TexasCHLforum.com

Just curious, anyone have links to news stories where a CHL intervened in a situation like this and things went badly for the CHL?
I know that 99% of these situations go unreported because the gun doesn't come into play. If it weren't for this forum we wouldn't hear about many of the ones we know about.
We will never know how many crimes have been prevented because people like the OP stepped up. Or how many could have been prevented but weren't because the victim wasn't a relative of one of the "GGs" present.

I intervened in a cross between a domestic dispute and a child abduction. I assume that all three were biologically related but as I was there, the situation escalated from an argument with the child in her car to an argument with the child in his truck and the woman hysterically trying to wedge herself into his door frame so that he couldn’t close the door and leave. I walked up and asked loudly, purposefully wanting him to hear, if the lady would like for me to call 911. She pleaded yes. I immediately called 911 and started walking backwards away from all of them.

I am not a large man. As someone else mentioned I am not in a position to grapple with anybody. I also did not presume who was in the right or wrong, I just wanted to offer police to come help sort it out. Granted, the way she said she wanted 911 involved I assumed she was in the right but I still had no intentions of directly intervening. I had two boys and a wife in a car nearby.

For me the black and white issue of when to help can still be a wide grey area. Could I have done more? Yes. Could I have done less and still sleep well, maybe. I found that balance between risking my family’s stability for strangers in an altercation I knew very little about but was still concerned about.

As others have said, I think the only criticism I have for you is the space issue. In my situation when the man tried to close the gap on me, I had put fuel pumps and cars between us and I was able to keep them between us until he decided to leave. If possible, once you got his distracted and the woman “freed” you might could have looked for a cart or anything to put between you.

I think the line between obligation to society and a “batman” mentality is hard to define. Like defining love, it’s easier to know it in the moment rather than describing it succinctly for a definition. I just hope I know it when I need to.

You did well.

Something to consider, which I alluded to briefly in my previous post, is how old and in what physical condition is the observer?

At 61 and infirm, I'm not going to react the same way that the OP would have reacted, simply because I am no longer physically capable of those kinds of reactions. There was a time when I was so equipped, but those days are behind me. Therefore, a "one-size-fits-all" answer is incorrect. That in no way diminishes my strongly held instincts to protect women and children (I'm old fashioned that way), but it does significantly impact how I might go about doing that.

One of the classic measures of civilization is the extent to which a person or people will go to protect the vulnerable.........and I'm not talking about entitlement spending or any of that crap.......I'm talking about physically defending the vulnerable, and it affects all ages. Example: we've always had bullying in school, but "we" have taught our children that responding with violence is wrong, no matter the offense against them, or how violent the offense is. Back when Hector was a pup, if a bully pushed me too hard, I was free to bust him one in the mouth, and the bully would get told he had it coming, and I might get a peremptory "you shouldn't have hit him, wink, wink, nudge, nudge." Nowadays, we expect the state to fix it. Without meaning to be political, I recall the historical example of the Battle of Athens in 1946, when citizens put an end to corruption and bullying and set things right.

Those folks in Tennessee were being extremely civilized, because they refused to let chaos and intimidation determine their lives. They could have said, "not me......I'll just sit here until the police come" .......except that in Athens, the local police were part of the problem. So the citizens fixed it.

That is how we have a better society. When we observe chaos and intimidation, we can either fix it, or we can call the cops and wait. Nothing against cops....they are most often doing the best they can with the resources they have. But they are also often spread thin, and a LOT can happen in the 5-10 minutes it takes for them to get there.

What if the bad guy in the OP's story had a shank? Is anybody here willing to sit in the safety of their car and watch him murder a woman? ......in the name of staying uninvolved and being a good witness?

I hope not.

We all have varying degrees of capability, and NO, my CHL is NOT a batman license. But even with diminished capacities, I would feel less than a man if it had been in my power to interfere with a murder of a helpless woman, possibly averting it, or at least delaying it until police arrived, and I did nothing.

And I felt this way LONG before I ever even became a gun owner. It's the way I was raised.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Back when Hector was a pup, if a bully pushed me too hard, I was free to bust him one in the mouth, and the bully would get told he had it coming, and I might get a peremptory "you shouldn't have hit him, wink, wink, nudge, nudge." Nowadays, we expect the state to fix it. Without meaning to be political, I recall the historical example of the Battle of Athens in 1946, when citizens put an end to corruption and bullying and set things right.

Was that in the old California? My brother is in his 70s. Back in the day, in California no less, he did exactly that --busted a bully. And he didn't get any "you shouldn't have hit him talk," he got driven home by the principal so the principal could tell our parents how proud he was of my brother, and what a good thing he did for the school. Flash forward to today, in Texas no less, school principal tells coworker that when a bully attacks his son, the proper response is to curl up in a ball to minimize the effect of the blows --and to the nutty progs, this constitutes advanced "civilization."

I am 9 years older then TAM. I don't have the physical capability to intervene in a situation like this. My CHL is for protection of myself and family. I will do everything possible to get LEO involved ( their job ). Every situation has to be evaluated by it's own circumstances. I can barely swim. I wouldn't jump into a river to save a stranger. I would probably drown doing it. For family I would try. You young hot shots may have the physical capability to intervene in a situation like this. I have, when I was younger, done recovery of strangers but would not at my age try any great physical act. Not a question of bravery- just reality. Can't jump the fences or run down a street like I used to. That's one of the reasons I got a CHL. Getting older is no fun- it beats the alternative though.

Grdollaway wrote:The answer is yes, I would have still intervened even if I had no gun. I carry a gun not as false sense of security but to be prepared. In the event it is needed. In this situation it was not needed. I have become involved in physical altercations in the event of protecting myself or my family. I am confident in my physical ability and believe there is in many times ways to deescalate a situation without violence. I feel that becoming involved in this situation I was able to remove an innocent bystander from an uncomfortable situation.
I believe in building strong community and helping each other out. So unfortunately my children were exposed to a challenging situation and what they say was an individual needing assistance and someone coming to there aid. I have raised them to be generous through volunteering at food pantries, nursing homes walks for causes, etc. In my opinion we have a commitment to community. I do understand I may have put myself out there and that was a decision I made. I would do it again but yes allowing additional distance between myself and the aggressor. I grew up in a challenging environment and have seen first hand that violence begets violence.
I made a commitment when I received my CHL that I would not over react in a situation and assess all options. It is not a batman badge or give me any additional duties. I have stood my ground for my beliefs and my community long before my CHL and will continue to with or without a gun.
I do appreciate the various opinions though and it shows where many stand and were they are from.

+1. I couldn't tell you how many times I have intervened before concealed carry. Though I was younger, fit and a tad meaner it was SOP. I am older, fatter and high mileage now but that would not change with or without a weapon. That said, the only time since CHL that I wished I had it when I didn't (put on an empty holster) was a similar situation to the OP's. I did maintain evasion and retaliatory distance however and it ended up working out.

rotor wrote:I am 9 years older then TAM. I don't have the physical capability to intervene in a situation like this. My CHL is for protection of myself and family. I will do everything possible to get LEO involved ( their job ). Every situation has to be evaluated by it's own circumstances. I can barely swim. I wouldn't jump into a river to save a stranger. I would probably drown doing it. For family I would try. You young hot shots may have the physical capability to intervene in a situation like this. I have, when I was younger, done recovery of strangers but would not at my age try any great physical act. Not a question of bravery- just reality. Can't jump the fences or run down a street like I used to. That's one of the reasons I got a CHL. Getting older is no fun- it beats the alternative though.

Good job, rotor! You've pretty much put many of these "what if" scenarios into real life perspective.

Are police officers obligated to protect? No.

Texas_Blaze wrote:Are police officers obligated to protect? No.

Morally or legally?

I would hope the Zimmerman trial would be a lesson for all of us. The prosecution kept hitting on GZ wanting to be a Cop and went after TM because he (GZ) was armed. This is one Man's opinion, but I believe when you have that CHL and you are carrying a gun, you have to avoid conflict as much as possible. It would be difficult to claim self defence if you were a party in the conflict. I know the use of force laws better than most civilians, and the GZ prosecution used GZ's knowledge of the law against him. We all make choices in life. I decided not to be a victim and I got trained, got a CHL and I carry all the time. Most adults see absolutely no reason to carry a gun. They feel perfectly safe going about their days unarmed. I feel no obligation to come to their aid unless I too am threatened.

jmra wrote:

Texas_Blaze wrote:Are police officers obligated to protect? No.

Morally or legally?

They felt neither at Columbine, Luby's, McDonald's, Virginia Tech......

howdy wrote:

jmra wrote:

Texas_Blaze wrote:Are police officers obligated to protect? No.

Morally or legally?

They felt neither at Columbine, Luby's, McDonald's, Virginia Tech......

Now you've totally lost me. I have no clue what you are implying.

jmra wrote:

howdy wrote:

jmra wrote:

Texas_Blaze wrote:Are police officers obligated to protect? No.

Morally or legally?

They felt neither at Columbine, Luby's, McDonald's, Virginia Tech......

Now you've totally lost me. I have no clue what you are implying.

Your question was are the Police morally or legally required to act, and my comment eluded to the fact that at the mass shootings of Columbine High School (for over an hour and a half), the Luby's cafeteria in Texas, the McDonalds in California, at Virginia Tech and so on, the Police did not enter the building until the shooting stopped. They formed a defensive position outside the building and waited. They were under no legal or moral obligation to intervene in the shooting.

I think we are getting off the original subject.

howdy wrote:

jmra wrote:

howdy wrote:

jmra wrote:

Texas_Blaze wrote:Are police officers obligated to protect? No.

Morally or legally?

They felt neither at Columbine, Luby's, McDonald's, Virginia Tech......

Now you've totally lost me. I have no clue what you are implying.

Your question was are the Police morally or legally required to act, and my comment eluded to the fact that at the mass shootings of Columbine High School (for over an hour and a half), the Luby's cafeteria in Texas, the McDonalds in California, at Virginia Tech and so on, the Police did not enter the building until the shooting stopped. They formed a defensive position outside the building and waited. They were under no legal or moral obligation to intervene in the shooting.

I think we are getting off the original subject.

We are getting off track but in my opinion you are twisting the SCOTUS ruling which dealt with liability and the ability to sue officers not what their legal and or moral obligations are. As to responses to active shooters, the common theory on how to react and what is the best and safest way to respond has dramatically changed. The 1999 Columbine shooting being the initial and primary reason for said change. At one time it was thought the best way to proceed would be to wait until you had overwhelming force and attempt to negotiate before attempting direct confrontation because in most hostage situations it was believed that method would minimize casualties. Now dept are training to send officers in as soon as possible because it is believed to quickest way to end these situations in no small part due to the tendency for active shooters to suicide when confronted with law enforcement instead of trying to engage LEO's. Active shooter you would use one tactic but against a terroristic threat you would use a different tactic. Law enforcement didn't refuse to engage at Columbine because they didn't care or some court said they didn't have to. They used the tactics they were trained in against a scenario that they just were not prepared for. Considering how many police officers put their lives at risk for their fellow citizens the anti cop thing goes a bit too far when you try and portray individual officers as uncaring.

howdy wrote:

jmra wrote:

howdy wrote:

jmra wrote:

Texas_Blaze wrote:Are police officers obligated to protect? No.

Morally or legally?

They felt neither at Columbine, Luby's, McDonald's, Virginia Tech......

Now you've totally lost me. I have no clue what you are implying.

Your question was are the Police morally or legally required to act, and my comment eluded to the fact that at the mass shootings of Columbine High School (for over an hour and a half), the Luby's cafeteria in Texas, the McDonalds in California, at Virginia Tech and so on, the Police did not enter the building until the shooting stopped. They formed a defensive position outside the building and waited. They were under no legal or moral obligation to intervene in the shooting.

.

Really? I just thought they didn't get there in time. is this verified? If so...