A friend and I were discussing a local news story where a woman entered a store and saw a man verbally assaulting the cashier. She verbally confronted the man, and was subsequently punched and sent to the hospital with a concussion.My friend asked if she would have been justified in shooting the man after being punched. I was hesitant to answer yes or no conclusively without knowing all the facts, but said yes and went on to try and explain the healthy mindset a CCer should have about situational awareness, recognizing a potential threat, knowing your limitations, and most importantly understanding how a jury will view any potential lethal actions you decide to take.I went on to speculate that she may not have had the wherewithal to consider any of this, that there may have been warning signs she didn't recognize, as well as better ways the woman could have handled the situation especially if she was close enough to get punched... and this is where the conversation took a nosedive.They understood my statements to imply that I was blaming the victim for getting punched, and that one should not stand up for others. I countered this by trying to explain how one's first priority is to their own safety, to consider any potential threats their own safety may face when getting involved in any altercation, and that if they don't have the ability to recognize potential danger, and the physical and mental skills to back their decisions to get involved, then how getting involved is a bad choice.They said that this woman was just a normal woman and normal people don't think like I do; that she didn't make a bad choice to try and stand up for the cashier.What are your thoughts on "normal" people and breaking the bystander effect to get involved and stand up for others? via /r/CCW https://ift.tt/2OYoYx5
No comments:
Post a Comment