The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 9, 2009, 03:52 PM   #51
Joat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2008
Location: Dayton, TX
Posts: 383
[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
__________________
All things being equal, fat people use more soap. (I know I am one.) High speed, low drag does not even come close to describing ME.
Joat is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 10:50 AM   #52
doh_312
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2008
Posts: 312
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.
doh_312 is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 11:42 AM   #53
cloud8a
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 341
"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.
cloud8a is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 11:48 AM   #54
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
Please back this up with a link...
Quote:
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
hogdogs is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 11:52 AM   #55
cloud8a
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 341
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
cloud8a is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 11:55 AM   #56
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
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.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 12:00 PM   #57
cloud8a
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 341
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/artic...PR-on-gay-man/
cloud8a is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 12:04 PM   #58
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
Quote:
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
hogdogs is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 12:07 PM   #59
cloud8a
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 341
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.
cloud8a is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 12:10 PM   #60
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
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.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 12:12 PM   #61
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
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
hogdogs is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 12:20 PM   #62
cloud8a
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 341
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.
cloud8a is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 01:00 PM   #63
Joat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2008
Location: Dayton, TX
Posts: 383
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
__________________
All things being equal, fat people use more soap. (I know I am one.) High speed, low drag does not even come close to describing ME.
Joat is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 07:43 PM   #64
doh_312
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2008
Posts: 312
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.
doh_312 is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 10:12 PM   #65
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 1,577
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
5whiskey is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 10:29 PM   #66
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
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
hogdogs is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 02:18 AM   #67
cloud8a
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 341
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.

Last edited by cloud8a; June 11, 2009 at 02:45 AM.
cloud8a is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 05:08 AM   #68
scottaschultz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 392
cloud8a wrote:
Quote:
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

Last edited by scottaschultz; June 11, 2009 at 06:08 AM.
scottaschultz is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 07:58 AM   #69
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
Cloud,
Quote:
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
hogdogs is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 08:11 AM   #70
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
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.
5whiskey is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 09:49 AM   #71
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,860
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?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter

Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; June 11, 2009 at 10:05 AM. Reason: Someone will get it or it will go over their heads.
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old June 11, 2009, 10:46 AM   #72
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
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.

Last edited by 5whiskey; June 11, 2009 at 10:53 AM.
5whiskey is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 11:05 AM   #73
Dingoboyx
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2009
Location: South East Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,513
If they are really bad.....

..... Nah, was gonna say shoot 'im again.... but I wont

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:
__________________
Muzza
If you cant blind them with brilliance, Baffle them with BS
Be alert...... there is a shortage of LERTs
Dingoboyx is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 10:02 PM   #74
UltraRick
Member
 
Join Date: June 14, 2009
Location: Georgetown, IN
Posts: 19
First aid?

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!
__________________
Proud NRA Life Member
USCCA Member
Indiana Lifetime LTCH holder

Last edited by UltraRick; June 14, 2009 at 10:04 PM. Reason: poor spelin lol
UltraRick is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 10:19 PM   #75
tju1973
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2008
Posts: 111
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....
tju1973 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14089 seconds with 7 queries