So, “Gene” sees a group of men attacking an older man in a supermarket parking lot in broad daylight. Gene draws down on them (click the image above to view the video). Problem: he doesn’t move and get behind cover as he does so. Relevance: not much, given the result, but worth noting. Problem: the assault turned out to be a domestic. Relevance: it’s worth noting that domestic disputes are a cop’s worst nightmare and so, yours. Point of information: As Gene stops the assault, he hears a shopper calling 911 saying “there’s a man with a gun!” Relevance: a lot! If a responding cop sees . . .
a man pointing a gun at an unarmed someone in a supermarket parking lot – any someone – what are they going to think? They might not think, or even issue a command. They might simply shoot the pistol-packing public protector dead. While that possibility may not change a concealed carrier’s initial decision on whether or not to intervene, it highlights the fact that drawing and/or using a firearm in defense of [seemingly] innocent life is an inherently risky business.
And while you’re considering how to answer this question, remember that Gene’s a young man (26). I don’t think he has a family. In contrast, I’m a single father — parenting without a net. If I get killed, my kid suffers. I’ll admit it: I’m reluctant to clear leather in to save strangers, lest the innocent life under my care pays the price. I reckon you should consider your family’s fate before risking life and limb for others.
Then again . . .
I have this stupidly strong sense of morality. Like Jon Wayne Taylor, I can’t stand to see people suffer. So I don’t know if I would have intervened in this situation. But this much I’ll say: I’d be glad I was carrying an extra mag and I would get behind cover before I drew. At least I hope so. Your take?