Question; Is an Armed Civilian Obligated to Engage an Active Shooter?

[RobertNashville]

Hello, everyone.  It’s been quite a long time since I posted here but I still “hang out” here now and then.

I’d like to hear from some of you regarding your thoughts on engaging “active shooters”.

 

I’ve been in a discussion on Tom Givens’s Facebook page regarding what an FBI Crisis Intervention trainer recently told to some college professors/students on a college campus (I think in Memphis). Anyway, the discussion turned to armed civilians engaging an active shooter and the person I’ve exchanged most of my posts with seems to come down on the side of not only should an armed civilian do so (i.e. engage) but that an armed citizen has an obligation...a duty to do so. That strikes me as both short-sighted and frankly, a decision that has to be made by each individual; not something that can be decided for him.

 

My position is that I carry first to protect myself and equally if not more importantly, to protect my loved ones…protecting others, especially strangers and especially strangers who could have decided to be armed themselves but chose not to, is very secondary to me. I would say that if I think I can engage successfully I probably would but I don’t feel I have an obligation or a duty to do so.

To paraphrase a long-ago mentor of mine; when an armed civilian chooses to engage an active shooter (or shooters) with innocents all around; lots and lots of things can happen and only one or two of them are “good” (special recognition to anyone who knows who I stole that analogy from LOL).

 

Anyway…what do you folks think?  Are we obligated to engage no matter what? Am I obligated to engage but only if there is a reasonable chance of success?  Not obligated at all? Etc.

 

I’m interested in what others think about this.

 

Thanks!

[Omega]

No, there is no legal obligation to engage an active shooter, pickpocket, or shoplifter.  That said, if I have the chance to engage an active shooter I probably will.

[Caster]

No, nor should you unless he's between you and door. If you can get your loved ones out, get them out. That's really selfish, but that's life.
Doesn't mean if his head is wide open and an easy shot with no chance of collateral damage, I would NOT take the shot, just that I'm all about me and mine first. So should everyone else.

[CommsNBombs]

Hell no! You are only obligate to save your family's ass and your own ass.

That being said - if Jihadi John is gunning dudes down, and I am not outgunned and can get a clean shot on him without being engaged Ill do it

Other than that, not my problem

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[bersaguy]

I don't expect anyone is obligated to engage an active shooter unless it would involve protecting my life or life of Loved ones. With that said, I would more than likely if I had a good chance of seeing an opportunity to take down an active shooter that was trying to kill innocent people I would engage the shooter/shooters and hope that there might be a couple more Sheep Dogs at the scene willing to also engage. In most cases the shooters are not expecting someone to be shooting back which does give a Sheepdog an edge. With that said my family and myself comes first and foremost.......................jmho

[East_TN_Patriot]

Not only is a civilian not obligated to engage an active shooter, sworn LEOs do not have a mandated legal duty to do so.  The US Supreme Court has ruled several times that there is no constitutionally required duty to protect individuals from harm.  

I have a similar personal philosophy as others here.  First and foremost, I am going to protect myself and my family.  If I can minimize my personal risk and save innocent lives by engaging, I may choose to do that.

Edited January 17, 2016 by East_TN_Patriot

[TripleGGG]

Hell no! You are only obligate to save your family's ass and your own ass.
That being said - if Jihadi John is gunning dudes down, and I am not outgunned and can get a clean shot on him without being engaged Ill do it
Other than that, not my problem
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

This

[Jonnin]

Don't confuse morality with legality here.

 

Morally, if you are equipped to save lives and feel you can do so at some acceptable risk to yourself, you probably should.

 

Legally, its everyone for themselves.  If they were too stupid to carry a gun, you aren't obligated to save them.  

[Erik88]

I remember reading about an off duty police officer in CA that chose to engage a guy robbing a McDonalds. He killed the bad guy but not before the BG got off a few shots that killed a little girl. Tough call that I'm sure haunted him forever.

 

I agree with the others above. I'm going to avoid firing unless I know I have a clear shot and stand a good chance of winning. I don't think I could sit by and do nothing if I had options.  

[bvarnell]

To paraphrase a long-ago mentor of mine; when an armed civilian chooses to engage an active shooter (or shooters) with innocents all around; lots and lots of things can happen and only one or two of them are “good” (special recognition to anyone who knows who I stole that analogy from LOL).

 

Anyway…what do you folks think?  Are we obligated to engage no matter what? Am I obligated to engage but only if there is a reasonable chance of success?  Not obligated at all? Etc.

 

I’m interested in what others think about this.

 

Thanks!

 

Sounds like maybe Woody Hayes referring to the forward pass.

 

Not obligated at all, but maybe as circumstances allow

[hipower]

I guess I'd agree with the consensus here, and it actually appears to be unanimous, so far. We are Biblically instructed that family comes first. And the rest becomes a question of individual choice.

Do we save, or attempt to save, someone from a threat. I honestly don't know the correct answer for this question.

In my younger days, when I thought I was the badass hero who'd ride in and save us all; I would have had an easy answer.

But now, as I'm older, and much slower, with far less mobility, and maybe a bit wiser; that answer isn't quite so clear.

I'd like to believe that after ushering loved ones to safety, that I would do something to help others.

But I really can't say that I would or would not.

Lord willing, I'll never have to make that choice. But in the days to come, I fear that might just be a question many of us will have to ask and answer for ourselves.

And no, I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool pessimist. I just think that this world is falling apart around us, and I hope I don't live long enough to have to make that kind of choice on another's life.

[TripleGGG]

[quote name="Jonnin" post="1347973" timestamp="1453062513"]Don't confuse morality with legality here.
 
Morally, if you are equipped to save lives and feel you can do so at some acceptable risk to yourself, you probably should.
 
Legally, its everyone for themselves.  If they were too stupid to carry a gun, you aren't obligated to save them.
[/quote,
From a legal side I could also see if you can remove yourself and family safely and you engage now you open yourself up to lawsuits and possibly being charged with a crime. Unfortunate but a possibility.

[Omega]

I purposely left my first post short to add this now.

 

I would take that chance to engage an active shooter whether I or my family were in danger or not.  But I have a bit more training than the average gun carriers and have enough confidence in my training to feel that I would make a good decision on whether to take the shot or not.  

 

This is not to say I am an expert door kicking Seal Team, Delta force, Ninja or anything, but I've been lucky enough to get some good training and have had the unfortunate opportunity to exchange gunfire in combat which gave me the knowledge of how I would react in certain life and death circumstances.  You would be surprised at how some react in SHTF situations, even combat vets.

 

But threads like this do give me something to consider, and should be considered by all of us; if you choose to engage you may just be on your own!  

[TripleGGG]

I purposely left my first post short to add this now.
 
I would take that chance to engage an active shooter whether I or my family were in danger or not.  But I have a bit more training than the average gun carriers and have enough confidence in my training to feel that I would make a good decision on whether to take the shot or not.  
 
This is not to say I am an expert door kicking Seal Team, Delta force, Ninja or anything, but I've been lucky enough to get some good training and have had the unfortunate opportunity to exchange gunfire in combat which gave me the knowledge of how I would react in certain life and death circumstances.  You would be surprised at how some react in SHTF situations, even combat vets.
 
But threads like this do give me something to consider, and should be considered by all of us; if you choose to engage you may just be on your own!

Excellent point. Most are not trained to properly handle this situation and have no idea how they would react.

[RobertNashville]

Sounds like maybe Woody Hayes referring to the forward pass.

 

Not obligated at all, but maybe as circumstances allow

You got it!  :)

 

The first time I hear him say that was when I was a 6th grader and he came to speak to all of us involved in sports in any way. Woody always got questions about why OSU didn't pass more and of course he would quip "when you pass the ball only three things can happen and only one of them is good". :)  It's difficult to argue with logic like that; even if you don't agree with it. LOL

 

[WindHawk]

Don't confuse morality with legality here.

 

Morally, if you are equipped to save lives and feel you can do so at some acceptable risk to yourself, you probably should.

 

Legally, its everyone for themselves.  If they were too stupid to carry a gun, you aren't obligated to save them.  

 

Exactly.   

Edited January 17, 2016 by WindHawk

[btq96r]

I'm usually out and about by myself which would simplify things, but for when I'm not, my concern would be to get those with me out of immediate danger.  Not as in in the car and back home safe and sound, but out of the line of fire where I can leave them in place, or tell them to keep moving away.  Once they were no longer able to be targeted, I'd move out and take my chances against the shooter, thinking as Omega does, that the training and experience I've had can make the difference.

 

To use a simple but accurate quote, "bad guy shooting = bad guy needs shot."  If I'm the first one in position to make that happen, my mind tells me that's what I'd do.

[miller_man]

I have a similar personal philosophy as others here.  First and foremost, I am going to protect myself and my family.  If I can minimize my personal risk and save innocent lives by engaging, I may choose to do that.

 

Pretty much my thoughts.

[10-Ring]

Just curious as to the status of the guy that you are debating with.  Does he carry or does he just expect someone who is to come to his rescue?  If someone who is carrying feels compelled to go take out an active shooter then more power to them.  As for me my first priority is getting me and mine to safety, if taking out the shooter becomes an option during the course of that I'll do what I feel is best.  Everyone in the room that chose not to carry a gun that day may become disappointed if they were relying on me to protect them. 

[DWARREN123]

No but the decision to do so would depend on many variables and level of training. 

[East_TN_Patriot]

Anyway, the discussion turned to armed civilians engaging an active shooter and the person I’ve exchanged most of my posts with seems to come down on the side of not only should an armed civilian do so (i.e. engage) but that an armed citizen has an obligation...a duty to do so. 

 

Incidentally, he probably also thinks it's his duty as a citizen to open carry an AR-15 into a Starbucks, but I digress.

[Spiffy]

I'm not real keen on the idea of opening myself to physical and financial harm for people who wouldn't piss in my ear if my head was on fire.  I am also callous and selfish enough to save my bacon and that of my family. If the rest of the people want to depend on the police for their personal responsibility that's on them. 

 

 

Small children and old folks are the expectations.

[Pete123]

I would tend to not get involved unless I feared for my life or the life of someone close to me.

 

Any time you shoot someone, you are risking 20-30 years in prison and bankruptcy.  

 

TN is a gun friendly state.  Here in Nashville, one of the Assistant District Attorneys worked at an ice cream shop in high school and was arm robbed.  She is very much against guns.  Even if she didn't get a conviction of you, she would bankrupt you.

 

Also, TN specifies that a person who intervenes on behalf of someone else accepts the risk that they know everything about the situation.  Example, you see someone chase down a woman, tackle her and hit her a few times.  You shoot him.  Turns out that he was law enforcement and she was a drug dealer or prostitute and law enforcement was doing their job.

 

By TN law, you knowingly shot a law enforcement officer.  Sounds crazy, but that is how it is written.

 

Adults have the option to protect themselves with deadly force.  I'm not willing to risk ruining my life because someone else chose not to defend themselves.  There could be exceptions, though it would have to be a big one.

[TMF]

Legally, no.

However, it is the moral obligation of every able bodied male to protect innocents. Yes, you may be killed. You may be sued. You may have to explain your actions to a jury. All of these things a man should be willing to risk in order to protect the lives of innocent people.

I'll add that there is a very big difference between an active shooter and armed robbery. An active shooter is trying to kill people. An armed robber just wants stuff. Deciding not to engage an armed robber may be a safer choice for the lives of the innocents in the immediate area. For an active shooter, there is no question; all bets are off. Everyone will die if someone doesn't intervene.

[RobertNashville]

Just curious as to the status of the guy that you are debating with.  Does he carry or does he just expect someone who is to come to his rescue?  If someone who is carrying feels compelled to go take out an active shooter then more power to them.  As for me my first priority is getting me and mine to safety, if taking out the shooter becomes an option during the course of that I'll do what I feel is best.  Everyone in the room that chose not to carry a gun that day may become disappointed if they were relying on me to protect them. 

He said he carries...the disagreement between the two of us was mostly regarding this person's assertion that an armed citizen has a "duty" to confront an active shooter and that I and others would be "wrong" if we didn't do so.

 

He took a great deal of exception to my comment that I carry to protect myself and my loved ones; not to protect him or other strangers. If I'm ever in that situation and I believe I can make a difference without making things worse I'm fairly certain I would do what I could to take out an active shooter but I don't feel that I have a duty to do so.

My impression of this guy, which could be totally wrong given we are talking only about printed words, is that he is the type of guy who hopes he is "lucky" enough to be in an active shooter so that he can show everyone how brave he is. Again, I may be very off base and he my simply be the kind of person who truly believes that he should/has an obligation/has a duty to engage! 

Edited January 18, 2016 by RobertNashville