For DUers with guns either concealed or not. Would you intervene

with fire if you saw someone shooting people you did not know.


Personally I would not.

Someone shot up a shopping mall where I live last year...but you have to wonder if by shooting the person, would you be charged with murder?

:evilgrin:

Here in Florida to prevent a car jacking. Now I was initially arrested but released and not charged later when everything was sorted out.

Plead not to be tasered? Start acting insane and pulled a small, dark object out of your pocket? Try to run away?

If the answer was "no" to all those questions, were you roughed up/tasered/beaten anyway?

That's what has been taught in every self-defense class I've taken.

If the force you're using is proportionate to the threat, you won't be held liable for murder, although you might get charged for carrying a concealed weapon (if that's appropriate in your jurisdiction).

this sparked my interest since I hopefully will be able to afford a firearm, classes and a conceal permit soon.

I have no moral problem with shooting someone on a rampage, but there is always the law to consider :evilgrin:

being mistaken for the original gunman, and shot by yet another armed citizen.

Cheers
Drifter

it should at least be a detailed hypothetic. :P


What's the situation? Are the people being shot at armed as well? Or are they a group of kindergartners screaming for their mommies?

Intervene in a gang war? Oh, hell no!

Try to help some children? Oh, hell yes!

Are they shooting at me?

You are vulnerable civilly.

--IMM

You're right about the "too many ways to be wrong" part, though.

It would have to be a VERY cut-and-dried situation before I would even consider doing more than dialing 911.

Did anyone read about the plainclothes cop who got shot in Norfolk a year or two ago? He had his gun out, and another cop shot him. Too many ways to be wrong....

When the cops come, you don't want to be holding a gun.

--IMM

....something involving small children as the targets?

I realize this is an extreme example, but there would be more to the decision than whether I knew the people involved or not.

wouldn't do anything to stop him? I'd feel responsible for anyone else who died after I saw what was going on if I didn't do something to intervene

Come on. All things being equal, with no indication that the people shot are bad or deserve it, the only noble thing to do would be to intervene. This is contingent on the fact that the only way I would carry a gun would be if I were an excellent shot and capable of shooting the perpetrator just in the leg.

cause being such a good shot you only aim for the arm or leg to stop someone is one of those fallacies among those who aren't real familiar with firearms training. Civilians and Law Enforcement are taught to shoot center mass.

The surest way to stop the threat is to aim for center mass. Anything else is foolish...and usualy dangerous.

That's just what I would do hypothetically. Plus I liked watching the Loan Ranger when I was a kid.

In today's lawsuit-happy culture? Hell, no. Even if I was sure I had the tactical advantage and a reasonable chance of avoiding getting shot myself, there's not a chance I'd intervene.

My state law generally does allow shooting someone to prevent a violent felony.

However, the exact circumstances always determine whether or not it was appropriate for anyone to shoot. If shooting would endanger innocent people, definitely not.

But if there were a school shooting going on and you could stop it, it would be hard not to act. The only trouble is when the cops show up they might mistake you for the shooter.

Or something like that. Oh, wait is this not the the NRA site? :evilgrin:

It's legal to use force to defend others, but that doesn't guarantee you a smooth ride through the courts. If I saw someone shooting at people in public and somehow knew that he was bent on VT-style mass murder, I would try to take him down. But if it was a gang battle or bank robbery or something similar, I would just book it.

CCW holders are drilled with the fact that they aren't supposed to behave like superheroes or "freelance police," so in most situations I would just run. If I saw someone getting assaulted by an unarmed attacker, chances are better that I would intervene, as most crooks without firearms are smart enough to run away when one is pointed at them.

Would depend if I could differentiate the good guys from the bad guys. Otherwise I'm staying out of it unless they're coming for me.

I would open fire even if the shooter were a uniformed police officer, if the victim(s) were obviously unarmed and it was apparent that I was witnessing some sort of murder. In most of the country, the legal definition of "self-defense" includes the defense of others unable to defend themselves.

If the targets were armed, on the other hand, I wouldn't get involved. Too many variables in that case...it could be a gang shootout, the shooter could be an undercover officer taking down murderous criminals...the possibilities are too numerous to count. I'd watch to act as a witness later if needed, but I wouldn't shoot.

Otherwise, it's very, very hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys these days.

Usually.

I'm sick of all those scary-ass clowns anyway! *shudder*

I'm always confusing Ninjas with Middle Eastern terrorists anyway, so I'm good to go there.


:rofl:

While you do not need to know the people involved, you do need to be able to accurately distinguish the Good Guys from the Bad Guys. If I can accurately do that, and if me/mine are out of harm's way, I might be willing to do so depending on the where/how/how-many of things.

What I read there is "You see a person you do not know firing on someone else you do not know." I call the police in this situation.

1. I am not a vigilante.
2. I do not know what is going on; I do not know if the shooter is firing in self-defense, if it's a game of paintball, or what.
3. I do not want to be legally responsible for injuring or wounding anyone.
4. I do not know who else is around, and I do not want to draw the attention of someone with a firearm.

I mean, this is quite literally asking "You see a suspicious situation. Would you shoot first and ask questions later?" No responsible gun owner would say yes.

I have too admit... it would be pretty awesome incinerating some bad guy
with one of these...



Unfortunately, even the most hardcore right to self defense prosecutor would
probably have a problem with that.

and my wife and kids are safe at home, I might try to shoot him if I can do it safely.

Depends on how clear-cut the situation was. For example, is there a chance this is lawful use of force by an undercover officer or CHL holder? If there is, I'm hanging back and calling 9-1-1 until the situation is clearer.

How imminent is the threat to others? Can I take the shot without posing significant risk to bystanders?

Do I have a high-probability shot? Is there cover/concealment I can use?

Does it appear that the shooter has accomplices, and if so, where are they?

If my family is with me, is intervening more likely or less likely to be the safest course of action for them?

And so on.

If I was in a restaurant or a mall, and some loser came in with a shotgun and started shooting innocent people, and I was in a position to know what was going on and to intervene, yes, I most likely would intervene. If I'm in the parking lot and I see one person pointing a gun at another, on the other hand, I'm hanging back, watching from cover, and describing what I see to 9-1-1. Depends on the situation.

you are also being targeted by the gunman. Then it becomes a simple issue of self-preservation. The law recognizes that. The law does not recognize vigilantism. Saving others from being gunned down would be a side benefit if you were also being targeted and you were armed. If you weren't being targeted, my advice is to stay away and simply call the police. No need for heroics that could get even more people killed.