What would you do?

[sanjuro893]

Yell down to the officer in a clear loud voice, "OFFICER! I HAVE A SCARY BLACK RIFLE AIMED AT THE PERSON ENGAGING YOU FROM A SUPERIOR POSITION! WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO RIDDLE HIM WITH MANY HOLES?" And if he answers "yes" you can say, "OKAY, BUT YOU HAVE TO BUY ME DINNER."

 

[caojyn]

Molotov cocktail both of em and let god sort them out

But no, i would not

 

[MacFromOK]

but there is a point that if you feel that a good guy might lose his life, you just simply must participate if you feel you are able to do so in a manner conducive to resolution and free of Collateral Damage.

This 100% IMO. Waiting beyond that point would preclude sleeping at night for (hopefully) most of us.

YMMV.

 

[killerpigeon]

I would rain hell on the perp with my bumpstock Assault Rifle-15 set to full semi auto.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[918evo]

Seeing the traffic stop and the guy not responding to commands I would have been somewhat ready. Lay prone and shoot a few rounds at the suspect, then crawl back into cover so the trooper doesn't shoot me. I would definitely be more afraid of the trooper shooting at me than the suspect, but as mentioned, he was locked in and engaging. There really isn't a good way to communicate your intentions without distracting him.

 

[Powerman620]

Would be a difficult decision, officer already in fight and defend mode. I have been in a situation before where female officer was in a fight and losing. Was with family on river walk in San Antonio, I took down bad guy. It was seconds and police came out of woodwork for her backup. Probably broke guys thumb putting his arm behind his back but he should have stopped when I told him to in my opinion, lol. Wife was madder than a wet hen for me stepping in and assisting. I’m just glad backup didn’t see me as a threat and take me down.

 

[lee1000]

I would help regardless of the consequences....I'd be helping with a suppresed AR or unsuppressed AK.

 

[dennishoddy]

Elevated yes, but otherwise a horrible position to engage from. That railing provides zero cover.

Not sure where that comes from but the greatest defeats of any army has been when they made the decision to take low ground.
I can cite many incidents from the early wars of the British in 1800's, French in the 50's and as recent as the US Army in the current conflict in Afghanistan where they were destroyed by the enemy that occupied high ground. Poor decisions by leadership.
That being said, the situation being discussed was addressed by some with taking cover beyond the minimal railing. No competent shooter would stand and shoot. The person on the ground would probably be wondering where the shots came from for a bit because of the presence of the urban echo, giving the defender on the high ground the advantage. Of course if you can't shoot beyond 5 yards like most do in indoor ranges and haven't practiced beyond that, the defender would be at a disadvantage if the first shots didn't connect.
In current warfare, I bring what I remember one of your comments about the rancher and his family that the .gov was trying to run off their land during a standoff. There was a pic of a guy on an overpass with an AR pointing at the .gov folks on the ground. That high point position which gave the person total control of the groups below him defused the situation. No one could deny his tactical position.
No army wants to fight uphill.

 

[bigred1]

Fire a shot at the shooter to distract him? Then what, run back in your room and slam the door shut and hope everything is going to be okay? If you make the conscious decision to fire your weapon then get in the damn fight and shoot the SOB til the threat is stopped or until your shot. Or here's an idea, call 911 from the balcony and talk real loud so the shooter can hear you. Yeah, that'll work. That will distract him.