[Okiecruffler]

Kinda a follow up post to the CPR one. Let's say you've had to actually use your gun in a SD situation. The BG is down and down good, police on the way. Do you render aid to the guy you just shot? Me, I haven't come up with my answer yet. I probably would just to help myself out in any lawsuits that might follow, but I just don't know for certain.

[Skunkabilly]

That's a darn good question. You don't want the guy to stab you when you're trying to plug up his holes. I hope the ecnalubma gets there quick! :eek:

[CWL]

NO! You do not get near the downed BG. This means that you don't go to kick the gun away, check for pulse, turn him/her over, or anything. You stand close enough to the body (say 7 yards) so that you can watch for further activities by the BG, but not close ehough for the BG to make any moves to shoot, stab, kick, punch or otherwise surprise you. If BG makes any other threatening moves, you shoot him/her again.

Stand nearby and continue to cover with your weapon until LEOs and paramedics arrive, until then, you are still in danger. (There might even be another BG lurking around nearby.)

Unless you are qualified to identify the condition of a person just by looking at him, you are not out of danger from further assault. Leave it up to the police and medicos showing up to render aid.

Many people falsely think that it's over just because someone is shot. But the simple fact is that YOU DO NOT KNOW IF HE/SHE HAS ACTUALLY BEEN SHOT! How big is a bullet hole? Can you really see any bullet holes in dark clothing? Under dark conditions? Sometimes the BG is just unconscious, not hurt bad, or just playing possum. You do not know.

If you have used deadly force to defend yourself, it better be justified, so you do not owe the shot person(s) any obligation at rendering aid until you have proper LEO backup.

[fourdeuce82d]

"You stand close enough to the body (say 7 yards)"

Not what I was taught in the texas CHL instructor class, nor in the permit holder class I took later. We were taught to unass the area, and call the cops. Idea being, if'n you shot a goblin, his litter mates may take exception, and fire you up.

Don't know whether it's right or wrong, but that's what the standard is in Texas.

[CWL]

My assumption is that you did this shootin' in or near your personal property.

If it was a late night street encounter, yes, I'd haul tail outta there as well and call LEOs after I vacate the scene.

[Kenneth Lew]

An individual is not qualified to render aid of a gunshot wound. Whatever the individual may do may result in more complications to the injured party. Get to your mobile phone and call 911 for professional help and secondly call your lawyer.

Kenneth Lew

[Jake]

Good point about not being qualified to render aid. Not only that but you could technically open yourself up to another lawsuit on top of the probable one for shooting in the first place. You could do something to make the medical situation of the BG worse. Long ago and far away I was a certified EMT and that was one of dangers of stopping to help at a accident scene. Even though I was trained and certified you could leave yourself open to lawsuits by some ungrateful idiot for trying to help. Heard alot about guys getting sued for breaking ribs while doing CPR. Don't you just love modern society?

[50 Freak]

yeah, if he survives, he definatley will come back and sue the hell outta you. I'd just stand there (if safe to do so) and start calling my friends (all lawyers).

And keep your mouth SHUT!!!!!!!!! until you have legal representation present. Don't think you can explain everything away you'll just stick your foot in your mouth. Just say your too much in shock to answer qustions and have your attys answer all qustions.

[Ron_Miami]

I would want to stay close enough to try to preserve evidence.

If the BG had a weapon, it's likely to disappear if others are around.

[MessedUpMike]

Most Good Samaritan laws will protect you from any damage you do so long as you don't do something completely negligent (ie cauterizing a gunshot wound, tourniquet around the neck, etc :what: ), and that you don't prevent more qualified help from being rendered. Technically an EMT would have the "Duty To Act", but I'm not sure how it would apply in such a situation. As a full time idiot I might try to stop a person I just shot from dying if I could do so in a manner that would not further endanger myself or anyone else around. I've done frantic first aid in some hairy places, it would depend on what was going on around me at the time. Military medics have done it in worse places than some of us could ever imagine.
I wouldn't be concerned about preserving evidence personally. If the scene is still hot enough for one of my targets buddies to pop up, then it's still hot enough for me to get popped, adios...



As far as CPR (I missed the thread), the old school guys used to tell you if you didn't break ribs, then your compressions weren't deep enough. I might be able to count on one hand how many time I haven't broken ribs in 13 years.....

[Standing Wolf]

Nope. If the low life @#$%^&! had wanted medical treatment, he'd have gone to a hospital instead of trying to kill me or cause me great bodily harm or invade my house.

[Sunray]

"...Do you render aid to the guy you just shot?..." Of course you do. That's what separates them from us.

[MeekandMild]

I don't know any right answers here, but have another pair of questions in this either/or situation:

1) If the BG is alive and he's been attacking you then he is still dangerous?

2) If the BG is dead, then he is beyond the help of CPR?




(Personally, I think I'd make tracks out of range of his return fire. If he's alive retreat is a good idea and if he's dead retreat won't hurt him any more. But I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one of TV so don't ask me for any real answers.)

[Majic]

One big potential problem that is over looked is the possibility of HIV or other blood diseases. That would be the major concern for me.

[Psssniper]

If the situation involved me having to shoot him
It wouldn't end with me giving CPR

[Okiecruffler]

Thing is, I'm more than qualified to render aid to a gun shot. I have a duty to act in the public as well, but I doubt if the board would hold me to it in this case. 'Course, I doubt if the board of nursing wants their members running around with pistols on their hips either (tend to be liberal types). And HIV doesn't scare me, now Hep C, that's a whole different story.

[El Rojo]

I think I would be in ultra paranoid mode immediately after the shooting and would probably not take the chance in administering first aid for the risk of missing another threat. No court is going to fault you for it if your shooting was justified. Morally? I don't think I have a moral obligation to try and save that person's life. If I believed that way, I wouldn't have shot them in the first place and I would have "tried to find another way". Since I chose to carry a concealed weapon, I chose to take the risk that I might have to shoot someone and they might die. They chose their actions, I chose mine.

I like the idea of finding cover. It depends on the situation if I would totally flee or not. I think you might open yourself up for fleeing the sceen of a crime if you just bail. That is why a cell phone is important. You can call the police and inform them you just shot someone, the scene is still not safe, and you are fleeing to a safer location until met by a LEO or asked to return to the area.

[Kamicosmos]

unass the area

I am so stealing that! Can't wait to use it around leaving time at the office.

[Dave P]

unass the area


Yeah, wahts that sposed to mean? :confused:

[erikm]

I'd say don't render medical aid, you're probably not qualified and would open yourself up to opportunistic ambulance-chasers anyway. Just make sure the goblin doesn't have weapons within reach. For the rest, guard him from several feet away.

Do remember to tell the cops that you shot the perp. While it may seem obvious that someone's been shot, cops and ambulancemen have been known to miss this. In my country a jeweler got into trouble when he shot a robber in his store. The cops missed the gunshot wound and the perp died in transport, after which the DA(equivalent) tried (and failed) to prosecute the jeweler on this. However, IIRC the jeweler was convicted of giving the perp a good kicking after he was down.

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

[El Rojo]

I think the argument that someone is unqualified and opening themselves up for lawsuit because they tried to help the perp is pretty well unfounded. Since I have taken basic first aid and an emergency back country care course, I know the best way for me to treat a gun shot wound would be to apply direct pressure to the wound with something that can stop the bleeding. As long as I don't do anything more complicated than that, I am protected under good samaritan laws because I am not doing anything beyond my level of training. If you have read a bunch of books about military history, you probably know to apply direct pressure to the wound. If you watch ER on tv, you might know to apply direct pressure to the wound. If you have read this post, you know to apply direct pressure to the wound. So there is nothing valid about saying you are going to get sued for applying direct pressure to a gunshot wound. If you try to dig out the bullet with your pocket knife, get ready for the law suit.

However, if I don't have any sort of bodily fluid barrier on me (aka gloves), I doubt I am going to be in a big hurry to go stick my hands over somebody's entry or exit wound. If I just shot the person and there might be more of them around, I am probably not going to be in a hurry to go stick my gloved hands over the wound. There are plenty of good reasons not to go provide medical aid, but the whole you might get sued because you don't know how to treat a gun shot wound thing is pretty bogus. Just apply direct pressure, you are pretty much free of a suing.

[seeker_two]

The BG is down and down good, police on the way. Do you render aid to the guy you just shot?

No.

[BHPshooter]

Do you render aid to the guy you just shot?

I have wondered this as well, but my first impression is NOPE. I think Natural Selection should take its course in cases like this, but perhaps this thread, or ones like it, may change my mind.

Wes

[Double Naught Spy]

Why would you want to render aid to somebody you just tried kill, er, stop? If you used lethal force, it was because of a risk to you or another by the evil person who is now on the ground, right?

Some of the points have been mentioned, so I won't go into detail.

1. May be unharmed and playing possum and hoping to get you when you approach.
2. May be wounded but playing possum and hoping to get you when you approach.
3. May be was unconscious at first, but now is conscious and is no longer wishing to capitulate to you.
4. Are you skilled to treat gunshots?
5. One thing that gets some officers, good samaritans, and some medical professionals is contagious diseases. Say you shot the guy, he is down, and is bleeding. Say you manage to come in contact with his blood and end up with Hep C, Aids, or some other horrible malady. Maybe you die. Even if the other guy dies from wounds soon thereafter and then you die from his disease at some later date, you did not win the fight. He just died first is all, but you still lose even if both of you dead is actually considered a tie.

I read this in one of the gun rags and it pertains to assessments of downed aggressors. You never consider your opposition to be out of the fight or dead until their head is completely separated from their body by a distance of at least 4 feet. Even then, there is no reason to approach the body.

[brownie0486]

Rendering aid, if you deem the BG no longer a threat could be a precursor to being charged with your claims of self defense and your mindset with juries at the time of shooting.

"I didn't have malice in mind when I shot him, I was attempting to stop his aggression towards me that would have culminated in my being seriously injured/mamed/killed if I had not done so in my mind. As soon as I determined as best I could that he was no longer a threat, I attempted to render as much aid as I could in order to keep him alive. I didn't want to kill him, just stop his actions against me".

If you have the ability to help another, though you have no obligation to do so, you make a good case for your mindset and actions of attempting to stop and not kill him by rendering or attempting to render aid.

Even if the guy has succumbed to the wounds delivered, your checking vitals will go a long way with the witnessess and juries who may be determining your actions and accordingly, your fate.

Brownie

[El Tejon]

Call for help? Yes, of course, however remember this phrase: blood-borne pathogens--HIV, HPV, HHV, et al.

In dealing with the jail/prison culture everyday, this is always in my mind. You guys may be astounded at the infection rate (or maybe not).

I carry those Lysol wipe things in my briefcase just for the jail phones!

[50 Freak]

"I think the argument that someone is unqualified and opening themselves up for lawsuit because they tried to help the perp is pretty well unfounded"

No offense, but that is a wrong statement. I remember reading a newspaper article about a LAPD officer that rescued a woman from her wrecked or burning car (don't remember which). Anyways, he took her to the side of the street and another car swerving to avoid her car hit her. Guess who got sued.....yup the cop. The woman claimed he should have stayed and helped her, but instead placed her in more danger. I think he was protected by the Good Samaritian laws but just imagine the pain and hassle of fighting that type of lawsuit.

Given the situation posted above, I would just stay to the side. And if questioned, I was "in fear of my life" and "still suffering from shock, hence in no condition to render help".

And Jeez, you just shot a man (which I presumed you did with the intention to kill), so now why are you trying to help someone that a few minutes ago was intent on hurting or killing you. Don't make sense.

[45R]

Heard alot about guys getting sued for breaking ribs while doing CPR.

Breaking ribs is better than the alternative........:banghead:

[brownie0486]

50 Freak:

Because the presumption is always that you were attempting to STOP, and not KILL the person.

We differentiate ourselves from the real animals out there by our having remorse and afterthoughts to our actions, whether justified or not.

Your presumption of my wanting to "kill" someone is not true. I suggest you not state you were trying to kill him when the time comes for an interview with the boys. Trying to kill someone is a crime, trying to stop another from harming you is self defense.

Brownie

[Quartus]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
unass the area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Yeah, wahts that sposed to mean?

Military slang, meaning to leave, quickly. In military circles, "the area" would probably be "the AO", meaning the Area of Operations.


As for rendering aid - only if I can do so safely. (He already forfeited his right to life - remember?)

That means I'm SURE he's not able to continue the fight, and I'm SURE he has no compadre's who may show up. (A getaway driver, for example, in the case of a house robbery.) Oh, and I'm SURE I'm not going to catch some loathsome disease.

[Edward429451]

(Only in a perfect world, Brownie.)

No Way. Back off, seek cover, reload, call John Law. Watch for accomplices and be ready to fire again.

I'm not 'qualified' to render medical assisstance OR hold someone at gunpoint.

[kenehsr]

I would have to say no, because he/she would be wounded in the knees.:p Due to me being vertically challenged.:neener:

No really I would stay far enough away from them(with the gun on them)to watch them and call the 911. I don't see y I should have to give him any help. Thats what the medics are for. I don't mean to seem cold, but if he dies before they get there then he/she should have thought about that before the tried whatever crime it was. Life is all about choices. They happened to make the wrong one. Hate it from them. I not going to die for their mistake. I've got a son to take care of.

[simon]

Shoot to kill, rendering this a moot point.

Stop to help?

NO. Call cops? yes ! and shut up w/o representation.

[Erik]

""...Do you render aid to the guy you just shot?..." Of course you do. That's what separates them from us."

Yep, assuming the scene was safe.

[Edward429451]

""...Do you render aid to the guy you just shot?..." Of course you do. That's what separates them from us."

Ummm, No. Thats not what seperates them from us. WADR, What seperates them from us is that they choose to take the offensive with criminal intent.

[kenehsr]

:) Amen!!!!!:cool: ;) :D

To what Edward said!

[BHPshooter]

Shoot to kill, rendering this a moot point.

That's what my Mother always tells me -- if you kill them, you won't have to worry about giving them aid, getting a horrible disease, or having them recuperate and sue you.

Of course, their family will then sue you, but I digress.

Yes, I believe I have formed my opinion -- I will call 911 and ask them to send the ambulance THEN the police, but he started this fight, and I'm going to finish it. You know, I really don't think I would have had such a hard time making this decision if Utah had a "make my day" law.

Are you listening, UT lawmakers?

Wes

*EDIT: this post was made assuming the shooting occurred within your own home. Carry on.

[seeker_two]

Because the presumption is always that you were attempting to STOP, and not KILL the person.

I always shoot to stop....

If they die, that's their own fault... :evil:

[Coronach]

(There might even be another BG lurking around nearby.)Ding! You must be heads up for that.

Also. You shoot to stop, not to kill. If you do not understand the difference, I HIGHLY encourage you to figure it out before you end up in a lethal-force scenario. Contact a lawyer and have him explain it to you. The differences are not mere semantics, and the articulation of the differences could be the difference between incarceration and freedom.

That said, since you were not trying to kill your attacker, merely stop him... well, he's now stopped. If it is reasonably possible that another BG is in the area, or reasonably possible that he is playing possum, I would not be rendering aid. However, if it looks like he's down for the count and he has no allies in the area, I would absolutely be rendering aid. Its the moral thing to do. It also makes some damned fine witnesses. It goes a long way to prove to a jury (grand or petit) that you were, in fact, shooting to stop, and not shooting to kill.

Of course, I carry cuffs (yes, even off duty), so my first goal would be to bind his hands.

Mike

Mike

[Edward429451]

[QUOTE]The differences are not mere semantics, and the articulation of the differences could be the difference between incarceration and freedom.[/QUOTE

I'll go along with that. You can think it, but dooon't say it!

Was is Mas Ayoob in one of his books that suggested (if having to shoot someone on the street), to immediately upon cease fire say loudly "My God I Can't believe that man forced me to shoot him" or something to that effect? Everyone turns their head around at the sound of the shot and they'll be just in time to hear you say it. Their recollection of the incident will reflect this and hopefully echo into the witnesses mind and will go down in the report as such and hopfully it makes it an open & shut case, in your favor. Is it wrong to seed a witness account with the power of suggestion?

It would be the absolute truth!! Because we all carry for defense only.

:)

[brownie0486]

People who think someone started something and they are going to finish it have the wrong attitude to begin with.

We don't carry firearms to enact a finish to anyone, if that happens in the course of your self defense, then that is the outcome of both parties actions in that circumstance.

We don't carry firearms to be able to take anothers life if ours is threatened. We have a right to meet and continue our goal of living, to attempt to stop another from harming us in some way that could result in our death.

True self defense starts with competancy with the weapon of choice through practice, training in scenarios and startle mode drills, training in tactics, and the mindset that our weapon of chice is there to defend only. Once the immediate threat has ended by the BG being shot and unable to be aggressive, besides making sure we are still safe as others have mentioned, our mindset should be one of rendering aid, in the form of an ambulance, a police officer who'll summon aid, ourselves at the scene, or a combination of all three.

If we render aid [ even if the aid is to keep his head back so he can breath ], because the circumstances allow us to make the choice, then we show our grief at the incident. And you damned well better so it as thats what will be expected of you.

It's one thing to posulate this and that and what you'd be thinking or doing or not doing to render aid and why. Attitudes come through to people.

Warriors feel no need to languish in the "that will teach em" mindset.

That we have the means and use those means to protect ourselves from others who would prey on us is good. To then develop an attitude of "now I have the means to show em if they start with me" is a trap that can and has landed many good people in jail.

It's much to think about beforehand, without the gimmicks.

Brownie

[El Rojo]

50 Freak

No offense taken. I don't really see what your example has to do with our situation. Your example was of a trained professional, a law enforcement officer, stopping to render aid, which they are legally obligated to do if I am correct. That officer moved the victim to an unsafe location, which his training might have proved he should have known better, and then the victim was further harmed because of his actions. It involves no shooting, no lay person, and no firearms. The only parallel I can make is that the cop probably thought he was doing the right thing, but as a result caused the person more harm. And from my limited knowledge of gun shot wounds, unless your shot fractures the femur, you can apply direct pressure to any gun shot wound and it will benefit the shot subject (not a victim in this case since they were trying to victimize you). So really what it comes down to is you want to reduce your risk of getting sued because a cop that might shoudl have known better didn't move an accident victim far enough from the situation and was sued because as a trained professional, he might should have known to move her farther? Well if that fear of getting sued is motivating factor for you not to act, then don't carry a gun. Afterall, what are the odds they are going to sue you for shooting them and rendering the wrong aid (which we still haven't determined that if there is a wrong way to apply direct pressure), but not sue you for shooting them? I would think shooting someone is going to place you at a high risk of being sued a lot more than applying direct pressure and saving their life. I just don't find the whole "I don't know what I am doing" argument as a solid one for not rendering aid to a shot subject. If the scene is safe after someone shoots your friend, coworker, or relative, are you just going to stand there and tell them sorry, you don't want to mess things up more than they already are? Or are you going to take your shirt off and apply direct pressure and try to save them? Remember, that cop got sued for helping, so it might not be a good idea. :rolleyes:

Now, is the scene safe after a shooting? Probably not. So that should be the number one reason you think twice before rushing over to help someone you just shot. If there are other people around, have them help them. You stay vigilant and assess the next threat until there is a preponderance of armed, friendly assets in the area to provide for your security (aka take your gun and read you your rights). Remember to keep your mouth shut until your lawyer gets there with the exeption of one statement, "I was afraid for my life and I shot in self defense." Heck forget the whole "stop or kill" argument, do you even need it if you say the sentence above? Let your lawyer figure it out after they get there.

[50 Freak]

Call me a vindictive SOB, but if someone has the intention to harm me and I shoot him I'm not going to expose myself to another danger (ie HIV infection, or a knife in the throat as I'm trying to adminster help, or his buddies seeking a little retribution).

I don't shoot with the intention to wound. Anyone that says he does that is a fool (no offense to those who disagree with me:neener: ). You shoot with the intention to kill or don't bother to even pulling your gun. Shooting a firearm at a another person carries with it great responsibilty and great consequences, so until your willing to accept that, better to learn how to run real quick.

The point of the cop story is to show that the Good Samaritian laws don't really protect you. So don't rely on them.

A lawsuit from a surviving gunshot "victim" (even if he was the attacker) is about as likely as a shooter's family sueing the gun manufactor of the gun their "little deliquent" used to shoot his teacher in the face. oops that happened already.....

Or the a city sueing the bullet manufactor/gun manufactor some lunatic used to shoot up a office full of people in the heart of San Fran. oops that happened also.......

You don't think you can get sued for shooting someone for attacking you. check out Goetz "the NY subway vigilante"

My CCW instructor always said that if you think your here to shoot the gun out of some attackers hand, or shoot him in the legs to stop him, then you've been watching too much TV.

[brownie0486]

50 Freak :

You don't shoot with the intention to wound, nobody here has mentioned that until you did, and you DO shoot to "stop the threat".

Vindictive? liberal juries love to hear about a ccw holder being vindictive in their actions or thoughts which you have just admitted to.

Apparently you don't know much about the criminal justice system. Quite a few who survive usually sue the ccw holder. Or the relatives do after the perp has expired. It happnes too often to be ignored or discounted.

There is a right way and wrong way to do things, and some are grey areas unfortunately. You may not want to help the perp who just tried to rob/shoot you [ whatever ] but that doesn't mean you can't bring yourself to render as much "assistance" as possible.

Look, it's quite simple. You face greater liability both criminally and civilly if you do nothing to render aid and stand over the BG moaning or bleeding out on the sidewalk. Would it be necessary or wise to stand over the perp and make stastements like "hows that feel?" or "bet you won't be trying that again anytime soon" or some such similiar comments? How about keeping the gun pointed at him while he wriths on the ground, will you be showing your disdain or anger subliminally to witnesses? Attitudes will come out under stress, and yours will surely not be to your advantage with the comments made here about this type of situation.

Vindictive, according to the dictionary is "Disposed to seek revenge; revengeful. "Marked by or resulting from a desire to hurt; spiteful. "

Call you vindictive, okay if thats what you want but you seal your fate if you ever have to injure another in your own defense with that attitude. I'm not sure but I would guess your instructor did NOT teach that attitude in his classroom did he?

Brownie

[Double Naught Spy]

Basically, this stuff can be twisted into any direction you want or don't want. If you feel the need to render aid to the bad guy, then do so by calling 911 and requesting an ambulance.

On so many levels it is really a bad idea to try to keep alive a person on which you just used lethal force in response to grave harm or murder he was trying to inflict on you or a loved one. Say you do save him. He isn't going to be thankful to you as you were the one who shot him and if and when he does get out of jail, he may offer you a repeat performance that is a little better prepared than his first.

[El Rojo]

50 Freak. With all due respect, your examples do not prove your point. They logically don't fall in line with your reasoning. You stated, "The point of the cop story is to show that the Good Samaritian laws don't really protect you." No the point of the cop story is that Good Samaritan laws don't protect trained professionals that might have should have known better." Good Samaritan laws protect a innocent bystander that would otherwise not get involved because they are afraid of being sued. If you are a law enforcement officer or medical professional you are obligated to help. You may not walk away. Therefore the Good Samaritan laws do not apply to the situation you described.

Then you list examples of gun manufacturers getting sued. Again, what does that have to do with this situation? Nothing. The only common theme all of your support has is that people get sued for all sorts of things. Yeah, that is true. Then you go off about shooting to kill, not to wound. What a contradiction. There are those paranoid enough that they think what you type here might be used against you in a court of law. How do you think that is going to look on the stand when they link your log on name and IP address to your computer and they use that evidence against you in a court of law? So if you are serious about reducing your liability then don't talk about being vindictive and killing people on a public board. And don't interact with society either. Too much chance of getting sued.

Again, if you don't think it is safe to go over and plug up the wound, don't do it. Call 911 and report the incident to the police and request an ambulance. Keep your mouth shut until your lawyer shows up. And edit your TFL/THR comments as soon as you get home to wipe away any evidence that you might be vindictive or that you would shoot a bad guy to kill. I personally am just shooting to stop the actions of the bad guy. If my center of mass hits cause that guy to die, that isn't my fault. I was just trying to stop the actions that the bad guy was performing that made me fear for my life.

[simon]

We all do train to hit the X-ring on the range do we not.It stands to reason that a "center mass" hit may kill said perp on the spot.
Also,I don't recall if it was said above,but ,what would be the legal differences between the "one/two shot stop" vs the "empty the mag on 'em" stress shoot?or the "I was freaked out and on automatic" defense.

[gburner]

My rudimentary first aid skills would be of little use to someone shot center of mass with 12 ga. OO buckshot.

To me, the key here is to protect yourself/stop the threat. If you tend to the BG you switch the focus of your situational awareness from your protection/safety to his well being. Having already made the choice to lethally threaten your personal safety, the BG's medical condition after lead ingestion should be the least of your concerns.

Like the referee says at the beginning of every boxing match...protect yourself at all times. ymmv

[brownie0486]

It's not a matter of feeling the "need" to help and adversary after the threat to your person has been resolved.

It does go a long way towards the witnesses description of your after event actions and demeanor. Not that not rendering any assistance is a bad thing, but if you have the opportunity and can do so safely, the event will be looked at somewhat differently by everyone involved.

"It's not what people know, it's what they think they know that becomes their reality".

Brownie

[brownie0486]

There are many way to protect yourself.

How about the protection you receive by rendering aid that negates a possible accusation that you were just waiting to "kill" someone, or any of the other potential accusations by the LE or the witnessess.

There are many ways to protect yourself other than physically.

Rudimentary skills of first aid are better than no aid at all or worse, no atempt to aid when aid COULD have been given. In that case, it's a missed opportunity to show wiotnessess, the LE's and the courts you are prudent in your actions with others, or at the least attempted to be prudent by doing everything you could to ensure his surviveability after the fact.

Hard for one to prove intent to kill when you have rendered ANY aid in the aftermath of a shooting.

Brownie

[Intune]

Good points Brownie, I see it the same way. The first icicles are forming in Hades! :D

50, PLEASE pay attention to El Rojo's post above & follow his advice re: posts.

[Coronach]

If you are being attacked, your defensive actions are for the purpose of stopping the attack, and ending the threat of harm to yourself.

For the purposes of the following, we're going to run with the assumption that you are in full view of 10 witnesses and on a camera (just to avoid any hedges with articulation):

If you draw your gun and the BG stops and surrenders, do you go ahead and shoot him? No. So, you're not trying to kill him, just stop him.

If you draw your gun and shoot and miss, and the BG surrenders, do you go ahead and shoot him? No. So, you're not trying to kill him, just stop him.

If you shoot him in the leg and he stops and surrenders, do you shoot him again, hoping to hit center mass? No. So, you're not trying to kill him, just stop him.

If you shoot him in the chest and he stops and drops, do you shoot him again? No. So, you're not trying to kill him, just stop him.

If you shoot him in the chest and he stops, drops and dies...well...you weren't trying to kill him, but he died anyway. Oh well.

It is possible to stop someone and not kill them.

It is possible to kill someone and not stop them.

The goal is to protect yourself from attack...the goal is to STOP them from attacking you.

Where the confusion lies is that the most effective STOP is a center-mass or CNS shot...and this also happens to be the most effective way to kill someone. Naturally, this isn't coincidence, but rather pure physiology. But legally and ethically it is a pure coincidence. They attacked you. You tried to stop them. You used lethal force. They stopped attacking you, and you stopped defending yourself. They also died...oh well. Sucks to be them.

Mike

[BHPshooter]

We don't carry firearms to enact a finish to anyone, if that happens in the course of your self defense, then that is the outcome of both parties actions in that circumstance...

...Warriors feel no need to languish in the "that will teach em" mindset...

Please, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say anything like that.

As I said on my post, I was assuming that the shooting would have taken place in my own home. As such, there is no reason for anyone to be in my house unless they are intent upon hurting me. If they are looking for fancy electronics or money, they sure as hell won't find them here.

On top of that, I don't carry. So my only reasonable answer to the hypothetical situation asked would be assuming that someone was in my house, meaning harm. And if that is the case, yes I will stop them. But it seems quite counterintuitive to practice putting your slugs into the X ring, and then expect the intruder to not die.

Can we be honest? If someone is intent on harming me, and I have to defend myself, I would rather have them die than run off and do the same thing to some other unsuspecting residence.

I don't want to sound like I'm being Mr. Macho, so if that is what you got from my last post, forgive me.

Wes

[50 Freak]

Boy, you guys really don't read very well. I never said if I shot someone I would dance around his body, singing "ding dong the witch is dead", nor would I be stupid enough to start bragging "I meant to double tap him between the eyes, but just decided to empty my glock in this body instead" I said if I shot some one it is with the intention to kill not wound. Don't believe drawing a gun and firing at someone unless you mean to stop him immediately with deadly force.

And no way would I get near his body to render first aid. I'll call 911 or find someone to call 911, but I would not put myself in harms way again trying to save his butt. I have no medical experience and I can just see an attorney saying "so how is it that you see that you are fit to render medical help....are you a doctor???....do you have medical training???....why didn't you just wait for the ambulance or a trained professional???.....do you know you were negligent and probably caused more harm that help???...."

My examples show that in this sue happy country, relying on Good Samaritian Laws, or common sense really isn't going to protect you. Your going to get sued for money or by some DA looking to make his name.

Brownie, your right I don't have any criminal justice experience, I forte is in Civil Litigation and Corporate Law.

I cited the example of Goretz "the subway vigilante". He was attacked by 4 young black boys, and shot one, got sued up the ying yang and spent time in jail for defending himself. How is that example not relevant to this scenario first described????

[simon]

I cited the example of Goretz "the subway vigilante". He was attacked by 4 young black boys, and shot one, got sued up the ying yang and spent time in jail for defending himself. How is that example not relevant to this scenario first described????

Relevant or not, the scenario described above happened in New York city, where the unarmed are king,and the armed are vilified.

[Edward429451]

My reccollection of the Goetz case is that he walked up on one of em who had already been shot and was down, and said something to the effect of "Here, have another" and shot him again. That may have worked against him.

[CWL]

Irregardless of what you do, the only sentence to come out of your mouth if you are ever involved in a shooting is:

"I was in fear for my life, I want to speak to my attorney."

[brownie0486]

The lawsuits against him were made valid as he used an illegal firearm and was in fact a criminal himself at the time of the incient on the train [ at least more valid than had he been licensed and legit with the weapon ].

Courts frown on one who breaks the law by carrying an illegal weapon, let alone one who breaks the law and then hurts or kills another with that illegal weapon.

I personally thought Geotz got off pretty easy in NY when it ran realtime.
I think public sentiment and the media played a big part in his not doing more time, thats just an opinion from recollection though.

As to Geotz being villified, he should have been, he was criminally in possession of an unregistered gun. No more or less so than the gang bangers on the streets. I can't condone carrying illegally for him anymore than I can for the bangers doing the same thing.

For what it is worth, I think the 4 of them got a taste of their own medicine, that's not the same as saying they got what they deserved however.

Brownie

[Quartus]

I said if I shot some one it is with the intention to kill not wound. Don't believe drawing a gun and firing at someone unless you mean to stop him immediately with deadly force.



That statement of intent to kill is all it will take to change a clear case of self defense to a manslaugher or murder conviction.




But it seems quite counterintuitive to practice putting your slugs into the X ring, and then expect the intruder to not die.


It's not about EXPECTING him not to die - it's about not INTENDING for him to die. You may think that's a lawyer's difference, but D.A.s and judges are lawyers. And THEY decide who gets to be tried for murder.

Hmmm. That kinda makes me want to pay attention to what they think! :what:

[50 Freak]

Despite of what we think we would do in this case, real life has a way of bitch slapping you across the face and destroying all of your carefully laid out plans.

But CWL hit the nail on the head.

"Irregardless of what you do, the only sentence to come out of your mouth if you are ever involved in a shooting is:

"I was in fear for my life, I want to speak to my attorney."


I'm not going to continue with this thread but lets just all say we all agree to disagree. Ain't America grand.

Regards everyone

:D :D :D

[Okiecruffler]

I started this thread out of shear curiousity, and look where it's gone. I find it a testament to this board that even tho' there are obvious differences of opinion, no one has called anyone elses parentage into question.

Honestly, I think if it's a good shooting, you probably don't have much to fear from the courts as far as losing a case, but nothing can protect you from being sued. And even if you win the case, a lawsuit is a pain in the keister. Still not sure if I would render aid or not, my personal belief is that all life is sacred, but some more than others. But it's that whole karma thing, so what can I do.

Great points being brought up on all sides, even by those that I hardly ever agree with, guess I'm learning all the time.

[El Rojo]

I have no medical experience and I can just see an attorney saying "so how is it that you see that you are fit to render medical help....are you a doctor???....do you have medical training???....why didn't you just wait for the ambulance or a trained professional???.....do you know you were negligent and probably caused more harm that help???...."I just got out of the first aid course at work today. And as I said before, the treatment for a open bleeding wound is direct pressure. I asked, "When wouldn't you apply direct pressure to a wound?" The answer was when someone has a skull fracture, as you might push the skull into the brain. So again, it is very simple, if someone is shot, apply direct pressure. You are not going to agrevate the wound. When something is bleeding profusely, you try to stop it by putting a bandage and direct pressure over it. It isn't brain surgery. A lawyer might just ask those questions above, which you lawyer will already have coached you to respond, "I applied direct pressure to the wound in order to stop the bleeding." If the person dies because you couldn't stop the bleeding, you are still fine, as they would have died had you done nothing. End of that argument. You don't have to have training, you don't have to be a Dr., it is simply common sense. And the good samaritan laws do protect you. If you don't have faith in them, don't help anyone then. If someone is dying or in trouble, don't draw your gun, don't offer help, don't do anything. You might have enough risk tolerance to dial 911 and I guess that might be a step in the right direction.

I guess I just get frustrated when everyone throws common sense out the window and just lives in fear and paranoia. I see it all the time at work. People are unwilling to stand up and do what is right or to ask for what they deserve because they are afraid of lawyers or bosses and what they can do to them. When you make the right decisions and you do the right thing, good people should not have anything to fear. Yes the world sucks, yes people get raw deals, but I am not going to live in fear or avoid doing the right thing because corrupt people will make it hard on me if I do. If that is the way things happen, oh well. I can still be confident that I didn't shirk my duty or responsiblity and that I did the best I could. Might that be naive, might that be putting me at risk to get sued? Sure. Might I save a life, might I stop criminals and bad people from taking advantage of good people? Yes. I chose not to live my life in fear. If the lawyers want to take me down, lets fight it out in the courts. If my boss wants to go after me because they were wrong and I spoke up, lets go. If I lose because the system is flawed, so be it. Someone has to take some stands and do what is right in this world. When good people say nothing, the lawyers and greedy don't hesitate to take advantage. I don't intend on making it easy for them.

So if I determine the scene is safe and I apply direct pressure on a bleeding subject that shot at me, I accept the risk. If I decide the scene isn't safe and I don't help out the subject, I accept the risk. Whatever I decide, I know that it will be withing my legal abilities and if some lawyer wants to make an issue of it, lets do it. Why I am at it, I might as well counter sue the criminal for punitive and emotional damages. Why be the prey in court when I can be the predator. There is a thought. Instead of worrying about getting sued for acting within the law, why not start suing those that don't act within the law. When are we going to take back our power and authority and stop giving it to criminals and lawyers?

[Edward429451]

Wow El Rojo, Well said. I agree with every single thing you said. You put it into a very good perspective.:cool:

Better to try & fail than to never have tried at all.

Defendant hell, Plaintiff. I like that.

[El Rojo]

Yeah it sounds good on paper or on the Internet. Will I ever hold myself accountable? That is really the challenge.

[the_redstar_swl]

one of my friends seas if you don't wont to kill shoot for his crotch:evil:

[brownie0486]

the_redstar_swl

Where you are 13 years old, I'll ask that you read this carefully.

AP ammo is illegal to use on the streets in the US

You haven't lived long enough to be able to make statements about cops planting evidence. Or do you have some practical experience in that area already?

A 13 yr old with a bad attitude toward LE's already?

Edited to add: Don't take my reply here as amonishment, take it as a heads up that you may want to reconsider your signature line, it might be a little overboard [ but hey, I get overboard here as well often enough so the age has nothing to do with it ].


Brownie

[Quartus]

the_redstar_swl, two things:

[list=1]
You're welcome here.


You have a lot to learn about life.[/list=1]


You can learn a lot here. If you listen.

[willyjixx]

i think id be more worried about my families well being and the potential for more aggressors. that an trying to get ahold of LEOs to let them know who i am so im not the next gunshot victim.

my compassion for the BG went as far as the .357 to stop him

[bogie]

Well, bein' a normal 'merican, I know one thing...

If you go over to the fellow in the hockey mask after you shoot him, and turn him over, he reaches up, grabs you someplace painful, and tries to chew your face off.

I ain't fallin' for it.

[Quartus]

Oh, bogie, you'd take all the fun out of horror movies!


"I think he'd dead."

"Think nuthin!" CLACK! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

(pieces of skull fly in several directions)

"THERE. NOW he's dead."


:D