NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: daleemt on March 17, 2013, 11:22:39 AM
-
As a Volunteer EMT we had a discussion at our drill the other night, we have a number of CCW carriers on the department, We have all the laws about no weapons in station on squad etc. set in our SOPS, A question came up about Our "Duty to Act" If you were forced to use your legally carried weapon, would you have a "Duty to act " to help that person you just shot? Some members said the scene is not safe so do not render aid. some a conflict of intrest, Now the "duty to act" law is a little grey some say if you are a paid professional you have to help but as a volunteer you do not. I worry about what others who were at the scene might interpit as life saving effort's, as trying to kill the person by hand.
-
Would not the '' Good Samitarin Law Apply'' being that were still human beings if not compassion to do the moral thing then one could question if a christian would I stand accountable for this crime against Gods creation and be judge according to one action, again as a christian and to stand before Christ for final judgement.
-
The short answer IN MY OPINION and MY THOUGHTS is an emphatic no ... "Duty to Act" seems to be an oft used phrase, but I've never seen a definitive law compelling such or noted in any department's SOP (please quote if you guys have one). Seems to be among the annals of Urban Legends in the Emergency Responder community. The courts have determined time and again that Law Enforcement has no legal duty to protect you. 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. The same I will assume would apply to Emergency Responders.
Off duty (paid or volunteer) the totality of the circumstances should should be considered. Even a lone LEO (a smart one that is) is not going to attempt to arrest, much less render aid to a downed suspect without backup. In your training as an EMT, I bet your SOP stresses security of the scene FIRST and FOREMOST whether fire, MVA, natural disaster, GSWs, whatever. Same would apply here....YOUR safety and the safety of innocents precludes you risking your life on someone possibly playing "possum". That being said, I encourage my students to be the first to call 911 or request a bystander to immediately do so and request an ambulance. This will only enhance your defense in court as attempting to be "on the side of the angels."
Final two things to consider, you may get sued in civil court for not rendering aid (more likely for shooting the BG), but hey you are still alive (and another reason Nebraska needs to enhance its self defense law) and secondly is ask yourself ..... is maintaining your EMT license under the fear of revocation for failure to render aid or your life more important?
-
would I stand accountable for this crime against Gods creation and be judge according to one action, again as a christian and to stand before Christ for final judgement.
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....
-
Would tend to agree, A person would have just went through a very stressful situation I think I would call 911 explain the situation, follow orders from dispatch, and wait for LE
-
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....
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.
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
And of the oath, you took does it not conflict with this sentence?
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0)
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
As I understand this Good Sanitarian is in the course of needing medical attention, and would exempt one who assisted another from any wrong doing. I am not a medical law lawyer but one who stated a clause.
Now again we see this from the top down look at obama thinking he has authority to kill any american without due process, did scotus rule on this not yet but if, as an example if they think that he has that type of authority then our country is at risk for anything for he who holds power has everything. And if you have enough money you can always get the ruling in your favor and we are then in essence a trivial 3 world nation that kneel to the kings of the country.
-
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.
Hypothetical situation; Im attacked by a crazy person with a knife, this guy is really trying to kill me. I shoot at him, but I flinch and hit him in the knee. He drops to the ground, clearly unable to get back up, maimed for life. Nebraska law states, according to you, that Im either supposed to finish him off, or go to jail? I would be curious as to the exact wording of the law you are citing.
BTW, regarding the original post, as I understand Duty to Act it only applies when I am on duty. As far as rendering aid to someone I used deadly force against, it would depend on the situation. I can think of many situations were I wouldn't, a few where I might.
- Shawn
-
Nebraska laws requires that if you must use deadly force, you cannot shoot to mame or just harm.
We need a cite of that statute please. I have never heard of that "requirement" before today.
-
I do not believe the Good Samaritan Act would cover this. You in self defense had to shoot a person threatening you with grave bodily harm. That is completely different from happening upon an accident scene. You caused the injury (justifiably up to now). The witnesses then stated that they saw you thrashing the victim by hand after you shot them. (How many laymen actually know what you are doing to a victim at a rescue scene). I am not a lawyer, but, I really think the action should be secure the scene, call 911 give them all of the information including needing a rescue service and then stand back. You do not owe anything to someone who tried to kill or seriously injure you. And finally, to get an official answer talk to a lawyer.
-
We need a cite of that statute please. I have never heard of that "requirement" before today.
I have not hear this either. My understanding is you use force to stop the threat. If presenting the gun ends it, great, if not shoot til the attack stops.
-
And of the oath, you took does it not conflict with this sentence?
A-Fixer....there is nothing in the Hippocratic Oath about sacrificing my life to save someone else's with respect to their attempt to harm me or other innocents. Outside of that it is a moral/ethics issue. No legal standing per se.
Shawn .... you've been around the EMT/P community forever...can you provide some insight into the "Duty to Act" idea? Again, never seen some legal obligation. Yes, may cost you you're job, but life is a little more precious.
-
What does a good Samaritan act have to do with a self defense situation? I thought this had to do with when one acts to help and has good intent, if they do something wrong accidentally they can't be sued. Am I missing something there?
As far as rendering aid I think it would depend on the situation, but in most situations it's not going to be safe to render aid. For instance I personally would not try to put a tourniquet on someone who is still conscious and has a knife or gun near them that just tried to kill me. Besides that depending on the situation what could one really do? I don't carry a tourniquet, quick clot, or IV fluids with me around town. I suppose one could do CPR if the BD was unconscious in some situations, but that's not going to do a whole lot of good if you just put a 45 cal through their heart. As far as I understand EMT/Paramedics can't just go into a situation where a gun or knife has been used until the scene has been cleared and determined to be safe by LEO.
I think there is some confusion with the whole shoot to kill, when to shoot thing. I have heard a person say that they were told in there class to "shoot to kill." I think there is a difference here between the law and what happens in court when things are portraits certain ways. I think the shoot to kill thing comes in when people hear others say, "I would just shoot the BD in the leg so I wouldn't kill him/her." If you shot someone in the leg just to injure them, that may look bad in court, since you should only draw your weapon when lethal force is immediately necessary. To me you would only draw your weapon when lethal force is immediately necessary, and that means stopping the threat as quickly and efficiently as possible to save your life. The way to do that is to aim for the "kill zone." Now I think this could depend on the situation as well, but when you have a gun pointed at you or a person with a knife in arms reach and trying to kill you, you don't "shoot them in the arm so they don't get hurt bad." You aim or attempt to aim where you are most likely to stop the threat immediately, which isn't the extremities or bowels. If you happen to fire three shots and only one hits the BD and it hits him/her in the leg and he/she is no longer trying and able to kill you then of course you would not point the barrel at their head and execute him/her.
-
As a medical professional, If your are on the clock and receiving pay for your service, you have a duty to respond to emergencies and provide appropriate rescue and care. The rescue and care you provide has to be in accordance with your training.
In Nebraska if I am off the clock I have no legal duty to render medical aid. This is true in most states but not all. For example, here is a statute from Rhode Island:
Rhode Island Code - § 11-56-1
"TITLE 11
Criminal Offenses
CHAPTER 11-56
Duty to Render Assistance
SECTION 11-56-1
§ 11-56-1 Duty to assist. – Any person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to, or has suffered, grave physical harm shall, to the extent that he or she can do so without danger or peril to himself or herself or to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor and shall be subject to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months, or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or both."
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/statute...56/11-56-1.HTM (http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/statute...56/11-56-1.HTM)
To put this into the context of this discussion, in Rhode Island you are only required to render aid if you can do so "without danger or peril to himself or herself or to others". So even in states that require a person to render aid, in the case of a self defense shooting, stabbing, whatever, it appears that you would not face any legal consequences for not helping.
The "Good Samaritan Law" only applies to rendering medical assistance.
Nebraska Good Samaritan Laws
25-21,186
Emergency care at scene of emergency; persons relieved of civil
liability, when.
No person who renders emergency care at the
scene of an accident or other emergency gratuitously, shall be
held liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or
omission by such person in rendering the emergency care or as a
result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for
medical treatment or care for the injured person.
(Source: Laws 1961, c. 110, § 1, p. 349; Laws 1971, LB 458, § 1; R.S.1943, (1979), § 25-1152.)
There is separate language regarding professional medical providers.
Out-of-hospital emergency care provider; liability within scope
of practice.
No act of commission or omission of any
out-of-hospital emergency care provider while rendering emergency
medical care within the limits of his or her certification or
status as a trainee to a person who is deemed by the provider to
be in immediate danger of injury or loss of life shall impose any
liability on any other person, and this section shall not relieve
the out-of-hospital emergency care provider from personal liability, if any.(Source: Laws 1997, LB 138, § 25.)
- Shawn
-
Thanks Shawn..... I was aware of your last quoted Law and of course the Good Samaritan laws. That being said, you nailed it when referring to the "without danger" to oneself.
As a medical professional, If your are on the clock and receiving pay for your service, you have a duty to respond to emergencies and provide appropriate rescue and care. The rescue and care you provide has to be in accordance with your training.
This may be a little questionable in NEBRASKA law in regards to being prosecuted. That is just MY OPINION as a non-lawyer. I've never seen an equivalent to the Rhode Island law you sourced.
-
I worry about what others who were at the scene might interpit as life saving effort's, as trying to kill the person by hand.
Then you have answered the question yourself, that you choose not to assist.
A-Fixer....there is nothing in the Hippocratic Oath about sacrificing my life to save someone else's with respect to their attempt to harm me or other innocents. Outside of that it is a moral/ethics issue. No legal standing per se.
and I said
As I understand this Good Sanitarian is in the course of needing medical attention, and would exempt one who assisted another from any wrong doing. I am not a medical law lawyer but one who stated a clause.
would exempt one who assisted another but again
I never said you life would be in danger, you did so be it then as you see it. Most attacker choose prey that are unprotected and easy targets, and as I stated from my original post it is a moral and ethical view.
As many have stated in the views on this particular example good enough for them and that I would do things one way and they do another.
It brings up yet another then is it no wonder that there are those who have take a title and oath to up hold the constitution but will think differently and actually strip those freedoms ..... obama to kill americans via drones, but per jay carney says yea he has the power but he know best and with great thought to do whats best for the country , and fienstien who want to prohibit over 2,000 + guns but saying is not prohibiting the 2nd amen but excluding a certain guns but where is the shall not infringe? They will get this done maybe not by a black president but a white republican -/- Conservative because this is the way they think and operate. It is no small wonder that fienstien 20 yrs ago help create the FEMA language and each year resubmits when it is time to change wordings in early 1990s she add to fema '' all hazards'' and was defined as civil uprising where through all preceding presidents yea even the republican one to have complete and overriding authority over the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Hows that for American Pie?
We each will define all things differently that is exactly how this country is on the verge of disappearing all together.
-
I've got a headache now.....the short of it is back to the OP and I believe Shawn will agree (even if ON DUTY), the scene must be SECURE and SAFE. Outside of that do what your conscience tells you to do. Thus endeth the lesson....
-
Hypothetical situation; Im attacked by a crazy person with a knife, this guy is really trying to kill me. I shoot at him, but I flinch and hit him in the knee. He drops to the ground, clearly unable to get back up, maimed for life. Nebraska law states, according to you, that Im either supposed to finish him off, or go to jail?
Your disbelief is warranted. If you lawfully use deadly force to neutralize a threat and then, though he no longer presents a credible threat of imminent death or bodily harm to anyone, you "finish him off" because he is still alive, you just went from being a defender to committing some kind of criminal homicide.
-
Can't say about how it affects line of duty stuff...
But the topic has come up a few times, and even I started a thread on it afaik...
Actually yup.... it was here:
http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,4044.msg29496.html (http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,4044.msg29496.html)
-
Had Seal Team 6 members not caused Osama Bin Laden to have a "splitting headache", but otherwise wounded him.....and you'd been present, would you have felt compelled to render aid? Now, talk amongst yourselves......
-
Different topic completely. A military operation in a foreign country. Without knowledge of the rules of engagement, no one would know the actual answer. Normal military operation you render aid to the infirm, whether friend or enemy. In a special operations endeavor, well the rules say ????
-
sidearm1 .....not necessarily......since we are getting off on a tangent and myself being a former military officer I get what you are saying...I am just offering a moral equivalency ... if OBL would have been in the US i.e. some CHP holder ran into him or his ilk outside an Omaha Starbucks and took him out. Way out there scenario, but since we are talking morality, ethics and "duty to act" (and way off topic)...... and until Dan-O locks down this thread :)
-
Extremism off tangent, bullit I am not a EMT nor are we going to face OBL OR Hitler, Stalin or the likes on the street. As you feel your knowledge suits you good enough, again no one is just like you and your confortable with your views fantastic good for you if you don't offer aid thats up to you in a forum we share views and if you decide to aid you make a decision good if not leave it alone and don't worry about swaying the mass its just a view... calm down and relax.. enjoy the threads or/not thats up to you.
-
But if having the last word is what you want you win... lol
-
calm down and relax.
A-Fixer... now you put me in the position on having the last word :) ..... I really don't care if anyone agrees or disagrees with me, I've lost count on the number of time I've been wrong about something....this side of heaven its going the be like that..... Just adding thoughts to the topic at hand based on facts and LOGIC. I'm as calm and "cool" as my Avatar suggests.....
-
.
-
Hypothetical situation; Im attacked by a crazy person with a knife, this guy is really trying to kill me. I shoot at him, but I flinch and hit him in the knee. He drops to the ground, clearly unable to get back up, maimed for life. Nebraska law states, according to you, that Im either supposed to finish him off, or go to jail? I would be curious as to the exact wording of the law you are citing.
sjwsti the Answer is both Yes and No ......
As long as he is still a Threat you are suppost/required to shoot to kill
If he/she becomes wounded (IE: like in combat he/she then becomes a Noncombatant) the threat is considered under Nebraska Law to have been removed and the Use of Deadly force no longer applies or is it authorized by law.
This goes Directly to When you can or are Authorized the use of deadly force (IE: your Weapon)
as i understand it there are only 3 times it is authorized ....
(1&2) The Defence or your or another persons life.
(3.) to stop a Kidnapping.
Defence of Pets or Propriety is NOT allowed and you will end up in Jail for it.
-
CitizenClark.....know I got your six when you go render aid.....
-
sjwsti the Answer is both Yes and No ......
As long as he is still a Threat you are suppost/required to shoot to kill
You are never required to shoot anyone. You have a right to self-defense, and you have a right to defend a third party, but generally speaking you no duty to exercise those rights.
Nor are you ever required to "shoot to kill." However, if you intentionally shoot someone with a firearm, that is some evidence of your intent to kill them, as everyone knows that inflicting an injury with that sort of instrument is very likely to result in serious bodily injury and death.
If he/she becomes wounded (IE: like in combat he/she then becomes a Noncombatant) the threat is considered under Nebraska Law to have been removed and the Use of Deadly force no longer applies or is it authorized by law.
This is only true if it is apparent that the threat justifying the use of deadly force has ended.
This goes Directly to When you can or are Authorized the use of deadly force (IE: your Weapon)
as i understand it there are only 3 times it is authorized ....
(1&2) The Defence or your or another persons life.
(3.) to stop a Kidnapping.
This isn't quite right. In the state of Nebraska, you are authorized to use deadly force as a private individual if you or a third party is facing an imminent threat of death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, or involuntary sexual intercourse.
Defence of Pets or Propriety is NOT allowed and you will end up in Jail for it.
Deadly force is prohibited for defense of property, but this does not mean that no force is allowed in defense of property. See Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1409, sections 1–3 (http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=s2814009000).
-
.
-
I'm all for shooting people when they need shooting, and I am all for trying to save people's lives whether they deserve it or not.
That's a good credo to live by.
-
Seems like a central nervous system hit would prevent any qualms over "Do I assist? Do I not assist?" Other than a towel for the mess, assistance is pretty much moot. LEO's don't shoot to wound, why should you if you are truly in fear for your life?
-
Being a former EMT myself, I would follow my own training. Call me a cold calculating SoB, but if I have to shoot you to stop you, you are now DRT.
-
DRT
???
Dead due to Resisting Treatment?
-
daleemt....did we run you off yet? :)
-
???
Dead due to Resisting Treatment?
Dead Right There.
-
Being a former EMT myself, I would follow my own training. Call me a cold calculating SoB, but if I have to shoot you to stop you, you are now DRT.
I don't think that anyone ought to have a legal duty to rescue anyone—assuming that you haven't put a person in a position of peril that they didn't deserve to be in or otherwise voluntarily assumed a duty to provide aid. (E.g., if you push your little brother into an icy lake, you have voluntarily assumed a duty to fish him out.)
I don't think it is an injustice to let someone suffer the full consequences of threatening someone else's life. But justice and morality aren't the same thing. Justice is what one can rightly be compelled by force to do, and morality is what one ought to do.
My understanding of morality is based on the tenets of my religious faith, which instructs me to love my enemies, to pray for those who persecute me, and to act mercifully not because others somehow deserve it but because I will be blessed for showing mercy.