Re-Emergence of Wounded Attacker Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think folks are assuming I am advocating "jumping in" etc. when I have stated no such thing.
Click to expand...
I was responding to the question, not trying to correct/criticize someone else's answer.

Assuming that I could be sure that it was safe to do so and also if there were something constructive I could do then I might render aid. I certainly don't have a plan for doing so because I can't see both of my criteria being satisfied except in very, VERY unusual situations.

To some extent, the two criteria are mutually exclusive. In a situation where I could do something constructive (not a critically disabling injury which I really can't treat effectively), it seems likely that the wounded attacker might still be a viable threat. And in the situation where the attacker is obviously not a viable threat it seems likely that the cause might be a serious wound that is beyond my ability to treat constructively.
 
To some extent, the two criteria are mutually exclusive. In a situation where I could do something constructive (not a critically disabling injury which I really can't treat effectively), it seems likely that the wounded attacker might still be a viable threat. And in the situation where the attacker is obviously not a viable threat it seems likely that the cause might be a serious wound that is beyond my ability to treat constructively.
Click to expand...

Funny how that works, eh?

There is no way I am going to trust anything a conscious wounded attacker says to me in order to provide him/her help and there is no way I am going to try to do a physical inspection to ascertain that an attacker is actually unconscious or completely incapacitated so that I can provide him/her help.

Often is the case that proximity negates skill and the closer I am to my attacker, the less skill that person needs to hurt me.
 
I would call 911 immediately, but I would not dare approach him in any way, shape or form.

First thing I would do is explain the situation to them. I would say that this person attacked me, and I defended myself by use of a firearm. I would then give them a location to get to.

Then I would ask to send an ambulance and some paramedics, and describe the condition the person is in if I can.

In my mind this shows two things, that you legally defended yourself, and that you are willing to call for help for the guy you just shot.

The 911 call will be recorded, so tell them exactly what happened and how it went down. this will get you ready to file a report with the police, and get all your facts straight before they arrive.

when the issue gets to court, the jury may look favorably on the fact that you called 911 to help the guy out. If nothing else, it will demonstrate that you are a normal, well adjusted human being, not a psychotic person who managed to get a carry permit.

I would not render first aid, as I am not capable of helping him at all. I have no knowledge of treating any wound more severe than a bad cut. I would keep my weapon trained on him until someone arrives, ready to re-end the threat if it comes up again.
 
Last edited:
Like you, I have no stomach for sitting idly by and watching a man die. But at the same time, I have to be concerned about several things regarding my own safety. Is the BG playing possum? Are there accomplices nearby? Does he have backup weapons I don't yet know about? Until I am certain of those things - and in most circumstances it will be extremely difficult to be certain of them all - I have to remind myself that the decision not to perform first aid arises from the same moral justification as the shooting itself. The bad actor created a situation that put me or other innocents at sufficient risk that I was forced, reluctantly, to shoot. In the same way, it may well be that the bad actor has created a situation in which you are forced, reluctantly, to not offer him first aid because of the risk that he created. Neither are my choice. Regrettable, perhaps, but realistically true.
Click to expand...

All very well said. Add to that the chance of coming into contact with blood-borne pathogens, and you have all of the reasons that I would not render aid and would simply dial 911 as quickly as safely possible.

Unlike a few, I would not find any enjoyment in the man's death. Unless an attacker had actually succeeded in injuring me or my loved ones or innocent people, it would be hard for me not to feel some compassion for someone in shock and pain spending his last minutes or seconds on this earth.
 
Aid can come in many forms. It might be just getting traffic to not hit the guy who is out cold, tossing a shirt over a wound, or something else of that nature. I don't see myself suturing a torn abdominal wall or anything. I have been in multiple situations where after being attacked and responding with appropriate levels of force, to psychiatric patients, drunks, idiots, and sundry other beings, I found myself helping the poor dears. Sometimes not. Some of the situations were quite serious and merit me having what I consider to be a valid opinion regarding what I would be most likely to do (assuming it was safe to do so) in the types of situations posed in this thread. Others have different opinions and experiences which is just fine and dandy, and is why we discuss these things. Naive and foolhardy I am not, but I can see why someone would think that if their own comfort level or experiences are different.

This thread made me think of the line Alec Guiness had as King Faisal in Lawrence of Arabia when speaking about Lawrence "For Lawrence caring for the wounded is a passion, for me it is merely good manners. You may judge for yourself which is the more reliable motive". Wonderful film.
 
Rendering aid makes you look unsure of the SD shoot, IMO. If I have to shoot I am positive that is the only option I have. By helping the man you make it look like there were more options.
Click to expand...

I think these are extremely questionable premises, as jhenry already argued.

I wouldn't attempt to directly administer aid for the safety and health reasons already cited, but you are not going to hang yourself by showing some simple humanity after you have, in your judgment, neutralized the threat. The worst you could say of rendering aid in a manner that brings you into close proximity to the wounded attacker is that the action is naive and foolishly risky.

As another poster stated, we're talking about two fundamentally different sets of circumstances. In the first, you're facing an active, as yet unchecked threat. In the second set, the threat, in your judgment, has been neutralized. Actions and calculations applicable in the first are in no way necessarily applicable in the second, and vice versa.
 
I really dont want to watch a man die either, dont get me wrong. However, If someones presenting deadly force to me and I have to shoot them, a phone call is what their getting for help. I am keeping my gun trained on them until police arrive if they are moving, and I would watch them die unfortunatley because to me, thats the only option. I'm not going anywhere near someone who I just had to shoot. That is the police's/emt's job. I just don't get shooting someone who a second earlier you though could kill you then you give them aid. Looks too much like you're unsure, to me. Thats just my opinion, I hope I never have to make the decision. If I do though I know what I would do (theoretically).
 
Last edited:
This is a real life, it really happened story. It's not theory or, "I think..." or "I read..."

My little sister shot a carjacker in New Orleans twice in the chest with a 9mm. She called 911 right away and the paramedics arrived before ths cops did. By the time the cops got there he was on his way to the hospital and the crime scene was completely compromised. He spent about 2 years in the hospital and local jail before his case came to court. During that time my sister's name, place of business, and address were published in the court documents and newspapers.

It turned out that the car jacker had AIDS, thank God she didn't try to give him first aid. He went to court and had a high dollar lawyer appointed to him who worked his case pro bono (giving back to the community) and the prosecuter was a ditsy airhead that had just graduated from lawschool. She may not have even passed the bar yet because there was another lawyer that was there for every hearing but didn't do anything.

The pro bono lawyer argued that since my sister was married to a cop (reserve in a different parrish), carried a gun, and was alone in a bad neighborhood (she worked in the federal building in N.O.) that she must have been a "Dirty Harriet" (he used that term) out trying to kill a poor homeless man who just wanted a little change.

The cops at the crime scene confiscated her gun, and when he was acquitted 2 years later she tried to reclaim it only to discover that it was destroyed in a "paperwork mistake".

After he got out of jail he started driving by her house and even talked to her daughter, who was able to describe him to her, while she was playing in her front yard.

Her prompt call saved his life due to the paramedics rapid response. The time he spent in the hospital extended his life by years because he got detoxified (drug adict) and recieved thousands of dollars of taxpayer funded AIDS drugs.

Also, remember that if 1 is good, 2 is better, and half a magazine is even better than that.

Well, take my story for what it's worth, my little sister still has nightmares and flashbacks and has never been the same because of all the crap she had to go through after the shooting b. ecause her attacker survived.

I'm not saying that anyone should do anything, I'm just saying that if a piece of civiliazation's detritus is killed cleanly and humanely instead of living and suing you, that is a good thing. Fortunately, I live in a state with a strong castle doctrine and my right to defend myself and my family is more secure than alot of others who can EXPECT to get sued if their attacker lives.

I DO advise that if you ever have to shoot someone, unload on them and keep them covered until you are completely certain that there is no longer a threat.

I also say that if there is any doubt that an armed attacker might be reaching for a weapon, shoot again. and again. and again. until you are certain that your life is no longer in any way in danger.

Ya'll can pussyfoot around it any way you want, but the final answer is that if you were justified shooting someone, you should shoot to kill. If he lives you'll wish you had.
 
I DO advise that if you ever have to shoot someone, unload on them and keep them covered until you are completely certain that there is no longer a threat.

I also say that if there is any doubt that an armed attacker might be reaching for a weapon, shoot again. and again. and again. until you are certain that your life is no longer in any way in danger.

Ya'll can pussyfoot around it any way you want, but the final answer is that if you were justified shooting someone, you should shoot to kill. If he lives you'll wish you had.
Click to expand...

Amen, brother.
 
DanThaMan1776 said:
IMPORTANT NOTE ON THIS THREAD: The last one got closed because a few members were alluding to the right course of action being executing the downed attacker and lying to the police to avoid legal complications afterward. Please mind the rules of TFL and use your rational minds so we can keep this thread open long enough for some thought-out answers to surface.
Click to expand...
The OP specifically asked people not to post blood-lusty comments that would get this thread closed, as they did the last one. As Captain Charlie said in closing that one, that was "a shame as this subject had potential."

It will be a shame if this one is closed as well, as it will be if it goes in this direction.
 
I would feel terrible about having to use deadly force on someone. But if they tried to kill me once, I have no reason to believe they would not continue trying if I got close enough to render physical aid.......after all I shot them and they must be really angry at me now.
Bottom line: I feared for my life enough to use deadly force and believe the threat has only been neutralized...... not removed. I still fear for my life.
 
I believe there is some benefit to discussing what you would do along with the legalites. However, you are going to make a split second decision on what to do and that may not always be the right thing to do.

Even trained officers do not always get it right. For example, the recent New York City shooting by the NYPD in the Bronx. You can go ahead and google it to find the specifics...google NYPD shooting Bronx. In that incident, there was one man with a revolver who allegedly shot at the police. The police returned fire with 46 shots into a crowd of over 200 people hitting innocent people.

So was 46 shots really neccesary? Obviously, it was a bit wreckless and may not have been neccesary, but then again one of the men was hit 21 times and still was not "stopped". However, the police made a split second decision that they thought was the right thing to do at the time. Could you have done a better job? Maybe or maybe not, but the point is that in any self defense situation you are going to do what you think is right based upon a second of thinking. In the end, a jury or judge will decide if what you did was the right thing to do. Kinda sucks, because you may have done the right thing, but if the judge/jury disagrees then you are basically left holding the bag...no one said self defense would be easy...
 
I dont know if I would feel obligated to help him/her, but I think I would. After putting the person down, I would ensure my family is safe, call 911, and then IF i feel that they are no longer a threat (ie not gun or knife around, or they are not still trying to attack, etc) I would do the bare minimum to ensure they survive IF i feel that I can save them. If its an extremity wound, put on a tourniquet, stomach wound, a towel to "try" to stop the bleeding. No mouth to mouth or freaking out about it. The way I see it, when the police arrive to my house, and they see me trying to stop the bleeding, I feel they would tend to think that I actually felt that I did the bare minimum to stop my attacker and that I did not just over react and make up some BS story
 
Dliller:
The post that the mods objected to was different than what I posted in this thread. I won't go into the differences because I don't want to stir anything up. What I wrote here is basic common sense and if anyone objects to the concept of shooting your assailant until they are no longer a threat they should not be caring a gun.

Anyone who thinks that shooting to wound is a good idea is an idiot and deserves to get what is likely to happen to them, which is your attacker shooting you while you are looking for your phone or a first aid kit.

Firearms are a lethal weapon. If you can't handle that, carry a taser instead of a gun.

That is my perspective and it is one that is shared by many if not most of the people on this board that carry a firearm. There are undoubtably people here that equate first aid with CPR. If you think providing CPR to a person with a gunshot wound is going to help, you are ignorant. CPR is only going to make it worse.

If you don't actually have the skills to treat a gunshot wound, you shouldn't even bother when you really want that person to live, you definately shouldn't do it when it is in your interest for them to die. That just opens you up to an accusation that you were trying to hurt him instead of help him.
 
ISC, the OP's question was:
If you are forced to defend yourself with force, and the assailant is put out of the fight for all practical purposes (is seriously injured, on the ground, no longer poses a threat), do you have a legal/moral obligation to provide first aid to him?
Click to expand...
You clearly think that the answer to that question is no. Fine.

If you don't want to stir anything up, then please don't. Comments along the lines of "... you definately [sic] shouldn't do it when it is in your interest for them to die " will get this thread closed.

And, by the way, deliberately confounding "shooting to stop the threat" with "shooting to wound," which no one here is has suggested is a good idea, is a shoddy tactic technically known as a "straw man" argument...

I could go on, but... it's probably too late to save this one, anyway.
 
Oh I beleive shooting to stop a threat, but Im not going to go out of my way to make them die. If it takes 1 to stop them thats fine, if it takes 10 so be it.

I dont know any sort of first aid for gunshot wounds, so Ill call 911 and let them handle it.

In addition to the original question of rendering aid, are you aloud to leave the scene of the incident? It would make sense to, but could you get in trouble for leaving the crime scene?
 
DLiller said:
In addition to the original question of rendering aid, are you aloud to leave the scene of the incident? It would make sense to, but could you get in trouble for leaving the crime scene?
Click to expand...
A good question, and hardly off-topic at all...

I don't think so, as long as you've called 911 and you keep the dispatcher informed about where you are. It's not like leaving the scene of a traffic accident. If you believe there might still be a threat, perhaps from another assailant, leaving the scene would be a prudent thing to do. I'm not saying you should just go home if you're out somewhere, but I don't believe you'd be in any trouble at all for retreating to a safe location.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top