to act or not

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.

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.

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.

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.

imported post

Yep, it's part of the Castle Doctorine amongst other things.

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

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:

imported post

malignity summed it up pretty well.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Sums it up for me as well.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Well said Dan.

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.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%!!! Don't forget you also have to evaluate the risk to innocent bystanders as well.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

imported post

malignity wrote:

Yep, it's part of the Castle Doctorine amongst other things.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it was part of the law before the latest castle doctrine law came about.

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.

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!

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.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%!!! Don't forget you also have to evaluate the risk to innocent bystanders as well.

Click to expand...

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.