Would You Give Aid

[CapnMac]

Well, it seems to me, that the way to examine the contrary-appearing logic here is to cahnge just one of the parameters.

To wit, suppose you hear a ruckus next door. You go to investigate and your neighbour just shot somebody.

Now, do you have a burden, moral or legal, to aid the fallen, the neighbor, or yourself?

 

[Wes Janson]

As far as I'm concerned, once the threat has been neutralized any wounded are to be treated as wounded individuals in need of medical attention, deserving of the best help my knowledge and capabilities permit.

 

[inSight-NEO]

A lawyer told me the best bet would be to yell loudly, "I'm going to get help, I'm calling the police." Then get out of there as it technically is still a dangerous situation.

Of course, if there is nobody around to hear this (much like yelling out "STOP or Ill shoot") other than anyone currently within the house (assuming an HD situation anyway), then such a phrase may not amount to much.

It is impossible to say what you would do under these circumstances.

Well, I would agree with you in terms of what may/may not happen before and during a violent encounter. But, what happens after? Im of the assumption that (once the threat has been reduced/eliminated), another "mental mode" would take over. This would be either A). Let the downed BG lay and let God take care of it from there or B) call for assistance (not just from LE, but from a hospital). Hence, "after the fact involves, in essence, two choices. The choices one can/must make both before and during an attack are, IMHO, far more numerous.

Our instruction at my CCW class, from two former police officers, that the best course of action was to do nothing.

Im curious. Why? I mean, I can see how, say, altering the "scene" or making any impromptu decisions may prove detrimental. But, choosing to at least call for ambulatory assistance or if capable, administering aid? How could this be construed as anything but a positive?
These very acts are demonstrative of a "humanistic" mindset vs. a "live or let die" mindset. Now, I can understand if someone in this situation has been rendered incapable of anything other than shock and the ability to call for the police. But, if one can go one step beyond and at least attempt to administer aid....I say "why not?"

To the OP-

If you did give first aid do you think this would work for or against you in a civil court?

I could certainly see how any attempt at aid, regardless of whether it was personally administered or not, would improve the "shooters" reputation if ever considered by a jury.

However, given my current capabilities (or lack thereof) I would simply make one call: 911

Then, I would inform dispatch of the situation and request not only the police, but (if applicable) an ambulance as well. After that, I would essentially consider it out of my hands.

 

[Positrack]

Personally, I wouldn't get out from behind the shotgun until police arrived (at which point I would do so in a hurry). I would immediately call 911 and inform them of the situation in as much detail as possible, but the only medical training I've ever received was first aid/CPR in junior high school, and they sure as heck didn't show us how to treat 12ga. buckshot wounds. I highly doubt I could be of any real help even if I wanted to be. If faced with this situation, I'd likely either be alone or with my girlfriend, and I would not leave either of us exposed to a possible second intruder lurking somewhere, waiting for me to let my guard down. I'm also not about to risk catching God knows what or getting attacked while vainly attempting to administer aid way beyond my skill level. It may sound callous, but I'm not going to risk a thing to help someone who seconds earlier forced me to shoot them in self defense. It's very easy to avoid being lawfully shot. Just don't break in and put someone in the position of fearing for their life.

BTW, surprisingly enough, IL does actually bar civil lawsuits in the event of a justifiable homicide.

 

[ChCx2744]

would you render first aid

That is a red hot NEGATIVE.

 

[Mr. Bojangles]

Those of us who work as healthcare professionals, including EMS, will remember that one of the first things we do not do is create a second victim (ourselves), meaning, of course, that we do not unnecessarily place ourselves in danger in order to help others. Multiple trauma patients do place a significant strain on both EMS and hospital personnel.

 

[MarineOne]

Give aid" also means different things.

Would I call 911 and report that medics are needed right away to treat a gunshot wound? Yes.

Medics and the police are trained and know what to do. I'm not.

Do I think I could render aid myself? No. I don't have the skills, equipment, or knowledge to do so.

I, too, have no desire to shoot someone over a car stereo. I fully agree that "moral" is a higher standard than "legal". I would only shoot to defend my life or the life of another innocent person. Self-defense ends when the threat stops, BOTH morally and legally. I'm not a doctor, however, and the best aid I can give is to dial 911 immediately and give good information.

I think this says it all.


Kris

 

[wvshooter]

Give aid to the BG whom I've just incapacitated? You've got to be kidding.

Reminds me of the LA bank shootout where two guys with body armour held up the bank and were armed with fully auto M16's. One of the BG's had taken numerous shots to the extremities. Paramedics where not allowed anywhere near him for over an hour. Say what you want but I think the cops were just being patient while he took his time dying. They were sued by the BG's family but prevailed in court using the defense that the possibility of additional BG's was unknown and safety required keeping everybody out of the area. Perfect resolution IMO.

 

[Positrack]

They were sued by the BG's family but prevailed in court using the defense that the possibility of additional BG's was unknown and safety required keeping everybody out of the area. Perfect resolution IMO.

I just CAN'T BELIEVE the family had the GALL to bring a lawsuit after what their "poor deceased loved one" had done. If I'd raised up such a person, I'd be hiding in shame, not trying to sue the cops who had to shoot the . I guess nothing gets in the way of trying to make a buck...

 

[BBQLS1]

I think you have to decide..... The guy was a threat a few minutes ago, is it a good idea to get close to him to give first aid now?

 

[lions]

If I'd raised up such a person, I'd be hiding in shame...

I'll go ahead and reverse that and say that if you are the kind of person who would hide in shame, you wouldn't have raised such a person in the first place.

 

[mustang_steve]

Keep in mind the "good samaritan" concept has been dead for some time.

If you offer any medical care to someone, and you are unlicensed, or it's not your field of expertise, they can and will sue you to oblivious if anything happens to them....even if you could not have stopped it.

Heck, there was a case a while back where a doctor had to do an amputation to save a person's life....that ingrate sued the doctor for the amputation, and won. Congrats Doc, you just lost everything by letting someone live. He was licensed....we aren't. Be smart, don't give the bad guy another civil court angle, because they will milk you if allowed to.

 

[divemedic]

My two cents:

I am a paramedic, and I am also an instructor. I have worked as a responder for over 20 years. If you are an EMT or other medical professional, you cannot be held liable for refusing to provide care, unless you had a duty to act. Simply being at the scene of an injury does not create a duty to act. So medical professionals are no more required to render aid than anyone else. Now, once you do render aid, you must do so to the limits of your training, and you must not accept any payment of any kind for doing so, or you are no longer covered by the Good Samaritan laws. Even allowing the arriving EMS crew to refill your first aid kit by replacing the bandages you used is a payment and nullifies your Good Sam protections.

As to the reasoning that you can be held liable for refusing to render aid, the reasonable man standard comes into play. That is, what would any other reasonable person do in your shoes. IMO, calling 911 and requesting police and EMS is adequate most of the time. Approaching an armed person who means to do you harm (and if he isn't armed and meaning to do you harm, you had no reason to shoot him, so you are already in trouble) i one of the most dangerous things you can do, especially if you are alone. I would not do so. After all, you have no guarantee that the critter is alone, or that you have shot all of the fight out of him.

In all likelihood, barring any extenuating circumstances, I would not render aid unless I was absolutely sure that the scene was now safe.

 

[akodo]

I can't say what I would really do, but here is what the plan is.

I shoot to stop the threat. One the threat is stopped, I will not willingly get closer as this provides the threat an opportunity to re-engage and possibly grab my gun.

There are many ways a threat could stop. The person may simply lay on the ground surrendering at the sight of my gun, or may receive a relatively minor wound and surrender. But the person may also be 'playing possum' Hence, all threats that stop are no longer shot...but they are NOT approached.

I would contact police and hope to remember to specifically request an ambulance for the person I shot. Beyond making them aware they need to get serious medical attention here right away, I would do nothing.

This would include NOT attempting to bind a person who was not shot but simply surrendered upon seeing my gun, and NOT persuing anyone who chose to flee

 

[akodo]

Keep in mind the "good samaritan" concept has been dead for some time.

If you offer any medical care to someone, and you are unlicensed, or it's not your field of expertise, they can and will sue you to oblivious if anything happens to them....even if you could not have stopped it.

Heck, there was a case a while back where a doctor had to do an amputation to save a person's life....that ingrate sued the doctor for the amputation, and won. Congrats Doc, you just lost everything by letting someone live. He was licensed....we aren't. Be smart, don't give the bad guy another civil court angle, because they will milk you if allowed to.

While the Christianly Concept may definately be dead, the laws are still on the books and frequently used. The key is you cannot go beyond your abilities. I suspect this would be a case where the doctor was acting well outside his specialty and performed a medical procedure he had never done before, one that is rarely done any more, and one he had no specific training in as far as when it is appropriate to do as opposed to when it is appropriate to wait for the Jaws of Life assumig they can get there in 30 minutes or so.

 

[trigun87]

I am an trained EMT but not employed as one. I have contemplated this very question. For me its a double edged sword , If I et him/or her die, I will have to live with the guilt of letting someone die I might have been able to save. Also possibly having several long days in court. On the other hand If I choose to help the fallen BG, I place myself at risk all over again. Also if the bad guy lives but is permantly disabled or whatever he may exact revenge upon me and those I care about. I came to the conclusion of not assisting the fallen BG I cannot risk giving them a second chance to exact revenge.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Perhaps "do nothing" was a bad use of terms. You -should- call the police, and you -should- request an ambulance.

However, you (the shooter) having any physical contact with the BG could be twisted into an "assault on a helpless victim" in any later criminal/civil action. A 3rd party can render aid, bt not the shooter.

PLUS ... rendering such aid would well put you in a very un-defensible position. At that close range, it would take little action by the BG to put you in a world of hurt.

Quote:
Our instruction at my CCW class, from two former police officers, that the best course of action was to do nothing.

Im curious. Why? I mean, I can see how, say, altering the "scene" or making any impromptu decisions may prove detrimental. But, choosing to at least call for ambulatory assistance or if capable, administering aid? How could this be construed as anything but a positive?

 

[Zach S]

I'll go ahead and reverse that and say that if you are the kind of person who would hide in shame, you wouldn't have raised such a person in the first place.

You can still get bad apples off a good tree.

If you knew me, and knew my little brother, you wouldn't believe we were raised by the same woman.

 

[KBT1911]

I'm trained in CPR and Army first aid (stomp on chest and yell "Breathe you @#$!!"). If I was 100% sure the threat was neutralized and the cavalry was on the way I would then render what aid I could. If I was only 99% sure, the BG better hope he doesn't die before I get that other 1%.

 

[Magnumdood]

Safety FIRST, LAST and ALWAYS

If you had to shoot a BG in a justifiable SD situation and you just incapacitated him but did not kill him... would you render first aid or would you just call the police and let him suffer the consequences? If he did expire it is one more potential killer off the streets; correct? Or, do you feel that you have a moral obligation to try and save his life?

You're not trained (I am assuming you are not a Peace Officer) to do anything but what the 2nd poster said. Keep him covered until the police arrive; if he dies as a result of his conduct...too bad so sad.

If you were a Peace Officer, you would cuff him as soon as you were certain the situation was stabilized and there were no more bad guys lurking around. One particular shooting incident I was involved in while a Deputy Sheriff in Texas highlights the continuing danger. A motorist fled a stop by a Texas State Trooper. The motorist had a warrant out for murder. The trooper emptied his revolver as the suburban (driven by the bad guy) sped from the scene. The trooper reloaded, got in his vehicle and began a pursuit. Myself and another deputy were running 2cnd and 3rd units behind the trooper. The guy in the suburban suddenly pulled over and bailed out around the front of the suburban and then out into a cow pasture. We were right behind him, and when he was ordered to stop, he did. He was of course ordered to lay prone with his hands out. He went prone, but kept his right hand underneath him. The three of us approached from the opposite side he had a view of. We were all carrying Remington 870's, that he heard being racked as we approached. He was told that basically if he made any fast move his head would explode like a melon. As we got close my partner put the 870 barrel up against the perp's head, behind his left ear, and told him to roll very slowly up until we could see what he was holding. Of course, the continued admonishments to not move fast etc. continued. As it turned out, he had a Smith and Wesson Model 60 in his left hand, the hand he was laying on.. The trooper had wounded the him in the calf as he fled in the suburban.

That long-winded story was meant to illustrate that three armed Peace Officers (with shotguns) were in danger until we had the guy cuffed and searched. THEN we administered first aid and waited for the ambulance.

Safety first, last and always.

 

[newbuckeye]

First Aid after the shot?

I have been reading and, mostly learning, as I read here. I got to wondering the other day if there has been any case law or legal opinions about administering first aid after you shot someone in a self defense situation. I know the first two thoughts that cross my mind are polar opposites. If our primary reason for the shooting is to stop or prevent harm and not kill unless necessary, why wouldn't you attempt to keep the perp from bleeding out from a potentially non-fatal wound?

 

[Unistat]

I know this is a standard answer around here, but it depends on the situation. My security comes first. If I could give First Aid while maintaining security, I would. Security for me also means safe from blood-borne pathogens, so I would also need the appropriate tools and materials.

 

[Telekinesis]

Are you trained to give first aid and do you have the necessary equipment? If I shoot someone, there is no way I'm giving first aid to them. There are many diseases and other nasty things that can be carried in someone's blood stream, and I have no desire to win a fight for my life only to die several years later because I contracted some fatal disease from the guy's blood while I was giving first aid. Also, giving first aid usually involves both hands and 100% of your attention. If someone was doing something that made me shoot them, there is no way I would put away my weapon and focus completely on one small section of their body without someone else restraining them.

That said, I do recommend that everyone have a basic IFAK (individual first aid kit) in the range bag and/or the car and the training to use it so that you are prepared should someone on your side (or yourself) get injured. It doesn't require too much training and usually costs less than $40 or so and is designed to stop bleeding and provide a good first step so that you can get the injured person to someone who knows what they're really doing without them bleeding out first. Just for clarification, they are only to treat life threatening injuries. If you get a paper cut, don't go raiding your IFAK.

Most usually contain some combination of compressed gauze (amazing stuff), an "izzy" bandage (which wraps around a limb/torso to provide pressure), tourniquet, sometimes quick clot (or a different brand) and gloves. Some have a needle to alleviate tension pneumothorax (definitely get training before using that one) and then other items depending on the individual's preferences. Personally I like to have multiples of the compressed gauze because it's pretty small, useful and CHEAP.

 

[Sam1911]

<I've merged this with another thread on the subject, for continuity.>

 

[303tom]

I would dial 911 for him............