As A CHLer - Should You Be A First Responder?

[Abraham]

Some CHLers have stated words to the effect that if at a distance they heard gun shots they'd run to them with the thought of helping innocents in trouble. Others responded they got a CHL to protect themselves and their family members only.

If, as stated by some, as CHLers they'd run to a shooting with the thought of helping the defenseless, doesn't that in effect make them first responders?

Other CHLers say no to this idea, but if a shooting situation occurs and they're unavoidably in the middle of it and while responding to save themselves and/or loved ones as a by-product (if you will) of their actions, they happen to save others - then yes, they'd help others within the parameters of such a situation - but only in such an unavoidable situation.

All this gives rise to questions such as: Are CHLers morally obligated to run to distant shooting situations to help? If so, doesn't that parallel, at least to some extent, with being LEO's or even surrogate soldiers?

I subscribe to the general idea that if a bad guy is at a distance he isn't a threat, but if we run to a distant shooting to help - doesn't that fall into the category of deliberately getting into an avoidable shooting?

Personally, I fall into the camp that says I got a CHL for me and mine. If I hear gun shots in the distance I'm obligated to protect myself and mine by not engaging the avoidable.

What do you think?

[Purplehood]

Honestly. I wouldn't know until it happened.

I apologize, but I know how I respond to strange situations and it is always case-by-case.

[MoJo]

Sir, you are 100% correct. We as civilians have no obligation to intervene in a shooting situation. We ARE NOT first responders - - - the sheepdog inside me says differently - - - the wise old man inside me keeps the sheepdog on a short leash.

[seamusTX]

When you run into gunfire and get killed, is the 100 Club going to raise your kids?

Next question?

P.S.: As a society, we have decided that people in uniform with a badge, pistol, marked cruiser, and other tools will respond to criminal incidents.

Getting involved in their work often does not result in good outcomes. There are numerous examples on this forum of out-of-uniform police officers being shot by other police officers.

The modern concept of police has been around only since the early 19th century, and they were not universal in the U.S. until much later. Before that, the "hue and cry" and posses were the rule. These methods were not found to be effective and often ended with shootings or lynchings of people who may or may not have been guilty.

That is why we have police forces, jails, prosecutors, and courts now.

- Jim

[RoyGBiv]

I'm also in the "It Depends" category...

[G.A. Heath]

If the shooter is an immediate threat to me, or those I care about, then odds are the shooter will become perforated. If the shooter is not an immediate threat I will move off to a safe and secure location. Rushing into an active shooter situation requires special training that I do not have. I will also say that in these situations you don't know if your dealing with one shooter or multiple shooters until you are committed to a course of action, and that lack of knowledge can cost lives. The potential of outcome of rushing into such a situation can range from stopping the shooter, saving lives, and being a hero to shooting a good guy who is also responding, going to prison, or being shot yourself by the shooter and/or other good guys.

[cougartex]

Personally, I fall into the camp that says I got a CHL for me and mine. If I hear gun shots in the distance I'm obligated to protect myself and mine by not engaging the avoidable.

[rmr1923]

I think I fall into the "it depends" category too. There are so many variables in a situation like this, and I just can't say how I'd react unless I were put in that situation. My first instinct would be to get the heck out of the area and call 911. If I go rushing into an active shooter scenario, I may be mistaken by an LEO or another CHL holder as an attacker and get shot myself. If the shooter is not an immediate threat to myself or my family, I probably wouldn't go out of my way to engage. But then again, if I'm outside a day-care and I hear gunshots go off inside...

[A-R]

Legally obligated? Obviously not

Morally obligated? I dunno, depends on your particular moral values I guess. I doubt anyone here would be OK with just standing there watching/listening to innocents being slaughtered and doing nothing. But your moral obligation to respond may only involve calling police, being a good scout/witness. Or it may involve running into the fire (so to speak). And "depends on situation" is certainly a valid, reasonable answer to the question. The situation of a young, single, athletic male may be different than that of an older, out-of-shape, married parent of young children. Would your reaction to the particular circumstances cause more harm than good?

The OP's question is a good one BECAUSE it has no clear-cut black-n-white answers - it forces us to think, analyze etc.

To focus the answers a bit more, perhaps try different hypothetical scenarios.

1. Tuscon for example. Would you do what Mr. Zamudio did and run out of the Walgreens toward the gunfire? I probably would not. Mr. Zamudio is young and single. I am middle-aged, married, and have two very young children. This doesn't make Zamudio or any other single person more "expendable" than me, just means I would have to pause to think about my wife and kids. On the other hand, if I was not involved in the immediate gunfire, but was outside and could see the events unfold clearly in front of me (perhaps I'm just exiting my car in parking lot when gunfire starts), and my wife/children were not with me, and I could easily get to a good location of excellent cover (not just concealment, but hard cover like behind a masonry wall or post) without being detected by the shooter, I might see if I could engage the shooter without harming others.

2. Different scenario: school children are disembarking a school bus for a field trip and a crazed gunman opens fire on them as they're exiting. I cannot think of a scenario where a passive 911/witness reaction would allow me to live with myself. If I saw this unfold in front of me and I had the means to stop it, I would be compelled to engage the shooter post haste. What's the difference? I dunno, something about the innocence of children or something (and yes, I know that an innocent girl was killed in Tucson, but I doubt that was obvious to anyone at a distance - the school bus in my scenario 2 makes the situation more immediately obvious).

3. A high-stakes bank robbery/shootout like what happened with the two body armor-wearing gunman at the Bank of America years ago: No way. I would stay well hidden behind extremely hard cover or flee as fast and low as I could. Not only am I outgunned, but the bad guys have only stolen money. Even if I could sneak up behind one of them and put a bullet point blank in the back of his head I wouldn't risk it over money. Especially not someone else's money.

4. A Luby's or Virginia Tech scenario - I'm trapped in a confined area with others and it quickly becomes obvious this is a mass murder. If I could flee and have better-than-average chance of escaping (including my wife and kids if present), I would run. If not, yes, I would engage from cover/concealment in the best ambush I could quickly set up.

As has been said, it's all case-by-case based on your own qualifications/limitations, the particular criminal scenario, your location, your available cover, etc.

Most importantly, ask yourself if the reaction you're contemplating will do more harm than good and if risking your life is important enough to justifiy the possiblity of your wife and children burying you.

[wally775]

I definitely would fall into it depends category.

That stated I also would be one of the forum that have stated
I would try to help. I don’t think I am morally obligated
to be a first responder and if at a distance I doubt I would be first anyway.
I have been around the block a few times and your experiences teach you
things.

What I like to think I would do is what is right.
That might be protecting family in place.
It might be remove my family from the premise and call 911.
No family, then assess the situation and decide to do nothing but observe.

It could also mean proceed to the area with reasonable discern (not drawing and waving a firearm while running into some type of firefight).
It might mean engaging the shooter.
It might mean supporting (without displaying) another person engaging the shooter.
It might mean helping hold down the shooter if already restrained by others.

I think anyone who has a CHL has no moral obligation to protect anyone.
They certainly don’t have any obligation to be a leo or be any type of soldier.
I have a drivers license it does not mean I am obligated to risk my life to help someone
escape a car that may be about to catch fire. Obligated to stop and render aid perhaps but
risk my life? I don’t think so. It does not mean I wouldn’t, it just means it is my decision.

The fact is we might help without any type of weapon.
I just think if my daughter/son was involved in an auto accident or possible
victim to a shooter or rapist I would want them to be helped by someone.
I don’t care if they have a CHL.

Sorry for the long post.
My point is how I can expect someone to help me or mine
if all any of us are concerned with are mine or me.

MHO.

[Oldgringo]

Personally, I fall into the camp that says I got a CHL for me and mine. If I hear gun shots in the distance I'm obligated to protect myself and mine by not engaging the avoidable.

I'm gonna' vote with my CHL buddies, Abe and Coug above.

[Purplehood]

Personally, I fall into the camp that says I got a CHL for me and mine. If I hear gun shots in the distance I'm obligated to protect myself and mine by not engaging the avoidable.

I would like to state and promise that that is the case with me, but the original question is too broad to give a clear-cut answer. And with that I guess we could go back to a long string of topics in the past with various "what-if" scenarios.

I do know this: By default I AM NOT a first responder and HAVE NO INTENT to be one. Maybe that is a more accurate characterization of my feelings on this topic.

Having said that, once again, it DEPENDS...

[gigag04]

If I was not in uniform and heard shots at a distance in a public setting, I would get me and mine to safety and holt what I had. No vest, radio, rifle, trauma kit, reloads, flashlight...what help am I actually going to be. In my experience distant shots heard are difficult to locate. If you heard a robbery gone bad it will most likely be over and the bgs gone before you arrive to save the day. Of it is continued shots then you are running into an active shooter scenario - armed only with the most concealable gun you had that day.

Exceptions would include a school, daycare, and some other unique situation where possibly trading my life would seem acceptable. It sounds ugly but adults who are able to carry and chose not to, are unarmed by choice.

[TxKimberMan]

Exceptions would include a school, daycare, and some other unique situation where possibly trading my life would seem acceptable. It sounds ugly but adults who are able to carry and chose not to, are unarmed by choice.

That sums it up nicely for me. Well said, sir.

[Fallsraider]

Legally obligated? Obviously not

Morally obligated? I dunno, depends on your particular moral values I guess. I doubt anyone here would be OK with just standing there watching/listening to innocents being slaughtered and doing nothing. But your moral obligation to respond may only involve calling police, being a good scout/witness. Or it may involve running into the fire (so to speak). And "depends on situation" is certainly a valid, reasonable answer to the question. The situation of a young, single, athletic male may be different than that of an older, out-of-shape, married parent of young children. Would your reaction to the particular circumstances cause more harm than good?

The OP's question is a good one BECAUSE it has no clear-cut black-n-white answers - it forces us to think, analyze etc.

To focus the answers a bit more, perhaps try different hypothetical scenarios.

1. Tuscon for example. Would you do what Mr. Zamudio did and run out of the Walgreens toward the gunfire? I probably would not. Mr. Zamudio is young and single. I am middle-aged, married, and have two very young children. This doesn't make Zamudio or any other single person more "expendable" than me, just means I would have to pause to think about my wife and kids. On the other hand, if I was not involved in the immediate gunfire, but was outside and could see the events unfold clearly in front of me (perhaps I'm just exiting my car in parking lot when gunfire starts), and my wife/children were not with me, and I could easily get to a good location of excellent cover (not just concealment, but hard cover like behind a masonry wall or post) without being detected by the shooter, I might see if I could engage the shooter without harming others.

2. Different scenario: school children are disembarking a school bus for a field trip and a crazed gunman opens fire on them as they're exiting. I cannot think of a scenario where a passive 911/witness reaction would allow me to live with myself. If I saw this unfold in front of me and I had the means to stop it, I would be compelled to engage the shooter post haste. What's the difference? I dunno, something about the innocence of children or something (and yes, I know that an innocent girl was killed in Tucson, but I doubt that was obvious to anyone at a distance - the school bus in my scenario 2 makes the situation more immediately obvious).

3. A high-stakes bank robbery/shootout like what happened with the two body armor-wearing gunman at the Bank of America years ago: No way. I would stay well hidden behind extremely hard cover or flee as fast and low as I could. Not only am I outgunned, but the bad guys have only stolen money. Even if I could sneak up behind one of them and put a bullet point blank in the back of his head I wouldn't risk it over money. Especially not someone else's money.

4. A Luby's or Virginia Tech scenario - I'm trapped in a confined area with others and it quickly becomes obvious this is a mass murder. If I could flee and have better-than-average chance of escaping (including my wife and kids if present), I would run. If not, yes, I would engage from cover/concealment in the best ambush I could quickly set up.

As has been said, it's all case-by-case based on your own qualifications/limitations, the particular criminal scenario, your location, your available cover, etc.

Most importantly, ask yourself if the reaction you're contemplating will do more harm than good and if risking your life is important enough to justifiy the possiblity of your wife and children burying you.

Well stated. . . well put. . . well spoken! It illustrates the absurdity of thinking there is one standard answer that fits mulitple situations. None of us know what we would do until it happens. . . and hopefully it never happens. I have explained to my family how the CHL is not something that we broadcast, not because we are ashamed of it, but because it is NOT a Batman License and there could be a situation occur where people know I am a CHL and turn to me to "do something" when "doing something" may not be the best course of action at that moment. . . especially something like that bank robbery reference.
It's questions like these that make this the most interesting place on the web!