General Categories > Laws and Legislation
Duty to act after using weapon
A-FIXER:
--- Quote from: bullit on March 17, 2013, 11:52:28 AM ---Not certain what you mean by the term "crime". What "crime" did you the innocent commit? The Old Testament "heroes" never rendered aid when God commanded them to obliterate the wicked. You approach a downed BG and you may get to stand before Jesus a little earlier than planned....
--- End quote ---
Of Christ proclaiming to help those in need, and I am not quoting from the old testament or of the heros you are refering to. And as you state downed a BG and I may stand be for Christ a little earlier is not to say it is the way it is to be.
--- Quote ---As a doctor myself, nothing compels me LEGALLY to save or assist in saving a life. May get sued for not attempting to, but no legal offense committed
--- End quote ---
And of the oath, you took does it not conflict with this sentence?
A-FIXER:
My thinking of this is this, I would suppress those who would be wicked and evil those intent of doing harm to those or myself, but because I have taken of defensive tract does not remove my humanistic or moralistic beliefs.
If doing had to hand to hand combat and I was due to the outcome I was the victor, and my enemy sought a drink would I give him one an live out my humanity and place compassion and empathy in proper context?...... Yes '' I would'' not to say others would do the same is the reason of my thinking.
GreyGeek:
The SCOTUS has ruled that the Police do NOT have a duty to protect an individual.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
--- Quote ---Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
--- End quote ---
IF they don't then why do I? Especially if I could face prosecution for violating some clause of some gun law, or perhaps just violating the interpretation of a law by a zealous prosecutor with anti-2A proclivities?
People choose their own behavior. They choose to enter a building with a "No Guns" sign, thinking that is sufficient enough to make them bullet proof, even thought time has taught us over and over that such thinking is foolish.
I obtained my CHP specifically to defend myself and my family from harm by a specific individual. I carry everywhere I can because I do not know when (not if) he will be released or if the State would notify me when he was released. I do not carry a weapon in order to play Long Ranger or Bat Man and fight evil doers.
People can follow the same laws and training I had to take to be able to carry a weapon for personal defense. That they choose not to do so is on their own head. They are like the parent who refused to allow their children to be given vaccinations, for what ever reason, relying instead on kids who were vaccinated to keep sickness at bay.
IF I am at a location where I am "allowed" to ccw, and some crazy person starts shooting, my first obligation is to protect my family and myself. We will leave the location ASAP if we can. IF he/she is shooting at me I will respond with my weapon if I can, and if doing so does not risk making matters worse by hitting someone the crazy person did not shoot at.
skydve76:
Nebraska laws requires that if you must use deadly force, you cannot shoot to mame or just harm.
Also, IMO:
1) if you shot someone they more than likely had a gun or knife, and in that case you want to stay away in case they have more.
2) They are dead if you followed the law.
3) They were intent on killing you (since it was a justified shooting) why would being shot stop them, it may provoke them more if you shot to mame and are now going to jail.
Phantom:
After some thought on this ...
In Simple legal terms I'd have to say NO.
Why .....if the person dies how would you ever prove that you didn't just finish or if they live attempted to finish the job.
I'd have to say you need to be hands off as your one of the involved party's
but I can see the other side as well if your the only other person on site.
First call 911 and report the shooting.....then only follow 911's instructions on what to do next.
Doing basic First Aid is a given.
But only till some other party arrives on site to take over then you need to remove yourself.
Damned if you do ...Damned if you don't
The other question that comes to Mind
Is are you or can you be held legaly libable if your have a CCW and are armed for not acting in self defence of another in danger of being killed ....would the Good Samitarin Law apply in this case?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version