Dealing with a shooting aftermath...

[The Annoyed Man]

This is my first post in this particular forum. I was just reading Jeff White's excellent (in my view) post regarding bloodlust, and it got me to thinking.

After having worked in a large ER for several years, I saw hundreds of gunshot patients, with injuries running from "mere flesh wounds" to instantly fatal with everything in between, not to mention terrible lingering deaths. In ALL cases, whether or not the wounded or deceased was justifiably shot, there were families involved - both on the part of the shooter and on the part of the shot - not to mention the parts played by law enforcement and the justice system in general.

For my own part, while I would use deadly force if required, I am a religious person who takes his faith so seriously that I am incapable of viewing my world through any other lens than that of my faith. I am commanded not to commit murder. I make the distinction that there is such a thing as justifiable killing which is not murder, but I think that with great power (inherent in the act of pulling the trigger against another human being), comes great responsibility. Having to actually kill another man would be my outcome of least preference, however, I freely acknowledge that, in the heat of the moment, I might possibly be ruled more by my fears than by my wisdom. And of course, I recognize that there is no such thing as "shoot to wound." If I'm going to shoot someone, it will be because I genuinely believe that my life or the life of a loved one is in immediate danger, and that pulling the trigger is the only possible response which will keep me or mine alive.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss A) how THR members feel inside about the idea of shooting and possibly killing in self-defense, and what your internal strategies are in that regard; and B) strategies that THR members would follow in the aftermath of a shooting, both from an internal perspective AND from a legal perspective. I am also interested in hearing your moral arguments on the subject, as one's internal morality plays a large part in how one would develop those strategies.

Please, serious comments only, in keeping with Jeff White's guidelines. Moderators, if this is the wrong place for this, please feel free to move it.

 

[rbernie]

A) how THR members feel inside about the idea of shooting and possibly killing in self-defense, and what your internal strategies are in that regard;

I'm OK with it. <shrug> No strategies needed.

B) strategies that THR members would follow in the aftermath of a shooting, both from an internal perspective AND from a legal perspective.

I'd like to think that I'll the presence of mind to SHUT UP. Adrenaline and other factors may complicate that plan.

Dunno how I'd react long term. Like any other dramatic and traumatic experience, I'm sure that I'd stay in my thoughts and dreams for a while but eventually it'd cease to intrude upon my daily life.

 

[PPGMD]

A) how THR members feel inside about the idea of shooting and possibly killing in self-defense, and what your internal strategies are in that regard

I don't know about anyone else, but I feel that you only use deadly force in a kill or be killed cases. To me there is no moral problems with that, after the fact I might have problems to deal with, but before the fact I see no issue with that stance.

B) strategies that THR members would follow in the aftermath of a shooting, both from an internal perspective AND from a legal perspective

Legally clam up until my lawyer (a competent lawyer that has successfully run a self defense cases) arrives, unless I am in a state with very good self defense laws and a DA that isn't known for being an idiot with these types of cases.

 

[BridgeWalker]

A) how THR members feel inside about the idea of shooting and possibly killing in self-defense, and what your internal strategies are in that
regard;

No problem. I was raised Jewish, and was taught that there is a affirmative requirement to defend oneself to the extent possible. I was also raised in the distant shadow of the holocaust and in a more immediate way cognizant of troubles in Israel. I've been prepared to defend myself and my family from a young age, and have done so, although in a situational awareness and reacting to threats way, never caused serious harm to another.

Now I'm a Christian and although I no longer think in terms of commandments in quite the same way, I do still believe that self-defense is a good and necessary thing. To me, one of the most fundamental cores of faith is to respect human life; but I have to start with mine and my family's lives. If someone tries to trespass on that fundamental, I'm not choosing my life over his, I'm just choosing the life I have the most immediate responsibility for and control over.

B) strategies that THR members would follow in the aftermath of a shooting, both from an internal perspective AND from a legal perspective. I am also interested in hearing your moral arguments on the subject, as one's internal morality plays a large part in how one would develop those strategies.

Internally? Talk with my husband and my mentor. That's how I get over every personal challenge. Legally? ****, and then call in every resource to get the right lawyer asap. With my husband and I both in law-related programs, that's a pretty easy matter, and last time we needed a lawyer we had one within 14 hours of the time the need arose, and before business opened that day. That contributed to teh legal challenge disappearing very, very quickly.

 

[Thain]

Okay, this is long, contains big words, and a lot of it is cribbed from the Catechism of the Catholic Church; I don't claim to be the best Catholic in the world, but I do try to live my life as best I can in line with the morals, ethics, and teachings of the Church. As Xander Harris said on Buffy, "Soceity has rules, borders and an end-zone." The Church helps me set those borders, and has some pretty specific teachings about the whole "Thou Shall Not Murder" rule... But just remember, not all homicides are "murder."

Homicide signifies, in general, the killing of a human being by a human being.

In practice, however, the word has come to mean the unjust taking away of human life, perpetrated by someone distinct from the victim and acting in a private capacity. Thus for this discussion,I have not taken into account of suicide, nor of the carrying out of the death penalty by due process of law.

The direct killing of an innocent person is, of course, to be reckoned among the most grievous of sins. It is said to happen directly when the death of the person is viewed either as an end attractive in itself, or at any rate is chosen as a means to an end. The malice discernible in the sin is primarily chargeable to the violation of the supreme ownership of God over the lives of His creatures. It arises as well from the manifest outrage upon one of the most conspicuous and cherished rights enjoyed by man, namely the right to life. For the scope contemplated here, a person is regarded as innocent so long as he has not by any responsible act brought any hurt to the community or to an individual comparable with the loss of life. Homicide is said to be indirect when it is no part of the agent's plan to bring about the death which occurs, so that this latter is not intended as an end nor is it selected as a means to further any purpose. In this hypothesis it is, at most, permitted on account of a reason commensurate with so great an evil as is the destruction of human life.

Thus, for instance, a military commander may train his guns upon a fortified place, even though in the bombardment which follows he knows perfectly well that many non-combatants will perish. The sufficient cause in the case is consideration of the highest public good to be subserved by the defeat of the enemy. When, however, the untoward death of a person is the outcome of an action which is prohibited precisely because of the founded likelihood of its having this fatal result, then in the court of conscience the doer is held to be guilty in spite of his disclaimer of all intention in the matter. Hence, for example, one who fires a shotgun into the public street, whilst protesting that he has no wish to work any mischief, is, nevertheless, obviously to be reproached as a murderer if his shot kills anybody.

Also, I think it goes without saying, that hiring someone else to do the deed (an assassin) makes a murderer of both the assassin and his employer.

For the protection of one's own or another's life, limb, chastity, or valuables of great worth, it is agreed on all sides that it is lawful for anyone to repel violence with violence, even to the point of taking away the life of the unjust assailant, provided always that in so doing the limits of a blameless defence be not exceeded. It is proper to note:

(1) that the danger apprehended for oneself or another must be actual and even, so to speak, imminent, not merely prospective. Hence, the teaching here propounded cannot be adduced to justify the use of force for purposes of reprisal or vengeance by a private individual. This latter is a function belonging to the public authority.

(2) No more violence may be employed than is required to safeguard sufficiently the goods already enumerated upon which an unwarranted assault has been made.

The right of self-defence so universally attributed does not necessarily presuppose in the aggressor an imputable malice. It is enough that one's life or some other possession comparable with life should be threatened outside of the proper channels of the law. One might, for example, kill a lunatic, or one crazed with drink, although there is no malice on their part, if this were the only effective way to head off their onset. St. Thomas is careful to say that even in self-defence it is unlawful to kill another directly, that is, to intend immediately the death of that other. His mind is that the formal volition of the self-defender should entirely be to preserve his own life and repulse the onslaught, whilst as to the loss of life, which, as a matter of fact, ensues, he keeps himself in a purely permissive attitude.

In short: The killing of another man becomes a sin when the death of the person is viewed either as a desirable goal, or is chosen as a means to another end.

 

[ZeSpectre]

I Grok Mr. Ayoob.

 

[The Annoyed Man]

Thain, a well written discourse on the religious aspect, and one that, even though I am an evangelical Protestant rather than a Catholic, I would agree with. But it addresses only the spiritual reconciliation you have made with the possibility of having to take another human life. Although it may have some bearing on how you would cope emotionally with the aftermath of a shooting, I would also be interested to know what strategies you think would best be applied to the civil and legal aspect of it.

ZeSpectre, I know who Ayoob is, but I'm not familiar with his advice with regard to what one should do AFTER a shooting.

 

[Thain]

Ahh, well as far as the legal aspect is concerned, I think my wife (delta9) summed it up pretty well:

****, seek lawyer, prepare to be put through absolute hell for 12-18 months as the case worms its way through the system.

As we are both working our way to careers in the law (she a lawyer, me a paralegal), I think we have a pretty good grasp on how to handle this sort of thing. Granted, neither of us has any first hand experince in a criminal matter - and it will be a world of difference when we are a party, rather than counsel.

Michigan case law, as well as recent statutes, give a fair level of protection to the shooter in a self-defense scenario. MCL 600.2922b, for example, makes the "user of deadly force in self-defense .... immune from civil liability." We also have no "duty to retreat", as seen in MCL 768.21(c) and stacks of case law.

But even the most "righteous" self-defense shooting is going to require a lengthly investigation, possible criminal charges, and attorney fees from here to Judgement Day.

That said, if I am ever in a postion where I have to kill a Bad Guy to protect myself or my family... I'm going to end the threat first, and worry about the bills latter.

I mean, if I have to chose between credit card debt from attorney's fees or a funeral home, it ceases to be a choice.

 

[tepin]

A. No issue with pulling the trigger as a last resort. I look at criminals that commit violent crime as sub-human. If I am attacked or a criminal enters my home when I am there, the criminal will assume all the risks and I will not hesitate to use deadly force when legal to do so
B. Internal? If it is legal, I am justified and that’s all the justification I need. Legal? I want to speak to my attorney and I do not consent to a search.


I don’t know for sure, but I have a feeling that religion goes away real quick as you watch your wife gang-raped during a home invasion, then have cleaning products poured down her throat and her breasts cut off.

Anyone want to turn the other cheek? I will take my chances in hell. Anyone want to debate the term “sub-human”?

 

[BridgeWalker]

I don’t know for sure, but I have a feeling that religion goes away real quick as you watch your wife gang-raped during a home invasion, then have cleaning products poured down her throat and her breasts cut off.

I dunno. Seeing as how the vast majority of my k-12 classmates in a very, very religious school were the grandchildren of holocaust survivors who lost their first families under similar circumstance, I dispute that forgetting religion is necessarily one's first response to violence.

I absolutely dispute that an attacker is sub-human. He's just as human as anyone else. I guess I just grew up around people who were a little touchy about labeling any class of persons "sub-human."

Thing is, a person can be just as much a person as me, with as much inherent worth, however obscured by his actions, and I can still kill him to protect myself or my family, in absolute good conscious. It is not about that person, it is about my responsilibity to protect the lives in my charge, and my ability to do so. If another life is the cost of doing that, then that is the way it goes.

Oh, and I'm against the death penalty too.

 

[M2 Carbine]

I don't intend using deadly force against anyone that doesn't deserve it.

Anything beyond that I don't worry about.

 

[RyanM]

Internally, I don't know. I've never killed anything bigger than bugs, except a mouse one time. It was trapped in a glue trap at work, so I crushed its head with a broom handle, then threw it in the trash compactor. It was just a baby, too, about the size of a ping-pong ball. I didn't feel bad about killing it, but I did feel a little sorry for it. Being a mouse just has to be bad all around.

Anyway, hopefully I'll deal. If not, therapy might be an option, but I'd need to look pretty hard to find a competent therapist. I have very little faith in the psychology/psychiatry field in general. I'm not particularly religious (spiritual, but not really religious), so I don't expect any moral problems from there.

Legally, it'd be highly dependent on the circumstances.

 

[Zundfolge]

I think we do a lot of navel gazing and worry about the psychological impact of self defense killing, when in reality most of us are wired such that there will likely be little internal dissonance about it. In most "good shoots" its pretty clear cut "me or him".

I think the area we're least prepared for is the after action legal and tactical elements ... you kill someone, even though its legally, morally and ethically justified, there are still going to be people you never met that hate you with an intensity that you cannot comprehend. Some of them will come after you with lawyers, some with anti-self defense media and still others with violence.

Oh there will be a few "attaboys" and pats on the back and people silently and solemnly nodding and depending on the circumstances the word "hero" may be whispered behind your back ... but all it takes is one of the thug's homies kicking in your door at 2am or one crying grandmother with a slimy lawyer with dollar signs in his eyes, or one sleazy "Civil Rights Activist" with a news camera crew and political aspirations and you may wish you let the thug kill you instead.

This is what I worry about more than whether I'll feel any guilt.

 

[The Annoyed Man]

Tepin, I'm with Delta9 on the Religion thing. Personally, as a Christian, I don't believe that I am barred from taking another's life, but rather I am barred from doing so unjustly. Speaking strictly from the Christian perspective, the Old Testament very succinctly lays out (in the book Numbers) what the definition of murder is or isn't, and what the penalties for that should be. It is noteworthy that there is a lot of attention paid to mercy in that book. And although as a Christian, I believe that the new Covenant supplants the old, Christ himself said that he came to complete the law, not replace it; and it is equally noteworthy that he did not offer to rescue the thief on the cross from execution in this life, promising him only eternal life after death.

But, I don't mean for this discussion to devolve into a comparative religion study, but rather I only mention it because my faith helps to inform my personal morality, and that is relevant to A) how I reconcile within myself the possibility of having to kill or be killed, and B) how I might reconcile myself to the emotional aftermath of having to kill someone in self defense. Like Delta9, I believe that all human life has inherent value, even if it is perfectly justifiable under certain circumstances for me to take another person's life. Having to deal with the families of bad men who got shot dead taught me that they grieve just as much for their loss as you or I would for the loss of a loved one. That doesn't mitigate the BG's guilt, but it does remind me that in a case like that, saving my own family from having to experience that emotional trauma by killing the BG guarantees that the emotional trauma will be inflicted on another family - namely his. And those people might have been perfectly normal folks who did the best they could to raise the BG up, and he still went bad. That thought would not stop me from doing what I had to do, but it does insure that I approach that responsibility with a sober attitude.

On the legal side, I realize that pretty much any jurisdiction in which you reside, no matter how sympathetic to RKBA, is going to confiscate any firearm used in a shooting, justifiable or not. My question is, will most jurisdictions return the firearm if the investigation clears the shooter, or do they usually try and keep it? I suppose that it's a given that LA, SF, and NY won't return the weapon; but what about other jurisdictions?

This whole issue of preparing for, and then dealing with the aftermath of a shooting was very recently a big news story here in the DFW metroplex when an old man shot dead two different BGs within a couple of weeks. It even resulted in the suspension of a local Fox reporter for ambushing the poor old guy in a gun store parking lot. He was there to replace the shotgun that had been confiscated by the Dallas PD, and we are a state that is fairly supportive of the RKBA and has implemented things like the Castle doctrine, etc. The gentleman was very distraught - both at being ambushed by a reporter with a clear agenda, and by having to consider the magnitude of what he did, even though it was justifiable and legal. He had both shotguns taken away - the one he used in the first shooting, and then the one used in the second shooting. I really wonder if he'll ever get them back.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

I would only kill someone in defense. If that happens, I didn't choose to kill them, they chose to put me in the position where I had to. I'm not the kind of person to feel sorry about someone else's stupid decision Maybe I'm just a cold heartless guy, but I only feel sorry for victims and not dead perps. It would take an extreme threat to make me pull a trigger on another person, but if I did it would be completely without remorse. You can't take bullets back, so if they go out it will be with my fullest belief that they are necessary.

 

[tepin]

To each their own.

However, I will stand-by the sub-human comment. There are criminals that commit such heinous acts that their human status becomes void in my book. States with the death penalty are obviously in agreement or there would be no state sponsored executions.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3407703
http://www.wichita-massacre.com/
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=531

 

[Thain]

I think, Tepin, that you have a higher opinion of humanity than I do... Heinous acts of pure evil, such as the ones you cite are commited by human beings. Evil, yes, but human...

Like delta9, I'm a bit reluctant to casuallly label anyone "sub-human." The last time a large group of people started labeling others Untermenschen, well, it was all part of a greater evil act than any of the ones you cite.

Evil exists, and humans are wholly capable of acting on evil impulses "in the heat of the moment," and are more than capable of formulating long term plans to acheive evil ends.

The vast majority of people you'll ever meet are, if not flat out nice-guys, at least civil. A few folks are mean and anti-social types... A very rare number are evil.

The nice-guys will, at there worst, yell bad words at you in traffic.

The mean and anti-social types, at there worst, are going to shank you for $20 in a back alley mugging. They can be dealth with by proper self-defense planning. (ie, "Avoid until you can't. Then fight like a cornered cat.")

The true evil people... The John Wayne Gacey's, Seung-Hui Cho's, and whatnot... Well, the best you can do as an individual is prepare to fight them, but pray you never have to.

 

[Zundfolge]

I'm a bit reluctant to casuallly label anyone "sub-human." The last time a large group of people started labeling others Untermenschen, well, it was all part of a greater evil act than any of the ones you cite.

So, Nazis ate bread and wore hats too, that doesn't mean that everyone that eats bread and wears hats wants to murder jews.

I believe that people that prey on their fellow man have forfeited part of their humanity and as such are sub human.

 

[plexreticle]

As far as I'm concerned if I shoot someone it was their decision.

I don't go looking for trouble so if someone is doing something where I have to shoot them then they are the one screwing up.

 

[tepin]

Well said Zundfolge!

 

[SHTFmilitia]

A) I don't have a problem with, could do it when needed

B) Let them find my lawyers card in my wallet cause i will not speak to anyone but him and it says it on the card.

 

[Baba Louie]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss A) how THR members feel inside about the idea of shooting and possibly killing in self-defense, and what your internal strategies are in that regard; and B) strategies that THR members would follow in the aftermath of a shooting, both from an internal perspective AND from a legal perspective. I am also interested in hearing your moral arguments on the subject, as one's internal morality plays a large part in how one would develop those strategies.

For the record, I have no intention of killing anyone. Just stopping their criminal activity should it come my way. Should they expire as a result of their chosen occupation, well, life's like that sometimes.

a. While I don't like the idea of being placed into a situation of lethal force being brought to bear against me, if I have no path of retreat or immediate cover, my response will probably be over before I knew it began. Move and shoot till the bad guy stops his/their use of lethal force. period. Clear area for additional threats? Reload?

b. Call police. Call lawyer. Await both. Next actions would vary depending on location, at home being one thing, out and about another. At home, simple explanation, show ID, explain attorney en route, seek medical attention (awaiting shock or adrenaline aftermath). Out and about, very simple explanation, show ID, explain attorney en route, seek medical attention. Second scenario will probably be more dynamic and foggy. (Why were you there? What were you doing? What happened? Do you know the assailant? What was he doing? Why me? Did I do right, wrong or both?) Cops want to know those answers, I want to know those answers. I darn well better know those answers, but I'm guessing I'll be pretty froggy right about then even if I am not leaking blood. (I wonder what my BP would be during and right after the incident?) (Note to self: If leaking blood, staunch the flow before anything else occurs once bad guy has stopped his use of force. Believe and Know I will survive and recover.) If not leaking blood, my attorney will certainly know those answers as best I can tell him within 24 hours or sooner. From then on, it's his show.

Internal morality? I am not evil. I cannot believe this actually happened to me. I do no harm to others first or without cause, never have, never will. I wish I was somewhere else. I wonder where my shots went? I wish he/they would not have started it. God please help me thru this. I wonder how much my attorney is going to charge me for all this?

Seek professional help (maybe) in dealing with the Mark of Cain syndrome should it pop up. Plan on getting out the backup/secondary weapon for some range time ASAP, probably consider getting a bigger gun.

FIDO

It all Sounds good from the keyboard... But who really knows until they've BTDT? It doesn't sound like much fun, but it beats the alternative, that's for sure.

 

[damyankee]

I knew a man who was literally killed over what started as a bump of the shoulders in a bar.

From that alone I would have no problem defending myself if I thought someone was going to kill me.

No bloodlust here, but it can be a VERY ******, cold blooded world. Better to be prepared.

 

[B3XD]

response to having shot some one

The most practical advice I have read to date:

First, call for ambulance. (even if you are sure he is dead) Call for ambulance. Tell them someone has been shot, not that you shot them. In same call, call for police. Tell them you are armed and to announce so you can put down weapon. Call your lawyer. **** till lawyer gets there.
Remain civil, polite,and cooperative even if they get abusive.

When you get out of the ensuing legal folderah that day, then compose your soul in the best manner possible for you. Admit truth to self, no matter how unpalatible it is - from you liked the feeling to you're soul sick. Seek treatment/training if needed. Then get over it.

 

[Old Dog]

There's no "practical advice" as far as telling someone what to do after they've shot someone. If you believe that most folks can actually think cognitively after having to kill someone else, you are indeed an internet commando.

Certainly, one would not want to post on an internet forum that one has developed an "internal strategy" for how one would deal with having to shoot another person.

One can be prepared to defend one's self, one's family or one's comrades. One cannot be prepared for how one feels afterward.

Zundfolge states:

I think we do a lot of navel gazing and worry about the psychological impact of self defense killing, when in reality most of us are wired such that there will likely be little internal dissonance about it.

I respectfully disagree. For most of us, there will be a considerable amount of "internal dissonance" resultant from taking another human life. For many, it may take quite a while before this happens. PTSD is very, very real.

In most "good shoots" its pretty clear cut "me or him".

Again, this doesn't always make a difference in how one reacts to shooting another human being.

For those of you that believe you are prepared to take a life, even in defense of your own, your families, your comrades ... I submit that the mindset is in the act -- you may have the mindset and the proper preparation to commit the defensive act, resulting in your taking a life -- but this has no bearing in how you will feel afterwards.

Granted, the legal and social aftermath of taking a life is huge. But for most, what affects them the most, is that they've had to terminate someone else's life. One's immediate, and short-term, reaction is not at all to worry about how much shooting someone, no matter how "righteous" the shooting, is gonna cost them, monetarily or socially.

My question is, will most jurisdictions return the firearm if the investigation clears the shooter, or do they usually try and keep it? I suppose that it's a given that LA, SF, and NY won't return the weapon; but what about other jurisdictions?

This should certainly be the very least of your worries.