TexasCHLforum.com

Fishinmastr1 wrote:Okay I'm at work and I stop at a gas station to get drink and a bite to eat. All the sudden a State trooper pulled a guy over right in front of me and I had a side view of both patrol car and the truck he pulls over on driver side. The officer was checking his window tent. Which was very dark. The guy that gotten pulled over seemed really up tight and nervous to me. But the officer didn't seem to really have his guard up to much or really paying attention. The officer finished, gave him his ticket and went on his way down the road. I was watching everything that happend. But what If the guy getting pulled over decided he was going to go after the officer with any kind of weapon and I'm stuck watching, and I am carrying my concealed M&P sheild, what would be the smart thing to do in this situation? Do I go after that guy Just thinking about it.

My first response would be to call 911 and then wait to see what happens next. If the officer quickly regains control of the situation, I witness. If the situation continues to go south, I'd probably intervene. As someone else stated, I don't have LEO training. Everything I've studied and practiced has been centered on how to exit a bad situation, not run toward it.

I would ask the officer if he or she needed any assistance and then help if the answer is yes. Otherwise, stay out of the way as much as possible. However, if it looks like the officer is in real trouble and may not be able to respond I'm going in.

Obviously I don't want to interfere with an officer performing his duty, but if an officer (or any one for that matter) is on his back taking a beating or is obviously otherwise incapacitated I would not hesitate to take action.
I'm curious now. We've heard a lot about what can go wrong trying to assist LEO just like we hear from the anti's about how many things can go wrong when people are allowed to carry guns. Our response to the anti's is "there isn't any blood flowing in the streets" from people lawfully carrying guns. So I guess my question is how much blood is flowing in the street from citizens coming to the aid of LEO? If the odds are so much in favor of things going south shouldn't there be numerous obvious examples?
I know I've seen news articles and videos about civilians coming to the aid of LEO and that aid being greatly appreciated. I don't recall any offhand (not saying they aren't out there) of things going south in such a situation. Do they happen often and just aren't reported as much as the ones with a good outcome?

jmra wrote:Obviously I don't want to interfere with an officer performing his duty, but if an officer (or any one for that matter) is on his back taking a beating or is obviously otherwise incapacitated I would not hesitate to take action.
I'm curious now. We've heard a lot about what can go wrong trying to assist LEO just like we hear from the anti's about how many things can go wrong when people are allowed to carry guns. Our response to the anti's is "there isn't any blood flowing in the streets" from people lawfully carrying guns. So I guess my question is how much blood is flowing in the street from citizens coming to the aid of LEO? If the odds are so much in favor of things going south shouldn't there be numerous obvious examples?
I know I've seen news articles and videos about civilians coming to the aid of LEO and that aid being greatly appreciated. I don't recall any offhand (not saying they aren't out there) of things going south in such a situation. Do they happen often and just aren't reported as much as the ones with a good outcome?

Exactly! We have heard a lot about what can go wrong. However, there are many examples of what has gone right and how passersby have helped on officer that needed it. And AFAIK, only theory about what could go wrong and no actual examples.

There's no easy answer, just a clear set of rules to play by.

You have no public duty or responsibility to prevent a crime by virtue of your having a CHL or weapon. PC 9.21 clearly states that you may not use force or deadly force unless you meet the statutory requirements for using force or deadly force. In other words, in any given situation, you either can or can not use force or deadly force as prescribed by law. And that law is 9.22, 9.31, 9.32, and 9.33.

Generally, if you can put yourself in the place of the third party, in this case the policeman, and under those circumstances be justified BY STATUTE to use force or deadly force (as if it were you being attacked) then you are so authorized to do so in the defense of the third person.

You are under no civil duty or obligation to do so. It is a moral decision whether to come to his aid or not. Your only requirement is to be sure your actions in his defense are statutorily lawful.

In your hypothetical you would probably be deemed a hero unless you accidentally shot the policeman in which case you would probably be in deep doo doo.

I and most would not hesitate to instinctively come to his aid. However, in the final analysis, at trial, you will succeed or not based on the facts and the law as stated above.

tex

C-dub wrote:I would ask the officer if he or she needed any assistance and then help if the answer is yes. Otherwise, stay out of the way as much as possible. However, if it looks like the officer is in real trouble and may not be able to respond I'm going in.

I agree.

Questions like the OP always seem to split the board; one side would only be a good witness, one side would become involved under
certain circumstances. One sides view is "only to protect me and mine". One sides view is "only to protect me and mine and a 3rd
party if necessary". I realize physical limitations would obviously prevent some from entering into any altercation. However, I don't
think having a CHL or not having a CHL makes much difference in what my personal response would be if I saw a Leo
getting the snot kicked out of them. My point is: having a CHL did/does not change my moral compass. I'm not a better person
because i have it. I may be better able to protect myself or others because I have it. That's all. Will I come to a woman's aid that
I believe is being assaulted or raped. Yes. Will I help a Leo if I think he is in trouble and needs it. Yes. CHL or not. CHL is only
one tool of many. Everyone that carries needs to make many decisions in advance. Am I actually willing to shoot another person
if my life or my family is in danger? Will I shoot to protect property? At what level will a threat cause me to actually pull my CC?
Will I ever let myself defend or become involved in a 3rd party altercation? Under what circumstances?
And here's the REAL kicker: every situation is different, mixed variables. Ha. Everybody, have a good weekend!

Taking the original post into consideration it would depend on what "going after the officer" consisted of. Pulling out a lethal weapon and charging? Pulling out a firearm and firing? Any reaction to a given situation should depend on the course of action being taken by each party. One thing to keep in mind is that a vehicle is every bit as deadly as any weapon we may have and could be the best choice for deployment. Personally I feel that I have a moral duty to assist in any way possible if the officer is not clearly controlling the situation in an overwhelming manor. A firearm is a tool and nothing more, so is a foot and fist. Pulling out my handgun would be a last resort and only if I had no other options and it was obvious that severe bodily injury would result to the officer or innocent individual. Sitting back, doing nothing and watching in order to be a good witness for the prosecution when it could be a life or death situation is not in my DNA.....

Salty1 wrote:Taking the original post into consideration it would depend on what "going after the officer" consisted of. Pulling out a lethal weapon and charging? Pulling out a firearm and firing? Any reaction to a given situation should depend on the course of action being taken by each party. One thing to keep in mind is that a vehicle is every bit as deadly as any weapon we may have and could be the best choice for deployment. Personally I feel that I have a moral duty to assist in any way possible if the officer is not clearly controlling the situation in an overwhelming manor. A firearm is a tool and nothing more, so is a foot and fist. Pulling out my handgun would be a last resort and only if I had no other options and it was obvious that severe bodily injury would result to the officer or innocent individual. Sitting back, doing nothing and watching in order to be a good witness for the prosecution when it could be a life or death situation is not in my DNA.....

totally. +1

The bottom line is, nobody knows for sure what they would do until faced with the actual situation. I'm not too ashamed to admit I literally wet my pants the first time I was shot at while in the military.

As a LEO if I'm in a physical fight and losing I want any and all help I can get. If I'm in a gunfight and you engage also, that's fine with me. I will let you know if I don't need your assistance or tell you to get back for your safety.

Maybe this lady will be around to help carry the load when an officer needs help.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/ohio-good-sama ... d=12400064" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

nightmare69 wrote:As a LEO if I'm in a physical fight and losing I want any and all help I can get. If I'm in a gunfight and you engage also, that's fine with me. I will let you know if I don't need your assistance or tell you to get back for your safety.

Thank you for your input n.m.69, and thank you for your services to your community.

I'd venture to say many LEO's share your opinion. And there you have it folks.

In a situation that merits active bystander participation, I'm sure things are happening way too fast for anything other than instinct. If you have the time to ask yourself if this is a job for the (cue Superman theme) armed citizen, then it's probably not. Leave the cape in your other phone booth and assist at a distance by keeping track of what transpires. Leave at the earliest chance.

If things are hitting the fan, put in a good showing for Charles' Department of Human Compassion.

I was once walking a sidewalk facing against the flow of traffic in Grand Prairie. A policeman had stopped a car, and that had both cars facing me, the citizen's car closest to me, the police car farther away and just behind it.

As I walked past the passenger's side of the stopped car, I saw the driver staring intently into his outside rear view mirror, which had him looking away from me on the sidewalk. The driver laid something that was shiny and perhaps nickel-plated in a pocket in the driver's door.

I was able to get the police officer's attention as he exited his patrol car and quietly told him there was either a hot dog rolled up in aluminum foil or something that could serve as a weapon in the driver's door pocket in the car. He thanked me, and I scooted on down the sidewalk. The officer appeared to handle the traffic stop as routine, and nothing bad happened.

Thank goodness. That officer earned his pay that day, no question - restraint and calm nerves.

Didn't want to duck completely out of this thread, but it was a very busy afternoon, and I didn't get a chance to jump back in till now.

I completely understand Charles point, and would like to think that, 40 years ago, my strapping, fit, young adult self woulda jumped in with both feet to aid an officer who appeared to need my assistance. Fast forward 40 years, and physical intervention is going to be highly modified.

One of the first thing baby EMTs and Paramedics are taught is that you can not help anyone if you become a victim, yourself. In training scenarios, the first action you ALWAYS do is ask, or determine: "Is the scene safe?"

The interventions I COULD do, in my much younger self, are not what I CAN do, pushing past 60. Like TAM said, the desire may be there, but if the body is incapable... And, of course, it depends on the situation.

Also, in my older persona, I tend to think things out a little more than I would have in my youth.

Compassionate Human? I'd like to think so, but to expect a cross section of everyone aged 20 to 80 to react the same way in an emergent situation is just not credible, for many reasons.

n5wd wrote:Didn't want to duck completely out of this thread, but it was a very busy afternoon, and I didn't get a chance to jump back in till now.

I completely understand Charles point, and would like to think that, 40 years ago, my strapping, fit, young adult self woulda jumped in with both feet to aid an officer who appeared to need my assistance. Fast forward 40 years, and physical intervention is going to be highly modified.

One of the first thing baby EMTs and Paramedics are taught is that you can not help anyone if you become a victim, yourself. In training scenarios, the first action you ALWAYS do is ask, or determine: "Is the scene safe?"

The interventions I COULD do, in my much younger self, are not what I CAN do, pushing past 60. Like TAM said, the desire may be there, but if the body is incapable... And, of course, it depends on the situation.

Also, in my older persona, I tend to think things out a little more than I would have in my youth.

Compassionate Human? I'd like to think so, but to expect a cross section of everyone aged 20 to 80 to react the same way in an emergent situation is just not credible, for many reasons.

No disagreement with anything you've said and from an EMT or paramedic's point of view that makes perfect sense. However, someone's gotta make the scene safe in the first place and that's not an EMT or paramedic's job or responsibility.