Your intentions should you have to pull the trigger.

[Triad]

As a matter of safety, I would not approach him, even if he appears unconscious or dead.

IMO, the smart thing to do.

However -- if the situation ever happens to me and I call 9-1-1 after a shooting, I intend to start with, "Send an ambulance! A man has been shot..." so that there is a record of my voice asking for medical attention for the BG. That first 911 call is when you start working on Problem Two, I guess.

You have nothing to lose by asking them to send help. They may even be able to help him.

If there are other people around and one of them is willing to render aid, I'd think you could let them get close IF the weapon is well and truly away from the BG and IF y
ou have warned them that they are taking a risk. I'm not as sure about this one, though ... because it is a risk. Legally, I'd hate to have to stand up in court and explain why I wouldn't let anyone else render aid if I had been too fearful to do it myself -- especially not the fellow who murmured, "I'm a doctor..."

They're adults. They're responsible for their own actions.

However, right up until the police arrive, it would be "my" crime scene to protect

You're not a cop. They have authority to protect crime scenes. Do we? Anybody know? I don't, but it seems to me all you need to do is NOT tamper with evidence.

and my responsibility if another person got hurt or killed because I made the wrong call in keeping them away from the BG.

Like I said, they're adults. See above. If they're kids, I guess the best thing to do is tell them to stay back. If they don't? What authority do we have to restrain them? Anybody know?
I have some thoughts on the shoot to stop-shoot to kill debate, but I'm not sure I'll add them.

 

[pax]

Triad,

Mostly agree with your reasoning.

You're not a cop. They have authority to protect crime scenes. Do we? Anybody know? I don't, but it seems to me all you need to do is NOT tamper with evidence.

Yes and no. You don't have the authority to boss people around who are not a threat to you, but you do have the continued need to protect yourself and your loved ones from the BG -- and you need to worry about Problem Two.

If the BG is conscious (or faking unconsciousness), he could whip a knife out of his pocket and take a hostage if anyone gets near him. So the question is whether allowing someone close enough for that to happen is something you want to do. Sure, the other folks on the scene are adults, but you are the one who will have to decide whether to shoot the wounded man if he attacks when they get near.

And, if you do let someone near him -- you do not want to point your gun at an innocent, but you do want to keep the BG on the ground and under control until the police are on the scene. How are you going to do that if there is an innocent between you and him?

If you put your gun away, how fast can you react if the BG does jump up and come at you? Does he have other weapons which you haven't yet seen? Can he get to them? Is there a blade in his pocket? A holdout gun?

Since you know that you will, one day in the not too distant future, be standing in court to explain your actions, it is to your advantage that the evidence doesn't walk off. If the BG's weapon is out of his hand, stand on it -- or pick it up and put it in your pocket. If BG has friends, that weapon will walk away when you are not looking, and your fingerprints on it would be much easier to explain than a completely missing weapon.

Same thing -- if there are spatters of blood on the street and it's raining, throw a jacket over 'em if you can.

It's not about being a cop. It's about protecting yourself. You're going to need as much help as you can get with Problem Two, and will have a harder time if evidence walks off or gets destroyed before the police arrive.

Most of that came straight out of the lecture by Marty Hayes in FAS-3, at
the Firearms Academy of Seattle. I think it makes sense.

pax

 

[Triad]

If the BG is conscious (or faking unconsciousness), he could whip a knife out of his pocket and take a hostage if anyone gets near him. So the question is whether allowing someone close enough for that to happen is something you want to do. Sure, the other folks on the scene are adults, but you are the one who will have to decide whether to shoot the wounded man if he attacks when they get near.

And, if you do let someone near him -- you do not want to point your gun at an innocent, but you do want to keep the BG on the ground and under control until the police are on the scene. How are you going to do that if there is an innocent between you and him?

If you put your gun away, how fast can you react if the BG does jump up and come at you? Does he have other weapons which you haven't yet seen? Can he get to them? Is there a blade in his pocket? A holdout gun?

pax, the issues you mention are good examples of why shooting to stop and shooting to kill, are essentially the same. Basically, it boils down to the fact that if he isn't dead, he can (does?) still present a threat. Thoughts? Perhaps it is best to engage the BG with the goal of stopping the threat by eliminating it. (I hope you folks understand what I mean by that)
As far as protecting the evidence,I need to get some sleep before I discuss this any more. Hopefully in the meantime some of our resident cops and robbers, oops,lawyers will chime in with their professional opinions.

 

[BogBabe]

What someone said somewhere else recently:

Shoot to live

 

[riverdog]

I never think about it terms of shooting to kill, maim or warn. Firing a warning shot is irresponsible in a crowded neighborhood. I want to know where that shot is going. Since I'm using a 12ga shotgun, shooting to maim is rather arrogant, I'm not that good. I shoot COM, then I cycle the slide and do it again until the threat stops and let the chips fall ... The responding officers can determine kill or maim.

 

[ojibweindian]

My Dad taught me at an early age that if I am to pull a gun on someone, it had better be because either me or my antagonist is about to die.

 

[Fair 'n Square]

I have to agree totally with Schuey2002. The only correct answer to the question is to stop the threat that makes us fear death or serious bodily injury, to ourself or innocent others.
The only value of this thread is to emphasize that point.

 

[Diesle]

to ourself or innocent others

Symantecs again, but.... I think thats too broad. It suggests that you should use your gun to protect anyone you perceive to need protection.

On the other hand...

The only value of this thread is to emphasize that point

That was a HUGE value for me! THANKS ALL!

Diesle

 

[Erik]

I "shoot to stop the threat."

Might that result in the death or serious injury of the threat?

Yes.

I'm comfortable with that reality.

 

[Ala Dan]

WARNING: Hungry Lawyer's Are On The Prowl!

I too, am only going to shoot to stop the threat; by
using only the amount of force necessary.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member