Should a person legally carrying a firearm in a jurisdiction where any adult who is not a felon can carry a firearm, intervene to defend someone under attack who could have avoided the attack had that person(s) been armed? Clearly, the unarmed person(s) decided s/he would not use a firearm to defend anyone, not just him/herself. Knowing that apathy, does the person with a firearm have an ethical duty to still come to the rescue of that person with all the legal and personal risks that come from doing so? In my opinion, while the armed person MAY do so ethically MAYBE, the person has no ethical duty do so in the sense of respecting the rights of that other person under attack who had chosen to be defenseless and decided to never be able to defend anyone else. An argument could be made it is unethical to come to that person's defense because in doing so you are violating that person's own ethical code that required that person to make themselves subject to attack and to then suffer whatever harms that may bring. The other person may be a strict pacifist and saving that person's life with deadly force would absolutely violate that person's belief the s/he had a duty to die rather than harming anyone even in self defense or defense of anyone else. Where firearms are legal to have and carry, should people with firearms defend people who could but do not? Another example, different question, is about school shootings when there is a "Gun Free Zone" sign. It does not add "unless to defend children under attack." The government decided children are NOT to be defended by guns except police. So, would an armed person then be obligated under "the rule of law" to not act with a firearm in a gun free zone since doing so is illegal? Instead, only could wait hoping the shooter steps outside the gun free zone property while hearing and seeing children being murdered per statutory government protections of the shooter?
Under current legal precedent in the united states, no private individual is legally required to provide aid to someone in need at the risk of their own safety. There is, perhaps, a moral obligation that the individual and the public may hold. There may even be a sense of duty to intervene on the part of those who cannot protect themselves. But neither of these are not legally binding. There is the good samaritan defense, where saving the life of another is regarded as a legitimate reason for violating some legal standard, such as destruction of private property for saving a minor locked in a hot car.
Depends on far too many variables, both practical and legal. If you see someone being attacked, but did are not aware of the particulars, you open yourself to prosecution and civil suits.
Would reluctance to act result in civil suits as well, if the family concluded that the lack of intervention led to either death or suffering?
No lawsuit possible for inaction. There is no legal duty to act, other than potentially a parent of a minor aged child.
I'm sorry, what you're saying here makes about as much sense as letting a small child drown in a swimming pool because he/she's not wearing water wings on their arms.
To begin with, there is no legal obligation for a citizen to intervene in a crime against another person, unless they are the police. At the same time, there is no legal prohibition against a citizen intervening to protect another citizen. So whether the armed citizen intervenes or not is their own choice. If they choose not to intervene, that is a choice they must be able to live with. In his books, Col. Dave Grossman talks about the sheep, the wolves, and the sheepdogs. I'm sure you know the analogy, and how he relates those animals to people. But I think there is another category of people - the elephants. The elephants are herbivores. They do not prey on other animals. And yet, if an elephant feels threatened, it will become aggressive to protect itself and its family. It will not, however, become aggressive to defend a gazelle. The elephant feels no obligation to defend other animals, only itself and its family. What happens to other animals is not the elephant's problem. I think people roughly fit into these categories. Sheep, wolves, elephants, and sheepdogs. Criminals (wolves) prey on the defenseless (sheep). The elephants are like people who will protect themselves and their family, but no one else. The sheepdogs are the people who will intervene when a criminal is attacking a defenseless citizen. They are harmless to the peaceful and law-abiding, but they have the capability and will to protect others. This video presents a beautiful and articulate explanation of the sheepdog ... "There are guardians in our pastures. They are real. And they are watching."
Per FL law, a person can use lethal force to stop a forcible felony. Not sure about the wrinkle about gun free zones, but I can't imagine that any prosecutor would be foolish enough to prosecute someone that stopped a school shooting.
Isn't the main argument for having armed citizens, that it helps having more "goodies" with guns then "baddies" so the "goodies" with guns can stop the "baddies". Now your argument is, that the "goodies" with guns should just sit back and laugh at the slaughter by "baddies" because they didn't have guns to defend themselves. Oddly enough, I read some reports of people being armed in the LV shooting but not being able to do anything because a hand gun wasn't going to achieve anything in that situation. So sometimes the elephants or the sheepdog are all in the same group as the sheep. Truth be told though there is no difference between sheepdog / sheep / wolf / elephant, it is just a way of people classifying themselves to feel better to make up for other shortcomings they have.
If you can't see the inference I made in my above post from the OP then reread it. If it makes it any easier remove the word ethical duty, for "should" and then see where you end up.
Nothing in the opening post of this discussion does anything to suggest that those who are legally armed should actually gain amusement by serving in the role of a spectator as someone is victimized for being unarmed.
If the police aren't required to risk their lives to save someone being attacked, why should I risk my life?
If you had a better understanding of US law, you'd not post as you have. Self-defense and the defense of others is legal in a very narrow set of circumstances, all of which revolve around the central points of non-escalation, necessity, and reasonable fear. In the scenario provided, there's no way to know the entirety of the situation, and so, under law, you may very well have no right to act. So, rather than immediately mock things and people you know little to nothing about, you'd better serve yourself by making a reasonable attempt at understanding the issue before you offer comment.
