Treating wounded in SD situation...

In the case you cited, the sheriff pulled a citizen off the guy. The sheriff is not sued for failing to render aid. He is charged with stopping a citizen from rendering aid. I will choose who, when and where I render aid. For my wife or kids I will breath thru a bleeding hole in their throat if it is all I can do! Sorry but the link you posted has absolutely no relevance to a TFL T&T discussion regarding armed citizens rendering aid to a downed violent felon.
Brent
 
It is relevant in the fact that failing to render aid can cause trouble. Whether or not you caused the injury, car wreck, fist fight, shot him. You better check the laws before anyone says they are going to do what they want. The officer felt he was protecting the civilian from HIV. it has been brought up on this thread that health concerns were a factor.

I am sorry but if a guy you just shot would have lived had you rendered aid a civil court might hear the BG's family.
 
The court is going to hear from the BG's family anyway.

There is no duty to act.
As a PAID paramedic, I have a duty to act when I am on duty and in my district or have been dispatched to a location out of district.
I have driven by MVAs, while in uniform, without stopping, while going to or from work and will continue to do so. (Also while in the ambulance while on duty/out of district) The most that I would be expected, not required but expected, to do would be to call 911 or contact dipatch in some way, if possible.

As a private citizen the duty to act is not a legal one unless a prior custodial relationship (teacher/student, parent child, caregiver/patient) exists. It is a moral issue.

Joat
 
It is the same here in Colorado Joat. No duty to act unless on duty for that purpose. Some places, possible state wide but dont quote me, have a duty to act that requires any nurses, EMTs, docs, etc to stop and render aid. Seems rather stupid to me, I do not like the invasion into my private life telling me I must help someone.

It is a different story when I put on the uniform and go to work. Then I am there for that specific reason, and I will aid when I can. I also do not advertise on my vehicle that I am an EMT. No stars of life or medic symbols because that can turn ugly if you pass a scene advertising your abilities due to your profession.
 
At any rate, there have been good responses and I was speaking more from the moral standpoint. Some people don't have the same position that I do on the topic, and I don't blame them for that.

Of course, I do see merit in discussing the legality of being required to render first aid. I know for fact that in NC no one other than a licensed EMT on duty is required to treat anyone. We had a first responder system for the rural areas in which some of the local firefighters received extensive first aid training and "responded" so that some time could be bought before the EMT actually arrived (which could be up to 20 or 30 minutes in certain rural areas). I wonder if the first responders had a duty to render first aid or not. I would assume no.

At any rate be nice so I don't have to lock my own thread. Cheers
 
since a lifeguard is not required to swim out to save a person being attack by a shark, and the SCOTUS has determined that LEO's are not required to save us from harm (or some such wording), I doubt there is any law requiring any in a "responder" position (including LEO's) to render aid if it is obvious there is a high level of risk to their own health...
Brent
 
correct me if I am wrong and do not jump all over me for this but using lethal force is for stopping the threat, not NECESSARILY making it die. This might be an ethics issue I do not know. But once you stopped the threat (the guy is on the ground gasping for breath from your bullets) Is there a civil obligation to try and keep him alive?

Point in question, the criticism California police got for supposedly letting the North Hollywood bank robber to die after a fully automatic gunfight.

Is the whole idea of not shooting to wound anchored on the idea that you always shoot to kill? If you are shooting to kill a BG then should you finish the shoot if you did not extinguish life in the 1st volley? Does that mean you shot to wound if they guy if he was not killed? I am talking civilly here.

I have never heard of a man being prosecuted on the Idea that he only shot to wound and not followed the rule of "Do not shoot to wound"

I am just throwing things out there. I would in a SD situation shoot to stop the person not think only to make die.
 
Last edited:
cloud8a wrote:
correct me if I am wrong and do not jump all over me for this but using lethal force is for stopping the threat, not NECESSARILY making it die.
Click to expand...
Unless you have had the same training as those Navy seals who took out those Somali pirates, NO ONE on this forum can say that they are good enough to "shoot to wound". There are very few people on the face of the earth who are good enough to place a bullet at a specific point on a moving human body at any distance under any circumstance. And even if you place the bullet in the exact spot you want, no one can accurately predict the path that bullet will take once it enters the body.

If you shoot someone and they do NOT die, it is just sheer dumb luck, not because you were good enough to plan it that way.

In case you need reminding, one of the Four Rules of Firearm Safety is NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY. The operative word here is DESTROY, not hurt, not wound, not scare... DESTROY!

Scott
 
Last edited:
Cloud,
But once you stopped the threat (the guy is on the ground gasping for breath from your bullets) Is there a civil obligation to try and keep him alive?
Click to expand...
Especially in this day and age, health risks of the cottie kind are enuff to not force a civil obligation to attempt first aid on a wounded felon. Heck there is no civil obligation to attempt first aid on a sweet ol' lady following a car accident.
Brent
 
Is the whole idea of not shooting to wound anchored on the idea that you always shoot to kill? If you are shooting to kill a BG then should you finish the shoot if you did not extinguish life in the 1st volley? Does that mean you shot to wound if they guy if he was not killed? I am talking civilly here.

I have never heard of a man being prosecuted on the Idea that he only shot to wound and not followed the rule of "Do not shoot to wound"
Click to expand...

In a civilian SD scenario, there is no such thing as shoot to wound or shoot to kill. You only shoot to stop the threat!. If the guy lives or dies because of that action, it's on him because he attacked you. The greatest length I would in the essence of "wounding" shot would be a warning shot at a mans feet IF I HAD TIME. Since I can't think of very many situations were I would have that time, it's going to be COM shots and I will pull the trigger until the BG breaks contact or drops... ie no longer becomes a threat.

I asked the question about rendering First Aid because, honestly, I don't want to take a mans life. I've been there (legally in war) and it sucks. Everyone has given some good points about performing first aid. I think I would toss supplies to the man if he's conscious, along with giving him instructions. I'm beginning to think that approaching to perform first aid is probably a bad idea in general, although I think there are some situations that would allow it.
 
Unless someone takes the time to go to the legal sources and find law or cases that clearly mandate a self-defense shooter having to give first aid, it might be a good idea to stop with the front porch theories of the law.

Does morality mandate first aid? That's for you to decide yourself.

BTW, if you do think that it mandates first aid - do you think castle laws are moral. Shouldn't it be mandated that you first attempt to flee or retreat? So if you support castle laws, don't be pushing first aid?

Interesting how this thread keeps on mushrooming?
 
Last edited:
BTW, if you do think that it mandates first aid - do you think castle laws are moral. Shouldn't it be mandated that you first attempt to flee or retreat? So if you support castle laws, don't be pushing first aid?
Click to expand...

Kinda out of scope of the thread, but I do not believe castle laws are inherently immoral. I think there are probably individuals who would use castle doctrine to shoot first regardless of the nature of the home invasion, even if the intruder is trying to flee. I think that's immoral. If I hole up in my bedroom, scream commands to leave, and pop off a warning shot into the floor (obviously before they reached the bedroom folks)... if I do all this and the invader is still in the home, chances are they are there for me and not for "things". In that case fleeing will only induce being followed. It sounds silly, but I've had a "group" that had a serious personal vendetta against me. That's not what most people will face, but it does happen. If I'm forced to defend myself, I would personally rather do so in my house without having to run away first.

I don't think any law enabling us to protect ourselves, family, or other human beings through use of deadly force is immoral. I think that people who use those laws recklessly are.
 
Last edited:
If they are really bad.....

..... Nah, was gonna say shoot 'im again.... but I wont :D

I wouldn't be gettin' too close.... he might bite you just for the hell of it! Just keep yourself & your loved ones safe, call 911 & let the professionals handle the situation, IMO

I know I have watched too many movies, but the BG could be foxin'..... not worth the risk....

He CHOSE to be there, he pays the price, unfortunately... it's a sad world.... especially if you (the BG) decides to do nasty things in a HD/SD protected environment :barf::D
 
First aid?

No way... Wolves tend to travel in packs. If I am tending to BG#1 what would happen to me when BG#2 or BG#3 shows up? I would rather be on the phone with 911 and I would be more worried about making certain the first officer on the knew I was the Good Guy!:eek:
 
Last edited:
Not trying to sound all True Grit or anything, but to be 100% safe, I recommend a double tap to the chest then one to the brain bucket to ensure that that the bad guy will not get up and harm you or yours..

I mean- if I am forced to shoot someone, it is because I fear more my life and had no other choice-- Right?

Its what I am telling the cops....
 
RE: Texas GS Law:

"stop and render aid" does not mean that you have to physically stop and start compressions on someone or anything else. When I took my Red Cross class, this was explained to us. Using your cell phone to call 911 is "stopping and rendering aid." That is all that you have to do.


RE: OP, I think not, outside of tossing the BG a shirt and explaining how to apply pressure. I may be so inclined as to offer up supplies out of my small pocket FAK if it will help. All of the reasons fornot acting that I could mention have been brought up so far. I do not know if the BG is 'faking', otherwise armed, accompanied by friends, infected, etc. I am not going to compromise my safety. At work, however, it may be a different story. If somebody is on my post (i work security) and deadly force is necessitated, I will do my best to 'secure' the area, call for back-up and EMS, then do what I can, even if it is to simply toss the BG some Quik-Clot and instruct from a distance while keeping my weapon at low ready...
 
Last edited:
cloud8a said:
correct me if I am wrong and do not jump all over me for this but using lethal force is for stopping the threat, not NECESSARILY making it die. This might be an ethics issue I do not know. But once you stopped the threat (the guy is on the ground gasping for breath from your bullets) Is there a civil obligation to try and keep him alive?

Point in question, the criticism California police got for supposedly letting the North Hollywood bank robber to die after a fully automatic gunfight.
Click to expand...

The criticism only came from the bank robbers' families. I forgot who posted this, but the order of priorities is police officers first, innocent bystanders second, and then bad guys last. If he died before they got to him, too bad.

As for the police chief, he was sued by the ACLU because they claimed he stopped/prevented first aid to be given because he knew the victim was gay. That is a civil suit based on discrimination against gays, not any obligation to render first aid.

Please check your facts before spouting things off the top of your head. The internet is already full of disinformation. :(
 
I do not need to check my facts if I say that what I am saying is coming off the top of my head.

On the North Hollywood deal, it does not matter where the criticism came from. The FACT is it showed up, and started a legal process. Maybe it did not go very far but it started.

You are giving your opinion. He might have stopped CPR because of a health concern. Not because the guy was gay. That was the families opinion.

and all that is my opinion.
 
1) The individual is dangerous (based on the fact that his/her actions led me to fear for my life).
2) The individual is desperate (fear of dying and fear or arrest)
3) The individual may be "playing possum" or playing dead.


If you are giving CPR--how will arriving LEOs take that?? Other CPL holders??

Will you be thought trying to do more 'harm" to the perp and thus place yourself in jeoprady??
 
I will give the thug the same love and compassion he was trying to give me when he attacked me/my family.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top