As A CHLer - Should You Be A First Responder?

[oldtexan]

I haven't read the thread yet, but I will (it's bedtime!). I just wanted to chime in quickly on a couple of points. As a former state certified ECA (hours less than an EMT), there was an implied rule that if you saw an accident or someone in need of help, give it. It might've even been a law (been 20yrs) that if someone could prove you were licensed & didn't help, you could get in trouble . . . BUT . . . my point is wouldn't you want someone that could help you or your family to TRY to help? Or would you just want them to watch without action?

That philosophy alone is what makes me think I would help anyone.

Sheep/Sheep dogs/Wolves

What some are saying is, they're just a sheep with some sharp teeth. I see myself as a sheep dog.

If I get assaulted by a violent criminal I don't expect anyone else to intervene.

I am under no obligation of any kind to use lethal force to protect anyone. I would use it to protect my family and myself, but no one else.

To those who say they would come to the aid of a stranger being "assaulted", I ask how will you know who is the predator and who is the victim?

If you see someone with a gun or a knife, do you assume that person is the bad guy? Maybe it's a CHL holder lawfully defending himself from a robber who flashed his gun, then hid it again quickly. This is a common tactic. Maybe the guy with the gun is a bad guy; maybe he's not. What about two predators trying to kill each other over a drug deal gone bad? Gonna risk your life for that?

Oh, and if you come to the aid of a woman being beaten by her significant other, don't be surprised if she comes after you when you point a weapon at her man. You may have to end up shooting her too.

I've been through enough Force on Force training to know that these things are not always clear cut. One of several problems with classifying people as sheep, sheepdogs, or wolves is that it assumes you can tell very quickly and accurately, under extreme stress, which is which. I won't bet my life, fortune, or liberty on being able to do that.

[seamusTX]

One of several problems with classifying people as sheep, sheepdogs, or wolves is that it assumes you can tell quickly and accurately under stress which is which. I won't bet my life, fortune, or liberty on that.

Amen to that.

Most, I repeat most, victims of murder and assault asked for it one way or another. They might have been dealing drugs, as you say. They might have stolen from a criminal. They might have been playing Hide The Pickle in the wrong place at the wrong time. They might have started the altercation with "Who you lookin' at?"

The chance of coming upon a criminal or lunatic killing infants or Catholic nuns is infinitesimal.

I never liked that wolves and sheepdogs business simply because people are not animals. Animals act on instinct. There is nothing morally wrong with a wolf killing a sheep for food. People are required to think (though many fail to do so).

- Jim

[mgood]

If you see someone with a gun or a knife, do you assume that person is the bad guy? Maybe it's a CHL holder lawfully defending himself from a robber who flashed his gun, then hid it again quickly. This is a common tactic. Maybe the guy with the gun is a bad guy; maybe he's not. What about two predators trying to kill each other over a drug deal gone bad? Gonna risk your life for that?

An excellent point, and one that was brought up by my CHL instructor. Be very careful about jumping in someone else's fight. It's not always clear who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. That thuggish looking dude pointing a gun at someone might be an undercover cop for all you know.

I'm not saying one should never use their weapon to defend a stranger, just that you should pause a moment and consider whether or not you really know what's going on before you go charging in.

[Jasonw560]

LAYGO,

The law still states if you have any type of markings on your vehicle, or in uniform, or even an EMT cap on, and you don't stop to render aid, then you're liable. However, with none of the above, you are not obligated to help. Of course, I would stop to help.

The more I think and read, I can see the other viewpoint. I am leaning more towards the "it depends" side.

[magillapd]

This is a great thread.

This is why I will, under 99.9% of circumstances not defend a 3rd person. MY CHL is for me and my family. Now, I will say that the only time that I will not hesitate using the 3rd person defense is if that 3rd person is a close personal friend of mine. But a stranger, nope, not unless my life was also in danger in which case it would be done under the self defense part of the law.

Others pointed out some great things. Under cover officers, other CHL holders, Domestic Disturbances, etc. A close friend of mine is also a CHL holder, and we debate about this all the time. He would be one to run towards the shooting. Me, I'll go hide if I need to, so long as I, and my family are safe. The last thing I want to do is shoot someone, so I will not be putting myself in that situation.

With all of that being said, what about this senario:

Neighborhood setting, sitting in recliner, hear gunshots outside at the other end of the street and hear people screaming. (We'll say 800 feet away) You are in a 2 story home, and you run upstairs to your bedroom. From your window you see 2 people walking down the street with a handgun and a shotgun. They are shooting into peoples homes and shooting people that have come outside to see what was going on. You see that they are walking down the street towards your house. You remember that you have your deer rifle in the safe..... fill in the rest.

I can tell you that in this situation, since my life is in danger, I would grab the scoped rifle and take them out. Now, if they were walking away, I wouldn't. But either way, 911 would be getting dialed and help would be started.

[The Annoyed Man]

At the endnof the day, it boils down to whether or not you think that your responsibilities to your loved ones exceed your responsibilities to a total stranger. The shark analogy is a good one. There is a darn big difference between rendering aid to a stranger, and dying for a stranger, with a lot room in between.

[speedsix]

...my personal decisions about this question have been answered after considering several things, among which are:

...the Bible says "greater love has no man than that he lay down his life for another"
...the story of the Good Samaritan said that the one who showed Godly love was the one who DID something...

...my training as a Marine and as a LEO prepared me to size up situations quickly and make wise decisions
...the same training prepared me for, as have my experiences, handling such situations correctly
...personal life experiences and others' I know have taught me what is likely to happen if noone intervenes, or when it's not necessary to intervene...every situation is different...and every decision will not be perfect every time...

...all of the above notwithstanding...there is a lot to be lost/paid/suffered by being involved...we have to weigh the facts as we see and hear them, our gut feelings, the law, the consequences even of legally correct intervention...and many other things that are different for each of us to make either general decisions or situation-specific ones...

...I don't fault, criticize, insult, or belittle a man who makes his choice either way he decides...it is not my business to decide for him what he should or shouldn't do...

...a mature way to handle it would be to neither sneer at those who would help...nor belittle those who wouldn't...my decision is mine...your decision is yours...

...I personally know two officers who are alive today because a citizen intervened in a deadly force situation...one was in uniform at the time and one was off duty...I'm glad that there are those who feel it their duty or privilige to help in an emergency....

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec 9.33 also deals with "imminently necessary" in helping us decide our legal options...

[jamisjockey]

I skipped over pages 2-5.
I have a suspicion that the dead horse is being flogged black and blue.....
I'm also in the "it depends" camp. No two situations are alike. My decision on how to respond will depend on how much of the fact pattern I've been able to gather. There may be circumstances where I stand there and watch another person be shot, without acting at all myself. There also may be circumstances where I sprint forth to the sound of gunfire. It all depends.
But no, a CHL holder is not a First Responder. You are a witness, and a bystander, and possibly an actor.