Avenge or Rescue?

[Stegyre]

I would go after the attacker. Then he won't kill more people. If I save the wounded man, I'm leaving a source of wounded men alone.

Except you don't know that. Again, to quote the hypo:

Assume that the options are generally equal - the man running away isn't bin Laden or someone else it's specially important to catch, the wounded man isn't a known philanthropist who will give you a million dollars for saving him

For all you know, the victim deserved what he got: the attacker is an avenging angel punishing the "victim's" murder of a helpless child, after sexual exploiting several nuns . . . etc.

Another way to look at the problem: what would the victim want you to do? (Or what would you want done, if you were the victim?) Maybe the victim really, really wants the attacker brought to justice, but odds are, he'd like to live, more.

 

[useless]

loot the wounded man and walk off.

 

[Eukaryote]

I'd save the wounded man. However, if I somehow knew for a fact that the attacker was going to try to kill more people before anyone else could stop him, I'd probably take him down.

Ditto. (10 char)

 

[Psyringe]

Check the wounded man how badly he needs help. If he can do without immediate help, I try to hunt down the attacker. If not, my first obligation is to save the victim.

 

[fishjie]

um not enough info? WHY did the attack happen? Maybe the victim had just raped and murdered the attackers family. It would be stupid to jump to rash actions without knowing what was going on. I'd call the police, save the victim, apprehend the attacker, and then let the authorities sort out what had really happened.

 

[cegman]

Glad to have you back Erik. fishjie that is the point You don't know anythin but what you saw.

I would like to think I would save the person but I can't say for sure without being in the situation.

 

[Solver]

An easy one, definitely save the life. (Realistically, I'd grab the man's gun and take one shot hoping I can also hit the attacker before saving the man, but then again, realistically I don't have first-aid skills and wouldn't know what to do until the ambulance arrives.)

Basically, the situation is you can either save a life or catch the attacker - I don't see why catch the attacker. I'm sure the victim would much rather be rescued with his attacker on the loose (if it was a random attack, no reason why it should be likely to happen again) than die.

 

[nc-1701]

Assuming I knew all of this I would help the wounded, however in a dynamic situation someone like me with no medical experiance would be unable to tell if the wounded man would be any better off with my help.

So not being able to know everything I would probably go after the attacker, possibly after dialing 911 on a mobile phone.

If as the OP states I was aware that the man would die without my help, and that my help could save him, I would definetly help him.

 

[mangxema]

How about pick up the gun, take your best shot and then save the guy? There's no pursuit there; would that work?

Personally, I help the unconscious guy. I'm out of shape as it is, so I'm unlikely to catch anybody.

 

[GenMarshall]

Do my attempts to aid the wounded person.

 

[IglooDame]

I'd very much lean toward saving the wounded person, I think both after a gut instinct, and after some thought.

If I don't help him, the wounded person dies. However if I don't go after the (alleged) attacker, other people might be harmed. Or, the attacker might get caught by police (and presumably saving the wounded person enables them to give the police a good description of the attacker). Or, the attacker might have been merely defending themselves in the first place. Or, the attacker might have only been intending to kill this one person and isn't likely to attack anyone else anyway. Or, the attacker will not get caught, will learn from his mistakes, and fully intends to kill more people as soon as possible.

I see your logic Erik, but unfortunately the uncertainty of the attacker's future sways the decision. If you adjusted the scenario such that there is a certainty that the attacker will attack others, then my reasoned decision adjusts accordingly (though my gut goes undecided).

 

[Psyringe]

How about pick up the gun, take your best shot and then save the guy? There's no pursuit there; would that work?

Would that be legal in your country?

 

[Stegyre]

Would that be legal in your country?

That's a good question. It's not my area of law, but I believe that, for the police, at least, it would be legal to use deadly force to stop a fleeing, armed and dangerous individual. A man with a knife who had just attacked someone else (to the point where the victim will die without immediate medical attention) should qualify. I'm not sure to what extent the rules would be different for a civilian attempting to stop the perpetrator.

 

[Bizon77]

Saving teh wounded would be my choice. The attacker is running and I'd hate to go to prison for being a vigilante.

 

[IglooDame]

Would that be legal in your country?

Not in the US. It wouldn't be self-defense or defense of another (the guy is running away), and unless you're quite certain that there was a violent felony committed by the guy running away, you'd be wrong to shoot at him even in Texas (which I believe has a provision for citizens using deadly force against a fleeing felony suspect).

 

[Stegyre]

Not in the US. It wouldn't be self-defense or defense of another (the guy is running away), and unless you're quite certain that there was a violent felony committed by the guy running away, you'd be wrong to shoot at him even in Texas (which I believe has a provision for citizens using deadly force against a fleeing felony suspect).

Except that under the hypo we are certain a violent felony has been committed: we've just witnessed a potential homicide or at least an attempted murder.

 

[IglooDame]

Except that under the hypo we are certain a violent felony has been committed: we've just witnessed a potential homicide or at least an attempted murder.

And which one of them was in the right, merely defending themselves with deadly force, and which one was the original attacker?

Edit: I'm not trying to be a smartass (well, no more than usual) - but when you walk around with deadly force in your belt, you gain a little perspective on employing it, and realize that appearances can be very deceiving.

 

[Bizon77]

Don't you have to be convicted inorder to be considered a felon? How could you shoot someone in the back running away if you're not sure. Seems like it would never be a good idea to do it. Especially legally speaking.

Also if thats true can I 'execute' someone who is running away after I cought them forging a check? (A felony in most places I believe)

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'd save the wounded person.



Although, here's some food for thought for the opposing argument:

That guy is still wandering about with a knife, he could attack and kill other people, too. So, while you might save one life by caring for this one wounded man, you can potentially save more lives by hunting the attacker down, before he has a chance to get anybody else.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Not in the US. It wouldn't be self-defense or defense of another (the guy is running away), and unless you're quite certain that there was a violent felony committed by the guy running away, you'd be wrong to shoot at him even in Texas (which I believe has a provision for citizens using deadly force against a fleeing felony suspect).
[I'm not trying to be a smartass (well, no more than usual) - but when you walk around with deadly force in your belt, you gain a little perspective on employing it, and realize that appearances can be very deceiving.]

While I thank you for the salient points, this sort post still exasparates me when I realize how much precision I need to get a hypothetical situation across the way I intend.
(Definitely not your fault.)

The OP read "You see one person attack another" and not "You see one person who is attacking another". This was supposed to indicate that you saw it start, and there wasn't uncertainty as to who really started and perhaps the man was defending himself.

And I should have made the tranquilizer gun non-parenthetical to get around things like possible unjustified use of deadly force. Mumble.