Should Aid be Rendered?
- Thread starter Werewolf
- Start date
- Status
LiquidTension
Member
Dead thugs tell no lies.
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once..."Dead yankees tell no lies."
Yeah, we've got some hardcore rednecks 'round these here parts.
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once..."Dead yankees tell no lies."
Yeah, we've got some hardcore rednecks 'round these here parts.TheDutchman
Member
If your in Texas and BG is in your house he is a dead man.
Havegunjoe
Member
Here in Minnesota you must render aid.
However rendering aid is as simple as calling 911 for medical and police assistance. It does not mean you have to get down and place yourself in danger from his knife or his blood in any way. At the most I might throw him a belt to use as a tournequet but it would be up to him to apply it. If he didn't want to bleed to death he shouldn't have attempted to rob me at knife point.
However rendering aid is as simple as calling 911 for medical and police assistance. It does not mean you have to get down and place yourself in danger from his knife or his blood in any way. At the most I might throw him a belt to use as a tournequet but it would be up to him to apply it. If he didn't want to bleed to death he shouldn't have attempted to rob me at knife point.
Bear Gulch
Member
If you hit the femoral artery he is apt to bleed out quickly. Of course, once he passes out from lack of blood you migh want to giveit a try. I for one would fear her was playing possum. I'd wait the 30 minutes it would take for the law to get here and provide a chalk outline.
LiquidTension
Member
Here's something else to think about:
You've got a bloody criminal on your floor (this also applies to anyone you may try to help anywhere else) and you try to render aid. What if the person has AIDS or some other life-threatening illness that is transferred through bodily fluids? Maybe you have an open wound, perhaps from the recent encounter. You could very well be placing your life in danger even if the person actually is unconscious.
AIDS can be treated successfully if you make it to the hospital within about 4 hours of exposure. Thing is, because of privacy laws the hospital won't tell you if the person you aided has any illnesses even if they know. My mom was on a committee to try to get this changed in good samaritan laws a while ago. Don't think it ever happened. Another thing to keep in mind whenever you come into contact with bloody strangers
You've got a bloody criminal on your floor (this also applies to anyone you may try to help anywhere else) and you try to render aid. What if the person has AIDS or some other life-threatening illness that is transferred through bodily fluids? Maybe you have an open wound, perhaps from the recent encounter. You could very well be placing your life in danger even if the person actually is unconscious.
AIDS can be treated successfully if you make it to the hospital within about 4 hours of exposure. Thing is, because of privacy laws the hospital won't tell you if the person you aided has any illnesses even if they know. My mom was on a committee to try to get this changed in good samaritan laws a while ago. Don't think it ever happened. Another thing to keep in mind whenever you come into contact with bloody strangers
Bear Gulch
Member
The other point to ponder is that dead people don't litigate. Several home owners have been sucessfully sued by folks they shot while defending the sanctity of their homes.
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
The next of kin can sue just as readily as a surviving intruder. Even if this weren't true, would you honestly want a man to die just to avoid the possibility of being sued?
If the intruder is still a threat to me or mine I'll keep shooting, and I won't stop until he's nto a threat any longer. Decisions about first aide to the intruder don't begin until after he ceases to be a threat.
But once he's no longer a threat, I'd try to help him. That may not be the correct uber elite tactical response, and that's fine with me. Maybe I'm just a softie, or maybe I haven't read enough tactical gun magazines. But if a man was dying on my living room floor I'd want to help him, even if he had just broken into my home. I'd do everything I could think of to reduce my personal risk first, though.
Maybe that decision would get me killed. But propably not. I'll take the chance, because I'm not sure I could live with myself knowing that I let a man die without so much as lifting a finger to help him.
If the intruder is still a threat to me or mine I'll keep shooting, and I won't stop until he's nto a threat any longer. Decisions about first aide to the intruder don't begin until after he ceases to be a threat.
But once he's no longer a threat, I'd try to help him. That may not be the correct uber elite tactical response, and that's fine with me. Maybe I'm just a softie, or maybe I haven't read enough tactical gun magazines. But if a man was dying on my living room floor I'd want to help him, even if he had just broken into my home. I'd do everything I could think of to reduce my personal risk first, though.
Maybe that decision would get me killed. But propably not. I'll take the chance, because I'm not sure I could live with myself knowing that I let a man die without so much as lifting a finger to help him.
If you aren't convinced that his death is preferable to your's, why are you shooting him?
You think it's a reasonable chance to take, but the truth is that you have no way of telling if the guy is shamming, and you have no way to adequately protect yourself from his bodily fluids.
This is a good way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
If you want to help him, call 911, and maintain a covered defensive posture at a distance so you don't get put into the position of having to shoot him again.
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
Maybe I didn't make my point clearly enough. I'd certainly choose his death over mine, if those were my only two options. But life isn't that simple most times. There are usually more options. If possible, I'd prefer a third outcome: nobody dies. I'll accept a very slight additional risk to bring that about. But I'm not about to put his life before mine.
It's a risk vs reward thing. If the extra risk is minimal, then I'll accept that extra risk for the reward of knowing that I didn't kill a man. Maybe you're different, and wouldn't take that chance. So be it.
Last edited:
Sir Aardvark
Member
It all depends.....
If the rug that he's bleeding out on is a priceless persian and has not yet been ruined, then sure, staunch the flow.
Otherwise........
If the rug that he's bleeding out on is a priceless persian and has not yet been ruined, then sure, staunch the flow.
Otherwise........
WHAT!Headless Thompson Gunner said:
You put your life before his when you shot him. Now that he's down and out of it and may die you somehow decide that his life is more important than yours?
I'm sooooooooo confuuuuuuuuused...
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
Ooops. That's a gross error on my part. A huge typo. That oughta read "I'm not about to put his life before mine", not the other way around. Sorry for the misunderstanding. My original post has since been corrected.
Just to be clear, I'd only help the guy if I could do so with some degre of safety. If the scumbag won't cooperate enough to ensure my safety, then I'd let him die.
carebear
Member
I don't disagree that it would be nice to render aid. My goal in life is not to have killed a man.
But I disagree, prior to the situation, that I can think of any time when trying to render aid would be safe enough to try. It is situational, but the circumstances would seem to me to need to be pretty atypical for me getting within arms reach of a violent attacker to be a realistic plan.
So, no slam on intentions, I just don't see it happening in the real world.
But I disagree, prior to the situation, that I can think of any time when trying to render aid would be safe enough to try. It is situational, but the circumstances would seem to me to need to be pretty atypical for me getting within arms reach of a violent attacker to be a realistic plan.
So, no slam on intentions, I just don't see it happening in the real world.
444 wrote:
Look, if someone wants to provide aid, they are welcome to do so. I just don't think they should kid themselves about there being a logical reason to their approach. Saying "I think the threat is small" when the thought is based on feeling, rather than knowledge, makes no sense to me. In post 41, I've outlined the 5 things that you don't know that preclude you from safely appoaching the intruder. If anyone has answers for those 5 questions, I'd welcome further discussion. However, without an answer to those 5 questions, there is no way to characterize the risk as "slight." In this case, what you don't know can hurt you.
How can you tell if the guy is shamming? I've spent every working day for the past 20 years, most of it in a Level 1 trauma center, dealing with patients as they move from alert, to unconscious and back to alert again. Even when I am controlling it, determining the patient's level of consciousness is sometimes difficult and those patients aren't even trying to deceive me. I certainly can't tell by looking at someone from across the room if they have ceased to be a threat. And if they are trying to deceive me, all bets are off. So, what's the secret that I've missed?
Are you not worried about it because you aren't going to provide aid, as you said in post 44 above? Or do you think that despite the fact that criminals, ex-cons and drug abusers have a higher incidence of blood borne disease than the general population, and despite the fact that all 3 of those groups are well represented in the ranks of home invaders, the risk is low enough to be ignored? Or is there some other reason you aren't worried?
Look, if someone wants to provide aid, they are welcome to do so. I just don't think they should kid themselves about there being a logical reason to their approach. Saying "I think the threat is small" when the thought is based on feeling, rather than knowledge, makes no sense to me. In post 41, I've outlined the 5 things that you don't know that preclude you from safely appoaching the intruder. If anyone has answers for those 5 questions, I'd welcome further discussion. However, without an answer to those 5 questions, there is no way to characterize the risk as "slight." In this case, what you don't know can hurt you.
To answer your question, no, I wouldn't render aid, just like I said before. But my reason for not rendering aid are not the reasons you gave.
If I did decide to render aid, the decision would be made by me and the consequenses, if any would be suffered by me. In effect, I am willing to bet my life on my decision. Why ? Because I do so, on a regular basis. About the time you started working in a trauma center, I began working as a professional paramedic. I work in a high call volume system (Las Vegas) and have spent quite a bit of time on some of the busiest paramedic rigs in the world. This situation described is right up my alley. When something like this happens, I am the one that shows up. I have been on this very call numerous times. On a daily basis I deal with persons who feign illness or injury. Sometimes a dozen or more a day for the last 23 years. In my own mind, I am good enough at it that I am willing to bet my life on my decision: just like I do on a dialy basis. I am sure that you will agree that any medical professional worth their salt can recognize a "sick" patient.
As far as the bodily fluids, second verse, same as the first. I have been spit on, bled on, vomited on, urinated on, deficated on, more times than I could count. Hell, I spent four years on the Haz Mat team. The day that I made my post, I had three calls where some part of my body or my uniform came in contact with urine. Again, this has been happening for 23 years. This is like asking a mechanic if he ever got greasy. These are not people lying in the hospital, these are winos, criminals, crack whores, or what have you, in their natural habitat. I am not worried about coming in contact with one more.
Is there danger ? Sure. Would I purposely try to become contaminated ? No. But it also wouldn't influence my decision whether to do something for this guy or not. Furthermore, in the years that I have worked at this job, I have never known any one of my fellow workers to contract HIV. Out of the hundreds that I know, a couple have contracted Hep C.
That stuff would be the least of my worries.
If I did decide to render aid, the decision would be made by me and the consequenses, if any would be suffered by me. In effect, I am willing to bet my life on my decision. Why ? Because I do so, on a regular basis. About the time you started working in a trauma center, I began working as a professional paramedic. I work in a high call volume system (Las Vegas) and have spent quite a bit of time on some of the busiest paramedic rigs in the world. This situation described is right up my alley. When something like this happens, I am the one that shows up. I have been on this very call numerous times. On a daily basis I deal with persons who feign illness or injury. Sometimes a dozen or more a day for the last 23 years. In my own mind, I am good enough at it that I am willing to bet my life on my decision: just like I do on a dialy basis. I am sure that you will agree that any medical professional worth their salt can recognize a "sick" patient.
As far as the bodily fluids, second verse, same as the first. I have been spit on, bled on, vomited on, urinated on, deficated on, more times than I could count. Hell, I spent four years on the Haz Mat team. The day that I made my post, I had three calls where some part of my body or my uniform came in contact with urine. Again, this has been happening for 23 years. This is like asking a mechanic if he ever got greasy. These are not people lying in the hospital, these are winos, criminals, crack whores, or what have you, in their natural habitat. I am not worried about coming in contact with one more.
Is there danger ? Sure. Would I purposely try to become contaminated ? No. But it also wouldn't influence my decision whether to do something for this guy or not. Furthermore, in the years that I have worked at this job, I have never known any one of my fellow workers to contract HIV. Out of the hundreds that I know, a couple have contracted Hep C.
That stuff would be the least of my worries.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
This is simple. If the guy is still holding the knife, I keep shooting until he isn't. The threat isn't neutralized.
carpettbaggerr
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,676
Sean's right, you shoot him again. If he's [apparently] unarmed or [possibly] unconscious, you might have to think about doing something to keep the BG alive, but in this case you just shoot.
scout26
Member
.
Then I'm at slide lock and reloading another 10 round magazine, as Mrs. Scout26 is yelling at me "YOU IDIOT!!!!! YOU MEAN YOU FIRED ALL TEN ROUNDS AND ONLY HIT HIM ONCE....AND IN THE LEG !?!?!?! GIVE ME THAT
.45 AND LET ME SHOW YOU HOW SHOOT IT, YOU MORON !!!!" 38SnubFan
Member
Remembering that the woman has the last word in any argument, and that anything the man says after that is the beginning of a new argument, keep the following 6 magic words in mind:
"Yes, Dear. Whatever you say, Dear."
-38SnubFan
The military giving aid is a complete apples to oranges comparison. If a SGT and a fresh out of basic private shot an Iraqi insurgent in the leg, the SGT wouldn't have the newbie cover while he gives aid...with the Iraqi still holding a knife. He'd call his PL who would bring the medic and the rest of the PLT to secure him, then treat him (security is ALWAYS FIRST priority on every military mission). This is the equivalent of calling 911 and rendering aid when police and EMTs get there.
Oh, the humane military has a couple of "nice" ways to solve the faking problem too. Either kick him in the groin or thump him in the eye. Either one will get a response from a faker...and neither one would endear you to a jury if you did it as a prelude to treatment to see if he was really unconscious.
I think I'll cover him and call 911 and wait for the rest of my "unit" (police/EMT) to show up and help me secure the situation instead of having my wife and I handle it.
Oh, the humane military has a couple of "nice" ways to solve the faking problem too. Either kick him in the groin or thump him in the eye. Either one will get a response from a faker...and neither one would endear you to a jury if you did it as a prelude to treatment to see if he was really unconscious.
I think I'll cover him and call 911 and wait for the rest of my "unit" (police/EMT) to show up and help me secure the situation instead of having my wife and I handle it.
- Status
