Being a 'Good Samaritan'

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

CHenry

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
21,149
Reaction score
12,654
Location
Under your bed
If caught in an armed robbery as you mentioned, assuming for simplicity's sake there is only one bad guy, I would draw my pistol, move to where I had a clear shot, and instruct the perp to drop the weapon. If he complies, great, hold him (assuming a male) at gun point until law enforcement arrives. If he doesn't, and appears to make a move to shoot *me*, I will take the shot.

Here's how I rationalize, if I take the above action and the perp drops the weapon, awesome--just saved some work for LEOs and a big headache for the bank/convenience store, etc. If the perp wants to fight, than hopefully I got behind some cover and can shoot him quicker than he can shoot me--by telling him to put his weapon down with my weapon drawn, I am ahead of the power curve and he is forced to rethink his plan. If I don't draw my firearm and thinks go south, firstly I am at a power disadvantage (no pistol drawn, probably need to move to cover), and secondly people might have died as a result.

Personally, I believe I would sleep more soundly at night (aka, could cope better) if I had killed a perp who wanted to fight and threatened the lives of innocent people, than to sleep knowing I killed a perp and because I waited to draw my pistol, innocent lives were lost. I like to be proactive ;)

I'd be interested to hear the opinions of other OSAers!
I pretty much take this same stance. I've thought about it a lot - even while in the store waiting to pay.
 

D. Hargrove

Sharpshooter
Joined
Jan 9, 2017
Messages
5,556
Reaction score
6,437
Location
Hulen
I have thought about this for years and it seems that every situation dictates a different degree of potential for me to "assist". Loss of life, limb or sight and I will engage the adversary if possible, utilizing the escalation of force technique if at all possible. If the situation is dire, then my actions may be as well. Situational awareness and understanding of the engagement environment are first and foremost in any decision making scenario of course, as is the collateral damage/effects potential. COL Boyd's O.O.D.A Loop plays a huge role in these decisions for most, even if they have never heard of the man or his loop.

OODA Loop:
Observe
Orient
Decide
Act

We all conduct this thought process many times a day. The cycle continues until any given situation is resolved.
 

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
29,424
Reaction score
15,659
Location
Collinsville

gerhard1

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
4,549
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Enid, OK
I have thought about this for years and it seems that every situation dictates a different degree of potential for me to "assist". Loss of life, limb or sight and I will engage the adversary if possible, utilizing the escalation of force technique if at all possible. If the situation is dire, then my actions may be as well. Situational awareness and understanding of the engagement environment are first and foremost in any decision making scenario of course, as is the collateral damage/effects potential. COL Boyd's O.O.D.A Loop plays a huge role in these decisions for most, even if they have never heard of the man or his loop.

OODA Loop:
Observe
Orient
Decide
Act

We all conduct this thought process many times a day. The cycle continues until any given situation is resolved.
This is my stance as well. Unless things go south in a big hurry, I won't intervene, except to be as good a witness as I can be. I won't do anything that could conceivably panic the bad guy and cause him to start shooting.

There are too many variables that are not under your control. A bystander sees you and tries to intervene, thinking that your shooting might make things worse*, or if you warn the bad guy and he takes a shot at you, you shoot back and miss and a melee ensues. The result could be fatalities among the bystanders. Or he shoots you and then panics, and it goes to hell in a handbasket.

You might think 'I won't miss' but stress does not contribute to fine motor skills and if you miss and hit a bystander, that will at the least look bad, even without civil and criminal penalties.

It is far safer, hence wiser to just let him take the money.

Incidentally, the fear of CCW heroics was very often the reason that businesses posted the gunbuster signs in Kansas.

*This, to me, was not entirely hypothetical. My late mother hated that I carried when I lived in the State of Washington, and one morning I was taking her to breakfast. As we drove into the parking lot she said how strange it was that nobody was there. She entered the diner and the waitress told her to get down on the floor. My mom stood there, not getting it. Again "Get down on the floor!! We're being robbed!" Just then, I came in and they began to get back up. As we ate, I said to her that if this ever happened in the future and I decided that I had to take the bad guy out, do not interfere, as that would likely get both of us killed. Her response worried me for the rest of our time in Seattle. "Well, you don't just expect me to just sit by and do nothing while you get yourself killed, do you?" Soon after this, I got transferred to Boeing Wichita and Kansas did not get CCW until after she died.
 

CHenry

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
21,149
Reaction score
12,654
Location
Under your bed
I stole this and it's a pretty thought provoking read. What he says tends to go along with what I have always thought.

Interview with Tom Givens by Gila Hayes. (Feb. 2017)

In the wake of the terrorist shooting at the Fort Lauderdale airport, a number of Network members came to us with varied questions about stopping a mass shooter. Having the opportunity to speak with Network Advisory Board member and Rangemaster owner/instructor Tom Givens not long after the shootings was providential, and we used that opportunity to ask his guidance on the questions.

eJournal: A question commonly asked by members deals with what to do in a mass shooting incident. Boiled down to its most basic, do I run, do I hide, do I engage the shooter?

Givens: Let’s separate the different problems first. First off, I would say that whether you are going to engage or not has an awful lot to do with whether you are alone, with your family and so forth. If I had three or four small children with me, that would alter my decision from being alone or being with an armed partner. That would be my first concern: is it just me, or do I have other people for whom I am responsible? I may not engage voluntarily if I have children or non-combatant dependents with me. If I have children with me, at the first opportunity, I am going to get the hell out.

A lot of times moving away is a viable option. If you do, don’t be silly about things that say “Fire Exit Only,” or “Employees Only.” For years, I went to the National Tactical Invitational, and they would set up problems where you have twenty, thirty people in the room, like in a simulated meeting, and an active shooter would come in and everybody would just kind of sit there because the exit said “Employees Only,” or “Do Not Enter,” or “Authorized Personnel Only,” or something like that. You need to scrub that out of your mind! People are so accustomed to thinking, “Well, I can’t go out that door,” that people sitting literally four feet from a door failed to bolt through it and escape.

Absent something like that, my opinion is I would engage the guy at the first opportunity, because historically these people stop the instant they are actively engaged by somebody else. That doesn’t even having to mean kill them. At the first sign of resistance by anybody with a weapon they tend to either surrender or suicide. I don’t care which.

In the Clackamas, OR shopping mall food court, a man had shot several people. A concealed carrier pulled his gun and never even got a round off, because as soon as the guy saw the gun, he ducked around the corner and shot himself. That is a perfect example of engagement without gunfire to solve the problem. The first person who is able to, actively resists.

If you look at a lot of these, when the shooter hears the police enter the building, he shoots himself. Sometimes they suicide when the police start to engage them; sometimes they will when they just hear the police arrive; sometimes when a private citizen pulls a gun. The first active resistance almost always ends the event.

So unless I have some reason not to, my inclination would be to engage just as soon as physically possible. Let him know there is resistance. If for whatever reason–maybe there are too many people between us–I couldn’t take a shot, I might draw his attention even if just to let him see my gun. My response may or may not include actually shooting, depending entirely on the circumstances.

eJournal: You don’t worry about that making you his next target?

Givens: No, the odds are the guy is going to kill himself. About a third will kill themselves immediately, something close to a third are killed by responding police or armed citizens, and the remainder give up, like, “I’m finished now,” or are subdued physically. My plan, absent a child being in the way or something of that nature, is to engage the guy in whatever manner I can, and as soon as possible.

One thing, I think you will find interesting, comes from a police academy in Ohio, and Ron Borsch, who just retired recently after over thirty years in law enforcement. He made a very passionate study, a real personal crusade, of learning about active killers. Most people don’t know this, but more active shooter events are aborted by citizens than by police. In fact, two thirds are aborted by private citizens, and only one third by police. When private citizens intervene, the average body count is 2.33 victims, but when the police intervene, the average body count is 14.29 victims—because the armed citizen with the gun is already there, but the cop has to come to the scene. In that time, what is the bad guy doing? He is shooting people. Gun free zones accomplish only one thing—they raise the body count!

The press is not going to tell you about the times that a private citizen with a gun stopped a shooter. That conflicts with their narrative so they are not going to tell you that. The fact is, more are aborted by private citizens than by police, by a two to one margin.

eJournal: Not only do those stories not make it into the mainstream news, but we are also discouraged from taking action by officials. As you take action against the shooter, do you have any concerns about being misidentified as part of the problem by law enforcement?

Givens: Yes, absolutely. The first thing you want to do once the threat is over is get that gun put away. Get it out of your hands; have your hands visible. If you hear police radios, if you hear sirens or what not, get the gun out of your hands. If you don’t hear them approach and you hear, “Police! Drop the gun,” drop the damned gun! If you don’t immediately, you are going to get shot at. They don’t want to hear you say anything, and odds are no one will be able to hear anything anyway.

If they tell you to drop the gun, drop the gun. If they tell you to get on the ground, get on the ground. Don’t say, “But I have my $3,000 blaster!” I don’t care: drop the gun!

One concern I have is that the current training in law enforcement is as soon as the first officers get to the scene, they are to move toward the sound of gunfire and try to stop the shooter, because as I said earlier the first resistance ends the problem. The primary goal is to stop the killing. Pre-Columbine, the answer was seal the place off and wait for SWAT, but the bad guys were walking around shooting people during that time, including going back to hunt down and shoot victims hiding under furniture. We can’t just stand around outside and listen to the gun fire, knowing every one of those shots means a person is being murdered. So now police move directly to the source. Unfortunately, I may be there at the source, too.

Cops coming in to an active shooter event have been told that shots have been fired, people have been shot, and oh, look, there is a guy with a gun. So my gun has got to get back into the holster very quickly, or if I hear a police radio around the corner, or if I’m told to drop it, I will. I can put a foot on it if I need to. But I need to not be standing there pointing a gun at somebody as cops come around the corner.
 

NikatKimber

Sharpshooter
Staff Member
Special Hen Moderator
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
20,771
Reaction score
1,492
Location
Claremore
That was a question that was brought up when I was part of the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.

"What if you are misidentified by responding LE?"

Basically the following hypothetical. Assuming an "active shooter" scenario, not robbery, of course.

Mr. Ima Bad Guy pulls Glock & Wesson XD from bag with Super Extendo magazine, starts shooting. I pull mine, shoot him. Then LE busts through the door and shoot me since I haven't had time to re-holster.

My response then, as it is now, is this:

That's horrible. And something I must be ready for as a CCW holder. I could die "in the line of fire" and it could be friendly fire. That's a risk I'm willing to take. Sure, I want to mitigate that risk as much as possible. Like Givens said, engage, verify no more threat, get gun out of hand.

I (the armed citizen - LE or not) have to understand that if I choose to respond, I am doing so to stop the threat NOW, because I am the fastest response. I don't know and can't trust that LE will bust in in the next two seconds; because it could be 2 minutes later. And two minutes could be a dozen or more people dead.

Again, all that applies to an active shooter / hostage / herding type scenario vs a simple robbery.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom