I.D.ing the murderer

[tombogan03884]

I drifted from the OP.  There was way to little information to even make any kind of statement.

It was like saying someone shot someone, who are you gonna shoot?

That's how life works Solus

I wasn't concerned about the money, but the clerk facing the gun.  To me the clerk is worth taking the risk.

If your dad was the clerk and was at the point of the gun and a armed stranger decided to get save out the side door and your father was shot, would you compliment the stranger on his wise decision to beat it rather than take his shot and stop the bad guy?

So basically you think it is a good idea to start a gunfight with someone else's head under the gun ?
Your example sucks because the clerks who get shot are usually the ones who don't just give up the INSURED cash.
I sure as hell would not want some f*cking hero wanna be starting a gun fight when the other gun was pointing at the old mans head.
Dude, you are a menace.

[Solus]

That's how life works Solus

So basically you think it is a good idea to start a gunfight with someone else's head under the gun ?
Your example sucks because the clerks who get shot are usually the ones who don't just give up the INSURED cash.
I sure as hell would not want some f*cking hero wanna be starting a gun fight when the other gun was pointing at the old mans head.
Dude, you are a menace.

So I take it you would congratulate the guy for watching your father die when he could have save him?  Maybe give him a high five for being a safe citizen?


I, for one, would not want to be making this report to an officer after getting safe and being a good witness.

"Yes, Officer, I was in the store when the bad gun came in and pointed a gun at the clerk and made demands.  I was able to slip out the door and watched from across the street.  I saw the clerk hand over the insured cash, but I guess it wasn't enough because the bad guy shot him any way.  The bad guy then grabbed a carton of cigarettes and a 12 pace of beer and on the way past the clerk he kick the clerk.  I saw the clerk move, so I guess he wasn't dead yet.  The bad guy shot him in the chest but the clerk was still moving so he shot him in the head. 

I have a Concealed Carry permit and am armed and I had a good clear shot at the bad guy before I left the store and could put him down, but it's not my job.

Too bad you guys didn't get here a few minutes sooner, you might  have saved the old guys life.  C'est la vie."

I could not be satisfied with myself if those were my actions.  YMMV.

[tombogan03884]

With out some "do gooder" changing the dynamic there would most likely be no shooting.
That's the part you don't seem able to comprehend. YOU are the idiot escalating the situation .
Besides, the Old Man is quite capable of dealing with his own situations.

[BBJohnnyT]

If your dad was the clerk and was at the point of the gun and a armed stranger decided to get save out the side door and your father was shot, would you compliment the stranger on his wise decision to beat it rather than take his shot and stop the bad guy?

Now the scenario has completely changed.  If the threatened person is a stranger to me, no way would I get involved, unless it's a child.  If it's my dad, sister, friend, wife, etc, then of course I would react differently.  I'm pretty sure the OP was implying that you stumbled upon a shooting scenario involving people you don't know.

[Timothy]

We had a situation here a few years back where an off duty security cop (not a town or Boston cop) happened upon a guy stabbing a nurse in a local Boston hospital.  He was armed, drew his sidearm and killed the guy.  In that scenario, based on his perception of what was happening, he acted!  Was it appropriate action as a private citizen?  I don't know, that wasn't my call and I wasn't there.

The state did not press charges on the shooter and he was heralded as a local hero for about 15 minutes!

The OP is way too vague and has too many variables that would force me to retreat to a safe place and get on the phone.  If threatened, the dynamic has just changed to something that forces further action.

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

Now the scenario has completely changed.  If the threatened person is a stranger to me, no way would I get involved, unless it's a child.  If it's my dad, sister, friend, wife, etc, then of course I would react differently.  I'm pretty sure the OP was implying that you stumbled upon a shooting scenario involving people you don't know.

yeah...I sort of hijacked the thread to take it from a tactical question to a moral one.

Your answer is interesting. 

The difference you specify implies that you would act differently if the life/well being of the person under the gun meant more to you than the life of stranger who happened to be the clerk.

The others here who have posted reasons for not getting involved.  Many of those reasons would still apply if the clerk was a loved one of yours.  With that, would you still avoid getting involved?

I don't need an answer unless you choose to give one....   We just need to know what and why we think what we do.

[Solus]

With out some "do gooder" changing the dynamic there would most likely be no shooting.
That's the part you don't seem able to comprehend. YOU are the idiot escalating the situation .
Besides, the Old Man is quite capable of dealing with his own situations.

When the bad guy pulled the gun he escalated the situation to an imminent life or death affair.  My killing him would de-escalate it to a police investigation.

So, again, if it was your old man behind the counter when the gun was drawn, you would duck out the side and get safe because h e can take care of  himself?

One last thing, Tom...If you don't call me an idiot any more, I won't call you a coward.

[MikeBjerum]

Solus changing the person under attack from a stranger to a family member is only moral in terms of knowing the situation.  Could it be that if it were a family member you would have an understanding of the roles of the players.  That is the key in this:  Who is the bad guy, and who is reacting to it?

[tombogan03884]

When the bad guy pulled the gun he escalated the situation to an imminent life or death affair.  My killing him would de-escalate it to a police investigation.

So, again, if it was your old man behind the counter when the gun was drawn, you would duck out the side and get safe because h e can take care of  himself?

One last thing, Tom...If you don't call me an idiot any more, I won't call you a coward.

I wasn't calling "you" an idiot, I was calling any person who needlessly intervenes in what had been a simple robbery an idiot.
As for calling me a coward, call me anything you like.
I've been called worse names by better people.

[Solus]

Solus changing the person under attack from a stranger to a family member is only moral in terms of knowing the situation.  Could it be that if it were a family member you would have an understanding of the roles of the players.  That is the key in this:  Who is the bad guy, and who is reacting to it?

How much do we need to know?  

The clerk is working the counter and the bad guy draws a gun to rob the place while threatening the clerk with death, that threat being implicit in the  presence of the drawn gun.

Does it matter that the clerk might be sleeping with the bad guy's mate?  Or any other history the two might have?

The means to settle that  history is not with an armed robbery.

I would choose to intervene.  To me the life of that clerk, as flawed and dark as it might, unbeknownst to me, be is worth the risk of my life.

Others would not take the risk for a stranger, but would for a friend or loved one.

And there are still others, I would assume, who would not take that risk for anyone.

I don't think a personal understanding of the background of a loved one carries as much weight in the decision as the value of the life of the person being threatened has to you.