The typical role for the police and sheriffs is to draw chalk lines around the victims and arrest the criminal after the fact. Even SCOTUS has agreed the police have no duty to protect us from wackos.
Why is a congress-critter more entitled to public funded security that anyone of us? I carry a defensive weapon with me wherever I go and if I am expecting trouble, I stay away. 95% of the time people can walk the streets, shop, attend gatherings, etc. without any trouble. It seems folly to “increase security” when 95 of 100+ times out in public or in our homes we so NOT have trouble.
Personal responsibility even extends to one’s own security. If I am caught in the middle of trouble, I certainly will assess the situation. If I or my loved ones are not in immediate danger, I shall simply be a good eye-witness, nothing further. The person under attack a.) had the same opportunity as I did to arm and train themselves, b.) will not financially or emotionally care for MY family if I am killed or incapacitated if I interject myself into “their” situation, c.) will not visit me in prison if I am found guilty of a crime (“no guns allowed”, bystander hurt, etc.).
Take a proactive position on your own security, and I shall do the same. No more gub’mint security forces.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – B. Franklin
That could be a difficult call, whether to get involved or not. Trained professionals do not always make the best decisions nor survive. Then there are the lawyers.
Good decision for legal matters. But, as I mentioned in the OP, a debilitating injury would be difficult to make whole by tort since you inserted yourself into the obviously dangerous situation. This is not about cowardice but protecting my family from economic poverty or having to feed me and change my diapers should things go bad.
Keyboard commandos may spew a lot of BS on the internet but that’s not what we see in reality. 3rd party interventions are extremely rare and rarely go bad for the defender.
From LTC. (ret) Dave Grossman’s On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs
"This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth. "
It really depends on situation. If someone is just being robbed I would be as you said good eye witness. But if someone is out to harm whom I know is innocent…then I would trust my instincts. It never lead me astray.
Honestly, it’s not that hard of a call to me. If a person is being attacked and it looks like their life is on the line, I would rather get injured or killed than stand by knowing I let a fellow American die when I could have helped. Some people say they couldn’t live with knowing they took a human life, I couldn’t live knowing I didn’t protect a human life. Will it cost me? Possibly. I have plenty of life insurance so even if killed, my family will be fine. I hope to never have that decision to make but if I’m forced into it, I won’t hesitate. I’ve done it with fists before and I’ll not hesitate to do it with firearms if necessary.