musing about civic duties - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: musing about civic duties

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,348
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by JCliff View Post
    Very, very big difference between running to render aid to the victims of a bomb blast, an accident, a fire, etc., and drawing your firearm and wading into a situation that otherwise did not involve you.
    Unless you take into consideration that there was a risk of an assault immediately after the bombings. It's hard to say what you would do since bombings are followed by confusion and chaos. I think we are fortunate that those two didn't decide to attack the crowd. In Boston, besides the cops, who would have been armed?

    Myself, I couldn't see myself passing by a dying man or woman or child, but were my family with me, it's hard to say in what order I would do things.

  2.   
  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by fudo View Post
    As I was watching the TV coverage from Boston tonight, I heard of numerous cases of average citizens stepping up to aid victims of the bombing there. Given that the 1-2 bombing , where the second bomb is set to kill the first responders, has been a known tactic of cowards with bombs for years, these courageous people risked life and limb to help their fellow humans.

    Some months ago, there were a number of threads about how to respond to an "active shooter" situation in a workplace or store. Several people championed the position that they would leave the area without assisting others or incurring any risk, and stating that their weapons and training are there to protect themselves and family and that everyone else is on their own. And that anyone who gets involved is either a Rambo wannabe or stupid.

    This position seemed small minded then. In the light of recent events it seems even more so. I wonder if they think that these civic heroes are stupid, or Rambo wannabe's? I think that those who help their fellow citizens in the middle of a potentially hazardous situations are heroic, not stupid or attention wh****.
    I will also point out that there is a big difference between acts of terrorism, versus acts against individuals. An act of terrorism involves everyone. By being an American citizen, you are involved and you have been targeted, whether or not you were one of the people to be directly harmed by the act. In this case you should be doing what you can to stop the act or make yourself helpful.

    Active shooting situations where one person is targeting specific individuals is a little different. You have the choice of involving yourself or not. Where you may have not be a target, you may make yourself a target by involving yourself. Thus you have to weight the pros and cons of choosing to act. Whereas in a terrorism situation, you are already a target by who you are/ what group you belong to.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Every situation is different. There are no pat answers. No one has suggested that it's the right thing to do to "lay down fire" in a situation you are not sure about.

    I happened to know which thread(s) fudo was referring to in his OP, so I linked to the one I thought would cover the most well-reasoned point/counter-point on the subject. There's no need to rehash the specific incident that happened in the Spartanburg, SC Waffle House in Jan., 2012 here in this thread, but I highly suggest that you read a fair sampling of the thread to get a feel for the various nuances a legal shooter might consider in the defense of others. It's a process of nanosecond by nanosecond evaluation, not charging in looking for someone to shoot.

    JCliff gave some good advice in his first post when he said that almost all the thinking about it should be done long before one gets into a shooting situation. If one has thought about it to the degree they should, they already know within themselves what is most important to them; doing the legal thing, or doing the right thing. In a perfect world, there would be no difference between the two, but this world is far from perfect when we're talking about the use of a gun. If the law says I have a duty to retreat before I use my weapon, and I just happen to come upon a woman being raped and beaten up by three or four guys, screw the law, I'm breakin' leather and making it clear to them that if they want to continue, I'm going to make it as tough for them as I can. Whether they run (like they damn well should) or I have to fire my weapon in defense of the woman, and I get arrested and incur legal expenses, and maybe even time in jail, oh well, I still know I did the right thing.

    Some folks don't have that much confidence in their ability to discern right from wrong under pressure, or to be able to endure the legal consequences when there's a conflict between what's right and what's legal. My personal opinion is that those folks should leave their weapons at home. Right or wrong though, it is their legal right to disregard my opinions in most jurisdictions in this country. They can do what they want. I will always strive to do what is right.

    And BTW, I've been carrying for over 30 years, both professionally and privately, and never once have I brandished my weapon, much less had to shoot anyone. I sincerely hope I maintain that record until the day I die, but that's not up to me, it's up to someone who thinks their desire to victimize me or others trumps a citizen's right to stop them from doing it.

    Blues
    Not really sure where you are going with this. You've carried for 30 years and never had to act in a manner which you are defending yourself or others. So what you are saying is you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to acting in a high pressure situation, you just think you do. I am glad however that you are a moral authority on judgement, though, it is my assessment that those that rush in without knowing all the facts and with inadequate skill set and experience trying to make a difference just just make matters worse.

    You propose this concept of a Legal shooter. I counter that regardless of circumstance you being actively engaged in a fire fight either before or as law enforcement arrive will have little impact on their perception as to their actions towards you. Why? Because they can only act on what they immediately see.

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Eirik View Post
    Not really sure where you are going with this. You've carried for 30 years and never had to act in a manner which you are defending yourself or others. So what you are saying is you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to acting in a high pressure situation, you just think you do.
    Well, yeah, I think I know how I would/will react in a high pressure situation because I've had very good and fairly extensive training in overcoming, or minimizing as the case may be, the physiological impediments that result from such situations. So saying I "think" I know how I'd react is accurate, but saying I "have no idea how" I'd react is decidedly not. That statement would apply to you saying such a thing about someone of whom you know absolutely nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eirik View Post
    I am glad however that you are a moral authority on judgement....
    You left out a word there....I am the moral authority on my judgment. I don't speak for anyone but myself, though I happen to know that there are those around here who agree with my judgment(s) about my moral duty to act, and they incorporate the same or similar judgments and authority over themselves. If you don't, fine, but what's with the 'tude about it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eirik View Post
    ....though, it is my assessment that those that rush in without knowing all the facts and with inadequate skill set and experience trying to make a difference just just make matters worse.
    Well, if you insist on keeping to the meme that no CC'er is capable of evaluating a given situation (without rushing) and concluding to a moral certainty (through observation of the facts in front of them) that the only right thing to do is act (many, if not most around here, with more than adequate skill), while being disciplined in their tactics and true in their aim, then all you've got to say in this thread is that there is no scenario in your mind that would justify someone capable of helping a third party who is being violently victimized right in front of their eyes from doing so. Not every member of this forum would vehemently disagree with you on that score, but many will, and I definitely do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eirik View Post
    You propose this concept of a Legal shooter.
    I "proposed" nothing. I acknowledged that there is a difference between a legal shooting (or shooter, but the words are synonymous in the context I am using them here) and an illegal shooting, and informed you that the bulk of what the OP opened the conversation with was a thread about a legal shooting. That case was one where the shooter was not being directly threatened when he decided to break leather, but which was determined that same morning to be a legal shoot based both on SC laws concerning defense of self and defense of others. I "proposed" no concept that the facts of the case we were loosely referring to weren't perfectly consistent with in reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eirik View Post
    I counter that regardless of circumstance you being actively engaged in a fire fight either before or as law enforcement arrive will have little impact on their perception as to their actions towards you. Why? Because they can only act on what they immediately see.
    No cops were called in the case we (at least fudo and I) were loosely basing our comments on. How would we know that? Because the shooter himself joined the site for the express purpose of correcting tons of bad information that the media reported, and also to correct tons of know-nothing Monday-morning quarterbacking that was going on in the thread prior to his arrival. Cops couldn't have known that there was a robbery in progress because the robbery was in a small space where the armed robber could've seen anyone making a phone call. When the two robbers started ordering patrons and employees on the floor and making them low-crawl on their bellies towards a back room, the CC'er used a small divider between himself and the cash register to conceal him drawing his weapon, and when the robber with the gun turned away from him, that's when he engaged him. Told him to drop his weapon, he spun around and pointed it at the CC'er instead, and the CC'er fired two to center mass and one to the forehead. He tried also to make the other robber stay until the cops got there, but when the guy took off, he applied his training and refrained from firing at him. He didn't "rush in." He was there eating eggs and waffles after working a night shift at a welding shop. He "knew all the facts" as he had just gotten his breakfast when the robbers came in and started immediately threatening to kill MF'ers. He obviously had the "adequate skill" considering his shot-placement and his restraint in not shooting the unarmed fleeing thug in the back.

    What the cops "immediately" saw when they did get there was a compliant, calm, well-spoken 23-year-old who, like me at the same age, only had his permission slip to carry for a year or so at the time, and who never wanted to be a hero, never wanted to have to shoot anyone, but who was prepared to shoot in defense of himself and/or others if the circumstances required it to save his or others' lives. And in doing so, describing him as a "legal shooter" is not a "concept," it's a fact according to SC law.

    I tried to lead you by the nose to the thread so it wouldn't be necessary to rehash the facts of the case here, but you were only interested in making stuff up about "rushing in" and not having "adequate training" and blah blah blah frickin' blah. Let me guess.....Are you a cop? Is that what your antipathy for CC'ers potentially acting in a third party's defense is all about? Sure sounds like it. Whether or not you're a cop though, maybe hearing the CC'er's Sheriff talk about his specific case will help you understand that scenarios where a CC'er can help others is not, and should not, always be seen in a negative light as you have chosen to see it in this thread.



    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  6. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Well, yeah, I think I know how I would/will react in a high pressure situation because I've had very good and fairly extensive training in overcoming, or minimizing as the case may be, the physiological impediments that result from such situations. So saying I "think" I know how I'd react is accurate, but saying I "have no idea how" I'd react is decidedly not. That statement would apply to you saying such a thing about someone of whom you know absolutely nothing.



    You left out a word there....I am the moral authority on my judgment. I don't speak for anyone but myself, though I happen to know that there are those around here who agree with my judgment(s) about my moral duty to act, and they incorporate the same or similar judgments and authority over themselves. If you don't, fine, but what's with the 'tude about it?



    Well, if you insist on keeping to the meme that no CC'er is capable of evaluating a given situation (without rushing) and concluding to a moral certainty (through observation of the facts in front of them) that the only right thing to do is act (many, if not most around here, with more than adequate skill), while being disciplined in their tactics and true in their aim, then all you've got to say in this thread is that there is no scenario in your mind that would justify someone capable of helping a third party who is being violently victimized right in front of their eyes from doing so. Not every member of this forum would vehemently disagree with you on that score, but many will, and I definitely do.



    I "proposed" nothing. I acknowledged that there is a difference between a legal shooting (or shooter, but the words are synonymous in the context I am using them here) and an illegal shooting, and informed you that the bulk of what the OP opened the conversation with was a thread about a legal shooting. That case was one where the shooter was not being directly threatened when he decided to break leather, but which was determined that same morning to be a legal shoot based both on SC laws concerning defense of self and defense of others. I "proposed" no concept that the facts of the case we were loosely referring to weren't perfectly consistent with in reality.



    No cops were called in the case we (at least fudo and I) were loosely basing our comments on. How would we know that? Because the shooter himself joined the site for the express purpose of correcting tons of bad information that the media reported, and also to correct tons of know-nothing Monday-morning quarterbacking that was going on in the thread prior to his arrival. Cops couldn't have known that there was a robbery in progress because the robbery was in a small space where the armed robber could've seen anyone making a phone call. When the two robbers started ordering patrons and employees on the floor and making them low-crawl on their bellies towards a back room, the CC'er used a small divider between himself and the cash register to conceal him drawing his weapon, and when the robber with the gun turned away from him, that's when he engaged him. Told him to drop his weapon, he spun around and pointed it at the CC'er instead, and the CC'er fired two to center mass and one to the forehead. He tried also to make the other robber stay until the cops got there, but when the guy took off, he applied his training and refrained from firing at him. He didn't "rush in." He was there eating eggs and waffles after working a night shift at a welding shop. He "knew all the facts" as he had just gotten his breakfast when the robbers came in and started immediately threatening to kill MF'ers. He obviously had the "adequate skill" considering his shot-placement and his restraint in not shooting the unarmed fleeing thug in the back.

    What the cops "immediately" saw when they did get there was a compliant, calm, well-spoken 23-year-old who, like me at the same age, only had his permission slip to carry for a year or so at the time, and who never wanted to be a hero, never wanted to have to shoot anyone, but who was prepared to shoot in defense of himself and/or others if the circumstances required it to save his or others' lives. And in doing so, describing him as a "legal shooter" is not a "concept," it's a fact according to SC law.

    I tried to lead you by the nose to the thread so it wouldn't be necessary to rehash the facts of the case here, but you were only interested in making stuff up about "rushing in" and not having "adequate training" and blah blah blah frickin' blah. Let me guess.....Are you a cop? Is that what your antipathy for CC'ers potentially acting in a third party's defense is all about? Sure sounds like it. Whether or not you're a cop though, maybe hearing the CC'er's Sheriff talk about his specific case will help you understand that scenarios where a CC'er can help others is not, and should not, always be seen in a negative light as you have chosen to see it in this thread.



    Blues
    Eirik - We are here to share our knowledge so that we all will know more about carrying and using firearms safely and legally. I think that you would be well advised to throttle back on the attitude a little. This is not a contest and there are no prizes for being clever.
    Blues is 100% right on the facts of the case that I referenced and my take on it.
    War to the Knife, Knife to the hilt.
    If we don't want to live in a trashy area, we all have to be willing to help pick up the trash.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by fudo View Post
    Eirik - We are here to share our knowledge so that we all will know more about carrying and using firearms safely and legally. I think that you would be well advised to throttle back on the attitude a little. This is not a contest and there are no prizes for being clever.
    Blues is 100% right on the facts of the case that I referenced and my take on it.
    You are totally right, there are no prizes. I was simply agreeing with another poster as to the validity of their statement when I was the subject of "attitude". In response I simply pointing out the fallacies in his argument as I see the situation with the same level of attitude I felt was directed at me.

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Eirik View Post
    You are totally right, there are no prizes. I was simply agreeing with another poster as to the validity of their statement when I was the subject of "attitude". In response I simply pointing out the fallacies in his argument as I see the situation with the same level of attitude I felt was directed at me.
    I honestly did not intend any attitude towards you at all. I only intended to address some phraseology you used (laying down fire - not acquainted with the facts etc.) that didn't apply at all to the case that was the basis for the OP. You certainly didn't point out any fallacies in my post, as there were none. I knew what case was the basis for the discussion. You didn't. And I did not present you with an "argument" at all, I made an attempt to get you on the same page as the topic of the thread was intended to inspire discussion about. I don't know how I could have made my post less personal or insulting. All I wanted to do was help you understand the kind of scenario fudo was trying to start a conversation about.

    Seriously, I'm sorry you took offense, but it's really on you, because I know that I did not intend what you perceived in my post.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast