My priority is protecting myself and my family. No matter how big the risk I won't make it out alive, I must engage the BG thusremoving his threat orbuying timefor my family to escape.

    2)A BG is attacking others than myself or my family. My priority is staying alive and going home to my family. If Ican immediately neutralize the BG without significant risk to myself, I will do so. Otherwise,I'mcarefully withdrawing, calling the police, and reporting my observations.
    I agree 100%!!! Don't forget you also have to evaluate the risk to innocent bystanders as well.
    True, but not relevantfor meto include since I was discussing points of difference betweenme being more or less likelyto engagea BG.Evaluating risk to bystanders isn't a factor for meto that decision, but is a factor after the choice to engage has been made and I am manuevering for the best shot possible.

    The reasonthat therisk to bystandersis only a factorwhen targeting the BG, and not germane to the decision of whether or not you will engage the BG, is that by far the greatest risk to bystanders (and yourself)is the rampaging BGand, therefore, if you can engage, you should engage. After making that determination, then you consider where bystanders are as you are targeting.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  21. #21
    Regular Member RenegadeMarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Fraser, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    80

    Post imported post

    DanM wrote:
    RenegadeMarine wrote:
    DanM wrote:
    Of course, by law in Michigan we may justifiably defend ourselves or others and we do not have a duty to retreat from the places we are legally at. However, I can think of at least two situations where my response to a BG probably would be different:

    1)A BG is attacking myself or my family. My priority is protecting myself and my family. No matter how big the risk I won't make it out alive, I must engage the BG thusremoving his threat orbuying timefor my family to escape.

    2)A BG is attacking others than myself or my family. My priority is staying alive and going home to my family. If Ican immediately neutralize the BG without significant risk to myself, I will do so. Otherwise,I'mcarefully withdrawing, calling the police, and reporting my observations.
    I agree 100%!!! Don't forget you also have to evaluate the risk to innocent bystanders as well.
    True, but not relevantfor meto include since I was discussing points of difference betweenme being more or less likelyto engagea BG.Evaluating risk to bystanders isn't a factor for meto that decision, but is a factor after the choice to engage has been made and I am manuevering for the best shot possible.

    The reasonthat therisk to bystandersis only a factorwhen targeting the BG, and not germane to the decision of whether or not you will engage the BG, is that by far the greatest risk to bystanders (and yourself)is the rampaging BGand, therefore, if you can engage, you should engage. After making that determination, then you consider where bystanders are as you are targeting.
    Ok, I see what you're saying. I was just thinking that if I was in a situation where I should engage the BG, but can't becausetherearetoo many people in the field of fireto make a well placed shot. Or if there were people immediately behind the BG. These factors might make me choose not to engage, due to the risk of the innocent bystanders. I think we are pretty much on the same page here.

  22. #22
    Regular Member hopnpop's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Paw Paw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    635

    Post imported post

    DanM wrote:
    stainless1911 wrote:
    Inaction equates guilt.

    For instance, if you are standing on a sidewalk, you see that the blind man is about to cross the street in front of a car and do nothing. If he gets hit by that car, IMO you are as guilty as someone who pushed the blind man into the street to be struck by a car.
    Unless there is a significant possibility action willcause great harm or death to yourself. If, in acting to keepthe blind man from beingstruck, you fear that you will be struck in the process, then inaction is wisest in order for you to take care of him immediately afterward, instead of there now being two casualtieswith, possibly, no one around to take care of either of you.

    If you meant, "Unjustified inactionequates to guilt" then that is what you should say. Words mean stuff.

    Agree, well-said. There's a good case-in-point that happened in NY just last week. Lady dropped something onto train tracks and the dummy went down to get it. A "hero" jumped down and tried to push her out of the way of the oncoming train. They were both hit - he died, she was in critical condition last I heard. I'm all about chivalry and still believe in heroics, but not at the cost of my life, sorry.

    No one has ever walked away from a gunfight complaining that he brought too much ammo.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •