Quote Originally Posted by mcantar18c View Post
Zund, how do you always find a way to say things so damn well?
+1 on this.


Guys, while this is an interesting discussion, this is not where I was hoping this thread would go. The IHOP incident was only an example.
My point is that this:

... should not be the comments we see in a discussion about an "active shooter" incident where there was an armed citizen in the area.
Choosing not to intervene for your own well being is one thing, but choosing not to intervene because you don't think you have the skills to do so is another entirely.
I'm not saying that people should go around trying to be James Bond with little to know training behind them, I'm saying that someone who takes responsibility for their well being by carrying a weapon has absolutely no excuse for not getting the proper training to handle that weapon... something that's far too common of an occurrence.
The more I think about this post, the more it seems it's completely illogical to me.

Someone chooses not to intervene in an active shooter situation for personal safety reasons is perfectly valid. Not doing so because you don't think you have the skill set to do so effectively or safely is also perfectly valid.

How is that any different from a police officer encountering a situation that's beyond his/her ability to control so he/she decides to back off until:
  • Help arrives
  • It's bumped up to SWAT or other specialized teams
Working within your limits applies to lots of things in life. Why shouldn't it apply to intervening in deadly force encounters?