Why punish somebody for refusing to be a victim?

[Photon Guy]

For example, consider the cases of Jerome Ersland or Markus Kaarma. Each used deadly force against a person committing a crime, but each was found by a jury to have gone too far; and each was convicted of murder. Ersland lost his appeal and is in prison serving a life sentence. Kaarma was sentenced to 70 years in prison, and it's been reported that he will appeal.

Alright, I will check those links out when I have the time.

 

[Photon Guy]

If you are involved in an SD "shootout," and your attacker is still alive but incapacitated, are you under any obligation, be it a Good Samaritan law or what have you, to render aid and assistance to the person you have just shot?

From the self defense firearms classes I've taken its been said that no, under no circumstances are you to render any medical aid. Even if you are skilled in that if you do that it can really be used against you in court. A prosecutor could say you were tampering with evidence. By rendering medical aid you could make them worse not better and that could really work against you. Medical aid is a job for the ambulance and the paramedics, not for you.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...It sounds like what Ms. Steel says is good however there are some things I would like to point out. She says that when claiming self defense the client is admitting they had a weapon. First of all, that is not necessarily true. A client could've been unarmed and could've taken down their assailant with nothing more than their bare hands...

First, yes what she said is good. She is a lawyer with professional expertise in the subject matter about which she is writing. That article was originally published in a journal intended for use by other lawyers.

Second, you have demonstrated that you don't have a good understanding of the law. I suggest that it would be most productive for you to take the opportunity to learn some things about the law from people who really do know a good deal more than you do.

Third, quibbling about whether bare hands could be a weapon really isn't productive in this context. A legal definition of "weapon" can really be very broad:

An instrument used in fighting ; an instrument of offensive or defensive combat....

It would probably be stretching the point too far to consider hands, even when being used as a means of violence, as "instruments", but an umbrella or anything else when used as a weapon is a weapon.

Fourth, and by quibbling about what is a weapon, you are missing Ms. Steele's most significant point, viz., when you claim self defense you admit that you intentionally committed an act of violence against another human.

...The Marrian Webster dictionary defines "rob" as- "To take money or property from (a person or a place) illegally and sometimes by using force, violence, or threats."...

That is not your best source for a definition of a word when used in a legal context. And a common, general, legal definition of robbery is:

The taking of money or goods in the possession of another, from his or her person or immediate presence, by force or intimidation.

Robbery is a crime of theft and can be classified as Larceny by force or by threat of force. The elements of the crime of robbery include the use of force or intimidation and all the elements of the crime of larceny. The penalty for robbery is always more severe than for larceny....

Note that force or intimidation is an element of robbery, and one can only apply force to, or intimidate, a person.

Taking the property of another in ways that don't involve forcing or intimidating a person to give up the property would be some other form of theft:

A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.

The term theft is sometimes used synonymously with Larceny. Theft, however, is actually a broader term, encompassing many forms of deceitful taking of property, including swindling, Embezzlement, and False Pretenses. Some states categorize all these offenses under a single statutory crime of theft.

 

[JohnKSa]

Its a person's actions that make the determination if they're innocent or criminal scum. If somebody is trying to rob a store its obvious they're the latter.

Assuming it's not an accidental/unintentional shooting, then if one person shoots another person, a crime has been committed. The only question is: "Who has committed the crime--the shooter or the person who was shot?" IN EITHER CASE, it won't be the shooter who makes the final determination as to who committed the crime, whose actions were criminal, whose were justified, who was criminal scum, who was innocent, etc. It will be the justice system.

The reason for that should be blatantly obvious.

Given the necessity for someone other than the persons involved in a shooting to rule on the legality/criminality of the shooting it should be clear that the process of arriving at that ruling is not punishment. It is simply what is necessary to insure that it's not possible for a person to murder someone and then justify it purely on the basis of their statement that the other person was involved in criminal activity. Only if the shooting is determined to be unjustified will punishment be handed down.

 

[kilimanjaro]

If you want to know why you have to justify your self-defense shooting, just recall the case of the fireman who filmed himself shooting his neighbor over a petty issue, while looking at the camera and stating, 'I'm standing my ground'.

He was sentenced for murder, and rightfully so.

Or the man in Montana, laid out bait for a burglar in his garage, then laid in wait and shot him.

He was sentenced for murder, and rightfully so.

Lots of self-defense claims are without basis in fact. But every one of them thought the other party was a criminal scumbag, no doubt about it.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Here the son of a grocery store owner successfully stops a bad guy who held the place up and he has to go before a grand jury and possibly face charges. Why punish somebody for refusing to be a victim?

Going beyond the fact that the grand jury process is NOT a form of punishment and never has been, the grand jury review process wasn't for "refusing to be a victim." That isn't a crime and categorizing it as such is misleading and inflammatory. You know that isn't a crime. Why would you post the question in such a manner? After all, you have had the benefit of all those classes you keep mentioning and heard all those people speak on the law. You know the difference.

This reminds me of a couple of cases where the loved ones of bad guys blamed their intended victims for the deaths of their criminal loved ones. In one case, a teenaged boy was involved in a gang initiation involving a home invasion. The father of the family of the home encountered the intruders (multiple) in the hallway leading to the bedroom area of the home. He ordered the intruders out and when they rushed him, shot the one in the front, killing him. The mother of the boy kept repeating that the punishment for TRESPASSING was not death, completely misrepresenting what his son was doing and the threat that he and his fellow intruders posed.

In the second case, a man was killed during the robbery of a convenience store, sort of like in the OP. His family kept saying that all he was trying to do was to feed his family...as if armed robbery is perfectly okay if you have some good intentions.

It doesn't matter if you are misrepresenting what is going on with a good guy or with a bad guy, you are still misrepresenting the situation. In all these cases, there is an agenda to do so for the purpose of trying to sway people's perspectives. That just isn't right.

 

[gyvel]

From the self defense firearms classes I've taken its been said that no, under no circumstances are you to render any medical aid. Even if you are skilled in that if you do that it can really be used against you in court. A prosecutor could say you were tampering with evidence. By rendering medical aid you could make them worse not better and that could really work against you. Medical aid is a job for the ambulance and the paramedics, not for you.

What I was envisioning is a situation where attacker is shot, incapacitated, and is lying on the ground bleeding out profusely. You have the choice of just letting him lay there to die, or possibly stemming the flow of blood until the EMTs arrives.

Now, in our currently twisted, lawyer dominated court systems, is it not possible that something could be done against you because you just stood by and watched the man die?

 

[JohnKSa]

Now, in our currently twisted, lawyer dominated court systems, is it not possible that something could be done against you because you just stood by and watched the man die?

My opinion is that if you can articulate why you didn't and your rationale makes sense to a reasonable person then you're probably ok. Remember, not even EMTs will approach a person to render aid if they believe the person poses any kind of a threat.

It's something you're going to have to make a judgement call on. Just keep in mind that before you approach someone who was just trying to kill you a few moments earlier, you need to absolutely convince yourself that the person is no longer a threat.

 

[TXAZ]

According to a news report, Usman Seth shot the robber on September 12, 2014 and was 'no billed' by the Harris County Grand Jury in November 2014.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

According to a news report, Usman Seth shot the robber on September 12, 2014 and was 'no billed' by the Harris County Grand Jury in November 2014.

So what you are saying is that the grand jury went through the legal process that they are tasked with doing by law and arrived at the obvious decision, no punishment being incurred in the process against Usman Seth.

 

[gyvel]

you need to absolutely convince yourself that the person is no longer a threat.

Yes, that was one of the criteria for my scenario. The attacker is completely incapacitated and unconscious.

I can just see some lawyer telling the jury a tale of woe about how the vicious self defense shooter just watched "callously" as the man bled to death on the sidewalk.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Simply call 911.

I won't render aid out of BIOHAZARD fears and lack of current medical training in dealing with biohazard situations. I can come up with many examples to justify my position should it be necessary. The threat may no longer be from physical violence, but is still just as real. Best to wait for the professionals.

 

[Branko]

Some very nice legal commentary in this thread. On my side of the pond, the law is pretty much similar, with the caveat of no duty to retreat as it's not derived from common law (although, as any lawyer will tell you, it's a damn good idea if you can, because if the witnesses saw you retreat and the other guy pursue, it makes the case so, so much clearer).

When you read of someone getting in trouble with the law for self-defense, instead of getting riled up about someone else's problems, it's best to think about it "what would I see if I was an independent observer". For instance, I see two cars driving, they stop, drivers come out, one approaches, the other punches him a couple of times? I, as a witness, would tell the police I saw the men stop the cars and fight, because that's how it looks, and I don't know what's going on in their heads. It looks mutual.

As for rendering help, well, "I don't know how to treat gunshot wounds, so I called an ambulance" seems pretty reasonable to me. It's been decades since I had any first aid training but I remember the instructions were basically "if you don't know what you're doing, don't make it worse".

 

[kilimanjaro]

The question of rendering aid came up at our annual Advanced First Aid training a few years back, the EMT told us to just call 911 and summon aid. Beyond putting pressure on bleeding wounds or a holed lung, you can't do anything useful. He advised us if we are alone or solely responsible for the safety of our family, to keep full control of our weapon, meaning, don't get close.

He said, police officers get a lot more training than we do, and they wait for the medics. If it's an innocent, they don't wait.

 

[OldMarksman]

We have gone adrift, albeit on a worthwhile subject.

It has been established that the defender in the OP was not punished for his action, and that a Texas Grand Jury returned a no true bill in 2014.

Should anyone desire to discuss further the subject of wither to render aid to an injured attacker, we can have another thread.