General Categories > Carry Issues

First Aid after an encounter

<< < (4/6) > >>

dukduk:
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:

--- 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 ?

--- End quote ---

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:
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:
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:

--- 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.
--- End quote ---


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,
--- End quote ---

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.
--- End quote ---

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.

--- End quote ---

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.
--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page