How Far Would You Go To Help?

[nightmare69]

And his follow up : "who said there needs to be a weapon used. "

The entries here are troubling. I see almost no one willing to help a helpless individual. I see excuses ,rationalizations, fear and let me say it, cowardice.

I could go on but I will leave it there.

Let me end with of course I would have interceded, no question, no rationalization. It was a human being that needed help from the evil that was attacking him. He could have easily died.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing- Edmund Burke.

Evil triumphed that day gentlemen as there were no good men there willing to do anything.

So many factors come into play in this situation and unless you're a young trained fighter or someone on the same martial arts level as IP Man you can't call those who won't get involved for their own safety a coward. Also the legal aspect and the huge financial cost of it as well.

If you do get involved and it gets to the point you're forced to pull your weapon and use it against unarmed black kids...you will be on national news with BLM calling for your head. Be prepared to get yourself and family out of town and hide for months on end.

Your best hope is you get involved and they back-off. What if they don't? You prepare to take a beating or are you willing to kill and pray they don't take your weapon from you? Whatever you do, I pray the Lord is with you.

[bayou]

Having a CHL does not make you a law enforcement officer. Calling 911 and being a good witness is what is required of citizens. To abstain from intervening is not an act of cowardice. Some of the forum members are not in their prime anymore due to age or injuries. Physically intervening most likely would end up in a beating from the gang and/or several gunshot deaths and injuries. Before one judges others maybe they should consider all the facts.

[Bitter Clinger]

Do not stand idly by while your neighbor's blood is shed.

The biblical requirement to intervene is found in Leviticus 19:16.

What does this obligation entail? There is no obligation under the law in this country to rescue an endangered individual.

This biblical law requires you to help another and to not do so is sinful. However, it does not require to you to place your own life at risk. For example, if you see someone drowning but you yourself cannot swim, you must do whatever you can, such as tossing a life preserver & rope.

Similarly for the situation we are discussing here, you must at least, as minimum call 911. To do any less is an agriegious sin and shows a complete lack of humanity.

After that, it's up to you, your level of training and abilities, and your tolerance for the risk of what will happen afterward.

I think they caught one of these deliquents already tonight. Personally I think that had anyone intervened and the gang bangers were injured or killed, that would be just desserts.

[K.Mooneyham]

Some folks have done well financially, and can afford to take a chance on needing expensive lawyers to extricate them from precarious legal circumstances. Kudos to those folks, I'm happy for them, zero sarcasm intended. Others of us are just regular blue-collar folks who do well to pay the bills, keep a roof over our heads, and do what we can for our families.

[The Annoyed Man]

TAM, at age 74 carrying a .380 with 6 in the mag if I pulled my gun I would have to use it and reload with as many as were involved. Not a situation I want to be in. I know the court decision that says police don't have to protect. They didn't say I have to protect someone else. I think of the 3 guys in Oregon I believe that tried to protect 2 Muslim girls on a train and one was stabbed to death for his effort. The girls ran. I am not the type that would not help another person. I pulled a guy out of a truck after an accident that was covered in diesel and could have gotten both of us killed. This particular situation with so many kids would have been tough to handle by me unless they just stopped and ran. I am just not a young man like I used to be. On the other hand, I have gotten to be an old man because I am no longer young and stupid. I had an unruly gang of kids do this to me as a kid in the NYC subway system and nobody intervened so I know what it is like first hand. Now I believe that NYC has cops on every train. The other issue is that one of these kids might have had a gun too and I could have ended up in the morgue. No easy answer here. Easy to be brave on a forum, tougher to be honest.

Everything you say above is true, which is why I expressed some doubts of my own above. BTW, I've seen "unpleasantness" on a NYC subway car too, although I wasn't beaten senseless. But I did have to defend myself. Fortunately, it turned out OK other than some minor bumps and bruises. I was also jumped by a gang once while walking back to my apartment from the local grocery store. It happened on E 83rd St, between 2nd and 3rd Avenue....which was supposed to be a decent neighborhood. Again, I came out of it a little scuffed up but relatively unharmed. I also remember Bernhard Goetz, although by that time, I was back living in SoCal. I remember thinking at the time, "good for him.....too bad it happened in NYC though". But the reason I "challenged" you a little bit (for lack of a better word), was to say that surely you have your limits where you would intervene......for instance the hypothetical child molester I posed in my previous post. I don't think any of us are purists when it comes to our default position. There are always some exceptions where the moral imperative overrides the self-preservation imperative.

It's also important to ensure that you fully understand the situation. In your "child molester" scenario, what happens when it turns out that the teenage girl is really a very young looking 19 year old who is role playing with her much older boyfriend? Personal morality aside, this is a (mostly) legal situation aside from public indecency, but hardly a case that justifies deadly force.

There is a tendency by some (not you) to ask hypotheticals of "would be use deadly force in XYZ scenario". But whenever I envision these scenarios it always starts with verbal commands and/or questions like "Stop", "What are you doing?", "Are you OK?", and goes from there. In these types of cases, I would need to be prepared for the situation to escalate to deadly force but I have a hard time envisioning a shooting scenario in public that doesn't involve some type of escalation. At home in the middle of the night is a different story.

I should have used more specific language. I was thinking "adult man, 5 year old girl".

[WTR]

I see this as almost two separate incidents. If you want to rationalize not intervening on the train......go for it. However. once the beating spilled out onto the platform, I can see no reason not to intervene. I can not in good conscious stand by and let a man be beaten unconscious with a skate board. I believe those cowards would have wet their pants had a gun pulled from a safe distance. You could have left your family safely on the train ( if you foolish enough to have your family on that route at that time of night), you could have adjusted your distance from the punks and picked a clean line of fire if needed.

[cirus]

Prison would be the only thing that would keep me from getting involved. I don't know what I would do until confronted with the situation. If there was no chance of jail I'd solve the problem once and for all.

[anygunanywhere]

Way back in the good old days when men were men and the women were women, criminals were dealt with appropriately and the justice system meted out justice appropriately and you could count on this fact if you decided to intervene in situations.

It ain't that way anymore and if you act as if it is you very well may lose more than you bargained for.

[Bitter Clinger]

So far two brothers arrested, 23 and 21 years old! These are NOT teenagers or children!

http://www.fox4news.com/news/271873656-story

[K.Mooneyham]

TAM, at age 74 carrying a .380 with 6 in the mag if I pulled my gun I would have to use it and reload with as many as were involved. Not a situation I want to be in. I know the court decision that says police don't have to protect. They didn't say I have to protect someone else. I think of the 3 guys in Oregon I believe that tried to protect 2 Muslim girls on a train and one was stabbed to death for his effort. The girls ran. I am not the type that would not help another person. I pulled a guy out of a truck after an accident that was covered in diesel and could have gotten both of us killed. This particular situation with so many kids would have been tough to handle by me unless they just stopped and ran. I am just not a young man like I used to be. On the other hand, I have gotten to be an old man because I am no longer young and stupid. I had an unruly gang of kids do this to me as a kid in the NYC subway system and nobody intervened so I know what it is like first hand. Now I believe that NYC has cops on every train. The other issue is that one of these kids might have had a gun too and I could have ended up in the morgue. No easy answer here. Easy to be brave on a forum, tougher to be honest.

Everything you say above is true, which is why I expressed some doubts of my own above. BTW, I've seen "unpleasantness" on a NYC subway car too, although I wasn't beaten senseless. But I did have to defend myself. Fortunately, it turned out OK other than some minor bumps and bruises. I was also jumped by a gang once while walking back to my apartment from the local grocery store. It happened on E 83rd St, between 2nd and 3rd Avenue....which was supposed to be a decent neighborhood. Again, I came out of it a little scuffed up but relatively unharmed. I also remember Bernhard Goetz, although by that time, I was back living in SoCal. I remember thinking at the time, "good for him.....too bad it happened in NYC though". But the reason I "challenged" you a little bit (for lack of a better word), was to say that surely you have your limits where you would intervene......for instance the hypothetical child molester I posed in my previous post. I don't think any of us are purists when it comes to our default position. There are always some exceptions where the moral imperative overrides the self-preservation imperative.

It's also important to ensure that you fully understand the situation. In your "child molester" scenario, what happens when it turns out that the teenage girl is really a very young looking 19 year old who is role playing with her much older boyfriend? Personal morality aside, this is a (mostly) legal situation aside from public indecency, but hardly a case that justifies deadly force.

There is a tendency by some (not you) to ask hypotheticals of "would be use deadly force in XYZ scenario". But whenever I envision these scenarios it always starts with verbal commands and/or questions like "Stop", "What are you doing?", "Are you OK?", and goes from there. In these types of cases, I would need to be prepared for the situation to escalate to deadly force but I have a hard time envisioning a shooting scenario in public that doesn't involve some type of escalation. At home in the middle of the night is a different story.

I should have used more specific language. I was thinking "adult man, 5 year old girl".

And I would like to think that most of the people who are members of this forum would certainly intervene in a situation where a grown man was violently assaulting a small child. WAY different circumstances than what occurred on the so-called Mugger Mover.

[K.Mooneyham]

Way back in the good old days when men were men and the women were women, criminals were dealt with appropriately and the justice system meted out justice appropriately and you could count on this fact if you decided to intervene in situations.

It ain't that way anymore and if you act as if it is you very well may lose more than you bargained for.

You seem to have the way of it, nice summation of the thing.

[Flightmare]

TAM, at age 74 carrying a .380 with 6 in the mag if I pulled my gun I would have to use it and reload with as many as were involved. Not a situation I want to be in. I know the court decision that says police don't have to protect. They didn't say I have to protect someone else. I think of the 3 guys in Oregon I believe that tried to protect 2 Muslim girls on a train and one was stabbed to death for his effort. The girls ran. I am not the type that would not help another person. I pulled a guy out of a truck after an accident that was covered in diesel and could have gotten both of us killed. This particular situation with so many kids would have been tough to handle by me unless they just stopped and ran. I am just not a young man like I used to be. On the other hand, I have gotten to be an old man because I am no longer young and stupid. I had an unruly gang of kids do this to me as a kid in the NYC subway system and nobody intervened so I know what it is like first hand. Now I believe that NYC has cops on every train. The other issue is that one of these kids might have had a gun too and I could have ended up in the morgue. No easy answer here. Easy to be brave on a forum, tougher to be honest.

Everything you say above is true, which is why I expressed some doubts of my own above. BTW, I've seen "unpleasantness" on a NYC subway car too, although I wasn't beaten senseless. But I did have to defend myself. Fortunately, it turned out OK other than some minor bumps and bruises. I was also jumped by a gang once while walking back to my apartment from the local grocery store. It happened on E 83rd St, between 2nd and 3rd Avenue....which was supposed to be a decent neighborhood. Again, I came out of it a little scuffed up but relatively unharmed. I also remember Bernhard Goetz, although by that time, I was back living in SoCal. I remember thinking at the time, "good for him.....too bad it happened in NYC though". But the reason I "challenged" you a little bit (for lack of a better word), was to say that surely you have your limits where you would intervene......for instance the hypothetical child molester I posed in my previous post. I don't think any of us are purists when it comes to our default position. There are always some exceptions where the moral imperative overrides the self-preservation imperative.

It's also important to ensure that you fully understand the situation. In your "child molester" scenario, what happens when it turns out that the teenage girl is really a very young looking 19 year old who is role playing with her much older boyfriend? Personal morality aside, this is a (mostly) legal situation aside from public indecency, but hardly a case that justifies deadly force.

There is a tendency by some (not you) to ask hypotheticals of "would be use deadly force in XYZ scenario". But whenever I envision these scenarios it always starts with verbal commands and/or questions like "Stop", "What are you doing?", "Are you OK?", and goes from there. In these types of cases, I would need to be prepared for the situation to escalate to deadly force but I have a hard time envisioning a shooting scenario in public that doesn't involve some type of escalation. At home in the middle of the night is a different story.

I should have used more specific language. I was thinking "adult man, 5 year old girl".

And I would like to think that most of the people who are members of this forum would certainly intervene in a situation where a grown man was violently assaulting a small child. WAY different circumstances than what occurred on the so-called Mugger Mover.

There is a HUGE tactical difference between an LTC taking on 1 assailant vs taking on 5-7 assailants in a confined place such as a DART train.

[WTR]

TAM, at age 74 carrying a .380 with 6 in the mag if I pulled my gun I would have to use it and reload with as many as were involved. Not a situation I want to be in. I know the court decision that says police don't have to protect. They didn't say I have to protect someone else. I think of the 3 guys in Oregon I believe that tried to protect 2 Muslim girls on a train and one was stabbed to death for his effort. The girls ran. I am not the type that would not help another person. I pulled a guy out of a truck after an accident that was covered in diesel and could have gotten both of us killed. This particular situation with so many kids would have been tough to handle by me unless they just stopped and ran. I am just not a young man like I used to be. On the other hand, I have gotten to be an old man because I am no longer young and stupid. I had an unruly gang of kids do this to me as a kid in the NYC subway system and nobody intervened so I know what it is like first hand. Now I believe that NYC has cops on every train. The other issue is that one of these kids might have had a gun too and I could have ended up in the morgue. No easy answer here. Easy to be brave on a forum, tougher to be honest.

Everything you say above is true, which is why I expressed some doubts of my own above. BTW, I've seen "unpleasantness" on a NYC subway car too, although I wasn't beaten senseless. But I did have to defend myself. Fortunately, it turned out OK other than some minor bumps and bruises. I was also jumped by a gang once while walking back to my apartment from the local grocery store. It happened on E 83rd St, between 2nd and 3rd Avenue....which was supposed to be a decent neighborhood. Again, I came out of it a little scuffed up but relatively unharmed. I also remember Bernhard Goetz, although by that time, I was back living in SoCal. I remember thinking at the time, "good for him.....too bad it happened in NYC though". But the reason I "challenged" you a little bit (for lack of a better word), was to say that surely you have your limits where you would intervene......for instance the hypothetical child molester I posed in my previous post. I don't think any of us are purists when it comes to our default position. There are always some exceptions where the moral imperative overrides the self-preservation imperative.

It's also important to ensure that you fully understand the situation. In your "child molester" scenario, what happens when it turns out that the teenage girl is really a very young looking 19 year old who is role playing with her much older boyfriend? Personal morality aside, this is a (mostly) legal situation aside from public indecency, but hardly a case that justifies deadly force.

There is a tendency by some (not you) to ask hypotheticals of "would be use deadly force in XYZ scenario". But whenever I envision these scenarios it always starts with verbal commands and/or questions like "Stop", "What are you doing?", "Are you OK?", and goes from there. In these types of cases, I would need to be prepared for the situation to escalate to deadly force but I have a hard time envisioning a shooting scenario in public that doesn't involve some type of escalation. At home in the middle of the night is a different story.

I should have used more specific language. I was thinking "adult man, 5 year old girl".

And I would like to think that most of the people who are members of this forum would certainly intervene in a situation where a grown man was violently assaulting a small child. WAY different circumstances than what occurred on the so-called Mugger Mover.

There is a HUGE tactical difference between an LTC taking on 1 assailant vs taking on 5-7 assailants in a confined place such as a DART train.

What is your rationale for not intervenelng on the platform which is not confined?

[Jago668]

I view them being confined as a bonus. It limits their ability to move off the X once you start shooting. I would barely have to track targets, you could almost just blind fire in a straight line. Disparity of force, 7 on 1. I would intervene, and the reason I carry 2 extra mags.

[RogueUSMC]

Doctrine...you have to establish yours.

A country's military trains under a given doctrine. In WWII, Russia's doctrine was throw the kitchen sink in there and the heck with casualties. American forces do not and have never adopted that doctrine but doctrine it was.

You have planning and you have doctrine. Planning is done to apply to a given tactical or strategic situation. Once contact is made, the plan usually deviates from it's original form to adapt to the situation that has been changed by the enemy's actions. This is where doctrine takes over.

If platoon 'A' loses comm with platoon 'B', platoon leader 'A' knows roughly what platoon leader 'B' will do next because of doctrine. They can coordinate to a certain extent without communication.

When carrying a gun, you need to establish your doctrine for yourself. Well, this applies to other facets of life as well but...

Your doctrine needs to be decided before the call for it is needed. If you draw your gun, plan to use it...if you use it, plan to stop the threat...stopping the threat is best accomplished by stopping a heartbeat. The answers that are established here will be doctrine.

The only decisions that should need to be made IN the situation is when/if to stop that process already determined by doctrine.

If you wait until you are in a situation to decide how to handle it, you are doing yourself and those others involved a disservice...