what would you do?

[Don Barnett]

imported post

Depends on who it is. If it were my granddaughter, wife, son, daughter...yes. If it were some "yokel" on the street...maybe...maybe not. A lot depends on the situation.

I don't want to sound elitist but there comes a time when you must place a certain value on you own life. If you are a husband and parent for example, how would your family suffer if you died trying to intervene in a dangerous situation involving a stranger?

This is a moral dilemma and there are probably no right or wrong answers.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

rugerdon wrote:

Depends on who it is. If it were my granddaughter, wife, son, daughter...yes. If it were some "yokel" on the street...maybe...maybe not. A lot depends on the situation.

I don't want to sound elitist but there comes a time when you must place a certain value on you own life. If you are a husband and parent for example, how would your family suffer if you died trying to intervene in a dangerous situation involving a stranger?

This is a moral dilemma and there are probably no right or wrong answers.

Often we are admonished to "be a good witness." I understand that concept and the thoughts you express above. Each person is in a unique position and must make their own decision.

Yet where would we be as a country and a society if it were not for those that without hesitancy or thought of personal safety dove into the river to save a child, reached into the burning vehicle, doing something rather than nothing. Foolish maybe but examples of otherwise common people - proud to know a few mysellf.

Yata hey

 

[vegasche1023]

imported post

I'm almost positive that all the people that said they wouldn't risk their lives for a stranger probably would if the situation ever arose. Most of the people that jump into a river, burning car, etc to save someone don't always think it through, they just react.

 

[REX681959]

imported post

In answer to the question, Well it all depends on the circumstances, But yes twice in my life I already have without a second thought . First time it was family, second time it was a complete stranger.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Would you truly not pray that in your absence a stranger might rush to the aid or defense of your loved one?

Not directed at any one poster.

Yata hey

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Would you truly not pray that in your absence a stranger might rush to the aid or defense of your loved one?

Not directed at any one poster.

Yata hey

I'll revise. sure I would. Unless I had knowledge that the potential victim 'deserved it' in my own not so humble opinion. I have no duty to assist those who tear down the values I try to uphold.

The douche bag with the 'yes we can' t-shirt would come to no one's aid, ever, and should reap the same. Far be it from me to stand in the way of Karma... Yes, that is intentionally ironic.

 

[since9]

imported post

If as the OP stated, doing nothing meant sure death for the victim while taking action meant risking my life, I'd bet my swift/sure action would tip the scales towards sure death for the perp.

 

[jeeperguy]

imported post

Exactly ,If it is a robbery or rape etc.without question I would get involved.I took an oath to protect the public;sworn in MA L.E.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

jeeperguy wrote:

Exactly ,If it is a robbery or rape etc.without question I would get involved.I took an oath to protect the public;sworn in MA L.E.

Welcome to OCDO JG. Hope you stay and enjoy - lots of good folks here.

The outside-looking-in perspective is always appreciated too, at least by most.

Yata hey

 

[annie oakley]

imported post

The question: "Would you risk your life to help another"

Doesn't suggest any weapons usage. 'help' is generalized.

I have risked my life many times to help others, in absence of a gun. And a few times with them.

But there were different variables, environments, reasons for each situation.

And there are some things at some particular moment you can't prevent and maybe have to wait for a moment that you can make an impact. And the waiting results in someone dieing. These are pretty awful things to have to think about or go through actually.

So, I too would lean towards not being able to answer definitively and across the board in the affirmative. I would do the best I could under any given situation and use common sense judgement the best I could under a stressful situation.

If I saw a woman being attacked, or a man for that matter, I would try to create a distraction while calling 911 and also getting the attention of anyone else around so that they could get themselves safe or stay and help. I'd do this if I had a gun or not.
I'd definitely want the attacker to know he/she/they now had witnesses, at a safer distance, around and so was being watched.

I've already 'helped' so many times in my life that I think it's safe to say that IF I CAN help, I will because I'm probably 'hardwired' that way. Wether that's a big or small way depends on how well I think I understand the situation. I've found these situations are never fun and anyone who romanticizes them has seen one too many damned movies. :banghead:

 

[Seigi]

imported post

Sabotage70 wrote:

simmonsjoe wrote:

Of course its a clean shoot. @#$% him up. If god is smiling that day maybe one round doesn't expand, goes straight through and hits the ass hole camera man.

+1 LMAO I wish we had more smilies to give you a thumbs up.
He explained to us that you don't know what he's going to do next. He could very well turn on you and cause harm to you or your family.
Sense the guy in the PT Cruiser was obviously unarmed, I think he should have hit the gass and slammed the guy into the car in front of him.

My thoughts exactly. The guy paused both in front of and behind the vehicle. Enormous tonnage advantage, and the driver just takes it.

 

[Old Grump]

imported post

Are you your brothers keeper, do you believe in the Golden Rule? If the answer is yes then you don't think about whether you will help but how can you help. Dad was that way, Grandma was that way and I couldn't imagine not being that way.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Old Grump wrote:

Are you your brothers keeper, do you believe in the Golden Rule? If the answer is yes then you don't think about whether you will help but how can you help. Dad was that way, Grandma was that way and I couldn't imagine not being that way.

Old school = good school

No man is an island,
No man stands alone,
Each man's joy is joy to me,
Each man's grief is my own.

We need one another,
So I will defend,
Each man as my brother,
Each man as my friend.

Not a universally embraced creed these days perhaps, but I hope that if that if the SHTF such is along side me.

Yata hey

 

[EdwardNorton]

imported post

After reading 4 pages of all the different scenarios various people pointed out it caused me to think some here are defense attorneys and or prosecutors. Which is not a bad thing because in the real world and in my state you will be disarmed, arrested and introduced to the judicial system here until which time you "may" be deemed innocent and released, found guilty of aggravated assault, or manslaughter or even murder. Don't scoff or laugh because there are people in prison here in Indiana that have done just what the question presented to all in this forum.

What all that being said I have to admit that I would indeed draw my weapon and intercede to save the person being attacked if I thought their life were in danger. I will also go as far to say that I would shoot to wound rather than to kill. Some say that a dead man cannot testify against you for which I will counter no but the bystanders can & will!

Here in this state you cannot even legally shoot an intruder found inside your home if he is found to have been carrying a club or knife. You will be charged with unnecessary force and arrested. Chances are that you will be freed by a jury but there are no guarantees.

It is not my place to chose to end the life of another as a civilian, and I would only do so if I knew without a doubt that there is no other option for me to use (such as shoot to wound). Probably an unpopular belief in this forum but just because I have a license to carry a handgun doesn't mean that I have to take a life if I don't have to. I would meet the situation with only enough force to stop any further danger or injury & let the law take care of the rest.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

A Virginia department (DOC) used to instruct that officers should to "shoot to wound" - that has since been changed to "shoot to stop."

I would subscribe to the latter.

Yata hey

 

[EdwardNorton]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

A Virginia department (DOC) used to instruct that officers should to "shoot to wound" - that has since been changed to "shoot to stop."

I would subscribe to the latter.

Yata hey

Well I learned that from the IDOC and although they may choose to state it differently, it's the same (do not kill unless forced to). No doubt it's a legal liability issue more than anything.

I worked in a supermax and I sincerely doubt anyone would miss the offender (formally convict before politically correctness became an issue), they all are obligated to protect and preserve life for all those incarcerated.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

EdwardNorton wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

A Virginia department (DOC) used to instruct that officers should to "shoot to wound" - that has since been changed to "shoot to stop."

I would subscribe to the latter.

Yata hey

Well I learned that from the IDOC and although they may choose to state it differently, it's the same (do not kill unless forced to). No doubt it's a legal liability issue more than anything.

I worked in a supermax and I sincerely doubt anyone would miss the offender (formally convict before politically correctness became an issue), they all are obligated to protect and preserve life for all those incarcerated.

In reverse order of importance to the dept: training, liability and public perception.
Training and liability are tightly interwoven. Perception was the driving force.

Training was interesting under the old mandate. Some COs when asked the question what would you do if.......responded shoot them in the foot. How good are you at 100' when he's running? If shot placement was inter-cranial, what is the result? Is there not a wound?

New mandate is satisfied when the threat is over and the count is right.

Yata hey

 

[Old Grump]

imported post

would you risk your life to help another?

Simple question and my answer was predicated on that, not whether or not I was armed and not on whether it was advisable to shoot or not shoot. If somebody is in mortal danger and its possible for me to aid I will, legal ramifications will not be part of my decision. To damn many lawyers in the room and to many cowboys who want to shoot somebody.

 

[EdwardNorton]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

EdwardNorton wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

A Virginia department (DOC) used to instruct that officers should to "shoot to wound" - that has since been changed to "shoot to stop."

I would subscribe to the latter.

Yata hey

Well I learned that from the IDOC and although they may choose to state it differently, it's the same (do not kill unless forced to). No doubt it's a legal liability issue more than anything.

I worked in a supermax and I sincerely doubt anyone would miss the offender (formally convict before politically correctness became an issue), they all are obligated to protect and preserve life for all those incarcerated.

Training was interesting under the old mandate. Some COs when asked the question what would you do if.......responded shoot them in the foot. How good are you at 100' when he's running?


I have no idea regarding how the CO's are trained in your area but we were trained to shoot to wound. At the institution where I was working there are high towers every 200' around the institution. There was 500 feet of open ground between the "hill" where all the dormitories are located. If by chance an inmate escaped from his dorm he would then have to get over 2 12' high fences laden with razor wire and 12 feet between each fence with the outer fence being electric. Now if by some miracle said inmate succeeded in reaching the 500 foot clear zone he would not get past the high towers. Long story to get the to point but each of the high tower officers are expert shots with the M16. There are many places to shoot to wound such as his shoulder, his buttock area, a leg. Being shot with a 223 round in any non vital area is enough to stop any inmate.
I for one would never consider aiming at a foot, nor was that ever mentioned in any training we had. That's just silly.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

EdwardNorton wrote:

I for one would never consider aiming at a foot, nor was that ever mentioned in any training we had. That's just silly.

The "foot shot" thing was a stupid answer by an new trainee - reread my post.

My point was between "wounding" and "stopping" there is little to no difference in a well placed shot. Center of mass was the primary focus - pun intended - and center of mass has the potential to satisfy both criteria.

The word change was accomplished to help with PR - the public's perception.

Yata hey