# Couple of articles dealing with 3rd party intervention?



## KenpoTex (Dec 7, 2007)

http://armedresponsebook.com/articles/Heroic_consequences.pdf

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/ccw/tacoma_tyler.htm

How do y'all feel about intervening to stop a crime?

What criteria have to be met for you to intervene?


----------



## Grenadier (Dec 7, 2007)

Put yourself in the other guy's shoes before you make your decision.  If you aren't sure of what's going on, don't intervene on someone's behalf until you are.  Call the police first if you aren't sure.  

Just imagine this: A good Samaritan sees one guy beating up another guy, and decides to shoot guy who delivering the blows, thinking that he just stopped an assault.  

Sounds good, doesn't it?  Unfortunately, he didn't realize that the guy delivering the blows was someone was being robbed by the other guy, and just happened to get the upper hand.  

Now, many times, it's going to be clear-cut, as to whom the good guy and the bad guy is, and in those cases, if you feel that you are justified in intervening, then go right ahead.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 7, 2007)

kenpotex said:


> http://armedresponsebook.com/articles/Heroic_consequences.pdf
> 
> http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/ccw/tacoma_tyler.htm
> 
> ...


 
I am in a position where it would be expected of me to intervene, so it makes my answers different then others, perhaps.

#1. The scenario has to justify lethal force. 
#2. Even though the scenario may justify lethal force, I need to use every available means to descalate the situation prior to using that level of force myself.
#3. Rule #1 always applies; that I go home at the end of the day. So, I don't put myself in the situation unless I can de-escalate or win. Otherwise, I monitor the situation as best as I can until backup or the authorities arrive (1st thing I would do always is dial 9-11, unless an immediate response prevented me from doing so).


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 7, 2007)

Good posts, both of ya 

My feelings pretty much echo yours. Basically, I'm going to have to be fairly sure as to what is going on before I'm going to jump in the middle of something.
So, let's get a little more specific as to the nature of the incident (since the articles dealt with "active shooter" situations).

Say you're in a mall or other public place and you're armed (you always are, right?  ). Let's assume, for the sake of avoiding extra variables/considerations, that you are alone (no GF, wife, or kids)

Scenario 1 is that there is a person actively shooting (or shooting at) people. What is your response?

Scenario 2 is that you've heard or seen the guy shooting but at this moment in time he is not (maybe he's reloading, whatever).
-Do you try to get him to surrender?
-Do you make the shot?
-Do you do something else? what and why?

Assume that in both cases, you are in range for a good shot and have the time to draw your weapon. (yes, we're assuming a lot here but I'm trying to get to the heart of the issue w/o being "bogged down" with all the variables that will probably be present).

Personally, In either of these cases, I feel that the proper action would be to engage the shooter in order to stop him. In Scenario 1, it is obvious that if someone doesn't stop him, he will continue shooting others until he either tires of it and shoots himself, or until the police finally do something. In this situation, hesitation on my part will only enable him to kill more people.
In Scenario 2, once again I feel the proper response is to engage him. To take the time to call for him to surrender is a big gamble. For one thing, I've lost the element of surprise and drawn his attention to me. Secondly, the desirability of his surrender is, I feel, outweighed by the consequenses. If he kills me, it's likely that there will be no one else to do anything.

what do y'all think?


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 7, 2007)

The Mall incident has got you thinking, huh? 

I think that is pretty much it. I am trained enough to recognize whether or not it is a cop going after a perp or shooting it out with a criminal, or a threat. I would engaged based on my training and threat recognition. In the second scenario I would point my weapon at the high ready and aggressively order him to drop his weapon and to get on the ground; if he continued to load his weapon I would engage. I only attempt a verbal descalation with full confidence that I hold his life in my hands.


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 8, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> The Mall incident has got you thinking, huh?
> 
> I think that is pretty much it. I am trained enough to recognize whether or not it is a cop going after a perp or shooting it out with a criminal, or a threat. I would engaged based on my training and threat recognition. In the second scenario I would point my weapon at the high ready and aggressively order him to drop his weapon and to get on the ground; if he continued to load his weapon I would engage. *I only attempt a verbal descalation with full confidence that I hold his life in my hands*.


I've been thinking about this stuff since Columbine happened   every new incident just reinforces it.

I definately agree with the bolded portion.  As we saw from one of the incidents mentioned in the second article, trying to talk when you should be shooting, or talking when you can't immediately back it up can be disastrous.


----------

