Author Topic: First Aid after an encounter (Read 4324 times)

unfy · « **on:** August 26, 2011, 07:06:26 PM »

I was a boy scout and had basic first aid / CPR training and all of that. Naturally I should look into some more basic info on gun shot wounds....

But -- I'm curious about what should be done after, heaven forbid, an unfortunate situation arises and I'm forced to discharge my weapon (and assume I hit the bad guy).

Morals say that I should try to render first aid to the poor bastard. It's my first gut instinct / response.

so....

1) do I even attempt to render first aid ?

2) what are the legal standings regarding attempting to help after the fact ? am I supposed to or not supposed to ?

3) there's some concern on personal safety -- I *did* just have cause to draw & fire the weapon on this individual, surely there's concern of other hidden weapons on the bad guy ?

bkoenig · « **Reply #1 on:** August 26, 2011, 07:31:48 PM »

Personally, I wouldn't. Morals aside, you're putting yourself at risk by coming into touching distance. Like you said, what if he has a hidden knife and sticks it in your neck when you bend over to help him? He's already proven he wants to harm you.

NE Bull · « **Reply #2 on:** August 26, 2011, 09:49:25 PM »

I have wondered the same after reading a few stories. In the end I think one would have to go with their gut in the moment. (I tend to feed mine well and he seldom let's me down;) ) Every situation is different and you are the one to have to 'live' with your decision either way.
My$.02

gsd · « **Reply #3 on:** August 27, 2011, 01:06:37 AM »

im of the effect that if you have to discharge your weapon and hit a bad guy, call 911 and sit back and wait for the medics to deal with them. technically (depending on protocols), a medic is not allowed to enter the scene until it is secured and cleared by law enforcement. So usually bad guy is dead by the time the medics are allowed on scene.

00BUCK · « **Reply #4 on:** August 27, 2011, 02:24:37 AM »

I guess I have never considered this. I'm of the mindset "shoot to kill". If I ever have to draw on someone, then that is my only option - otherwise I would never draw it in the first place. And if I did, I'd keep firing until the threat is no longer there. My idea of the threat being eliminated is the BG is dead. I see no point in rendering aid.

bullit · « **Reply #5 on:** August 27, 2011, 07:19:30 PM »

You are under no legal obligation to render aid, nor "arrest" said subject but certainly would call police and ensure your safety and other innocents. Remember, justifiable homicide exists when the immediate and otherwise unavoidable risk of death or grave bodily harm to you or to innocents occurs

unfy · « **Reply #6 on:** August 28, 2011, 10:22:20 AM »

Quote from: bullit on August 27, 2011, 07:19:30 PM

You are under no legal obligation to render aid, nor "arrest" said subject but certainly would call police and ensure your safety and other innocents. Remember, justifiable homicide exists when the immediate and otherwise unavoidable risk of death or grave bodily harm to you or to innocents occurs

From a legal stand point this is prolly the most interesting answer.

If you use force but see fit to render aid... was the force necessary in the first place

Still a curious question. For own safety and such I'd venture 911/police would be best bet.... and keep the loved ones secure.

Appreciate the insight guys.

Dan W · « **Reply #7 on:** August 28, 2011, 04:37:59 PM »

Assuming the use of deadly force is justified in any case, I never intend to do anything more than stop the threat.

Once that threat has been positively ended, then I do not think I would be justified in doing anything that increased the likelihood of the aggressor's death.

Homicide would never be my goal, although it may result from actions I was forced to take to stop the threat.

I do wonder how the Good Samaritan laws that protect non professionals from liability when rendering aid to an injured party might be subverted in a case where the same person that was forced to cause the injuries attempts to prevent further trauma or death

bkoenig · « **Reply #8 on:** August 28, 2011, 05:03:40 PM »

Dan makes a good point - you never "shoot to kill". You stop the threat. That may mean the bad guy is killed, or it may not. Once the bad guy is no longer a threat you cannot legally continue to use force. That's what the pharmacist in Oklahoma did, and that's why he landed in jail.

omaharj · « **Reply #9 on:** August 28, 2011, 09:00:02 PM »

I've gone over this in my mind a couple of times and decided it would be a "case by case" situation.
First off, I may be incapable of turning my compassion switch back on. I'd like to think I could,but when the adrenaline hits and the blood's boiling,I don't know.
If someone is shot through the shoulder or thigh,I'd like to think if there was zero threat I would try to maintain life.
The grey area is what about a lung shot? Long ago, I was trained to treat a sucking chest wound by sealing the opening with non breathable material. What if I do this and the BG drowns in his own blood? After the fact, I find out what I did was a negative and contributed further to his/her death? I KNOW I don't want some lawsuit attorney asking me about that on the stand!!! I'm sure there are other wounds that I could possibly do more harm than good by use of first aid... RJ.... I'd like an attorney's view on this

DaveB · « **Reply #10 on:** August 28, 2011, 09:39:41 PM »

My feeling is that by calling 911, I am rendering aid. I am not a doctor, a nurse, or an EMT. I would rather not be sued for him dying because I did something wrong trying to keep him from dying. Besides, I wouldn't shoot anyone unless they were attempting to kill me, or mine.

JimP · « **Reply #11 on:** August 28, 2011, 10:20:12 PM »

Quote from: DaveB on August 28, 2011, 09:39:41 PM

My feeling is that by calling 911, I am rendering aid. I am not a doctor, a nurse, or an EMT. I would rather not be sued for him dying because I did something wrong trying to keep him from dying. Besides, I wouldn't shoot anyone unless they were attempting to kill me, or mine.

Now THERE is a sticky wicket for me, were the incident to happen in my Fire District: I am a liscensed EMT (volunteer) there, and so would have a Duty to render aid, until I could turn him over to someone with equal or greater medical training....... that'd sure suck: put 2 to CoM on a guy beating me with a stick and then have to do CPR on him all the way to UNMC........ more dilemmas: so often I roll out of bed or drop whatever it is I am doing, to go and "save" those who won't help themselves by not doing the dumb stuff that gets them in trouble. Sometimes I think some of these folk would benefit more from a swift kick in the pants than a ride to a hospital.........

Kendahl · « **Reply #12 on:** August 28, 2011, 10:30:29 PM »

Rendering first aid after the threat has been neutralized should not negate your justification for self defense. It's comparable to holding fire because your assailant backed off when he realized you were armed and no longer posed a threat. Call 911 before starting first aid and then make absolutely sure the guy cannot hurt you.

First aid for a sucking chest wound is to seal the entrance and exit (if there is one) so that the lung doesn't collapse before surgeons can make permanent repairs at the hospital. The guy still may not survive, but first aid definitely improves his chances. As a Good Samaritan, you are protected as long as you provide the best treatment you are able.

JimP · « **Reply #13 on:** August 28, 2011, 11:43:23 PM »

Quote from: Kendahl on August 28, 2011, 10:30:29 PM

First aid for a sucking chest wound is to seal the entrance and exit (if there is one) so that the lung doesn't collapse before surgeons can make permanent repairs at the hospital.

Sort of..... You secure an occlusive dressing (like saran wrap) on 3 sides, so that when the pt. inhales, it sucks flat and seals the hole, preventing more air from entering the chest cavity, and opens upon exhalation, pushing air (and/or blood) trapped in the chest cavity out the hole ....... allowing the chest to inflate the lungs ...............

unfy · « **Reply #14 on:** December 12, 2011, 01:46:54 PM »

Old topic, I know.

Been thinking about it as time has gone on. I think I'll avoid rendering first aid - there just seems too many ways that intent could be blurred if ya put your hands on someone after the fact (even if attempting to save their life). 911 is probably the best bet ... I have no official training ... and ... I don't think in that kind of situation I'd be in any situation to render useful aid to anyone

.

Thanks for the responses guys!

dukduk · « **Reply #15 on:** December 15, 2011, 06:28:20 PM »

i wouldnt help anyone i just shot, especially if they are a perp...body substance isolation (BSI) i don't have space to EDC a pair of latex gloves, blood resistant face shield and gown. sorry i don't want aids or whatever they got, shouldn't have used deadly force on me

CitizenClark · « **Reply #16 on:** December 16, 2011, 09:32:08 AM »

Quote from: unfy on August 26, 2011, 07:06:26 PM

I was a boy scout and had basic first aid / CPR training and all of that. Naturally I should look into some more basic info on gun shot wounds....

But -- I'm curious about what should be done after, heaven forbid, an unfortunate situation arises and I'm forced to discharge my weapon (and assume I hit the bad guy).

Morals say that I should try to render first aid to the poor bastard. It's my first gut instinct / response.

so....

1) do I even attempt to render first aid ?

2) what are the legal standings regarding attempting to help after the fact ? am I supposed to or not supposed to ?

3) there's some concern on personal safety -- I *did* just have cause to draw & fire the weapon on this individual, surely there's concern of other hidden weapons on the bad guy ?

Others have spoken to the legal issues surrounding this topic so I won't take a stab at that. I will say that as an Eagle Scout and a Christian, I would feel like a bad person if I didn't render first aid to any human being who needed it and to whom I could safely provide it. Self-defense should be about repelling a threat, not meting out vengeance. Someone with greater authority than I have once said that vengeance is his, and I'm good with that.

As a matter of justice (I'm talking natural law here, being square with the universe, etc., not government justice), I don't think you owe your assailant first aid, assuming the shooting is justified. But justice (what one can be compelled to do) and morality (what one ought to do) aren't the same here, in my opinion. To be a good person, I'm supposed to love my enemies, and I would try to do that in such a scenario, assuming that my family was not put in any greater danger as a result.

DaveB · « **Reply #17 on:** December 16, 2011, 11:23:40 AM »

Just imagine, you give first aid to someone you just shot defending you or your family. The thug lives, recovers, sues, and possibly wins because his free defense is better than the one you pay for. Once again you lose, you lose your rights, your money, and your family looses you. The thug goes free, complete with your money, and commits the same crime again, this time taking innocent lives. It is now that he finally loses his rights and is put in prison for a few years, only to get out and do the same thing again.

There is no win for you should you have to shoot someone, but to allow them the possibility of doing it again by giving first aid is an even greater loss.

I'm sorry, I can not offer entitlement to someone wanting to kill me and he is the one that lost.

bullit · « **Reply #18 on:** December 16, 2011, 01:22:55 PM »

Or BG's attorney convinces the jury that you obviously recognized your "mistake" shooting his client based upon your efforts to provide immediate care for him/her i.e. regret your action. Just sayin' how the spin machine can work.

CitizenClark · « **Reply #19 on:** December 16, 2011, 04:28:45 PM »

Quote from: DaveB on December 16, 2011, 11:23:40 AM

Just imagine, you give first aid to someone you just shot defending you or your family. The thug lives, recovers, sues, and possibly wins because his free defense is better than the one you pay for.

I'm not sure why his "free defense" would have anything to do with the outcome of a later civil suit involving a different attorney. Furthermore, I reject ethical consequentialism. The ethical status of an action is not rightly judged by the financial or other outcome that it yields for me or anyone else. Whether it is morally upright and praiseworthy to administer first aid or not is not a question that, for me, has anything to do with financial outcomes.

Quote

Once again you lose, you lose your rights,

How would I lose my rights in this scenario? First of all, you don't have to be "correct" in your assessment of a situation for deadly force to have been justified. Second, I suggest that administering first aid is more likely to play in your favor with a criminal jury in the event that you are charged in the shooting.

When people get burned for shooting assailants, it is often because they didn't desist from the use of deadly force once the threat had ended. The fact that I am administering first aid would support the inference that I did not shoot the assailant out of malice, but rather that I shot him purely to end the threat he posed, and that once this threat had ended so too did my use of deadly force.

(BTW, I am thinking of this pharmacist in Oklahoma City who shot an unconscious criminal to death while he was lying on the ground posing a threat to no one and was sentenced to life in prison: http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-pharmacist-dead-robbers-accomplices-life-prison/story?id=14053802#.TuvEuTXwvt8)

Quote

your money, and your family looses you. The thug goes free, complete with your money, and commits the same crime again, this time taking innocent lives. It is now that he finally loses his rights and is put in prison for a few years, only to get out and do the same thing again.

There is no win for you should you have to shoot someone, but to allow them the possibility of doing it again by giving first aid is an even greater loss.

There is no way you or any other third party can possibly speak to what represents a greater loss for me, since all economic value is subjective. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value) If I value justice and charity much more than you do, the cost that I incur in seeking these ends is relatively lower.

Quote

I'm sorry, I can not offer entitlement to someone wanting to kill me and he is the one that lost.

I don't know what you are talking about with this "offer entitlement" language. I never said that anyone is entitled to first aid from a stranger or from a person they were committing a crime against. In fact, I said the opposite:

Quote

As a matter of justice (I'm talking natural law here, being square with the universe, etc., not government justice), I don't think you owe your assailant first aid, assuming the shooting is justified. But justice (what one can be compelled to do) and morality (what one ought to do) aren't the same here, in my opinion. To be a good person, I'm supposed to love my enemies, and I would try to do that in such a scenario, assuming that my family was not put in any greater danger as a result.

I'm arguing that the charitable and loving thing to do is to administer first aid. If you aren't a Christian and thus don't feel compelled to love your enemies so as to comport with the teachings of Christ, your mileage may vary.

Regardless of your personal charitable inclinations, I am of the opinion that as a matter of prudence, you are more likely to get a favorable outcome legally if you administer first aid once the threat has been neutralized and you can safely do so. Providing first aid draws a bright line in time between your use of deadly force and the things that happened after you ceased in using deadly force. It supports the inference that you weren't dead set on "killing a bad guy" but rather were only defending yourself using the means that you thought necessary.