jmra wrote:baldeagle wrote:I don't care who it is, I won't let anyone beat a woman. Period.
I assume those that say they don't know what they would do have never witnessed a woman being beaten. I have. My wife was with me. As I stooped the car and told my wife I couldn't just sit there and be a good witness, she responded, "I wouldn't have married you if I thought you could."
Amazingly the woman beater wasn't at all interested in an altercation with another male.
They usually aren't. It takes a special kind of coward to beat up a woman. Unlike a couple of others, I've actually thought this was a fairly civil debate in this thread, and there is much validity on both sides of the debate.
I am one who has used the term "batman license" on occasion, and I do maintain that a CHL is not a batman license. But, what does "batman license" mean? What does Batman do? What he does is save Gotham City from itself, or from individual criminals and/or organized crime ........ which is the proper role of law enforcement.
I would still maintain that it is not the role of a CHL to attempt to stop an armed robbery, for instance, unless he or she is caught up in the robbery ...... as a customer inside of the establishment being robbed, for instance. And even then, I'm not convinced that it is a sound idea for most CHL's - unless they've received specific training in this area - to try and stop that robbery as long as the robber is not about to kill everyone. In other words, if I am inside a QT while someone shows the clerk a gun and says "give me all the money and nobody gets hurt", and the clerk hands over the money and the robber leaves without a shot being fired, then I don't think it is my duty to go to guns to prevent the loss of QT's cash. If they are not concerned enough about their own cash to provide armed security inside the store to prevent the money from being stolen, then why should
I be concerned about their money? We are talking about engaging a thief over
someone ELSE'S property. I think that is a singularly bad idea, especially if, like I said, they didn't care enough about that property to protect it themselves.
OTH, if the robber grabs a woman by the wrist out of the checkout line, waves a gun at her and tells the clerk "give me all the money or I'll blow her head off", then that is a different matter and I might well intervene. I'd use any tactical advantage I had, up to and including back-shooting him, if that is what it would take to stop him. No sense in giving him any advantage at all.
If I am willing to shoot a robber over another's money, when that other party doesn't care enough about the money to protect it in the first place, that is me playing batman, and I think that is a singularly bad idea.
If I am willing to shoot a robber because he is threatening an innocent party with death if his demands are not met, that is just being a good citizen.
So, I think that we need to be very clear about how we define "batman license". And honestly, I think that the vast majority of us would probably agree on some common definition. Equally honestly, I think that even most of those who say that a CHL is not a batman license would not stand idly by and watch a weaker person getting beaten to a pulp by a stronger person in a CLEAR disparity of force situation, without stepping in and putting a stop to it. Why? Because most of us are decent people of good conscience, and while it is easy to say "I got my CHL
only to defend myself and those I love", it is much harder to stand idly by and do nothing when the situation is fairly obvious.
So, what constitutes "doing nothing", and how would any one of us "do
something" instead of nothing? THAT is much more a matter of individual capabilities than it is a matter of the morality of interference.
Decent people would feel compelled to do
something, and "something" can mean any number of things on a response continuum. An older person such as myself, with fewer physical options available to him/her, would quite reasonably be less inclined to get involved physically - as one respondent here suggested he might do in this scenario. I might be inclined to interfere, but that doesn't mean that I'm willing to take a butt-whoopin' in the process. So for me, drawing down on a person in that situation is entirely reasonable. In fact, getting involved
physically would be
UNreasonable.......for me.
But, you had better have a very good idea of what is going on
before you interfere, no matter your preferred method of interference. In the case of the story in the OP, it was pretty evident to the "good guy" that a very bad man was beating the crap out of a woman for unacceptable reasons. But what if the backstory isn't so obvious, and what if you didn't witness the start of it? What if he is a cop, trying to subdue an armed woman who has just threatened him? Unless you were there from the beginning, you might find yourself drawing down on a cop who is performing a lawful act.
So the bottom line is: You had better
KNOW what is actually happening before you stick your nose into it. Perhaps in this case, it was obvious; but you can take it to the bank that it won't always be so obvious, and you may have to call 911 and then observe for a minute before you take any kind of action to interfere.
So, do I believe that I have some kind of moral obligation to defend those who are innocent and unable to defend themselves? In principle, yes, I believe in a social contract in which we look out for one another, and protect and defend one another if necessary - particularly when the other is not able to protect/defend theirself. But ANY moral principle is also tied to learning how to apply that principle in an ethical manner. After all, the idea of a social contract in which we agree to look out for one another and protect one another can also be used to justify all kinds of evil........just look at the "progressive" agenda for the last century and a half. The Bible suggests that when the Lord asks Cain where Able is, and Cain responds "Am I my brother's keeper?" that Cain's answer was unacceptable to God because he (Cain) had a moral obligation to look after Abel's welfare........and vice versa. The idea that "I am my brother's keeper" too often leads to the idea that "if I am my brother's keeper, then I get a say in controlling my brother so that keeping him is not too much work for me".
The only way out of that trap is the proper exercise of discernment, and the judgement and wisdom that comes from that. That means that in any likely scenario like the OP, we had better be SURE we understand what is going on, particularly if a possible outcome of our interference might be ending the life of another person. If you draw down on a man who is beating up a woman, and that man turns his anger on you, attacks, and forces you to use deadly force to stop his attack, you had BETTER know if your interference was worth it in the first place.
I'm not saying don't interfere. I AM saying, you better know what is going on before you do. If you don't know for sure, then you are using your CHL as a batman license. If you
do know, and you
can justify it, then you're being a good citizen.......and THAT is the difference.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
are rescuers by nature and that we have to be on guard against acting with too little information. Then I give my "mall example." We also discuss fact patterns where intervention is clearly justified and those where the CHL won't like what they see, but they will not have a clue as to what is really happening. This is a subject I treat with great respect because the decision to intervene or not can have both immediate and long-term impact on the rescuer. As a general rule, I will not publicly condemn a person for not getting involved. Nor will I condemn a person for going to the aid of another person they believe to be innocent, unless doing so would