To take action or not take action? That is the question.

[Coach]

I am fresh off another class. I find my soul stirred by the experience. In the last year I have taken a several classes. I have listened to a variety of opinions on a number of topics in those classes. I have heard conflicting opinions about intervening in crimes that are occurring on the street. In the last few years I have heard people praise the "sheepdog" and the "sheepdog mentality." I have witnessed first hand some folks give testimony about the positive attributes of the sheepdog philosophy. People that I know and respect. (not a huge crowd) I have also in the last couple of years heard a number of people bad mouth the sheepdog and the sheepdog mentality to a fairly severe level. I have heard a few lectures on how silly and incorrect that mentality is. Once again from people I respect but perhaps I know them a little less thoroughly. But I definitely respect them.

So the problem is conflicting viewpoints and advice. Particularly on the topic of intervening in crimes going down in public. If "innocent" people are being brutalized or killed but not anyone I know. Should I get involved and try to stop the crime or just mind my own business? What does INGO say is the correct answer? Why is very important here.

 

[Spear Dane]

What kind of a man are you? That's your why or why not. Me, I would have to try.

 

[hopper68]

A lot of different factors come into play.
Are you by yourself or with others with you that will need protecting?
Can you do so without endangering other innocents?
Are you willing to shoot if you have to?
Can you make a difference or will you be just another victim?

I would have a real hard time just sitting there watching and doing nothing.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I am fresh off another class. I find my soul stirred by the experience. In the last year I have taken a several classes. I have listened to a variety of opinions on a number of topics in those classes. I have heard conflicting opinions about intervening in crimes that are occurring on the street. In the last few years I have heard people praise the "sheepdog" and the "sheepdog mentality." I have witnessed first hand some folks give testimony about the positive attributes of the sheepdog philosophy. People that I know and respect. (not a huge crowd) I have also in the last couple of years heard a number of people bad mouth the sheepdog and the sheepdog mentality to a fairly severe level. I have heard a few lectures on how silly and incorrect that mentality is. Once again from people I respect but perhaps I know them a little less thoroughly. But I definitely respect them.

So the problem is conflicting viewpoints and advice. Particularly on the topic of intervening in crimes going down in public. If "innocent" people are being brutalized or killed but not anyone I know. Should I get involved and try to stop the crime or just mind my own business? What does INGO say is the correct answer? Why is very important here.

You can live a long time, but you have to live with yourself and your actions as well as your in-actions. Every situation is different, but no one wants to live out their days knowing they could've done something and chose not to.

 

[nakinate]

It’s very situation dependent for me. If my family is there and they need me to get them out alive then that is my priority.

If my wife is able to get her and the kids to safety without me then I may go in.

If I am without my family and innocents are dying I’ll try to stop it.

If I am separated from my family when it starts then my priority is getting to them. If that means I engage then so be it. If it means I don’t engage, so be it.

I have decided that at this point in my life I have to prioritize the lives of my wife and kids over the lives of strangers. Sometimes a situation may allow that strangers benefit from my presence and sometimes not. I figure that I won’t be able to live with myself if I leave my family to play hero and they die. If I protect them and strangers die I’ll have less guilt.

It sounds cold but it’s reality. That being said, if something were to happen I can’t really know ahead of time how it will play out.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Their advice will make sure you:
1. Make it home that night.
2. Don't go to jail.
3. Don't get sued.

All the best advice that a trainer can give someone.

At the end of the day one would have to shed our cultural norms on what a man is to watch someone walk into somewhere and start killing innocents.

With that I submit a definition.

cow·ard
/ˈkou(ə)rd/Submit
noun
1.
a person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.
synonyms: weakling, milksop, namby-pamby, mouse; More
adjective
1.
LITERARY
excessively afraid of danger or pain.




I just don't know that I'm ready to do that. But, who knows in the moment?

 

[Tactically Fat]

My number one priority on this earth is to be a husband to my wife. #2 is to be a father to my children.

This means doing everything that I can to ensure their safety and well being to the best of my abilities.

This includes financial safety and well being.

It's often financially ruinous to protect one's own. Let alone someone else in today's litigious society we live in.

Protecting my own is a gamble and an expense I'm willing to accept.

I'm not sure I'm willing to shoulder that burden for anyone else.

 

[thunderchicken]

I pretty much agree with others such as TF, that my priorities lie with myself and my family. However, I also feel that I can hypothesize situations that I would likely put myself in harms way...risks be damned.

 

[cosermann]

Much depends on the individual and the details of the situation. My general rule of thumb is "not my circus, not my monkey" for "routine" crimes.

However, that has limits. Some crimes are not routine.

I think of that one video at class yesterday (you can guess the one I mean). It would be very difficult NOT to act in a situation like that.

 

[T.Lex]

In the early days of the internet, there was a thing on rec.guns called The Red Zone. Basically, people signed up with what they EDC'd. The presenter would describe a scenario and the participants had a time limit to describe how they would act.

The presenter would then kinda decide who got to proceed to the next stage. There was a loose story driving it, and the presenter kinda knew what was coming next. They would take into account the participant's actions in an earlier stage to modify what happened at the next stage.

It was pretty cool, in a really geeky, slow-paced way.

One of the most controversial episodes, though, was one where the participant had a choice to make a relatively easy exit from a potential active shooter event, or engage the shooter(s). (I can't recall the specifics, but I think there were 2 or 3 baddies in this one.) The people that made the escape made all of the valid points about controlling their own safety and the obligation to not leave their spouse a single parent.

Personally, my order of priority would be to make sure my family was safe, then a modest odds calculation. If I have a 50/50 or better chance of success, I'd probably engage. Based on BBI's metrics for "regular" crime, that's probably a safe bet.

If it was a terrorist or maniac or some black swan type thing, and again - my family is safe, then I bail. I'm not an operator. I may have a warrior mentality, but on a day-to-day basis, I don't have the toolkit. And can't reasonably pack it.

Now, there's also the scenario where I don't have a choice in the matter. If it is truly a me-or-them survival event, then I gotta do what I can do.

I guess I'm a volunteer sheepdog when the odds favor me. Otherwise I'm some sort of lab mix that'll protect my family if necessary, but pretty much want to lick your face.

Wait.

That doesn't sound right.

 

[singlesix]

Impossible to say, we can arm chair all we want, but until the moment happens you dont know what you will do.

So many factors, but I do agree my number one priority is my family. The issue is, as stated the sheep mentality, heck the courts ruled that the police don't have a duty to protect individuals. So, self defense is the responsibility of the individual, but most don't understand this concept.

 

[cosermann]

... Otherwise I'm some sort of lab mix that'll protect my family if necessary, but pretty much want to lick your face ...

Ha, ha, love the analogy.

I always like to throw this article into such discussions - Commentary by Evan Marshall

Wherever one ends up, it's an important determination to make for oneself.

 

[WanderingSol07]

I'll protect me and mine, but otherwise I'm out of there. Heard too many times of someone engaging the bad guy and getting nailed by a 2nd or 3rd bad guy. Or worse, the shooter is targeting his family members and when you shoot the shooter the family members/victims then turn on you, now or in court.

 

[T.Lex]

I think there's one aspect to the OP that also deserves to be addressed: I'm unlikely to criticize a genuine sheepdog. Heck, I'm related to more than a few people who really are willing to put themselves in harm's way for the good of the community. They train for it (with other like-minded people, so they have a numbers advantage usually). They understand the risks. They minimize the risks with that training and some technology.

The guys that fantasize about it? Yeah, I'll criticize them if they say something stupid. If it is inauthentic, or they are just running their mouth. That really rubs me the wrong way, I think, because it minimizes the actual sacrifices of the people who do it for realz. But if it comes from a place of real caring for others, then no problem by me.

For instance, with the attacks at houses of worship, that would throw off my internal calculus. With the assumption that I was at church by myself, but with a group of other parishioners, and my family was otherwise safe it would be incredibly difficult for me to not fight back, even if I had the chance to escape. These are people I love. That I know the families - sometimes multiple generations. They are my extended family, so I may not put as much thought - in the moment - about the odds.

My impression from the OP was that there is a cohort of professionals who maybe think only professionals should do the sheepdog role. I don't think that's true at all.

 

[Tactically Fat]

As much as I hate to agree with T. Lex here on the open forum, I think I will.

As much as can be gleaned from his thought out writin', and my being not so good at writin', I'd wager that our thoughts are relatively similar on this type of thing.

If I suddenly found myself in the middle of an active shooter / spree killer...who knows what I'd do. Totality of the circumstances and all. I do know that my thinking right now is that I'd not run towards the hot zone if I could at all help it.

 

[Hop]

The good samartan in the Walmart that got killed by the female accomplice is what turned my thinking from pure Sheepdog to Labrador. Even if your family isn't at the scene, who's going to take care of them if you aren't around?

 

[GIJEW]

The Bible says לא תעמוד על דם רעך"Don't stand on your neighbor's blood"--that is, don't look the other way. (Lev. 19, 16)

Having said that, violence has consequences that might be fatal. It's worth pausing to think first and act second.

Do you have enough info to act; do you know who's who?
How much does intervening endanger those you're responsible for: family?
Will your intervention be enough to save the victim, or will it just a grand gesture that might get you killed too? Like, how many assailants are there and how heavily are they armed?
Can you hear sirens yet, and will intervening get you shot by mistake?

On the other hand, the emotional cost of "looking the other way" is very real too. 36 years ago my unit was ordered to retreat which involved leaving brothers on the battlefield as presumably dead. I'm still trying to live that down.

 

[singlesix]

Isn't there a lady that helped a LEO from being shot and now she's on her own defending herself from a lawsuit?

Read somewhere ... each bullet you fire has a lawsuit attached to it.

 

[GNRPowdeR]

Isn't there a lady that helped a LEO from being shot and now she's on her own defending herself from a lawsuit?

Video: Family Sues Woman who Shot, Killed Man Attacking Indiana Officer - News - POLICE Magazine

 

[rhino]

I am fresh off another class. I find my soul stirred by the experience. In the last year I have taken a several classes. I have listened to a variety of opinions on a number of topics in those classes. I have heard conflicting opinions about intervening in crimes that are occurring on the street. In the last few years I have heard people praise the "sheepdog" and the "sheepdog mentality." I have witnessed first hand some folks give testimony about the positive attributes of the sheepdog philosophy. People that I know and respect. (not a huge crowd) I have also in the last couple of years heard a number of people bad mouth the sheepdog and the sheepdog mentality to a fairly severe level. I have heard a few lectures on how silly and incorrect that mentality is. Once again from people I respect but perhaps I know them a little less thoroughly. But I definitely respect them.

So the problem is conflicting viewpoints and advice. Particularly on the topic of intervening in crimes going down in public. If "innocent" people are being brutalized or killed but not anyone I know. Should I get involved and try to stop the crime or just mind my own business? What does INGO say is the correct answer? Why is very important here.

Much depends on the individual and the details of the situation. My general rule of thumb is "not my circus, not my monkey" for "routine" crimes.

However, that has limits. Some crimes are not routine.

I think of that one video at class yesterday (you can guess the one I mean). It would be very difficult NOT to act in a situation like that.

I've been wrestling with this for a lot of years and I see strong arguments to both sides (in each extreme). I have a history of intervening to help other people starting from long before I was interested in firearms, much less made the choice to carry such tools.

In addition to balancing the practical aspects of making sure you get home to meet your responsibilities to your own family vs. a social or moral or ethical imperative to help someone in distress is just the starting point. We also have to consider not only should or should we not get involved, but also what can/can't we do in a given scenario.

When I was in my early 20s, I stopped a guy from beating the crap out of his wife/girlfriend in the street in front of the gym where I trained. It wasn't something I spent time considering, but rather saw someone in distress who needed help, so I helped. However, life was different then. I was younger and inexperienced with life, so I didn't always consider potential consequences associated with doing good things (I was pretty good as risk/benefit analysis on bad behaviors). Just as important, I was mobile, quick, and very strong then. I could have carried that woman with one arm while holding her creepy husband off the ground by his throat with the other, so I had the luxury of capabilities then that could be applied with reasonable expectation that no one would have to die. Now I'm old, slow, weak, crippled, and barely mobile. I might be able to do something one time, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. Now I have to rely on tools that are difficult to apply in situations where less-than-lethal force is indicated. The reality that I am less able to intervene has tempered my inclination to intervene unless absolutely necessary (and defining the latter is still gray).

The video to which cosermann refers is a situation that went so far over the line that I have no doubt I would take action immediate, decisive to protect the innocent party. However, it's far more likely that I will encounter situations in my life that are far less obvious. Would I intervene if I saw an adult slapping another adult around? I'd probably call 911 and be a witness. Would I intervene if I saw someone being stabbed or raped? Probably, but I'd have to be damn sure that what I thought I saw underway was what was really happening. How does a man straddling a woman in an alley to rape her look different from a plain clothes cop who just got stabbed or shot by a woman and who is now on top of her trying to apply handcuffs? At first glance, those two things would have a very similar appearance.

I supposed I need to refine my decision making process to include the following:

• What is my threshold for taking action no matter what the risk is to me?
• What is my threshold for taking action if I can do so with minimal apparent risk?
• What is my threshold for taking action vs. just calling 911?
• How do I balance the risk to myself vs. the risk of the outcome if I do not act?
• In what types of situations am I realistically able to help?
• In what types of situations am I not likely able to help or may even make things worse?
• How sure do I need to be that I have correctly assessed the situation before I take actions that may result in someone's injury or death if I am successful?

All of that also applies to rendering help to someone when the problem is something other than violent crime as well.