Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

Threat is down, can be disarmed safely, can survive the shooting.......

  • I would render aid

    Votes: 0 0.0%
1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,501 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
My wife and I are both in the medical field and I asked her a (what I thought to be simple) simple question.
"If you had to shoot a person and they did not die immediatly, what would you do?"
I went on to explain that the person is no longer a threat, can be disarmed safely and could survive the wound(s) if aid was rendered at once.

So you have defended yourself. Could or would you show compasion?

Keep in mind that you are protected by the Good Samaratine Law and cannot be sued for rendering first aid in good faith.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
16,485 Posts
That the person can be disarmed means they are no longer a threat? No way they have another weapon or enough energy to harm me?
The person is bleeding all over the place but is no longer a threat? Am I now immune to disease?
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,700 Posts
I really doubt that I, alone, could feel that the perpetrator was perfectly safe for me to approach and render aid to, especially if I was not 100% sure that he was acting alone and no other bad guys on his side were about to come around the corner at me.

But IF, and only if, I was confident that there were no more threats from him or any other person, and if I were similarly confident that he needed help and that I was in some position to help him, I would. I certainly would. Because my goal in shooting him was to stop him, not kill him, and if by giving him aid I can prevent his death, then I will. As long as I can do it safely.

INTERESTING LEGAL TWIST: Is there a legal duty to render aid to a bad guy that you've just put down with justifiable deadly force, if you could do so safely and effectively? There is generally no legal duty to do a good deed for a stranger in need, but there could be such a duty if you had any hand in creating the peril from which this stranger needs rescue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
I retired from forty years in medicine, and I'm not touching him until LEOs have secured the scene. Letting him die? He made the choice. This has been discussed several times. I'm sure someone will post the link. The consensus has been not to touch them. Disarming them might still afford them a chance to overpower and strangle you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,501 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
budder said:
That the person can be disarmed means they are no longer a threat? No way they have another weapon or enough energy to harm me?
The person is bleeding all over the place but is no longer a threat? Am I now immune to disease?
Budder, I understand that you look for every reason to be to the 'contrary' and I respect that but, there is no between the lines here, no longer a threat is that, 'No longer a threat' there is no middle ground....Now if I had stated they no longer appear to be a threat then I can understand your concern.

And yes you are not immune to blood borne pathogenes, I don't think that any of us have that immunity.

But thanks for bringing it up, someone else may have had the same concerns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,501 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I will have to say that I would render aid to the extent that it does not place me in any harm, be it by another person, pathogene....anything.
Gunsmokers comment about an interesting legal twist is a good point, I wonder what the law says on that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
gunsmoker said:
INTERESTING LEGAL TWIST: Is there a legal duty to render aid to a bad guy that you've just put down with justifiable deadly force, if you could do so safely and effectively? There is generally no legal duty to do a good deed for a stranger in need, but there could be such a duty if you had any hand in creating the peril from which this stranger needs rescue.
At what point does it become practicing medicine without a license? Or would that not apply in a situation like this? What if the aid that's provided makes it worse for when the real pros come around?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
595 Posts
I am the type of person who would render aid under normal circumstances and have but in this case I doubt I would be in any condition to assist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,501 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
mpc said:
gunsmoker said:
INTERESTING LEGAL TWIST: Is there a legal duty to render aid to a bad guy that you've just put down with justifiable deadly force, if you could do so safely and effectively? There is generally no legal duty to do a good deed for a stranger in need, but there could be such a duty if you had any hand in creating the peril from which this stranger needs rescue.
At what point does it become practicing medicine without a license? Or would that not apply in a situation like this? What if the aid that's provided makes it worse for when the real pros come around?
You cross that line when you are rendering first aid and preform invasive procedures such as initiation of an IV, Introducing anything 'INTO' the body that is not the norm for the body, chest tubes, airways, and the list goes on.....now the use of a torniquit, bandaging, direct pressure and such is fine, just don't attempt going after a bleeding artery with a pair of pliers or try digging the bullet out to see expansion with same pair of pliers.
as far as making it worse, just follow one of the ten golden principles in PHTLS (PreHospital Trauma Life Support) "Do no further harm", common sense first aid may not always save a life but it will sure enough never get you in trouble.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
16,485 Posts
IcarryOPEN said:
budder said:
That the person can be disarmed means they are no longer a threat? No way they have another weapon or enough energy to harm me?
The person is bleeding all over the place but is no longer a threat? Am I now immune to disease?
Budder, I understand that you look for every reason to be to the 'contrary' and I respect that but, there is no between the lines here, no longer a threat is that, 'No longer a threat' there is no middle ground....Now if I had stated they no longer appear to be a threat then I can understand your concern.

And yes you are not immune to blood borne pathogenes, I don't think that any of us have that immunity.

But thanks for bringing it up, someone else may have had the same concerns.
So we're talking about some magical situation where the person is in a secure bunker and I can press a button to make him better/stable? In that case, it depends on how I feel at the time, mostly centered around what threat the person would pose after the fact, including any "revenge" his friends, family, or accomplices may want to exact on me.

IcarryOPEN said:
mpc said:
gunsmoker said:
INTERESTING LEGAL TWIST: Is there a legal duty to render aid to a bad guy that you've just put down with justifiable deadly force, if you could do so safely and effectively? There is generally no legal duty to do a good deed for a stranger in need, but there could be such a duty if you had any hand in creating the peril from which this stranger needs rescue.
At what point does it become practicing medicine without a license? Or would that not apply in a situation like this? What if the aid that's provided makes it worse for when the real pros come around?
You cross that line when you are rendering first aid and preform invasive procedures such as initiation of an IV, Introducing anything 'INTO' the body that is not the norm for the body, chest tubes, airways, and the list goes on.....now the use of a torniquit, bandaging, direct pressure and such is fine, just don't attempt going after a bleeding artery with a pair of pliers or try digging the bullet out to see expansion with same pair of pliers.
as far as making it worse, just follow one of the ten golden principles in PHTLS (PreHospital Trauma Life Support) "Do no further harm", common sense first aid may not always save a life but it will sure enough never get you in trouble.
Where did you get that standard? It sounds like something Tech5 would say.

§ 51-1-29. Relief from civil liability of practitioners rendering emergency care
Any person, including any person licensed to practice medicine and surgery pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 34 of Title 43 and including any person licensed to render services ancillary thereto, who in good faith renders emergency care at the scene of an accident or emergency to the victim or victims thereof without making any charge therefor shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission by such person in rendering emergency care or as a result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured person.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,680 Posts
budder said:
That the person can be disarmed means they are no longer a threat? No way they have another weapon or enough energy to harm me?
The person is bleeding all over the place but is no longer a threat? Am I now immune to disease?
This. You made your bed, lay in it. If someone wants to risk their health, then they can...otherwise I'll wait for EMS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,006 Posts
This would weigh heavy on my mind....

gunsmoker said:
I really doubt that I, alone, could feel that the perpetrator was perfectly safe for me to approach and render aid to, especially if I was not 100% sure that he was acting alone and no other bad guys on his side were about to come around the corner at me......
Just what I need is a person crazy enough as to have to be shot, and not wake suddenly and drive a knife into my underside.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
If I have made the decision to aerate you, I can't see myself in any hurry to help you.
If someone else wants to step in, that is up to them.
As I see it, my job was "shoot you to the ground", someone else's job to take care of you after.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,501 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
budder said:
IcarryOPEN said:
budder said:
That the person can be disarmed means they are no longer a threat? No way they have another weapon or enough energy to harm me?
The person is bleeding all over the place but is no longer a threat? Am I now immune to disease?
Budder, I understand that you look for every reason to be to the 'contrary' and I respect that but, there is no between the lines here, no longer a threat is that, 'No longer a threat' there is no middle ground....Now if I had stated they no longer appear to be a threat then I can understand your concern.

And yes you are not immune to blood borne pathogenes, I don't think that any of us have that immunity.

But thanks for bringing it up, someone else may have had the same concerns.
So we're talking about some magical situation where the person is in a secure bunker and I can press a button to make him better/stable? In that case, it depends on how I feel at the time, mostly centered around what threat the person would pose after the fact, including any "revenge" his friends, family, or accomplices may want to exact on me.
OK, where is the word Majical nad bunker or even button in here, I don't believe that you seeing the point here, or it may just be your nature not to see anothers point and make arguement....either way you are reading WAY to much into this, and that may be your nature, but if in your world there is Majic and the bunker and button thing then good for you.


IcarryOPEN said:
mpc said:
gunsmoker said:
INTERESTING LEGAL TWIST: Is there a legal duty to render aid to a bad guy that you've just put down with justifiable deadly force, if you could do so safely and effectively? There is generally no legal duty to do a good deed for a stranger in need, but there could be such a duty if you had any hand in creating the peril from which this stranger needs rescue.
At what point does it become practicing medicine without a license? Or would that not apply in a situation like this? What if the aid that's provided makes it worse for when the real pros come around?
You cross that line when you are rendering first aid and preform invasive procedures such as initiation of an IV, Introducing anything 'INTO' the body that is not the norm for the body, chest tubes, airways, and the list goes on.....now the use of a torniquit, bandaging, direct pressure and such is fine, just don't attempt going after a bleeding artery with a pair of pliers or try digging the bullet out to see expansion with same pair of pliers.
as far as making it worse, just follow one of the ten golden principles in PHTLS (PreHospital Trauma Life Support) "Do no further harm", common sense first aid may not always save a life but it will sure enough never get you in trouble.
Where did you get that standard? It sounds like something Tech5 would say.
I don't know who Tech5 is and don't see where this has bearing.

§ 51-1-29. Relief from civil liability of practitioners rendering emergency care
Any person, including any person licensed to practice medicine and surgery pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 34 of Title 43 and including any person licensed to render services ancillary thereto, who in good faith renders emergency care at the scene of an accident or emergency to the victim or victims thereof without making any charge therefor shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission by such person in rendering emergency care or as a result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured person.
As far as 51-1-29, that would only hold water if you had a set of initials like MD or PhD behind your name....Other wise Off duty EMS responders would revert back to the First responder act and or the Good Samaritan act due to they are not bound off duty with a 'Duty to Act'.
I must say that in your quest for an arguement you have outdone yourself with the above statements regarding Magical, bunker, button, it reminds me of a saying:
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Abraham Lincoln
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)
May I suggest you please go back upo and re-read the original question and remove anything that the book "A Contraryians Guide To The Galaxy" has suggested be entered. The question was stated that way for a reason, no one in their right mind would render aid if in the act of rendering such aid it put you or others in mortal danger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,635 Posts
Then why are the first two words "Any person"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
684 Posts
tech2576 said:
If I have made the decision to aerate you, I can't see myself in any hurry to help you.
If someone else wants to step in, that is up to them.
As I see it, my job was "shoot you to the ground", someone else's job to take care of you after.
+1
I could not see myself wanting to assist someone that was engaged in an action that required me to use deadly force - especially if it was against my kids or my wife
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
With the Ingles incident I was more concerned with my own injuries, the other attacker, and getting the police than with the guy who just had a knife to my neck. I requested an ambulance for him but the first officer was flagged down and I was in handcuffs before I could finish the 911 call. It would be impossible to know in the situation if they could really be disarmed safely (I understand the question is hypothetical but I would still be too concerned with other variables for it to matter), in my case the attacker still had the knife in his hand when the officer rolled him over to check for vitals.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,559 Posts
Another point to consider is that if you do decide to render aid after you meant to kill the perp, can not any prosecutor cast doubts as to whether you were really trying to save them or just make sure they died.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
441 Posts
Way too many issues with helping him. I would let him die.

Did you really fear for your life so much that you had to shoot him and then provide aid?
Did you regret shooting him?
If you were so afraid of him why did you help him? etc etc..
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top