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

[E4 No More]

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.

 

^This!

[RobertNashville]

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

I wouldn't be surprised if he does!  :)

Your post does raise one of the problems I see with being an armed civilian considering engaging an active shooter because I don't carry an AR around with me and if I did have an AR slung over my shoulder I would expect an active shooter to target me first.  Unlike me, however, the active shooter may have an AR (or two and who knows what else)...meaning that the bad guy is probably going to have an advantage, maybe a big advantage, in weapons. He is likely to have both a more powerful weapon(s) and more ammo as well and he may not be alone.

 

I don't know about anyone else here but all I'm going to have on me is a .45 with 13 or so rounds, probably one extra mag (and at the most, two extras) and perhaps a .38 as a backup weapon. Sometimes I only have my little .38 with five rounds and maybe 5 or 10 extra.  Some folks only ever carry a .380. Of course, one perfect shot, even with a .380 can take down a guy with an AR or a 12ga or whatever but I think we all know the odds of surviving such an encounter don't favor the guy with the .380.

The active shooter is already going to be at the ready and who knows how much distance may separate us...there may be (likely will be) innocents between me and him.  Realistically; I would have to ask myself what my best course of action is and whether I can engage this guy or guys and have any real chance of succeeding or am I just going to get myself killed and maybe even more innocents killed?
 

My gut and the training I've had tells me that every single incident is going to have a completely different set of circumstances and whatever I do has to be based on those particular circumstances.

[monkeylizard]

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! 

 

That will probably be the first person to pee his pants, hunker down behind the first piece of concealment he can find, have a good teary-eyed "Oh God! Oh God! Oh God!" moment, then maybe give himself Glock-butt to top it all off.

[TMF]

Simple equation: every time an active shooter had been challenged by an armed citizen, innocent people stop dying. Folks can "what if" and wargame in the pretend world of gun forums and Facebook, but this is the reality.

[ken56]

I pray every day that I am not faced with that scenario but should that happen I ask for a clear eye and steady hand. I also feel there is no duty to engage, that is why its called SELF defense. We hear all about the split second decisions the police have to make all the time in these situations too but why would that be any different with you and I? We are not blessed with the authority of the state nor the protections of it either. If the police show up at an active shooter scene  and he sees you have a gun in your hand, you will die  at the hands of the state agent and he will get away with that, and receive an award on top of it. You will just be the "good guy with a gun" that thought it was a good idea to engage an active shooter that falls into obscurity.

 

I just know this, all situations are different and If I am faced with that some day I will make a decision accordingly, hopefully I will survive it.

[Grunt67]

Allowed, yes. Obligated, no.

[kcruisin]

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.

I often wonder where I should draw those lines. James 4:17, 'to him who knows to do good...

I'm usually alone, so I doubt I'd abandon those 'stupid' folks, but I might be slow to engage.
I'd have to understand what the situation was and that his gun was loaded/the threat was real.
I'm not sorry to say that I profile. I'd be quick to get on certain targets,

[mikegideon]

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!

 

FTFY

 

Welcome back :)

[TMF]

I pray every day that I am not faced with that scenario but should that happen I ask for a clear eye and steady hand. I also feel there is no duty to engage, that is why its called SELF defense. We hear all about the split second decisions the police have to make all the time in these situations too but why would that be any different with you and I? We are not blessed with the authority of the state nor the protections of it either. If the police show up at an active shooter scene and he sees you have a gun in your hand, you will die at the hands of the state agent and he will get away with that, and receive an award on top of it. You will just be the "good guy with a gun" that thought it was a good idea to engage an active shooter that falls into obscurity.

I just know this, all situations are different and If I am faced with that some day I will make a decision accordingly, hopefully I will survive it.

So you wouldn't help innocent, unarmed people because you can't be hailed as a hero like a police officer would? You think that should be the motivation for preserving life and protecting those who can't protect themselves?

Also, to your comment about being shot by police, of course it's possible. However, it's also possible you'll be shot by the bad guy. If you're willing to risk being shot by a bad guy to protect innocents, why wouldn't you be willing to risk being shot by the good guy? The end result is the same.

I just can't fathom standing by while innocent people are murdered and having the ability to stop it, yet only being concerned about myself and letting them die. Maybe I'm just wired differently than many of you. Maybe I was raised differently. But I can't believe you'd live your life without extreme guilt if you did something so incredibly selfish. For those of you with families, you aren't there 24/7 by their side to protect them. I know I'm not. How would you feel if your wife or child was facing certain death, and the only person there who could stop it said, "F*** them, I gots mine!" I just can't fit this way of thinking into my head. It's cowardly. I mean that.

Edited January 20, 2016 by TMF

[diamondback]

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.

Same here.

 

I forget the court case, but one argument I often use against the antis is related. There was a case, supreme court I think, that basically said cops don't have to put themselves in harms way to protect people.

[ken56]

So you wouldn't help innocent, unarmed people because you can't be hailed as a hero like a police officer would? You think that should be the motivation for preserving life and protecting those who can't protect themselves?

Also, to your comment about being shot by police, of course it's possible. However, it's also possible you'll be shot by the bad guy. If you're willing to risk being shot by a bad guy to protect innocents, why wouldn't you be willing to risk being shot by the good guy? The end result is the same.

I just can't fathom standing by while innocent people are murdered and having the ability to stop it, yet only being concerned about myself and letting them die. Maybe I'm just wired differently than many of you. Maybe I was raised differently. But I can't believe you'd live your life without extreme guilt if you did something so incredibly selfish. For those of you with families, you aren't there 24/7 by their side to protect them. I know I'm not. How would you feel if your wife or child was facing certain death, and the only person there who could stop it said, "F*** them, I gots mine!" I just can't fit this way of thinking into my head. It's cowardly. I mean that.

 

Well if that is how you wish to interpret my statement so be it. I look for no glory. If a situation allows for my intervention then I said I would make the decision at that time. You are free to make your own decision. I interpret your statement to mean that you believe the man (concealed carrier) at the Oregon college  that had an active shooter should have ran to the building the shooter was in and engaged him. He was across the campus, not in the same building as the shooter. Now, If I were in the same building the shooter was as he was going room to room, then yes, I would defend the whole roomful of people I was with...... to the end, who ever the "winner" was. I would NOT run across the campus to play hero.

[TMF]

Well if that is how you wish to interpret my statement so be it. I look for no glory. If a situation allows for my intervention then I said I would make the decision at that time. You are free to make your own decision. I interpret your statement to mean that you believe the man (concealed carrier) at the Oregon college  that had an active shooter should have ran to the building the shooter was in and engaged him. He was across the campus, not in the same building as the shooter. Now, If I were in the same building the shooter was as he was going room to room, then yes, I would defend the whole roomful of people I was with...... to the end, who ever the "winner" was. I would NOT run across the campus to play hero.

 

There is no interpreting to it.  You were pretty clear.  In fact, you capitalized the word "SELF" to stress that you're only interested in protecting yourself.  Then you went into something about "obscurity" for some reason, which I could only interpret, based on the context, that this was in regard to not receiving recognition for being the "good guy with the gun." 

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at in this post with this very specific scenario.  Obviously every scenario is different, but to just pick one scenario and use that as your reason why you wouldn't protect anyone is just silly.  No, if someone is on the other side of town in an active shooter situation, I'm not putting on my cape and tights and flying over there to save the day.  The very general scenario posed here is whether you feel the obligation to defend others in an active shooter situation.  Each situation is different.  The basic point is, are you willing to risk injury or death to yourself or potential legal and financial heartache?  Yes or no.  Based on your post, you are in the no column.  That is what we're addressing here.

 

If you or other people here find yourself in the "no" column, I'd take a hard look at yourself and consider if this is the kind of man you want to be.  Part of being a man is protecting the weak and defenseless.  That's just it.  That doesn't just apply to active shooters and Die Hard terrorist scenarios people like to wargame on the internet; this is broadly applied.  Part of the problem with this society is there are few men left; just a bunch of males.

[RobertNashville]

I pray every day that I am not faced with that scenario but should that happen I ask for a clear eye and steady hand. I also feel there is no duty to engage, that is why its called SELF defense. We hear all about the split second decisions the police have to make all the time in these situations too but why would that be any different with you and I? We are not blessed with the authority of the state nor the protections of it either. If the police show up at an active shooter scene  and he sees you have a gun in your hand, you will die  at the hands of the state agent and he will get away with that, and receive an award on top of it. You will just be the "good guy with a gun" that thought it was a good idea to engage an active shooter that falls into obscurity.

 

I just know this, all situations are different and If I am faced with that some day I will make a decision accordingly, hopefully I will survive it.

In my opinion, you have the right outlook.

For me, I believe that an armed civilian is NOT obligated, morally or otherwise, to engage a shooter and thereby, put his own life in danger and as much as this guy I was dealing with thought otherwise, it's not a decision that anyone can (or I think, should) make unless or until they are faced with that situation; there are just too many variables. Certainly, there are armed civilians who have stopped active shooters and almost certainly saved innocent lives...they are a hero for doing so; but that doesn't mean every other armed civilian "should" do the same.

 

I carry to protect me and those I care about first; all others come second...that doesn't mean I won't try to protect others; just that I'm not going to blindly say I will or that I have an obligation to do so. :)

[DaveTN]

I won’t try to stop a robbery, but I won’t stand by and watch someone get killed either. There is no duty to act; I feel a personal responsibility to act. I guess it’s the ex-cop in me.
But I also have a plan to make sure I don’t get shot in the process by another civilian or a cop.

[E4 No More]

In my opinion, you have the right outlook.

For me, I believe that an armed civilian is NOT obligated, morally or otherwise, to engage a shooter and thereby, put his own life in danger and as much as this guy I was dealing with thought otherwise, it's not a decision that anyone can (or I think, should) make unless or until they are faced with that situation; there are just too many variables. Certainly, there are armed civilians who have stopped active shooters and almost certainly saved innocent lives...they are a hero for doing so; but that doesn't mean every other armed civilian "should" do the same.

 

I carry to protect me and those I care about first; all others come second...that doesn't mean I won't try to protect others; just that I'm not going to blindly say I will or that I have an obligation to do so. :)

I disagree with the can/should part of your comment. Training has an element of mental as well as physical. Thinking through what-if's is good for you - particularly if you are doing it while you are out. It shortens reaction time if you've already thought through it. It helps you move through the first phases of fight or flight and into the action phase even though it wouldn't match-up with the variables. Many times when I'm out and about I look around and think through a what-if scenario, and I'm happy when I leave without incident.

[xjsnake]

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!

That's an interesting take on his part.

 

FWIW I went through active shooter training (again) last week from TN Homeland Security. The Special Agent flat told us that if she was involved in an active shooter situation and her family was present (out at the mall or something), she would get her family out of there and then decide if she was going to go back in to attempt to engage the threat.

[DaveTN]

That's an interesting take on his part.
 
FWIW I went through active shooter training (again) last week from TN Homeland Security. The Special Agent flat told us that if she was involved in an active shooter situation and her family was present (out at the mall or something), she would get her family out of there and then decide if she was going to go back in to attempt to engage the threat.

Being from Homeland Security doesn’t mean she’s right. Her family could be killed while trying to get them to safety. If you have the skills to engage an active shooter; do it. Again, I’m not implying it’s required; it’s not. Every situation may be different.

[xjsnake]

Being from Homeland Security doesn’t mean she’s right. Her family could be killed while trying to get them to safety. If you have the skills to engage an active shooter; do it. Again, I’m not implying it’s required; it’s not. Every situation may be different.

No a title doesn't mean she's right. But that is what people are being "trained" to do.

[TMF]

That's an interesting take on his part.

FWIW I went through active shooter training (again) last week from TN Homeland Security. The Special Agent flat told us that if she was involved in an active shooter situation and her family was present (out at the mall or something), she would get her family out of there and then decide if she was going to go back in to attempt to engage the threat.

Every scenario is different, and you can't broadly plan that this is what you need to do. If people can barricade, it is safer than trying to evacuate if you must go through the area the active shooter is in. Of course, if you cannot barricade, you'll need to evacuate.

While my family comes first, the goal is to balance their safety and that of others. My wife and kids fall into the category of innocent and defenseless people, and they are most immediate to me, and therefore will receive my immediate attention. However, if I'm able to intervene without compromising their safety, then I will do that. Being a hero isn't the goal, and shouldn't be the goal. Preserving the lives of innocent people is the goal, and should be done by any means possible.

[xjsnake]

Every scenario is different, and you can't broadly plan that this is what you need to do. If people can barricade, it is safer than trying to evacuate if you must go through the area the active shooter is in. Of course, if you cannot barricade, you'll need to evacuate.

While my family comes first, the goal is to balance their safety and that of others. My wife and kids fall into the category of innocent and defenseless people, and they are most immediate to me, and therefore will receive my immediate attention. However, if I'm able to intervene without compromising their safety, then I will do that. Being a hero isn't the goal, and shouldn't be the goal. Preserving the lives of innocent people is the goal, and should be done by any means possible.

I completely agree with you. Just relating what I was told a little over a week ago on the topic from a supposed 'authority' figure. Wasn't trying to promote that rational, perhaps I should have phrased it better.

[Grayfox54]

I honestly can't say just what I'd do. It would depend on the situation and exactly what was happening at the time. 

I believe that if I was to run away or just stand by while innocent people were being murdered, I just don't know if I could live with myself afterwards.

[RobertNashville]

I disagree with the can/should part of your comment. Training has an element of mental as well as physical. Thinking through what-if's is good for you - particularly if you are doing it while you are out. It shortens reaction time if you've already thought through it. It helps you move through the first phases of fight or flight and into the action phase even though it wouldn't match-up with the variables. Many times when I'm out and about I look around and think through a what-if scenario, and I'm happy when I leave without incident.

I don't disagree...I wasn't trying to suggest that a person doesn't think about such scenarios. I see it no differently than thinking about an escape route if I'm in my vehicle and someone starts shooting at me or tries to car jack me or where my closest firearm is if someone comes through a particular door or a window in the living room vs a back bedroom, etc.  :)

[Monkeybat]

It depends on the situation. Too many factors. Is my family with me? Are children in danger? If you don't engage an active shooter to save children then you are a gutless coward.


Sent from the Fortress of Solitude.

[diamondback]

I am not sure anyone really knows until they are there. My first priority would be my family then myself, but if there was a shot I would take it I think, especially active shooter, for one thing it would show the antis what a good guy with a gun can do against a bad guy

[up2snuff]

Active shooters, by whatever motivation, are a threat to the American way of life from many avenues. We Americans have the right to protect ourselves and our families, and the civic responsibility to defend our way of life. If I have the ability and means to defend our way of life I will. I consider it an honor and obligation.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk