Treating wounded in SD situation...

It is not a bad idea for everyone to be certified CPR. BUT if you are in Texas that obligates you to render aid. You can be held accountable for not if you have that little card in your wallet. Now all that applies to any kind of injuries on anyone. BUT AGAIN when I took my courses I never asked 'what if I shot the guy'. I have seen training videos where a police officer shot a man, assessed the situation, and then performed CPR until EMS arrived. Police officers go to the same CPR courses I go to.

I work security for a major metropolitan hospital. We carry. We are told we must render CPR on anyone needing it regardless of why. That is hospital policy. As far as state law goes I am not 100%.

Obviously your local state laws must be checked. Find out the facts. If you could be held liable for not rendering aid you need to know.

This thread made me realize I need to find out myself before I find myself in a situation where I have to make the decision.
 
Okay I remember now. In Texas it is called "The Good Samaritan Law" you can be prosecuted for "Failing to stop and render aid." That applies even if you are not certified CPR as well as PROTECTS you if the aid you do render in a life or death situation may be interpreted as you causing further injury. Cases have been cited where people who were dying actually tried to sue a person giving CPR for breaking ribs and what not. This is why the law was passed in Texas.

I am doing this off the top of my head. I am going to find out how it applies to a SD situation.

Check the facts and do not take my word for it.
 
Okay I remember now. In Texas it is called "The Good Samaritan Law" you can be prosecuted for "Failing to stop and render aid." That applies even if you are not certified CPR as well as PROTECTS you if the aid you do render in a life or death situation may be interpreted as you causing further injury.
Click to expand...
If I may play the devil's advocate...

I am not a lawyer (and I don't play one on TV), but I would think that the intent of this law would not apply in the case of administering first aid/CPR to a shooting victim in this case.

I think it was written so that if you should happen to be driving and come across a car accident with injuries, for example, and you administer first aid to the best of your abilities and that person dies anyway, you are protected. You did your best and at least you tried. The main thing is that there was no criminal intent involved in the accident. Even if you caused the accident through your own negligence, it was not your intention to harm someone and in the aftermath, you were just trying to help.

OTOH, in the case of a shooting, if you were the one who actually shot the other person, I would think the good samaritan rules get thrown out the window because you were the one who caused the injury in the first place. Even if it was a shooting in self defense (which has to be proven in a court of law), it was your intention to cause great bodily harm upon someone when you pointed your gun at someone and pulled the trigger. After all, death is the expected consequence of putting a bullet in someone.

Just like with the handcuff scenario, if you shoot someone, KEEP YOUR DISTANCE!

Scott
 
hrm...

the EDP ran out the front door - stark naked and swinging a 3' samurai sword
Click to expand...

Why is it when I hear that, the name "WildAlaska" pops into my head? :D

As for good Samaritan laws, you MIGHT be protected (recent California Supreme Court decision (Dec 08, I think) MIGHT change that). BUT:

1) Are you truly protected as you caused the wounds?
2) If they can't sue you for saving them wouldn't they just try to sue you for SHOOTING them?

These are questions, not arguments, I have no idea as to the legal answers and am curious.

The above does not change my position that I do not see how to safely render aid to someone I have shot in self defense. This extends to both violent attack and medical issues (disease, blood borne pathogens, other nasty stuff).

VR

Matt
 
Last edited:
Unless I am incorrectly informed... the Good Samaritan laws are not the ones that require you render aid. They are the ones that say you shall not be sued for the aid you did choose to render.

The laws requiring a LICENSE holding driver to render aid, do not require you to come into direct contact with bodily fluids or anything else dangerous to you. You may be required to stop and decide if there is anyone you feel you could benefit with your skills if it is safe to do so.
Brent
 
I've seen some very good, mature, well-thought out responses.

I do think it is, in general, very difficult to determine whether or not it is "safe enough" to try and render first aid to someone who attacked you. In no situation would you be truly "safe", on that we all agree. Everything after that would a judgment call left up to the individual.

I care less about legal ramifications as I do my personal values and safety. If I can keep someone alive I would rather try to do that as opposed to being concerned about defending my actions after the fact. OTOH, I think there would be enough witnesses in any case where I tried to perform first aid to vouch that I did indeed try to do the right thing. I can't think of any scenario in which I could perform first aid without help from others, both in administering and in securing the scene. I know it's a LEOs job to "secure the scene" but I think we have a duty as human beings to step up and do what we see needs doing. If that includes searching a man and having help to cover from other threats, then so be it. There is probably a much greater chance that I would be in a situation that first aid couldn't be administered due to lack of help.

The bodily fluids, and protection against, POV is a very good one. I do carry a med kit with me, or at least in my car, so I could have this protection. I also like the idea of tossing supplies to the wounded (if concscious) and giving commands. Obviously they're not going to stop their own sucking chest wound, but pressure would help to slow bleeding.

Thanks for the ideas everyone!
 
I was just reading through the thread and wondering how many people know how to administer first aid for a gunshot wound - especially since it's always possible that it could happen. (Or perhaps feel it's too much of a liability or too unlikely to make a difference to bother with?)

I'm a firm believer in Murphy's Law, so I'd be interested in learning or even training to deal with it.

It is not a bad idea for everyone to be certified CPR. BUT if you are in Texas that obligates you to render aid. You can be held accountable for not if you have that little card in your wallet.
Click to expand...

So here in Texas, perhaps formal training would have drawbacks?
 
Moot question.

If I've shot him/them, then he/they are dead. No doubt. Lay my weapon down and wait. Done it.
 
Let's not go off on posturing - there is not guarantee that the person will be dead. Plenty of folks have gotten head wounds or COM and survived with modern medicine. Unless you are suggesting a finishing off shot - and then you should go read the Pharmacist thread for that plan being a good one.
 
some have written that I may likely need post shooting treatment for shock when medical attention arrives on scene after a SD situation.

I have experienced shock twice (once after bad auto accident, once after a near drowning experience).

Both times, I could not speak for several minutes and had a very cold sensation.

Not sure what may or may not set in after a shooting but as earlier stated, I choose not to touch a downed BG.
 
BUT if you are in Texas that obligates you to render aid. Wrong - Even as a current EMT-P(licensed) I am not required to render aid.You can be held accountable for not if you have that little card in your wallet. Again, WRONG Nothing about taking a course in first aid or cpr obligates you to render aid. I have seen training videos where a police officer shot a man, assessed the situation, and then performed CPR until EMS arrived. That may be the department policy of the department that made the video. I have made multiple GSW scenes some with an officer involved and this is not the case unless the person shot is a leo or leo family member.Police officers go to the same CPR courses I go to.

I work security for a major metropolitan hospital. We carry. We are told we must render CPR on anyone needing it regardless of why. That is hospital policy.

Some bad information here.

If they have changed the state law on duty to act and the Good Samaritan law, please point me to a citation.

Here is a wiki reference to the good sam law:Good Sam WIKI
Click to expand...
 
That is how it is in CO. No duty acty, unless your on duty, but your safety first. Good samaritan law protects you from law suits for trying to help and failing, unless your on duty. This makes perfect sense to me. It is stupid to force someone to act just because they've taken a CPR class.
 
"I work security for a major metropolitan hospital. We carry. We are told we must render CPR on anyone needing it regardless of why. That is hospital policy."

I said it was hospital policy, you left that out.

I did not say the LEO was required to do CPR in the video I just said I saw him do it.

People have gotten in trouble for being CPR certified and not rendering aid just as well as people have been sued for rendering aid and injuring someone.

I also said the information was coming off the top of my head. And to check local laws.

I also would depend on WIKI as a source of reliable information.
 
Please back this up with a link...
People have gotten in trouble for being CPR certified and not rendering aid just as well as people have been sued for rendering aid and injuring someone.
Click to expand...
I have never heard of this in 34 years of closely watching the news...
First off it is rare that the fact that you ever were cpr trained would come out. I have taken the training 5-6 times before I was 18 but no one has to know this and "certification" expires. I think my wife has to re-cert once per year for here job which is not at all related to emergency health care or LEA.
Brent
 
Off the top of my head. Disclaimer.

Heard it here. Saw a report there. Talked about in briefing. I do not have a link.

Check Laws
 
People have gotten in trouble for being CPR certified and not rendering aid
Click to expand...

So far as I know, it's only doctors, nurses, EMTs and the like that are REQUIRED to render aid. I've heard that even they are not required to do so unless they "advertise" that they are such, on a license plate or whatever. That last part is probably wrong, it makes no sense to me but I've heard it more than once.

I've never heard of any random civilian being required to render aid.
 
stopping a would-be rescuer from performing CPR on a gay heart attack victim because he assumed the ailing man had HIV and posed a health risk.
Click to expand...
Not relevant to the discussion at hand! Heartattack! We are discussing rendering aid to a violent individual who, moments before, attempted to violently offend against you or another innocent person.
Brent
 
Of course it is relevant.

Everyone needs to look at the law.

you can be sued for anything. Does not matter what you want to do. Find out the truth by looking up the laws of your state.
 
Of course it is relevant.

Everyone needs to look at the law.
Click to expand...


The question is whether or not Average Joe has to render aid to a person who was attacking him moments before, a Sheriff who did not render aid to a heart attack victim has no relevance.

It's like stop signs apply to flying an airplane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top