PDA

View Full Version : Treating wounded in SD situation...


5whiskey
June 8, 2009, 12:28 PM
I'm from the mindset that I will do anything to preserve human life that I possibly can. Taking one doesn't feel all that great, but if it comes down to protecting myself or others I've already been forced to make my peace with that issue.

Basically, if you are CC'ing and are forced to use your weapon in SD, would you treat the offender IF YOU COULD SAFELY DO SO? I suppose I mean this to be mostly a MATURE discussion of tactics to safely perform first aid after an SD shooting.

It will be assumed that it was a good shoot, and the BG is still potentially dangerous. I wanted to post this in the "hand-cuff no-no" thread because this is one of the only situations I could see using handcuffs (or flexi-cuffs) with little concern for liability. Even if there is still a concern for liability, I don't really care as I would rather save a mans life while protecting my own than sit around and worry about legal issues at that time.

Thoughts? Intelligent discussion?

NavyLT
June 8, 2009, 12:33 PM
Tresspassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.

I AM JUST KIDDING.

Some states' laws might actually require you to render first aid. I would, only if there was no longer any threat to me or others from the perpatrator. I think it would go a long way to provide a positive image of you, the victim of the crime, if the case went to a jury trial.

hogdogs
June 8, 2009, 12:38 PM
I will provide PROFESSIONAL first aid... 911 will have the PROS immediately in route. If handcuffing a BG is not wise, than getting close to a wounded BG is not wise. I do not carry rubber gloves (the blue ones) nor the gizmo that keeps one safe to do mouth to mouth so I just can't risk contact with body fluids from a person of questionable and unknown lifestyle choices...
Brent

Brian Pfleuger
June 8, 2009, 12:39 PM
I've said before that I would, with the following caveat:

I can do so safely. This means both that the BG is prevented from hurting me directly and also that I have the necessary disease related precautions available.

ZeSpectre
June 8, 2009, 12:39 PM
Basically, if you are CC'ing and are forced to use your weapon in SD, would you treat the offender IF YOU COULD SAFELY DO SO? I suppose I mean this to be mostly a MATURE discussion of tactics to safely perform first aid after an SD shooting.

I have spent some real skull-sweat pondering this same question and of course there could be exceptions but on the whole if I had felt that someone was such a threat as to require lethal force to stop them, then there is no way in hell I'm going anywhere within arms reach of them until the Calvary shows up and then THEY can deal with it.

If said person expires in the meanwhile I'll probably feel badly about it, but that doesn't change the fact that said person created their own situation by their aggression.

chemgirlie
June 8, 2009, 12:39 PM
If I was sure that I could do first aid safely I would. But, there's the problem of not knowing weather or not it really is safe to get within arms reach of somebody who just tried to hurt you and who is probably more than a little ticked that you just shot him if he's still alive.

I would tell the 911 person that an ambulance was needed even if it was abundantly clear that the BG was dead. If nothing else it at least shows that you weren't bloodthirsty and had the decency to try and get him some help should any question of the necessity of the shooting arise.

All things considered I wold probably do as much as I could for first aid if it was clear that the BG was not a threat and pass it off to the paramedics asap.

VA9mm
June 8, 2009, 12:46 PM
They will lay there and bleed until the paramedics and police come. I'm not an emergency medical technician.

I'm pretty sure when a Law Enforcement Officer shoots someone they call EMS and don't start administering first aid?

.22lr
June 8, 2009, 12:47 PM
I'll restate my understanding of your post so that I can make sure that I read it correctly.

1) The person who is wounded has just attempted to kill/harm me.
2) The nature of the attack was of such a magnitude that I felt the need to use deadly force.

If the above two are true, then I could not treat the wounded individual.

My reasoning

1) The individual is dangerous (based on the fact that his/her actions led me to fear for my life).
2) The individual is desperate (fear of dying and fear or arrest)
3) The individual may be "playing possum" or playing dead.

All of which flies in the face of one of your conditions:
IF YOU COULD SAFELY DO SO?

But how could you, after a violent encounter, KNOW that it was safe?

Would I want to help the person who was hurt? YES. But not if I cannot be 100% sure that I am not exposing myself to danger, which I would almost certainly would be doing.

VR

Matt

5whiskey
June 8, 2009, 12:48 PM
I'm thinking I would get some serious back-up from anyone available that would help to help restrain the guy while he could be tied up and searched. Then perform first-aid. This is just a possibility, but it may not always be an option.

I understand that there aren't always others around to help, or that would help, but it's just a thought of what could occur. It would also depend on the situation... ie is the guys hands visible? Where was he hit, ie is it a life threatening wound? If not then he can sit there staring at my pistol or he can run away. Is he conscious? Does he still have a weapon in his hand or was it dropped?

Just asking for thoughts on the topic, without arguing semantics.

1) The individual is dangerous (based on the fact that his/her actions led me to fear for my life).
2) The individual is desperate (fear of dying and fear or arrest)
3) The individual may be "playing possum" or playing dead.

Good points, but Safe is a relative term. Obviously there is no 100% safe option in this scenario. I guess that boils it down to "given the totality of circumstance, would you treat someone if you had enough reason to believe the chance of saving his life trumped the possible threat he still may present". Is that worded better?

hogdogs
June 8, 2009, 12:53 PM
5W, From a thread we just had regarding cuffing the BG wounded or not, you could be accused of exacerbating the injuries to the offender...;) Bugger for them, huh...
Brent

FM12
June 8, 2009, 12:56 PM
To do so would be at your own peril, but would show a "good faith" effort at thrying to render aid if the BG later dies and there is a suit for wrongful death. Immediately call 911 and ask for police and EMS!

Excellent question, BTW!

.22lr
June 8, 2009, 12:57 PM
I realize that you think I'm splitting hairs, however all I did was give you my reasoning.

This person just tried to harm / kill me.
To perform first aid I must come into close contact.
At close contact this person could harm me.

Therefore I will not render aid because the person has demonstrated themselves to be dangerous.

There is no such thing as a "safe" wounded assailant.

.22lr
June 8, 2009, 12:58 PM
Obviously I would render aid by calling 911 and requesting police and ambulance as I was just attacked.

5whiskey
June 8, 2009, 01:00 PM
I realize that you think I'm splitting hairs, however all I did was give you my reasoning.

This person just tried to harm / kill me.
To person first aid I must come into close contact.
At close contact this person could harm me.

Therefore I will not render aid because the person has demonstrated themselves to be dangerous.

There is no such thing as a "safe" wounded assailant.

Eh... you actually made a very valid point .22lr. Maybe I came down a little harsh with the semantics word. Sorry if I came across as a jerk :o

chemgirlie
June 8, 2009, 01:00 PM
you could be accused of exacerbating the injuries to the offender
Most places have some degree of good Samaritan laws. Unless you are a doctor/EMT/nurse/etc you won't be charged in most jurisdictions if you try to help and don't do anything out of your scope of abilities (no doing surgery on your living room floor, but CPR is okay).

If you screw up, say you break his xiphoid process off while trying to do CPR, and cause him to die as a result you probably won't be charged because you were trying to help.

pax
June 8, 2009, 01:02 PM
The cops (who respond in multiples to a shooting event) will not allow the paramedic to get close until they have secured the scene.

The paramedics (who are pledged to save lives) will not get close until the cops have secured the scene.

There's a reason for that.

pax

Keltyke
June 8, 2009, 01:06 PM
Basically, if you are CC'ing and are forced to use your weapon in SD, would you treat the offender IF YOU COULD SAFELY DO SO?

You cannot SAFELY do so - LEGALLY. Think about it. You shoot someone. You render first aid. He dies anyway. The prosecution's accusation will be - you finished him off. You're now up for Murder 2. Way out? Could never happen? Don't bet your freedom on it. If you make one little mistake in his treatment and/or one little thing goes wrong - you're in trouble.

The best thing you can do along that line is try to preserve the scene/evidence. Let others render first aid, if they so desire. At that point, if your phone takes video, you might want to start filming what's being done to him.

.22lr
June 8, 2009, 01:09 PM
Eh... you actually made a very valid point .22lr. Maybe I came down a little harsh with the semantics word. Sorry if I came across as a jerk

No apology necessary Sir/Madam (can't guess from the screen name).

If it was possible to KNOW it was safe, I'd doubt many would not render aid.

Switching gears.

As to what it would look like to a jury:
1) You felt it necessary to use deadly force (in this case the discharge of a firearm) because of the imminent danger of death or grave personal injury.
2) You then felt so safe as to render aid to the person you injured (Presumably only to stop the threat they posed to you).

I would think (I'm an engineer, not a lawyer) that the above shows that either:

-You were never in fear for your life as you felt so comfortable that you came into physical contact with the other person

-The shooting was accidental and there was no aggressive behavior on the part of the other person.

Call 911, let the police secure and the paramedics treat, your life is terrible enough at that point.

VR

Matt

5whiskey
June 8, 2009, 01:11 PM
You cannot SAFELY do so - LEGALLY. Think about it. You shoot someone. You render first aid. He dies anyway. The prosecution's accusation will be - you finished him off. You're now up for Murder 2. Way out? Could never happen? Don't bet your freedom on it. If you make one little mistake in his treatment and/or one little thing goes wrong - you're in trouble.

While I don't doubt that in this insane litigous society some lame-brained defense attorney out there would argue this angle, I tend to make life and death decisions based on the gravity of life and death, not "Will this look good in court?".

Based on the gravity of life and death DOES include the question as to whether there is a reasonably safe way to treat the wounded attacker. Everyone has brought up serious safety concerns and that are excellent points.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 8, 2009, 01:14 PM
No one really answered Brent's concern - who has the stuff to keep them safe from bodily fluids - disinfectants, gels, masks, etc. Do you want to have your bare hands applying pressure to a bleeding wound on an unknown?

Wait for help in an SD situation.

Hank D.
June 8, 2009, 01:38 PM
What would you do If ????
This is one of the questions that you will never know how you will react until the time comes!!!. Just how many will not be able to pull the trigger? How many will ponder and think what will happen If I pull the trigger, Time lost! As much as some kids that play to many of the to real video games want to see what it Is really like to kill some one, sick but true! Any one that has been there done that will be the first to tell you it's not fun and games as I'm sure most of you know. It comes down to what we were told In USMC boot camp, " Kill or be killed " and that is just what It has to come to, if anything less and you will be in deep S--T. As It was so well stated here before me, call 911 and If any others by standers are hurt, by all means help them and don't ever go near a wounded animal.Never! I just hope all of you never have to find out, but this Is a very good question and should be ask over and over at all training classes.
Sorry for the bad spelling, not my thing, Semper FI to all always, Hank D.

djohn
June 8, 2009, 01:44 PM
No I wouldn't because I am not the police or a paremedic,So I have no experience in a gun shot wound.As brent also pointed out I dont carry Blue gloves around with me and its risky with bodily fluids blood transfer.


Also the fact the perp may have another weapon on hand such as a knife or a another gun,I would just be putting my self back at risk being to close to the perp.He or she alread put my live and or other civilians lifes in danger there for he or she is unpredicatble.

scottaschultz
June 8, 2009, 01:48 PM
Although the "good samaritan" laws might give you some protection in a criminal case, anything is fair game in a civil suit. As has been pointed out numerous times before, some castle laws state that if the homeowner is found to be justified in using lethal force, then the "victims" family can not file a civil suit.

On the other hand, shooting someone outside of your home is a completely different story. After all, you just shot and killed some mother's innocent little baby boy who would never commit such a crime if society hadn't made him a victim and forced him into that situation and now you will have to pay.

Scott

5whiskey
June 8, 2009, 01:55 PM
I'm not proof positive, but I'm almost certain that good samaritan laws protect from civil suits as well.

hogdogs
June 8, 2009, 01:56 PM
But if the perp gets tied up to protect the aid giver, all them GS laws are likely nullified...
Brent

Glenn E. Meyer
June 8, 2009, 01:58 PM
Think about this - you will have to get an attorney for the shoot anyway - even if it is a 'good' one. Do you need to add extra billable hours to evaluate your first aid response or hire experts to defend you putting a tourniquet around his neck (being satirical here)?

Some places say you can't be sued or will reimburse in SD - but if the shoot is ambiguous and you do get charged and horrors, convicted - you just multiple your troubles and costs.

TailGator
June 8, 2009, 02:01 PM
I think the post by .22lr is about as clear as it gets, with one addition:

If I am concentrating on evaluating and treating the wounds of the down BG, I am not paying enough attention to the threat of accomplices.

wickedrider
June 8, 2009, 02:01 PM
Even if there is still a concern for liability, I don't really care as I would rather save a mans life while protecting my own than sit around and worry about legal issues at that time.

The question that you pose is not really a legal one. It is a moral one. Those questions are resolved between you and God.

Obviously, there are serious concerns about civil liability should BG succumb to the injuries that you originally caused through your justifiable self defense. However, regardless whether you are, or not a medical professional treating an injured person, there is going to be a someone who tries in court to show that you caused the death of BG after your "Good Shoot". Thus, it comes down to a moral issue. Obviously, if you help the BG after the shoot, you would have to suffer through the stress of the scrutiny of others.

doh_312
June 8, 2009, 02:14 PM
That is an interesting question. Being in EMS in the great state of Colorado, I'm not required to provide assistance to injured people if I'm off duty. Thank goodness for that, I cant imagine treating anyone and everyone I come accross. I feel sorry for those states that force action for off duty EMS personel.

That being said, I feel a strong moral tug toward helping people in need. But it remains my choice as weather to act or not. If I had just shot someone, there is probably so much going through my head, I dont know if I would want to add keeping him alive to my responsibilities. Accidental shootings, you bet I'm gonna help you. If you deserved a double tap from my .45 then I may be less hesitant to help you.

Think about the BG situation, he thinks he is prolly gonna die, heck you just fired hot lead into his chest. That has got to hurt. What happens if he has a knife in his pocket and wants to take you with him? You kneel to help him and he shanks you in the gut. On the other hand, assuming my aid kit is available (ie: gloves for me, mask for him, pads and such to control bleeding) how could I stand there while he is dying, knowing full well I could help him.

A 911 call describing a shooting with a man down dispatches po po and EMS. So professional help is on the way for him, and response time is usually within five minutes in my area. However, EMS aint even going to pull on scene untill the po po have secured my gun, BG weapons, and any other weapons and BGs. Five minutes can turn to ten pretty quick.

Plus in court, you know the prosecuting attorney will bring up the point of how I am trained to save lives, and I should have helped the guy. This is a slipery slope.

KingEdward
June 8, 2009, 02:17 PM
if my phone is on me, after there is no more threat, I'll call police

and/or medical help.

I will not touch a BG.

particulary one who is wounded or dying.

pros can do that if they like.

they will do more good than I if there's hope.

rampage841512
June 8, 2009, 03:05 PM
I can't say I would give first aid to someone I'd been forced to shoot. I wouldn't feel safe, and I rarely have what I'd need to treat severe trauma on someone I don't know.

tacticalmedic
June 8, 2009, 03:33 PM
"The cops (who respond in multiples to a shooting event) will not allow the paramedic to get close until they have secured the scene.

The paramedics (who are pledged to save lives) will not get close until the cops have secured the scene.

There's a reason for that."

pax

THANK YOU PAX!!! As a Paramedic I am NOT required to render help to anyone who is or has tried to hurt me. I have said this before in a thread just like this. The Police will secure the scene as best as they can. Then EMS will provide care.

Has anyone else, (general public), tried to help someone who is in shock? Who has just tried to kill you, your family or friends? I have. Ever have a BG, who is dying from a GSW to the chest, reaching for his 2nd gun to try and shoot you and the others around you? I have.

People in shock are combative and the "Fight or Flight" nervous system is kicking in. They will do anything and everything to fight you, kill you and get away. So my answer is still no. Even in my duties as a Tactical Medic my job is to make sure the Police Officers are okay first, the public second, and then the BG gets taken care of. Calling 911 is enough help for them, don't endanger yourself.

Joat
June 8, 2009, 03:35 PM
I am a paramedic here in TX. If it came to a situation as described I WOULD NOT render aid to the attacker/individual that I had just shot.

I would call 911 and get police/ems on scene as quickly as possible.
If the individual was conscious and bleeding I would verbally instruct him to put direct pressure on the wound and be still as police and ems were on the way. IF I COULD DO SO SAFELY.

My first concern would be to maintain vigilance as the perpetrator may not be alone and I want to be easily identified when the police arrive. If I am "hands on" when the cops get there the situation could be misconstrued.

Joat

A_McDougal
June 8, 2009, 06:39 PM
If I need to defend myself against a stranger, my primary concern for my safety translates into
1) he might get back up and attack me
2) he might have buddies that I need to watch for.

I can't think of any circumstances where I could sacrifice my situational awareness to render first aid.
-----
On the other hand, if I expected to be jailed and convicted for defending myself (e.g. David Murray's case (http://www.hudsonreporter.com/pages/full_story?page_label=full_story&id=2412199&article-Murray-%20-I%20was%20almost%20killed-%20Downtown%20gun-store%20owner%20gives%20his%20side%20of%20May%203%20altercation%20with%20comedian%20=&widget=push&open=&), and here (http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2009/06/exjersey_city_gun_store_owner.html) ) because I lived in Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, etc., I might have a plan to preemptively prostrate myself before the jury.

TMA-1
June 8, 2009, 07:13 PM
Basically, if you are CC'ing and are forced to use your weapon in SD, would you treat the offender IF YOU COULD SAFELY DO SO? I suppose I mean this to be mostly a MATURE discussion of tactics to safely perform first aid after an SD shooting.

I'm not a paramedic or lawyer, but I've taken about 12 various first aid courses in the last 15 years (Boy Scout leader... be prepared and all that) from American Red Cross, American Heart Association, and National Safety Council.

One of the things that every instructor reiterates is that the scene must be safe before one tries to render aid. The only thing worse than one injured patient is two injured patients! Although these classes usually refer to scene safety in the context of environment (electrical, gas, liquid, etc) and not self-defense situations, I'm sure the principle applies.

For that reason alone, I would probably not render aid, other than to give verbal advice (such as directing them to lie down or apply self-pressure to a wound).

txbirddog
June 8, 2009, 08:39 PM
Keltyke makes EXCELLENT point, if you are "working on him" and he dies, now YOU also have to PROVE that you DID NOT "finish him off". It is very hard to prove that one. :rolleyes:

Also remember this, you will probably be in "shock" from just shooting someone. What kinds of substantial first aid thoughts do you really think you would be thinking at this time?

Best bet, call 911, STAY on the phone with them. If they hear him groaning you can bet your bottom dollar he is STILL dangerous. If not, he is pretending he is dead waiting for you to get close so he can "do you" for shooting him.

Sigma 40 Blaster
June 8, 2009, 08:52 PM
I might do something such as tossing my over shirt and telling them to apply pressure to any wounds or suggesting they elevate their legs if something is close enough for them to use as a prop.

Past that I don't think so. Frankly if they had a weapon of some sort (which they would have to in order to be in that situation) tossing them a shirt might not be such a good idea as it could easily block your view of their hands.

I think the best thing you could do is to call 911, inform them that help is on the way, and keep a safe distance. Crowd control (keeping people away from me and the BG) would probably be #1 on the priority list followed by the 911 call.

THEZACHARIAS
June 8, 2009, 09:00 PM
I keep a couple of TacPacks around the house (usually one in my range bag and another next to the power tools). They each contain a quickclot bandage and sterile gloves and some other goodies that are useful for trauma; they cost around $20 apiece and are a good supplement to a regular boo-boo first aid kit.

I wouldnt be applying anything to the intruder with my own 2 hands (proper gun control etc etc.), but I would be more than happy to let him do it himself. Hell, Ill even explain how. Wouldnt hurt my legal standing, and my concience would be extra clean. Anything involving me coming within striking distance would be out of the question though.

Keltyke
June 8, 2009, 09:24 PM
As a prime example to what "pax" said:

Some years ago, a local paramedic crew responded (in an ambulance) to an EDP (Emotionally Disturbed Person) call. They arrived on scene, grabbed their gear, and walked towards the house. When they were about halfway between the house and the ambulance, the EDP ran out the front door - stark naked and swinging a 3' samurai sword. He proceeded to chase the paramedics around the ambulance until they could jump on the rear running board/bumper as the driver drove away. Since then, the LEOs always respond FIRST to an EDP call.

Shadi Khalil
June 8, 2009, 10:15 PM
Basically, if you are CC'ing and are forced to use your weapon in SD, would you treat the offender IF YOU COULD SAFELY DO SO?

If it could be done safetly I would without thinking about it.

cloud8a
June 9, 2009, 12:19 AM
It is not a bad idea for everyone to be certified CPR. BUT if you are in Texas that obligates you to render aid. You can be held accountable for not if you have that little card in your wallet. Now all that applies to any kind of injuries on anyone. BUT AGAIN when I took my courses I never asked 'what if I shot the guy'. I have seen training videos where a police officer shot a man, assessed the situation, and then performed CPR until EMS arrived. Police officers go to the same CPR courses I go to.

I work security for a major metropolitan hospital. We carry. We are told we must render CPR on anyone needing it regardless of why. That is hospital policy. As far as state law goes I am not 100%.

Obviously your local state laws must be checked. Find out the facts. If you could be held liable for not rendering aid you need to know.

This thread made me realize I need to find out myself before I find myself in a situation where I have to make the decision.

cloud8a
June 9, 2009, 12:35 AM
Okay I remember now. In Texas it is called "The Good Samaritan Law" you can be prosecuted for "Failing to stop and render aid." That applies even if you are not certified CPR as well as PROTECTS you if the aid you do render in a life or death situation may be interpreted as you causing further injury. Cases have been cited where people who were dying actually tried to sue a person giving CPR for breaking ribs and what not. This is why the law was passed in Texas.

I am doing this off the top of my head. I am going to find out how it applies to a SD situation.

Check the facts and do not take my word for it.

scottaschultz
June 9, 2009, 08:24 AM
Okay I remember now. In Texas it is called "The Good Samaritan Law" you can be prosecuted for "Failing to stop and render aid." That applies even if you are not certified CPR as well as PROTECTS you if the aid you do render in a life or death situation may be interpreted as you causing further injury.
If I may play the devil's advocate...

I am not a lawyer (and I don't play one on TV), but I would think that the intent of this law would not apply in the case of administering first aid/CPR to a shooting victim in this case.

I think it was written so that if you should happen to be driving and come across a car accident with injuries, for example, and you administer first aid to the best of your abilities and that person dies anyway, you are protected. You did your best and at least you tried. The main thing is that there was no criminal intent involved in the accident. Even if you caused the accident through your own negligence, it was not your intention to harm someone and in the aftermath, you were just trying to help.

OTOH, in the case of a shooting, if you were the one who actually shot the other person, I would think the good samaritan rules get thrown out the window because you were the one who caused the injury in the first place. Even if it was a shooting in self defense (which has to be proven in a court of law), it was your intention to cause great bodily harm upon someone when you pointed your gun at someone and pulled the trigger. After all, death is the expected consequence of putting a bullet in someone.

Just like with the handcuff scenario, if you shoot someone, KEEP YOUR DISTANCE!

Scott

.22lr
June 9, 2009, 12:28 PM
the EDP ran out the front door - stark naked and swinging a 3' samurai sword

Why is it when I hear that, the name "WildAlaska" pops into my head? :D

As for good Samaritan laws, you MIGHT be protected (recent California Supreme Court decision (Dec 08, I think) MIGHT change that). BUT:

1) Are you truly protected as you caused the wounds?
2) If they can't sue you for saving them wouldn't they just try to sue you for SHOOTING them?

These are questions, not arguments, I have no idea as to the legal answers and am curious.

The above does not change my position that I do not see how to safely render aid to someone I have shot in self defense. This extends to both violent attack and medical issues (disease, blood borne pathogens, other nasty stuff).

VR

Matt

hogdogs
June 9, 2009, 12:36 PM
Unless I am incorrectly informed... the Good Samaritan laws are not the ones that require you render aid. They are the ones that say you shall not be sued for the aid you did choose to render.

The laws requiring a LICENSE holding driver to render aid, do not require you to come into direct contact with bodily fluids or anything else dangerous to you. You may be required to stop and decide if there is anyone you feel you could benefit with your skills if it is safe to do so.
Brent

5whiskey
June 9, 2009, 12:55 PM
I've seen some very good, mature, well-thought out responses.

I do think it is, in general, very difficult to determine whether or not it is "safe enough" to try and render first aid to someone who attacked you. In no situation would you be truly "safe", on that we all agree. Everything after that would a judgment call left up to the individual.

I care less about legal ramifications as I do my personal values and safety. If I can keep someone alive I would rather try to do that as opposed to being concerned about defending my actions after the fact. OTOH, I think there would be enough witnesses in any case where I tried to perform first aid to vouch that I did indeed try to do the right thing. I can't think of any scenario in which I could perform first aid without help from others, both in administering and in securing the scene. I know it's a LEOs job to "secure the scene" but I think we have a duty as human beings to step up and do what we see needs doing. If that includes searching a man and having help to cover from other threats, then so be it. There is probably a much greater chance that I would be in a situation that first aid couldn't be administered due to lack of help.

The bodily fluids, and protection against, POV is a very good one. I do carry a med kit with me, or at least in my car, so I could have this protection. I also like the idea of tossing supplies to the wounded (if concscious) and giving commands. Obviously they're not going to stop their own sucking chest wound, but pressure would help to slow bleeding.

Thanks for the ideas everyone!

JohnOfSuburbia
June 9, 2009, 01:02 PM
I was just reading through the thread and wondering how many people know how to administer first aid for a gunshot wound - especially since it's always possible that it could happen. (Or perhaps feel it's too much of a liability or too unlikely to make a difference to bother with?)

I'm a firm believer in Murphy's Law, so I'd be interested in learning or even training to deal with it.

It is not a bad idea for everyone to be certified CPR. BUT if you are in Texas that obligates you to render aid. You can be held accountable for not if you have that little card in your wallet.

So here in Texas, perhaps formal training would have drawbacks?

21CFA
June 9, 2009, 01:57 PM
If I've shot him/them, then he/they are dead. No doubt. Lay my weapon down and wait. Done it.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 9, 2009, 02:18 PM
Let's not go off on posturing - there is not guarantee that the person will be dead. Plenty of folks have gotten head wounds or COM and survived with modern medicine. Unless you are suggesting a finishing off shot - and then you should go read the Pharmacist thread for that plan being a good one.

KingEdward
June 9, 2009, 02:48 PM
some have written that I may likely need post shooting treatment for shock when medical attention arrives on scene after a SD situation.

I have experienced shock twice (once after bad auto accident, once after a near drowning experience).

Both times, I could not speak for several minutes and had a very cold sensation.

Not sure what may or may not set in after a shooting but as earlier stated, I choose not to touch a downed BG.

Joat
June 9, 2009, 03:52 PM
[QUOTE]BUT if you are in Texas that obligates you to render aid. Wrong - Even as a current EMT-P(licensed) I am not required to render aid.You can be held accountable for not if you have that little card in your wallet. Again, WRONG Nothing about taking a course in first aid or cpr obligates you to render aid. I have seen training videos where a police officer shot a man, assessed the situation, and then performed CPR until EMS arrived. That may be the department policy of the department that made the video. I have made multiple GSW scenes some with an officer involved and this is not the case unless the person shot is a leo or leo family member.Police officers go to the same CPR courses I go to.

I work security for a major metropolitan hospital. We carry. We are told we must render CPR on anyone needing it regardless of why. That is hospital policy.

Some bad information here.

If they have changed the state law on duty to act and the Good Samaritan law, please point me to a citation.

Here is a wiki reference to the good sam law:Good Sam WIKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law)

doh_312
June 10, 2009, 10:50 AM
That is how it is in CO. No duty acty, unless your on duty, but your safety first. Good samaritan law protects you from law suits for trying to help and failing, unless your on duty. This makes perfect sense to me. It is stupid to force someone to act just because they've taken a CPR class.

cloud8a
June 10, 2009, 11:42 AM
"I work security for a major metropolitan hospital. We carry. We are told we must render CPR on anyone needing it regardless of why. That is hospital policy."

I said it was hospital policy, you left that out.

I did not say the LEO was required to do CPR in the video I just said I saw him do it.

People have gotten in trouble for being CPR certified and not rendering aid just as well as people have been sued for rendering aid and injuring someone.

I also said the information was coming off the top of my head. And to check local laws.

I also would depend on WIKI as a source of reliable information.

hogdogs
June 10, 2009, 11:48 AM
Please back this up with a link...
People have gotten in trouble for being CPR certified and not rendering aid just as well as people have been sued for rendering aid and injuring someone.
I have never heard of this in 34 years of closely watching the news...
First off it is rare that the fact that you ever were cpr trained would come out. I have taken the training 5-6 times before I was 18 but no one has to know this and "certification" expires. I think my wife has to re-cert once per year for here job which is not at all related to emergency health care or LEA.
Brent

cloud8a
June 10, 2009, 11:52 AM
Off the top of my head. Disclaimer.

Heard it here. Saw a report there. Talked about in briefing. I do not have a link.

Check Laws

Brian Pfleuger
June 10, 2009, 11:55 AM
People have gotten in trouble for being CPR certified and not rendering aid

So far as I know, it's only doctors, nurses, EMTs and the like that are REQUIRED to render aid. I've heard that even they are not required to do so unless they "advertise" that they are such, on a license plate or whatever. That last part is probably wrong, it makes no sense to me but I've heard it more than once.

I've never heard of any random civilian being required to render aid.

cloud8a
June 10, 2009, 12:00 PM
Here is a link to a news story were aid was stopped because of health concerns and a law suit occurred.

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/125739-W-V-sheriff-sued-for-supposedly-stopping-CPR-on-gay-man/

hogdogs
June 10, 2009, 12:04 PM
stopping a would-be rescuer from performing CPR on a gay heart attack victim because he assumed the ailing man had HIV and posed a health risk.
Not relevant to the discussion at hand! Heartattack! We are discussing rendering aid to a violent individual who, moments before, attempted to violently offend against you or another innocent person.
Brent

cloud8a
June 10, 2009, 12:07 PM
Of course it is relevant.

Everyone needs to look at the law.

you can be sued for anything. Does not matter what you want to do. Find out the truth by looking up the laws of your state.

Brian Pfleuger
June 10, 2009, 12:10 PM
Of course it is relevant.

Everyone needs to look at the law.


The question is whether or not Average Joe has to render aid to a person who was attacking him moments before, a Sheriff who did not render aid to a heart attack victim has no relevance.

It's like stop signs apply to flying an airplane.

hogdogs
June 10, 2009, 12:12 PM
In the case you cited, the sheriff pulled a citizen off the guy. The sheriff is not sued for failing to render aid. He is charged with stopping a citizen from rendering aid. I will choose who, when and where I render aid. For my wife or kids I will breath thru a bleeding hole in their throat if it is all I can do! Sorry but the link you posted has absolutely no relevance to a TFL T&T discussion regarding armed citizens rendering aid to a downed violent felon.
Brent

cloud8a
June 10, 2009, 12:20 PM
It is relevant in the fact that failing to render aid can cause trouble. Whether or not you caused the injury, car wreck, fist fight, shot him. You better check the laws before anyone says they are going to do what they want. The officer felt he was protecting the civilian from HIV. it has been brought up on this thread that health concerns were a factor.

I am sorry but if a guy you just shot would have lived had you rendered aid a civil court might hear the BG's family.

Joat
June 10, 2009, 01:00 PM
The court is going to hear from the BG's family anyway.

There is no duty to act.
As a PAID paramedic, I have a duty to act when I am on duty and in my district or have been dispatched to a location out of district.
I have driven by MVAs, while in uniform, without stopping, while going to or from work and will continue to do so. (Also while in the ambulance while on duty/out of district) The most that I would be expected, not required but expected, to do would be to call 911 or contact dipatch in some way, if possible.

As a private citizen the duty to act is not a legal one unless a prior custodial relationship (teacher/student, parent child, caregiver/patient) exists. It is a moral issue.

Joat

doh_312
June 10, 2009, 07:43 PM
It is the same here in Colorado Joat. No duty to act unless on duty for that purpose. Some places, possible state wide but dont quote me, have a duty to act that requires any nurses, EMTs, docs, etc to stop and render aid. Seems rather stupid to me, I do not like the invasion into my private life telling me I must help someone.

It is a different story when I put on the uniform and go to work. Then I am there for that specific reason, and I will aid when I can. I also do not advertise on my vehicle that I am an EMT. No stars of life or medic symbols because that can turn ugly if you pass a scene advertising your abilities due to your profession.

5whiskey
June 10, 2009, 10:12 PM
At any rate, there have been good responses and I was speaking more from the moral standpoint. Some people don't have the same position that I do on the topic, and I don't blame them for that.

Of course, I do see merit in discussing the legality of being required to render first aid. I know for fact that in NC no one other than a licensed EMT on duty is required to treat anyone. We had a first responder system for the rural areas in which some of the local firefighters received extensive first aid training and "responded" so that some time could be bought before the EMT actually arrived (which could be up to 20 or 30 minutes in certain rural areas). I wonder if the first responders had a duty to render first aid or not. I would assume no.

At any rate be nice so I don't have to lock my own thread. Cheers

hogdogs
June 10, 2009, 10:29 PM
since a lifeguard is not required to swim out to save a person being attack by a shark, and the SCOTUS has determined that LEO's are not required to save us from harm (or some such wording), I doubt there is any law requiring any in a "responder" position (including LEO's) to render aid if it is obvious there is a high level of risk to their own health...
Brent

cloud8a
June 11, 2009, 02:18 AM
correct me if I am wrong and do not jump all over me for this but using lethal force is for stopping the threat, not NECESSARILY making it die. This might be an ethics issue I do not know. But once you stopped the threat (the guy is on the ground gasping for breath from your bullets) Is there a civil obligation to try and keep him alive?

Point in question, the criticism California police got for supposedly letting the North Hollywood bank robber to die after a fully automatic gunfight.

Is the whole idea of not shooting to wound anchored on the idea that you always shoot to kill? If you are shooting to kill a BG then should you finish the shoot if you did not extinguish life in the 1st volley? Does that mean you shot to wound if they guy if he was not killed? I am talking civilly here.

I have never heard of a man being prosecuted on the Idea that he only shot to wound and not followed the rule of "Do not shoot to wound"

I am just throwing things out there. I would in a SD situation shoot to stop the person not think only to make die.

scottaschultz
June 11, 2009, 05:08 AM
cloud8a wrote: correct me if I am wrong and do not jump all over me for this but using lethal force is for stopping the threat, not NECESSARILY making it die.
Unless you have had the same training as those Navy seals who took out those Somali pirates, NO ONE on this forum can say that they are good enough to "shoot to wound". There are very few people on the face of the earth who are good enough to place a bullet at a specific point on a moving human body at any distance under any circumstance. And even if you place the bullet in the exact spot you want, no one can accurately predict the path that bullet will take once it enters the body.

If you shoot someone and they do NOT die, it is just sheer dumb luck, not because you were good enough to plan it that way.

In case you need reminding, one of the Four Rules of Firearm Safety is NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY. The operative word here is DESTROY, not hurt, not wound, not scare... DESTROY!

Scott

hogdogs
June 11, 2009, 07:58 AM
Cloud,
But once you stopped the threat (the guy is on the ground gasping for breath from your bullets) Is there a civil obligation to try and keep him alive?

Especially in this day and age, health risks of the cottie kind are enuff to not force a civil obligation to attempt first aid on a wounded felon. Heck there is no civil obligation to attempt first aid on a sweet ol' lady following a car accident.
Brent

5whiskey
June 11, 2009, 08:11 AM
Is the whole idea of not shooting to wound anchored on the idea that you always shoot to kill? If you are shooting to kill a BG then should you finish the shoot if you did not extinguish life in the 1st volley? Does that mean you shot to wound if they guy if he was not killed? I am talking civilly here.

I have never heard of a man being prosecuted on the Idea that he only shot to wound and not followed the rule of "Do not shoot to wound"

In a civilian SD scenario, there is no such thing as shoot to wound or shoot to kill. You only shoot to stop the threat!. If the guy lives or dies because of that action, it's on him because he attacked you. The greatest length I would in the essence of "wounding" shot would be a warning shot at a mans feet IF I HAD TIME. Since I can't think of very many situations were I would have that time, it's going to be COM shots and I will pull the trigger until the BG breaks contact or drops... ie no longer becomes a threat.

I asked the question about rendering First Aid because, honestly, I don't want to take a mans life. I've been there (legally in war) and it sucks. Everyone has given some good points about performing first aid. I think I would toss supplies to the man if he's conscious, along with giving him instructions. I'm beginning to think that approaching to perform first aid is probably a bad idea in general, although I think there are some situations that would allow it.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 11, 2009, 09:49 AM
Unless someone takes the time to go to the legal sources and find law or cases that clearly mandate a self-defense shooter having to give first aid, it might be a good idea to stop with the front porch theories of the law.

Does morality mandate first aid? That's for you to decide yourself.

BTW, if you do think that it mandates first aid - do you think castle laws are moral. Shouldn't it be mandated that you first attempt to flee or retreat? So if you support castle laws, don't be pushing first aid?

Interesting how this thread keeps on mushrooming?

5whiskey
June 11, 2009, 10:46 AM
BTW, if you do think that it mandates first aid - do you think castle laws are moral. Shouldn't it be mandated that you first attempt to flee or retreat? So if you support castle laws, don't be pushing first aid?

Kinda out of scope of the thread, but I do not believe castle laws are inherently immoral. I think there are probably individuals who would use castle doctrine to shoot first regardless of the nature of the home invasion, even if the intruder is trying to flee. I think that's immoral. If I hole up in my bedroom, scream commands to leave, and pop off a warning shot into the floor (obviously before they reached the bedroom folks)... if I do all this and the invader is still in the home, chances are they are there for me and not for "things". In that case fleeing will only induce being followed. It sounds silly, but I've had a "group" that had a serious personal vendetta against me. That's not what most people will face, but it does happen. If I'm forced to defend myself, I would personally rather do so in my house without having to run away first.

I don't think any law enabling us to protect ourselves, family, or other human beings through use of deadly force is immoral. I think that people who use those laws recklessly are.

Dingoboyx
June 11, 2009, 11:05 AM
..... Nah, was gonna say shoot 'im again.... but I wont :D

I wouldn't be gettin' too close.... he might bite you just for the hell of it! Just keep yourself & your loved ones safe, call 911 & let the professionals handle the situation, IMO

I know I have watched too many movies, but the BG could be foxin'..... not worth the risk....

He CHOSE to be there, he pays the price, unfortunately... it's a sad world.... especially if you (the BG) decides to do nasty things in a HD/SD protected environment :barf::D

UltraRick
June 14, 2009, 10:02 PM
No way... Wolves tend to travel in packs. If I am tending to BG#1 what would happen to me when BG#2 or BG#3 shows up? I would rather be on the phone with 911 and I would be more worried about making certain the first officer on the knew I was the Good Guy!:eek:

tju1973
June 14, 2009, 10:19 PM
Not trying to sound all True Grit or anything, but to be 100% safe, I recommend a double tap to the chest then one to the brain bucket to ensure that that the bad guy will not get up and harm you or yours..

I mean- if I am forced to shoot someone, it is because I fear more my life and had no other choice-- Right?

Its what I am telling the cops....

DougO83
June 14, 2009, 11:02 PM
"stop and render aid" does not mean that you have to physically stop and start compressions on someone or anything else. When I took my Red Cross class, this was explained to us. Using your cell phone to call 911 is "stopping and rendering aid." That is all that you have to do.


RE: OP, I think not, outside of tossing the BG a shirt and explaining how to apply pressure. I may be so inclined as to offer up supplies out of my small pocket FAK if it will help. All of the reasons fornot acting that I could mention have been brought up so far. I do not know if the BG is 'faking', otherwise armed, accompanied by friends, infected, etc. I am not going to compromise my safety. At work, however, it may be a different story. If somebody is on my post (i work security) and deadly force is necessitated, I will do my best to 'secure' the area, call for back-up and EMS, then do what I can, even if it is to simply toss the BG some Quik-Clot and instruct from a distance while keeping my weapon at low ready...

stephen426
June 15, 2009, 09:59 AM
correct me if I am wrong and do not jump all over me for this but using lethal force is for stopping the threat, not NECESSARILY making it die. This might be an ethics issue I do not know. But once you stopped the threat (the guy is on the ground gasping for breath from your bullets) Is there a civil obligation to try and keep him alive?

Point in question, the criticism California police got for supposedly letting the North Hollywood bank robber to die after a fully automatic gunfight.


The criticism only came from the bank robbers' families. I forgot who posted this, but the order of priorities is police officers first, innocent bystanders second, and then bad guys last. If he died before they got to him, too bad.

As for the police chief, he was sued by the ACLU because they claimed he stopped/prevented first aid to be given because he knew the victim was gay. That is a civil suit based on discrimination against gays, not any obligation to render first aid.

Please check your facts before spouting things off the top of your head. The internet is already full of disinformation. :(

cloud8a
June 15, 2009, 01:18 PM
I do not need to check my facts if I say that what I am saying is coming off the top of my head.

On the North Hollywood deal, it does not matter where the criticism came from. The FACT is it showed up, and started a legal process. Maybe it did not go very far but it started.

You are giving your opinion. He might have stopped CPR because of a health concern. Not because the guy was gay. That was the families opinion.

and all that is my opinion.

langenc
June 15, 2009, 01:24 PM
1) The individual is dangerous (based on the fact that his/her actions led me to fear for my life).
2) The individual is desperate (fear of dying and fear or arrest)
3) The individual may be "playing possum" or playing dead.


If you are giving CPR--how will arriving LEOs take that?? Other CPL holders??

Will you be thought trying to do more 'harm" to the perp and thus place yourself in jeoprady??

bdturner
June 16, 2009, 09:08 PM
I will give the thug the same love and compassion he was trying to give me when he attacked me/my family.

dabigguns357
June 16, 2009, 09:27 PM
absolutly not.They were dumb @@$$ enough to try and rob,hurt my family.LET EM LAY THERE,sorry but i worked hard to provide what i can for my family and i'll be D%^& if some retard will come and take it if i can help it.

Besides i don't want to find out i was given some disease,my insurance wouldn't cover anything like that.

surg_res
June 16, 2009, 10:02 PM
The way I see it...

I'm a resident general surgeon and am soon to be trauma chief resident at a level I center.

If a penetrating injury is instantly lethal--that is the person drops without a pulse, don't bother getting your hands dirty, its over.

If a penetrating injury quickly causes some sort of cardiac or pulmonary instability (this is the person who will lose a blood pressure or develop respiratory failure within minutes) the only life saving procedures one could usually offer can only be performed at a hospital and usually in the operating room (with the exception of a temporizing tourniquet on a bleeding extremity). Similarly, if someone has a severe head injury and is unconscious but with pulse, they need intervention. In the unstable population, the "platinum 10 minutes" and "golden hour" are often used to look at how critical time is managed.

The last category are those who have an injury that might be life threatening, but who are stable (i.e. bowel injury). These folks may have lethal or non-lethal injuries, but are, lets say, not going to die within the hour (think Civil War). Their outcome is likely not dependent on initial first-aid. In fact, this is the person you might consider a persistent threat.

My point is simple. If someone has a life-threatening injury, your priority is to call 911 ASAP. Even EMS is not designed to 'save' these people, but rather to get them to a trauma center within 10 minutes, and provide as much ancillary intervention as possible along the way (I used to be an EMT for 4 years, so I understand this from both perspectives). Unless, you can place chest tubes, transfuse blood, crack a chest, or open an abdomen in your living room, any at-home intervention is most likely futile--with the rare exception (i.e. a man faints from the sound of your gunfire and falls unconscious, face-first into your dog's water bowl).

CPR is <5% effective in all patients brought in from the field, and probably 99% of those with penetrating trauma, requiring CPR, will die. If a person loses pulse from GSW "en route", we open their left chest in the ER, clamp the aorta and perform manual compressions. If CPR was in progress since the time they were picke up, I just pronounce them.

I hope this helps. Bottom line is that no amount of care or level of care administered short of a trauma center will be seen as having a role in the person's overall outcome (being that such lethal injuries are virtually all surgical emergencies), ONLY the timeliness in which the person notified the authorities and assisted in the efficiency of that transfer. Lastly, practically no heroic attempt to save a victim of gunshot is worth exposure to hepatitis, HIV, or swine flu ;).

slabsides
June 17, 2009, 07:03 PM
And should you render what (non-professional) aid you can, just wait for the buldoon's family to come all over legal like with accusations that you made things worse. Especially if said buldoon dies despite your efforts at aid. Not I, said the Walrus.

Archie
June 17, 2009, 10:09 PM
I will call 911 and inform them of the situation.

My name is [fill in as needed]. I need police and EMT immediately. My location is [fill in blank]. I was attacked by and shot an armed attacker. He has a [fill in the blank type of] wound and seems [conscious unconscious]. No other attackers apparent - or - hostile gunfire likely/ possible/ incoming from [location or direction]. I am armed legally and wearing [give description of me]. What do you want me to do?

With so many other variables that have already been mentioned, that's as far as I would go to start.

Depending of my assessment of the total situation, I might dig out the very limited first aid kit in the car and see if the bandages would help.

I might also mess my pants and whimper for awhile...

Senator Vitaman
June 17, 2009, 10:16 PM
What I'm qorried about is if the criminal tried to fight again.

cloud8a
June 18, 2009, 01:18 AM
I watched Most Shocking tonight on spike. Officers pulled over a Cadillac. the passenger attempted to engage an officer with a firearm. Officer shot him several times. Once the scene was secure the officers began performing CPR. Just throwing that out there.

JohnKSa
June 18, 2009, 01:32 AM
Once the scene was secure the officers began performing CPR. Just throwing that out there.I would say that the scene is not secure until the responding officers say it's secure. That's the approach paramedics/EMTs take--they will not render aid after a shooting until the police say the scene is safe.

Kyo
June 18, 2009, 01:55 AM
I would not. I would call 911 and wait. Get out of his LOS, but keep him in mine

DougO83
June 18, 2009, 03:51 AM
I would say that the scene is not secure until the responding officers say it's secure. That's the approach paramedics/EMTs take--they will not render aid after a shooting until the police say the scene is safe.

Absolutely. I used to be part of a volunteer fire department. We responded to a fire at the residence of a man with whom the police were very familiar. we waited, while the house burned, a few blocks away until the police showed up to ensure that we would be safe. In this case, it's called "staging." No first responder, etc has any obligation to step into an unsafe scene to render aid.

frmboybuck
June 18, 2009, 07:25 PM
They will lay there and bleed until the paramedics and police come. I'm not an emergency medical technician.

I'm pretty sure when a Law Enforcement Officer shoots someone they call EMS and don't start administering first aid?


+1 and I AM an EMT. Treating them would possibly be the dumbest thing you could do. Try explaining that you shot him to protect yourself and then decided to help him after you put a couple bullet holes in him. The prosecuting attorney will have a ball with this one