• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

A real "hmm" on duty to retreat in a mass-shooting...

fencer said:
Let me guess... never served in the .mil?
Forgetting about the legal ramifications, the likelihood of surviving an engagement with an adversary fielding an AR with 30 round magazines, with your micro compact 9mm are so remote that you will likely never face trial.

If you "are on the other side of the store" GTFO. You have almost no chance with your ccw. Sure, it's better than a sharp stick, but not by much.
A much more likely scenario is that a few people will be able to get out the exit, that you should have used, while the perp is engaged in turning you into a #2 pencil. Full of lead.
That headline is going to start with... " Man heroically gives his life, in an attempt to....pretend he is Rambo"
I think you watch too many movies.
Click to expand...
Excellent point, id also throw in the fact that sometimes these A holes have vests. Rifle, armor and 30rd mags vs. my CCW, no thank you. If I have a clear way out I'm taking it
 
rogersmithiii said:
Call me selfish, but unless my family, my friends, or I am in grave danger, I'm going to find the nearest exit. In Massachusetts, the cost of even the most justified shooting can approach 6 and 7 figures, can jeopardize my job, my financial stability and my health, and can put me at grave risk. I'm not willing to face those kinds of costs for strangers.
Click to expand...
I won't call you selfish. In fact I don't know what I'd do. On the rare occasions that I am ever in such a store with family, we do not stick together, which would complicate the situation, though not enough to make me start pretending to be John McLane. Fortunately, in WalMart there is low occupant density and much concealment and cover that can be exploited for evasion and retreat. The chances of being tempted to engage an active shooter seem infinitesimal on top of the infinitesimal chance of being there for such an event in the first place. Except as an academic legal topic, it isn't worth discussing.

I quite agree with everyone who points out that the Commonwealth insists that its sheep to behave like sheep, and if any step out of line, their preference is to make an example out of you to discourage others from doing the same even if you are justified and ultimately acquitted. Especially so, actually, as the process is the punishment when you don't stay in your lane but also don't break any actual laws. They would rather sacrifice more lives to a mass shooter than encourage people to "take the law into their own hands". In a shopping scenario, I don't see myself shooting at anybody, and I sure as hell don't see me holding a firearm once there is a chance any first responders have arrived. In church, however, the circumstances would be different: not strangers, family right there with you, safe retreat most likely impossible with exits becoming clogged fatal funnels, decent chance a lone shooter will retreat when they start taking fire.
 
Even though I live in MA, what if I consider myself a Florida resident for the sake of the laws???

Seems to work for gender.
 
FrugalFannie said:
I reject your premise. You sound like you are fishing. We do NOT live in a "mass shooting world." Stop listening to the gun grabbers who hype everything up in order to advance their agenda of confiscation and total disarmament of the population.
Click to expand...
On several other gun sites I belong to, the tackleberrys bring this stuff up. They work these scenarios up that involve tactical rolls and precision shooting. Shooting around corners, etc.
 
My "Sunday go to church gun" ( yes, this is a real thing ), is a tweaked Colt 1911 with 9 in the gun, and 2 - 10 round magazines under my right armpit in a Galco Miami Classic 2 shoulder holster.
Why is it my firearm of choice? Because if I can see it, I can put a big bullet in it, and it is as reliable as the sunrise, When my wife makes me go to church, I am there with people I love and care about. Family, dear friends and cherished neighbors.
But I have no illusions of being able to successfully stop some crazy ass hole with a long gun with my 1911. Honestly, if it ever happens, I only hope that I can keep his head down, and suck up enough lead while standing in the line of fire, so that my wife and kids can get to the nearest exit.
Maybe I could get lucky, maybe there would be a miracle, but I would say there is about a 98% chance that I won't be going to confession after Mass.

In a Walmart? Not a chance.
 
I guess I was brought up a little different, I had a lot of Heroes growing up, mostly WWII Vets, my Dad my uncles, neighbors down the street, some were Korean war vets, When I joined the service my Heroes were some of the Sergeant's that were in Vietnam. Cowardice or retreat was rarely an option for them. I am not sure how I would react in any of these scenario's, nobody really does, but I would like to think I would do the right thing to stop the attack. Like many who have posted my first priority is my family to safety. I think I would have to go back in to help. Besides I am too old to run.

Disclaimer: Any time I post anything on this forum I never go back to read any of the negative and A hole comments people make, because they may disagree with me. Not worth my time, Flame on and have fun.
 
www.northeastshooters.com

Two masked home invaders are met by armed resident n MA today.

Dorchester homeowner DGU I hope this is on the up & up or the homeowner will get railroaded. http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/24455746/2014/01/15/home-invasion-suspect-fatally-shot-in-dorchester-stoop?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com
Thread on the BHA Officer that shot home invaders. Doesn't look there was follow-up in that thread to the final resolution.
 
paracarry said:
I guess I was brought up a little different, I had a lot of Heroes growing up, mostly WWII Vets, my Dad my uncles, neighbors down the street, some were Korean war vets, When I joined the service my Heroes were some of the Sergeant's that were in Vietnam. Cowardice or retreat was rarely an option for them.
Click to expand...

Lots of us were raised by combat vets. Many of us WERE combat vets. We're familiar with the idea that a duty to retreat isn't an option on the battlefield, partly because the mission is, ultimately, to win the war. And all us ex-infantrymen understand that the best way to win the war is to close with and destroy the enemy.

In the OP's scenario? The mission is different. The objective is no longer to win a war, no longer to kill an enemy. Especially in a state with an oft-demonstrated obsession with maintaining its monopoly on violence, the objective is to get home safely and not go to jail.

It's fine if you can't bring yourself to leave a shooting in progress. I respect that. But military training, or being raised by folks with military training, isn't the only (nor even the major) variable there.
 
Ultrarunner said:
Biggest issue that has been touched upon here is the responding officer reaction. In 2024 you're pretty likely to get shot even as the good guy...
Click to expand...
Everyone says this but in most of these everything will be over by the time the cops show up. I agree with you in the sense that i wouldn't want to be in a prolonged engagement waiting for cops to show up.
 
Mountain said:
+1

Such a ridiculous premise made me think OP is either trolling or grossly immature. Perhaps both.
Click to expand...
Or more than likely watches too much f***ing television. "Television programming" has two different meanings and the more dangerous one is the one people don't think about.
 
Thank you all for another exhilarating intellectual exercise, which resulted in one sub discussion about the main gist, which was legality of the scenario, and a bunch of other tangents which had nothing to do with the OP.

To the poster who thinks I am "anti-gun"...I am hardly that! Just ask Derek, he knows I like 'em, and like them unreasonably large.

To the poster who posted the jury instruction on self-defense...Thanks for that, but they were dated from 2009. Is there anything available that is more current?

To the poster who asked if I was ever .mil. No, never had the pleasure to serve, sir.

I forgot that one bit about NES...If you make an OP that does not fit the paradigm of every readers's thought processes, they will disagree and de-evolve into calling it "gay".
I think that is what makes NES a great place for discourse. :)
 
HooVooLoo said:
Thank you all for another exhilarating intellectual exercise, which resulted in one sub discussion about the main gist, which was legality of the scenario, and a bunch of other tangents which had nothing to do with the OP.

To the poster who thinks I am "anti-gun"...I am hardly that! Just ask Derek, he knows I like 'em, and like them unreasonably large.

To the poster who posted the jury instruction on self-defense...Thanks for that, but they were dated from 2009. Is there anything available that is more current?

To the poster who asked if I was ever .mil. No, never had the pleasure to serve, sir.

I forgot that one bit about NES...If you make an OP that does not fit the paradigm of every readers's thought processes, they will disagree and de-evolve into calling it "gay".
I think that is what makes NES a great place for discourse. :)
Click to expand...
This post is so gay.

;)
 
HooVooLoo said:
Thank you all for another exhilarating intellectual exercise, which resulted in one sub discussion about the main gist, which was legality of the scenario, and a bunch of other tangents which had nothing to do with the OP.
Click to expand...
OP you are an intelligent adult. You know how gun owners are treated in Mass.
I would suggest that if you have to contemplate the legality of using your firearm, then you would likely be better of not using it. Because none of us would stop for a millisecond to consider laws, if defending loved ones.

The reason I asked if you had served is that, those who have will tell you that engaging someone with an AR/ AK/ rifle with a 30 round magazine, with a pistol, is a great way to get dead.
On TV and in the movies, John Wick takes down five guys armed with rifles at the ready and then does an unnecessary judo role while reloading and putting two in the sixth bad guy's head.
AR's are so easy to shoot that even a newb can put rounds on target and rifle rounds are so much more effective than any hand gun round.

If you have no other choice, backed into a corner, sure, all bets are off and you do the best you can. But if you are forced to advance and engage a rifleman with a handgun, you better try to flank/ ambush him, because if he can see you coming you will not be down for breakfast.
 
fencer said:
OP you are an intelligent adult. You know how gun owners are treated in Mass.
I would suggest that if you have to contemplate the legality of using your firearm, then you would likely be better of not using it. Because none of us would stop for a millisecond to consider laws, if defending loved ones.

The reason I asked if you had served is that, those who have will tell you that engaging someone with an AR/ AK/ rifle with a 30 round magazine, with a pistol, is a great way to get dead.
On TV and in the movies, John Wick takes down five guys armed with rifles at the ready and then does an unnecessary judo role while reloading and putting two in the sixth bad guy's head.
AR's are so easy to shoot that even a newb can put rounds on target and rifle rounds are so much more effective than any hand gun round.

If you have no other choice, backed into a corner, sure, all bets are off and you do the best you can. But if you are forced to advance and engage a rifleman with a handgun, you better try to flank/ ambush him, because if he can see you coming you will not be down for breakfast.
Click to expand...
This is spot on, but I don't intend to walk around carrying my AR. If an LCP in the pocket gives me the slightest chance, I'll take it.
 
HooVooLoo said:
To the poster who posted the jury instruction on self-defense...Thanks for that, but they were dated from 2009. Is there anything available that is more current?
Click to expand...

I found this.

A person is not guilty of any crime if he acted in proper defense of another. It is the Commonwealth's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in proper defense of another. The defendant does not have the burden to prove that he acted in proper defense of another. If the Commonwealth fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in proper defense of another, then you must find the defendant not guilty.[91]

The Commonwealth may satisfy its burden of proving that the defendant did not act in proper defense of another by proving any one of the following three propositions beyond a reasonable doubt:[92]

  1. The defendant did not actually believe that the other person was in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from which the other person could save himself only by using deadly force. You need not determine whether the other person actually believed himself to be in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm; you must focus instead on whether the defendant actually had that belief.[93]
  2. A reasonable person in the circumstances known to the defendant would not have believed that the other person was in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from which the other person could save himself only by using deadly force. You need not determine whether a reasonable person in the circumstances known to the other person would have believed himself to be in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm; you must focus instead on what a reasonable person in the circumstances known to the defendant would have believed.[94]
  3. A reasonable person in the circumstances known to the defendant would not have believed that the other person was justified in using deadly force to protect himself.[95]
[Note to Judge: Where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, would permit the jury to find that the force used by the defendant in killing the victim was either deadly or non-deadly force, the defendant is entitled to instructions on the use of both deadly and non-deadly force in defense of another and the jury shall decide on the type of force used.[96]]

Deadly or Non-deadly Force: Deadly force is force that is intended to or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Non-deadly force, by contrast, is force that is not intended to or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.[97] If the defendant, based on the circumstances known to the defendant, had reasonable grounds to believe (1) that the other person was in immediate danger of harm from which the other person could save himself only by using non-deadly force, and (2) that the other person was justified in using non-deadly force to protect himself, then the defendant had the right to use whatever non-deadly means were reasonably necessary to avert the threatened harm, but he could use no more force than was reasonable and proper under the circumstances. You must consider the proportionality of the force used to the threat of immediate harm in assessing the reasonableness of non-deadly force.[98]
Click to expand...
 
I think of China when I see posts from Ma law in this thread. In China it is very common to see victims of violence ignored and also victims of accidents as well due to fear of litigation or prosecution.

It’s sad to see how progressive politics has put pressure on Good Samaritans and unfettered freedom for the State actors.
 
Ultrarunner said:
This is spot on, but I don't intend to walk around carrying my AR. If an LCP in the pocket gives me the slightest chance, I'll take it.
Click to expand...
That is pretty much the bargain we all make.
And there is a chance, that if you pull an LCP on a guy with an AK, he may die laughing.
Or just feel sorry for you and let you go. [flame]

Just kidding man.
 
fencer said:
That is pretty much the bargain we all make.
And there is a chance, that if you pull an LCP on a guy with an AK, he may die laughing.
Or just feel sorry for you and let you go. [flame]

Just kidding man.
Click to expand...
But seriously, though, mass shooters don’t all sort into the BMF category, and an AK or AR does not endow the others magically with the courage to face being shot at. That mall shooter who got stopped recently folded and retreated. I don’t remember them all, but I don’t think he was the first. I want to say it’s more like a coin flip than a miracle if your mass shooter turns out not to be a badass when anyone is shooting back at him.
 

Similar threads

  • Locked
Massachusets is a Constitutional Carry State for residents only
2
Replies
33
Views
707
Thunder Dump
Thunder Dump
The Michigan Man is Coming to Town! | Join me on a Road Trip to see David Hogg!
Replies
1
Views
230
MassPete
MassPete
C&R and Mass. FFL (but not Mass. dealer)
Replies
6
Views
205
milktree
milktree
  • Locked
Registration on Mass. Portal
Replies
14
Views
879
M1911
M1911
"...possess prior to 9/13/14" Line in the Law
Replies
1
Views
134
Marty McFly
Marty McFly
Back
Top Bottom