Poor thing, I never and would never compare a little bit of training to that of police training. You’ve made something up to project your position as stronger then it actually is. Old trick that sleaze ball lawyers and dirty politicians use. It actually makes your position appear weaker because most Americans, especially in today’s age, see right through it. The best part is when you defend the two hypothetical characters that are, in your scenario, taking the law into their own hands to deliver justice to some punk that just did them dirty somehow right after saying most people aren’t qualified to do just that. You probably would just look the other way and then falsely justify your actions in your own mind. That’s fine, it’s your choice but your not doing the world any justice. Your training criminals to expect compliance and weakness. I feel like that’s a short sighted and selfish position.
Actually, USCCA training is much better than the 6 weeks the police get. Of course, one has to act on that training and seek out more hands on training.
I think it was your original scenario in your related topic carried over into this one that inspired @David38 ‘s scenario.
You proposed the scenario of chasing after fleeing criminals. Suppose I am driving down the road at night and see a guy running down the street being chased by a guy with a gun. Maybe that fleeing criminal is unarmed, maybe I just don’t see his weapon. He may be screaming “help this guy is trying to kill me”. What I do see is you aggressively chasing a person with weapon drawn. You are clearly an imminent threat to the fleeing person and I have no idea you are the victim of a crime. Do I take out the imminent threat? Do you see me slowing down to assess the situation but assume I am the criminal’s accomplice coming to his defense?
A lot can go wrong while trying to defend your stuff. Is it worth all the potential consequences? Does it really make us all safer?
You forgot “is the second guy with the gun a plain clothes cop chasing a perp?”
I have noticed that my experience has taught me that if a person looks at something they cannot see the other side.
but yeah, that was sarcasm!
I would be chasing after my wallet with my gun still concealed. In that particular “what if”, the criminal realizes I’m gaining ground and he turns around to stop me. He also whips me in that hypothetical scenario and doesn’t stop. Look, I get your guys position. It’s stay alive by any means as a first priority. It’s what the nra and USCCA train and I do understand it. You don’t have to change things and out right make things up if your proud of something. You show it off. Just say “Hey man, you got to take care of number one first.” and leave it at that. It’s a little more respectable then changing things and making things up to make yourselves “more right”. It’s just not worth it. I love everyone on this platform. It’s one of my favorite places to be. I’m just making the point that changing the way we train our decision making process might be more efficient even if it’s not as safe.
Yet one more reason to think twice before choosing to play hero when you don’t know the whole story.
Your not playing hero, your just trying to get your wallet back and there are no guns out.
My playing hero comment was more in response to the other proposed scenario of inserting oneself into a street conflict when you don’t know the parties involved.
Back to your original what if scenario. I’m assuming if you hear a bump in the night and go to investigate that you will have your firearm in hand not in a holster? I know I would. In that case are you going to reholster your firearm while chasing a potentially armed criminal out of your home and onto the street? Will you even have time to put a holster on if you are responding to a breakin?
In that “what if”, one scenario ends outside the home and the other ends in the home. I scream at the intruder in both scenarios with gun drawn to drop my stuff and they immediately turn aggressively towards me. They do this because they’ve been trained by their victims to expect compliance and weakness. The USCCA and nra both train you to not even demand that your stuff be dropped. I’m not sure if I agree with that.
First off, I made up nothing. I simply extrapolated from your proposed scenario of coming upon two men beating a third. Without additional information it is impossible to know the dynamics of that particular event or what action on my part would be an appropriate response. Further, I am not defending the actions of the two ‘beaters’ in your scenario, simply proposing one possible reason to justify their actions, if only to themselves. But thank you for comparing me to “sleaze ball lawyers and dirty politicians”. An insulting ad hominem attack always makes for good rhetoric.
It is my understanding that self-defense training is often predicated on the idea that life has more value than material goods. Under that guiding principle, it is reasonable to teach a primary response of doing everything to avoid risk of injury or death to oneself or others under one’s protection, i.e., retreat to a defensible position and avoid engagement with the criminal actors. Pursuing and or confronting the criminals increases the risk of injury or death to all parties, the pursuer and the pursued. Also consider that if life is more important than stuff, then that applies to the criminals as well as the victims. Thier life/lives are more valuable than your stuff, once again arguing for non-engagement.
Now, if one assigns a greater value to property rights (not judging) then the dynamic changes and it becomes reasonable to take greater action to protect one’s possessions. Verbal confrontation at least would be warranted, with the understanding that escalation may well occur. In my state, the use of deadly force in defense of property may be justified, but the standard of evidence is very, very high and must demonstrate clearly that deadly force was the appropriate response. Not many cases prevail.
In the third case, intervening as an uninvolved third party in someone else’s situation, i.e., your “two men beating a third” scenario, the motivation to act would seem to necessarily be along the lines “all life is valuable”, which would include the life of a criminal as well as that of the victim. If you mean to argue for intervention as a duty to discourage criminal behavior for the good of the community, then you fall a bit short. The “community” has already made provision for the discouragement of criminal activity through law enforcement and the courts. Civilians are told that the correct action to take when they believe they have witnessed a crime is to report it to the police and be a good witness for the investigation/ prosecution. Law enforcement, in my experience, actively discourages civilians from taking action in (possible) criminal activity that does involve their own property and/or immediate safety.
Let me be clear that I am not advocating either for or against any particular principle or practice of defense, self or otherwise. Each individual must make those sorts of decisions for themselves, based upon their own moral principles. I have made deliberate choices in this regard, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.
Like a proposed bill that’s 4782 chapters, your response is too long. It’s just too much to go through and I’m just too uninterested.
I don’t see how anyone is to blame for the criminals actions but the criminal. You might could blame the parents to a degree, depending on how they were raised…
Police rarely prevent crime, they generally investigate crimes that are committed, or crimes they see happen.
People being morally responsible for the criminal actions of others is almost like the logic on gun control. We don’t need guns, because someone might commit a crime with a gun.
My question is more should we change the way we approach a defensive situation and the training for it from find cover or get away and call the police to something that might make a criminal think twice before they try something again. Lethal force is not always the end all be all. It’s always the last resort. I think we used to take a different approach in the past and I think it was more affective in preventing crime from ever happening all while keeping lethal force as a very last resort. It’s a completely different way of thinking.
We would probably need some serious change to the legal system to do that. Not saying I don’t agree with you on a lot of it.
Well, isn’t that a convenient way to give up and yet be dismissive at the same time? Don’t ask the question if you can be bothered with an answer.
It seems you’re more interested in hearing an echo than exploring your ideas. Good luck.
Once people start making stuff up I tend to tune them out.
Then I shall emulate your worthy example and tune you out.
This is why “what if” scenarios deteriorate into inane conversations without grounding in reality. 
The “what if” topic is under the Legal and Second Amendment heading for people to propose different scenarios that questioned legalities. It’s interesting and fun, you should go check it out. This one is more about self defense training and if it’s too safe these days rather then the alternative that serves the purpose of self defense more effectively and efficiently but may not be as safe.