CCW wounded in shootout with robber

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not going to depend on the discretion of the perp.

Clearly, there are no guarantees. There is no guarantee that the perp will decide to leave without harming people. There is no guarantee that the perp won't decide to harm you.

There are also no guarantees that you will win a gunfight with the perp.

There simply are no easy choices in such a situation and there are many, many ways for it to south in a hurry.
 
Sorry, but I think you are equating two different types of events that are very different -- apples to kumquats.

In most robberies, the perps goal is to get the money and amscray. Most perps don't want to die and would rather not kill someone. In many robberies, you may have a chance to get away without intervening. Even if you don't get away, the perp may choose not to harm you.

In contrast, on 9/11 the goal of the perps was to kill everyone on the plane and many more on the ground. They didn't want to get away. If the passengers did nothing they would die and many on the ground would die. If they passengers attacked, then they would probably still die (but might possibly live) and chances are far fewer on the ground would die.

And finally, as has been pointed out on other boards, it is a lot easier to start a gunfight than it is to finish one.

I wasn't trying to say it's the same thing, I don't know what the right thing to do in the BK armed holdup was, I wasn't there. I was commenting more on the attitude of letting bad guys terrorize and victimize others while those who can help sit idly and selfishly by and watch, only concerned about their own safety.

Again, those on Flight 93 were saving their own skin too, but they still had a very different attitude than those on the first 3 planes. Same thing at Virginia Tech. Forget having a gun to shoot back, if every single student rose in unison the moment the gunman first showed his weapon and rushed him, there might have been 2 or 3 dead, but not 32. Instead people hid under their desks and hoped they wouldn't be next. It's just an attitude that is sad to me. Would I have been scared were I there? Yes, terrified. Would I have closed my eyes and hoped for the best? No.

Another true example, again about how today we are CONDITIONED to not act- armed robber takes 3 college age students hostage at gunpoint, one handgun, takes them to ATMs to get money. Then takes them to field, tells them to kneel and proceeds to shoot each one in the head. Why did they accept their execution when they weren't bound and it was 3 against 1? Conditioning.

If every armed robber, terrorist, kidnapper, rapist, etc KNEW that every single person would fight back with full force and with every available weapon, every time, without fail, and every bystander would too, the crime rate would plummet to near zero overnight.
 
Again, those on Flight 93 were saving their own skin too, but they still had a very different attitude than those on the first 3 planes.

They had information that the people on the first three planes did not. They used their cell phones to call loved ones on the ground who told them that other planes had hit the World Trade Center. They knew that if they did nothing that they would die. The people on the first three planes did not -- they thought it would be like previous hijackings where eventually most of the passengers are set free unharmed. So I think the implied criticism of those on the first three planes is, to be polite, unwarranted.

And, btw, a colleague of mine died on AA 11. She was perhaps the sweetest person I've ever known.
 
But I will temper my actions based on the current laws, political climate, and general inclinations of the state of MA. Call me selfish. Call me callous. I don't f***ing care. My first and foremost obligation is to keep my family safe, and I can't do that if I'm behind bars, or I've lost everything I own in a civil suit.

Flame on.

There simply are no easy choices in such a situation and there are many, many ways for it to south in a hurry.

+1. Well said, thank you. [wink]
 
They had information that the people on the first three planes did not. They used their cell phones to call loved ones on the ground who told them that other planes had hit the World Trade Center. They knew that if they did nothing that they would die. The people on the first three planes did not -- they thought it would be like previous hijackings where eventually most of the passengers are set free unharmed. So I think the implied criticism of those on the first three planes is, to be polite, unwarranted.

And, btw, a colleague of mine died on AA 11. She was perhaps the sweetest person I've ever known.

Not my intention to criticize anyone on AA 11 or at Virginia Tech or any other victim. I'm simply stating that we, as a society, are strongly conditioned to do what we're told and not fight back. That's all.
 
No offense, Martlet, but you don't have kids.

I do. My first and most important responsibility is to them. Plain and simple.

That's a cop out. Your family and societal responsibilities aren't greater than mine.

It's not scared, callous, or uncaring - it's a cold, hard fact thrust upon us by our nanny state that "self-help" is discouraged, and, quite frankly, your assertion is insulting. We're talking - very specifically - about the ramifications of jumping in to help as a MA resident in the people's Republik of MA. There's a high probability that you would go to jail. There's a big probability that you would be sued.

If you're insulted, good. I'm insulted that you'd sit there and watch someone's child die because you either lacked the courage or social responsibility to help make this world a better place.

There's a very good chance that you would stand to lose every single thing you've ever worked for in your life, just to help out a stranger. Some people, G-d bless you, have made the decision that they are willing to take that risk. Power to you. I'll step up right now and say if you're ever in that position I will do everything in my power to help you out.

Sometimes doing the right thing isn't an easy choice. That doesn't excuse doing the right thing. I'd rather look my family in the eye from jail, knowing I acted appropriately than explain to my family that I hid behind a Burger King trash can while someone else lost their family.

But you have NO RIGHT to cast aspersions on those of us who will not gamble our freedom on a roll of the dice here in MA. I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to see my kids 2 hours a week from behind bars as a result of my actions helping someone else. Maybe I am callous. But I'm also a realist, and I can foresee very dire results from the action you support in this state.

I have EVERY right. It could be MY family member getting shot because you wouldn't act. Maybe nothing happens that time. Maybe the guy repeats his act, as they often do, THEN my family is harmed. Maybe your failure to act emboldens others to do the crime because there are no serious repercussions or dangers. That encourages the societal attitude we have no and you clearly display: it's not my problem. Guess what? It IS your problem. Maybe not this time.

In a clear-cut case of life-or-death, say, the perp just starts shooting, you bet your ass I'd do anything in my power.

Great. You get the guy AFTER someone dies. I'm sure that's a consolation to the family.

But just watching a strong-arm robbery? That's much harder to gauge sitting in front of my computer monitor. I would absolutely have to be there, and the vast majority of respondents here have said the same thing.

It is hard to gauge. I can't really judge anything without being there. Nobody can. We can theorize, but that's about it. It's also just what we're doing.


I will not make a blanket statement that I would or wouldn't jump in. Not based on the facts I've seen so far in this case. I will state that, yes, I will act immediately if there's the tiniest chance that me or mine would be hurt; I will also state that if there is a clear and present danger to all and sundry as I see it I will also act.

The introduction of a firearm into a robbery, pointed at someone with threats to shoot, is a pretty clear and present danger, IMHO. Unless, of course, you're only concerned if it's pointed at YOU. Then you'll just have to either hope he doesn't shoot, or runs out of bullets before it's your turn.

But I will temper my actions based on the current laws, political climate, and general inclinations of the state of MA. Call me selfish. Call me callous. I don't f***ing care. My first and foremost obligation is to keep my family safe, and I can't do that if I'm behind bars, or I've lost everything I own in a civil suit.

Flame on.

And that's exactly why today's sheeple society is in the toilet.
 
That's a cop out. Your family and societal responsibilities aren't greater than mine.

Yeah. Get back to me after you have kids.

If you're insulted, good. I'm insulted that you'd sit there and watch someone's child die because you either lacked the courage or social responsibility to help make this world a better place.

Whoa, back up the strawman truck for a second. I said I'd assess the situation, not necessarily that I'd do nothing.

Sometimes doing the right thing isn't an easy choice. That doesn't excuse doing the right thing. I'd rather look my family in the eye from jail, knowing I acted appropriately than explain to my family that I hid behind a Burger King trash can while someone else lost their family.

Was there a sale on strawmen? Hiding behind a trash can? Perhaps a hint of projection? Or just willful misrepresentation of my position? Only you know. Only you know why you're inventing things out of whole cloth.

I have EVERY right. It could be MY family member getting shot because you wouldn't act. Maybe nothing happens that time. Maybe the guy repeats his act, as they often do, THEN my family is harmed. Maybe your failure to act emboldens others to do the crime because there are no serious repercussions or dangers. That encourages the societal attitude we have no and you clearly display: it's not my problem. Guess what? It IS your problem. Maybe not this time.

Actually, it's the problem of the dude holding the place up. It's not my position to make everyone obey the laws.

Great. You get the guy AFTER someone dies. I'm sure that's a consolation to the family.

We're gonna need to get some cows in here to clean up all this straw. Once again, another misrepresentation. Is it projection, or just that your position is so weak you have to misrepresent mine to feel better?

It is hard to gauge. I can't really judge anything without being there. Nobody can. We can theorize, but that's about it. It's also just what we're doing.

I'm in complete agreement. Which is why your vehement personal attacks are so puzzling.

The introduction of a firearm into a robbery, pointed at someone with threats to shoot, is a pretty clear and present danger, IMHO. Unless, of course, you're only concerned if it's pointed at YOU. Then you'll just have to either hope he doesn't shoot, or runs out of bullets before it's your turn.

What's that, the fourth strawman? How weak do you feel your position is that you have to create things that just aren't there?

I've stated, repeatedly, that I would need to assess the situation - to actually be there - to state definitively what my response would be.

And yet you've painted me as hiding, quivering in fear behind a trash can, waiting for my turn to die. Or for the perp to run out of ammo.

Why?

Why such a willful distortion of the words I've written? I just don't get it.

And that's exactly why today's sheeple society is in the toilet.

And you can kiss my hairy Italian ass.

I'm through with this bullshit.
 
And we're sooooo glad your opinion is so much better than ours... thank you for continuing to fuel this testosterone trip. [thinking]

I get it. When you don't have a rebuttal, attack the person. That's my belief. If you'd like to counter that statement, feel free. I'll gladly discuss it and expand on why I believe that.

Thanks for contributing.
 
I get it. When you don't have a rebuttal, attack the person. That's my belief. If you'd like to counter that statement, feel free. I'll gladly discuss it and expand on why I believe that.

Thanks for contributing.

No, you need to pay more attention and stop waving your bravado flag for a minute. I spoke my piece early in this "damn the torpedo..." thread. It hasn't changed cause you think so little of other people's opinions.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. Get back to me after you have kids.

I will. Unless my wife is shot and killed while you're cowering behind a Whopper.

Whoa, back up the strawman truck for a second. I said I'd assess the situation, not necessarily that I'd do nothing.

Then I apologize. It's not a straw man. It's a conclusion I reached based upon the information you provided.

Was there a sale on strawmen? Hiding behind a trash can? Perhaps a hint of projection? Or just willful misrepresentation of my position? Only you know. Only you know why you're inventing things out of whole cloth.

Again, not a straw man. A conclusion given the information provided.

Actually, it's the problem of the dude holding the place up. It's not my position to make everyone obey the laws.

And the problem of the person who's life, liberty, and property is threatened. Maybe that of someone you love, while you aren't there to intervene. Hopefully, someone will on your behalf.

We're gonna need to get some cows in here to clean up all this straw. Once again, another misrepresentation. Is it projection, or just that your position is so weak you have to misrepresent mine to feel better?

Then clarify. Repeatedly brushing off a reply without addressing it is a sign that either it's your argument that's weak, or any answer provided would help my point.

I'm in complete agreement. Which is why your vehement personal attacks are so puzzling.

They aren't puzzling, when read in the context of your other replies.

What's that, the fourth strawman? How weak do you feel your position is that you have to create things that just aren't there?

See above.

I've stated, repeatedly, that I would need to assess the situation - to actually be there - to state definitively what my response would be.
And yet you've painted me as hiding, quivering in fear behind a trash can, waiting for my turn to die. Or for the perp to run out of ammo.

Why?

Why such a willful distortion of the words I've written? I just don't get it.


Then why comment in a thread that's theorizing, if your only response is that you don't know? Why not say that and move on?

And you can kiss my hairy Italian ass.

I'm through with this bullshit.

I'll pass, thanks.
 
i never understood the position that because a person is the parent of small children, they are therefore releaved of their obligatation to help other people if rendering aid might jeopardize their ability to provide for said children. by that rationale, any action that puts them in harms way-, such as driving in an automobile-, should be avoided. and what kind of a lesson is that to the children themselves? do they really want to teach those kids to just knuckle under and protect their own stuff? what happens when those people themselves need help?

my father was a big proponent of always avoiding any action that might hinder his ability to provide for his kids, and it's been something i've thought about most of my entire life. in fact, nearly all of the parents i sincerly admire, police, firefighters, service personelle, etc., routinely and i stress voluntarily place themselves in harms way for the good of strangers.

personally, i'd rather have orphaned children living with the example of parents who were heroes, than children who grew up to look the other way.

+1 billion
 
Im not going to read 20 pages of this, But isnt there something to be said for not escalating it? Whats the statistic on how many robbery's end with shooting? I wasnt there, but I would be willing to bet if the clerk just gave him the cash, and nobody tryed anything funny, there wouldnt have been a casualty. I respect that some people choose to not do this, but for me I think that the odds are in my favor that by pulling my gun, I run a greater risk of me or someone getting killed vs if I did nothing.

JM2C

So for rape, do you advocate lying back and trying to enjoy it?
 
See, I read a post like this and think "this is what's wrong with society". The mentality that unless it's "your fight", you should stay out of it. If people actually gave a shit about their fellow man, his property, and their community, the world would likely be a better place.

You get an A for ethics, I suppose, but we are a society of laws and not morality. MYOB is the best way to go, unless of course there is a defined course of action by the bad guy that suggests that human life is being taken or is about to be taken. Chances are if you intervene, you'll be the one going to jail, not the other way around. Property is simply not worth dying for, especially corporate America's.

Mark056
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom