After the shooting is over?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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!
 
"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.
 
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
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
unass the area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Yeah, wahts that sposed to mean?
Click to expand...

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.
 
(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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Shoot to kill, rendering this a moot point.

Stop to help?

NO. Call cops? yes ! and shut up w/o representation.
 
""...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.
 
Shoot to kill, rendering this a moot point.
Click to expand...

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.
 
(There might even be another BG lurking around nearby.)
Click to expand...
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
 
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.

:)
Click to expand...
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
After the Shooting is over Pt II..
Replies
8
Views
516
Standing Wolf
S
T
  • Locked
Would You Give Aid
2 3 4 5
Replies
112
Views
5K
SARDiver
S
mljdeckard
  • Locked
Obligation to render aid to attacker after shooting?
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
5K
breakingcontact
B
K
  • Locked
Violent Crime, Lethal Force and Other Things
Replies
21
Views
462
Ed Ames
E
S
  • Locked
Okay, so you carried concealed....
Replies
24
Views
1K
243_shooter
2
Back
Top