Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Would or wouldn't you?

Bystander gets his wife and hinself to relative safety then comes back to engage thug. He is under no legal requirement to do so but did it anyway. Moral obligation? How would the popo and a jury most likely see it in your area? I know the last question would be dependent on the individuals involved so there is no way of knowing for sure.

It'd be a clean shoot here.

The whole moral obligation thing will surely go crazy here, but I'll say that until I KNOW that all of my tribe are fersureandfercertain safe I'm not playing hero for anybody else. It would be terrible if while I'm getting my people out somebody else gets hurt, but I suppose that those people could've bought a gun too.... I've had pretty heated arguments about that stance with my peers. When they ask how I could sleep at night knowing that somebody had died while I was getting my family out I answer, "I'd sleep miserably. But I'd sleep miserably with my family safe and sound in my home."

He couldn't get his safety off or forgot he didn't have a round in the chamber.... hmmm.

Here I have the right to defend myself and my family. Going back to engage him after retreating to a safer area could go either way.

How that would be interpreted here would depend on the county prosecutor. There is a duty to retreat if possible and that the other bystanders did not attempt to do so when possible might have a bearing on a decision. More probable for charges is the CCW carrier came back after having reached a position of relative safety.

I'm with the above poster- my family or those accompanying me first and others a distant fourth. I'll sleep poorly if someone else got hurt but I wouldn't sleep at all if mine were hurt. Unless there were words threatening harm to others with actions to back them up, I would not have gone as far as the person in the video went. There did not appear to be any threatening action and it is very likely some charge would be brought against me. Even if successful, court action would bankrupt me and the mental anguish during the trial would not be a positive to my family. Protecting my family includes financially and mentally in addition to physically.

^^^This^^^

If I can do anything to save innocent peoples lives I won't hesitate.

He forgot the safety. He’d likely have insisted here at the Fire that he had it down to a reflex, so he’d never fail to disengage it if he ever found himself in a shootout.

People, don’t buy handguns with thumb safeties for defensive carry. In the age of the striker fired auto pistol, it’s an unnecessary handicap that can get you killed.

As a house gun, or a car gun, that's not so much of an issue. The difference is that, when carried on the body, the idea is that it can be drawn at the moment of an attack, in which case it must be a reflexive disengagement of the thumb safety if you have one, which is an added level of complexity to what you want to be a reflexive action (decreasing the likelihood of success).

When kept as a house gun, it's very unlikely that it will need to be a reflex action, since it's generally grabbed when a suspicious sound is heard (breaking glass, or banging on the door), at which point the safety can be deliberately disengaged (while keeping the trigger finger outside the trigger guard) just as you might, for example, deliberately pump your shotgun under the same circumstance (while keeping your trigger finger outside the trigger guard). Similarly with glove compartment carry.

But on the person, the idea is that you're prepared for a quick draw and fire in an almost reflexive manner. The fewer components of that reflexive combination of simultaneous actions, the greater is the likelihood of a successful outcome.

There's a pretty good example used in west coast LEO training about an off-duty LASO deputy standing in a bank line somewhere in So Cal with his little daughter when a robbery occurs. Deputy steps in, engages the bad guy in a gunfight and saves the day. Downside is his 5 or 6 year-old daughter is killed by a stray round from the robber's gun. Not a good outcome.

Nothing immoral about staying out of something and being a good witness unless things go really sideways and you HAVE to act.
Bob

Clean shoot here as well.

There does not have to be a legal requirement to shoot but only a legal justification to do so. Imminent danger to life or the lives of other or preventing a felony involving danger to life meets the legal justification. There is no such thing as a moral obligation to stop a person from stealing money.

While I applaud the guy for being somewhat smart, I think he was an idiot to engage the way he did. The robbery was going down and the robber appeared to just want the money. When CCW guy finally makes his move, he has the big dude moving past him and the cashier is still by the robber and there are bystanders near and behind CCW guy. If robber decides to take a shot or shots, the hero is unnecessarily risking the lives of other people. (Let's face it, he's not that good so as to guaranty a one shot stop. He forgot the safety and gave the bad guy the opportunity to make the first move against him or another bystander. He got lucky that the robber decided to bail rather than start shooting.) It’s great that CCW guy got his person of interest to safety before he engaged, but he didn’t seem to be too concerned about the others.

I totally get shooting if it is an active shooter scenario or it looks like the bad guy is about to start killing people, but this does not appear to be the case. The robber is not in control, as he lets people walk in and around him the entire time. He is focused on the money.

CCW guy could have followed the robber outside the place if he wanted to be a hero and challenged him there.

The guy wasn't in the Cop business. His gun was to protect himself and loved ones. The fact that he was the only one packing doesn't make him responsible for everybody's safety.

IMHO.

I'm thinking along with Cheyenne. Having balls bigger than your brains isn't always an advantage.

I don't wear a badge anymore. Unless I feel someone is about to die, I'm strictly an observer. If, on the other hand, I or my family or a fellow innocent is in immediate danger, I'll take action.

It can be argued that the presence of a firearm is in and of itself a deadly threat, but the gun isn't an animate object. It won't kill me unless the perp does the shooting. I'm willing to risk my neck for a bit to determine if the scrote appears deadly earnest, or just wants to make a buck and escape.

It's a hard decision. I would tend to agree with you in this case,especially having the ability to see the mistakes made and know how bad it could have gone. At the same time it would be horrible if I just stood there and the perp killed somebody as he was leaving. Even if you were to shoot the perp there's a good chance he might return fire killing you or some innocent person. If you were close enough,would you go for a head shot to keep the perp from returning fire, or stick to center mass knowing the increased difficulty with adrenaline going full blast?

An armed robbery is not a shooting thing.

One would need to assess the likely hood and risk of a shooting.

In this case, the good guy (non leo) is the one that started the gunfire in a situation with bystanders.
Was it a good call? Didn't seem to be, but who can be sure from a video.

Seeing what I saw, a savvy plainclothes cop may have decoded to bide his time and not start the action at that time. But, I ain't a cop, and can't say for sure. I am sure that the better trained officers get some instruction on situations like this.

An armed robbery is absolutely a shooting thing. The question is if you’re willing to do the shooting in this armed robbery.

A robbery as compared to an incident here shooting is occuring.
This is probably as close to a shooting as one could come, and could have easily become a shooting by the bad guy. But, the good guy started the gunfire.

It is a great example to start a discission. In many states he clearly was ok to do what he did. Not sure there would be a definitive answer.

The hero nearly got himself killed fiddling with the safety.

Good on him though.

I wouldn't go back in if I was armed with a j-frame snubby.

With my Glock 17 I would feel very confident to ring the perp's bell from a ways off, and using available cover, however light.

I see nothing wrong with that thought process.

“Young” guys questioning the ‘morality ‘ aspect?

The 'morality ' aspect. If you can get your family to safety, and you could do something about it,would you leave other innocents at the mercy of a gunman?

Nope. Every single one was an old guy questioning my bravery and dedication to the cause. It was a off-duty concealed carry class and I facilitated it for a few hundred people. It got a little heated a few times.