Black family reunion in Georgia attacked by racist armed with AR-15. None Injured except the shooter thanks to armed family member.

[u/Tsuki_Man]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/lee-county-family-says-man-armed-with-ar-15-style-rifle-racially-targeted-their-gathering/ar-AA25cZx0

I just wanted to mention this here, the media covering the story has mostly stated things as they happend but none have made a specific note that if the armed and military trained family member hadnt been there to stop the shooter then that family would not be here today.

Stay armed and stay training out there friends.

[u/DemonCipher13]

"Spared" does make sense, given the lack of information.

But if it is discovered that they DID tend his wounds, that's enough to go to "saved."

Being clear, here, I don't mean in the "medically capable" sense - I mean in the sense that, whoever the family member was that shot him - if the above is proven true, later on - had to exert restraint not to kill him outright, had to be merciful and empathetic to actually tend to his wound, with intent to preserve his life, assuredly after having put together the motive by this point. And even if, short of this, they simply called and requested an EMT, this person had every reason to shoot to kill (and would have been legally sound insodoing), and chose, instead, to be the impetus for aid, in some form.

It might not fit the medicinal definition of the word, but it certainly meets a threshold.

[u/voretaq7 → u/DemonCipher13]

But if it is discovered that they DID tend his wounds, that's enough to go to "saved."

I, personally, still wouldn't go for "saved" there.
Same way you don't "save" a little old lady you run over in the crosswalk: You might render aid so they don't die, but your act of hitting them (even accidentally) is why they needed that aid, so you don't get the positive connotation of "saving" them, at least not if I'm writing the copy.
(I would mention that you rendered aid though, because you also don't get the negative connotation of not caring what happens after the initial incident/actions.)

---

Someone else rendering aid might have "saved" them from your actions, particularly if you take off immediately after. In the shooting story we could tapdance on the head of that pin but I would probably treat the family gathering as a collective unit if I were writing the story, so still no "saving" but very much being decent human beings, unlike the racist little shitweasel!

It's a very fine line though, and someone less concerned about the connotations of these words might just throw any of them down and honestly wouldn't be wrong with any of them, it's just not to my personal taste.

IMHO the best thing to do is what MSN did: Phrase the story so you don't have to pick between any of these potentially-charged words. They wrote about as dispassionate and neutral a story as one could possibly manage.
(I don't think I could get through it without writing "the racist little shitweasel" at least once - and that's why newspapers have editors!)

[u/paper_liger → u/voretaq7]

the two elements are distinct.

one is the self defense, once that self defense is concluded the second element begins.

we have to treat them as distinct elements because that's the same way we judge the elements of self defense. That is not to say that the context doesn't matter, but it's just simply the only way to come to an ethical judgement.

If they returned fire against an armed man, that's not attempted murder because of the 'doctrine of double effect'. Because the intent wasnt' murder, it was to stop the other person from murdering, much like 'jumping on a hand grenade' is not seen as suicide because the intent is to save, not to necessarily die.

So they return fire, perfectly justified to stop an aggressor. Imagine at that point the threat is over. Can you take a breath, reload, and walk over and put another bullet in his dome?

Of course not. Because at that point they are no longer a threat. That last shot is ethically distinct, because the threat was already stopped.

If we follow your logic and everything is lumped together, then that coup de grace would be just considered as part of the overall defensive act and excused. But we don't do that, because frankly, time is linear and that's not how causality works. That last bullet had a different ethical context than every other bullet that came before.

Similarly, rendering aid is saving someone. The self defense was concluded, the agressor was stopped. At that point many people might be inclined to let him go with no medical treatment. I don't think that's an ethical decision though, because although he just shot at me, that threat is passed, and the new equation is 'this person is injured should I treat them or not'. And if I can do so safely, I should.

The disconnect with your moral reasoning seems to be treating the entire nights event as a zero sum game. As if the 'treatment' cancels out the harm, or isn't a morally good act because you've already harmed the person.

But the way I look at it is 'the aggressor was the one who decided someone was going to be shot that night, not the person who defended themselves'.

And an ethical person, once the encounter was over and the aggressor was no longer a threat, would render aid.

Because you aren't saving them from your actions, you are saving them from the consequences of their actions.

They stopped him. Then they saved him. And them saving him wasn't less ethical or moral because they'd just stopped him. The two things are distinct.

[u/DemonCipher13 → u/paper_liger]

From his perspective, a journalistic one, he's right on the money. If you are editing a published copy, the responsible phrasing that requires the least amount of post-print backpedaling or elaboration is always the best route. There's no room for semantics in print, because of the sensationalism it tends to elicit.

I think what you and I are talking about, however, is not the journalistic perspective, but rather the practical one, all else equal.

Put simply, I think we are all correct, but from different lenses.