Surely a morbid title, but a terrible thing happened a few minutes away from me. A County cop found his 27-year old son stabbing his wife, the son's mother. The officer drew his gun and shot the son dead trying to save his wife. The wife died eventually anyway from her stab wounds. This has sparked debate between me and a few of my friends(most of whom are single with no children) as to whether they could make that kind of a decision.
Now, no man can claim to know what they'll do in this type of situation unless the day comes when he must face it. However, when I saw this story, I immediately thought to myself, "OF COURSE I WOULD!!!". When my wife was pregnant with our first, we agreed and resigned ourselves to the fact that we would still always put each other first over anything, including our children. That's how I thought it was supposed to be.
I've attached the full article here.
Any thoughts or doubts from anyone as to how they would handle this in the heat of the moment?
Unless I knew that my son was protecting someone for an atrocity that my wife did or was planning to do, then in that situation, yes. My rationale is that I'd not only be saving my wife, but probably others who eventually would cross my son.
Always shoot the crazy person first.
I like it. Simple, easy to remember...
Whoa. I really want to know more about this. Was the son high, or mentally ill? I read the article, and couldn't find anything. I suppose, in that circumstance, I would have to say I would shoot the son. As Steven said, you may be saving more than one life. That being said, I feel bad for this deputy. He lost his wife and his son, his son by his own hand. Even if he was butchering a busload of orphans, it's still your son... Heavy stuff, my friends.
Actually my wife watches the baby of someone who went to school with the son, and she said he was always a bit "off"...no details though. I'm sure that will come out eventually.
From a purely theoretical perspective ... it depends. On which one went off the deep end. On which one is wrong. On which one is defenseless. On which one is at risk of being killed. On the ages and relative defensive capabilities of each party. On the personal, criminal and mental history of each party.
You incapacitate the aggressor, the deranged, the one with a violent history, the one in a blind rage, the one that is winning the fight. That doesn't necessarily mean shooting the son. If the wife is abusive, deranged, out-of-control, or whatever ... attack her, not him. If the son is a minor, is defenseless, is outmatched ... you don't attack him.
You owe every bit as much protection to your kid as you do to your wife.
From a practical perspective, I think I could pull the trigger in the heat of the moment provided I cleared my holster and got it over with quickly. If I thought about it too long, I think I'd have more trouble.
I suspect that I would fend off who ever was attacking. If my wife was attacking my son or my son attacking my wife.
Yeah. I probably should have phrased the question better. I just sort of got some shocked responses when I immediately commended the man for doing what he did, people just couldn't believe I would shoot my son, so I focused just on that scenario, without really thinking of the opposite.
I used fend off rather then kill also. I just can't see going lethal on my son or wife.
I don't have a wife or any children that I am aware of...But I would shoot anyone harming my wife.
Not to mention, as a police officer, the shooter in this story is authorized to use Deadly Force to defend himself or others from Deadly Force...In this case, his wife was not only being threatened with deadly force, but was actively being attacked with deadly force. Justified shooting, granted the guy will be fucked up for the rest of his life having to deal with his wife being murdered by his son who he intern had to kill...Not a position I ever want to be in and I hope to hell this guy gets all the support in the world.