Obligation to render aid to attacker after shooting?

Status
Not open for further replies.
mljdeckard

mljdeckard

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
13,319
Location
In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
I had a student ask me last weekend, and I gave my best answer, I haven't thought about this in a while.

If you are involved in a defensive shooting, is there any legal obligation to render aid to the bad guy? I teach my guys that your obligation is to defend yourself, stay alert to the situation, and follow instructions from police. I continue to assume that the bad guy is a threat and guard him.

Is there any precedent or statutory reason that would compel you to render aid to someone you have just shot in self-defense?
 
It would probably be good to call an ambulance/paramedics when you call the police, but other than that I can't think of anything, especially for someone who is not trained as an EMT. By rendering aid, you would also be putting yourself (and your weapon) within very close proximity to someone who just tried to hurt you bad enough that you had to shoot him. Also, blood born pathogens scare the hell out of me, and I don't walk around with the proper gear to protect myself from diseases that an assailant (or anyone) may have.

I'd say call the professionals and make sure you're safe would be the best bet.
 
I agree with Telekinesis. In point of fact even if you think the perp is dead you should call and ask for police and paramedics. There will be an investigation afterwards, and maybe legal problems -- the family/survivor may sue. If you can have it on record that you called for medical help it will be possibly harder to show you "intended" to kill the perp and were only defending yourself.
I know that is cynical .... but it's that kind of world out there.
 
"Did you do anything to try to save the life of the person you shot?"


"Yes. I took two specific actions. I called for emergency response, and I kept him covered from a safe distance to prevent him from doing anything that would get him shot again."
 
help

The only instance that I can think of where you would be obligated to help your attacker is if you were a medical professional and had taken the oath to render assistance to someone who was injured.

Otherwise I say, let them bleed, don't put yourself back in harms way.
 
Rendering aide you're not certified to can be a liability in some situations. Stay back and keep everyone covered and let the professionals render aide.

I had a teacher many years ago who was not CPR certified but gave the heimlich to a choking student and ended up faced with a lawsuit that fortunately got dropped.
 
If you are justified to shoot an attacker the courts may not agree if you also felt that they were not a threat enough to render first aid.

A threat is a threat, leave it that way.
 
MedWheeler said:
"Did you do anything to try to save the life of the person you shot?"


"Yes. I took two specific actions. I called for emergency response, and I kept him covered from a safe distance to prevent him from doing anything that would get him shot again."
Click to expand...

That sounds about right.

Simple, honest, benevolent.
 
I worked as a paramedic many many years ago (early 1980s).

I would not EVER do it again.

There are fluid born illnesses (AIDS, Hep-B, C, D) that I would NOT want to be exposed to.

'Universal precautions' are used now for a reason.

We did not worry about it all that much back then.
 
Negative.

a. Stop the threat.

b. After-care assessment for yourself and those in vicinity.

c. Heads up for another subject.

d. Use your next tool: cell phone 911.
 
That is what 911 and paramedics are for. You would be putting yourself back into possible jeopardy both legally and physically if you approached the attacker again.

Bystanders all have different viewpoints and agendas and some might see you as attempting to do further harm. Best to leave the situation to the professionals.
 
me26245 writes:

The only instance that I can think of where you would be obligated to help your attacker is if you were a medical professional and had taken the oath to render assistance to someone who was injured.
Click to expand...

I cannot think of any environment in which one would be, even as a "sworn" healthcare professional, obligated to put himself/herself into harm's way to render aid if the shot subject still presents a threat.

That being said, it will all depend on the professional's/shooter's assessment of the situation following the shooting. Even LEOs, typically also trained as first-responders, do not usually rush to a felled suspect's side and administer first aid.

I've worked in LE, and currently work in EMS. I feel I have the mindset to make an immediate assessment of the situation but, if I feel there is any ability of the suspect to move, my post above (#5) would still likely apply.
 
I am in the healthcare profession (in the field and hospital setting), and as far as I know, the only time I am obligated to provide anyone any help is when I am on the clock functioning in the capacity of healthcare provider. Our state has no law requiring a healthcare provider (at least in my professions) to render aid off duty, that I am aware of. I am not sure if I would help if I just had to defend myself or family from said person. As said, no legal requirement to. (Edited to add- being on duty is not the only time I help, was just responding to possible scenario by OP)

Even if it did, an unsecured scene would be a valid reason for not approaching said criminal. We routinely wait until the scene is secure before approaching if some type of crime has occurred. Also, not having appropriate PPE is another thing to consider

YMMV
 
Last edited:
If I could do it without endangering myself (i.e., obviously incapacitated attacker, no possibility of a confederate, ability to barrier a BBP) I would do so.

I shot to stop, not to kill; once the threat is stopped, they become a human being again, and I would prefer they not die if I can prevent it without risk.


Larry
 
You do have the duty to render aid. People for the most part are not qualified to do much more than call 911.

Unless you have taken the Hippocratic oath, you don't have to try and stop the bleeding or anything like that. In fact even those who have taken the oath or have first responder training etc. do not have to stop bleeding or give mouth to mouth if they don't have proper BSI (body substance isolation).

It's very true, that approaching someone that just tried to kill you is a bad idea. We need to be careful however to be careful not to appear callus and unfeeling when it comes to how the jury will view our actions. Call 911 and do what a "reasonable" person would do in that situation.
 
The instructions I've gotten in two different classes were:

1) Call the police
2) call an ambulance (actually, a single call to 911 should get you both)
3) don't touch them, you've all ready done your bit

why?
a) they are now a "crime scene", you don't want to muck it up
b) you don't want to be accused of "finishing them off"
c) getting close enough to treat them means they are now close enough to "treat" you
d) you need to stay alert and aware of your surroundings ... do you know for sure they were alone?

yadda yadda yadda ... very little upside for you, pretty much infinite downside.
 
I am in the healthcare profession (in the field and hospital setting), and as far as I know, the only time I am obligated to provide anyone any help is when I am on the clock functioning in the capacity of healthcare provider. Our state has no law requiring a healthcare provider (at least in my professions) to render aid off duty, that I am aware of.
Click to expand...

Correct. It's called "Duty to Act".
 
In the Agency and Health Care Company I work for policy is use of universal precautions regardless of the nature and seriousness of the emergency. As pointed out there are fluid born illnesses (AIDS, Hep-B, C, D) that I would NOT want to be exposed to and it is getting more and more common everyday.

My primary defense would be based on the training I have received from the Law Enforcement Agency I have worked for, the training of the Health Care Organization I work for and their policies requiring use of universal precautions I lacked the necessary protective gear at the time to administer direct first aid that required contact with blood and other bodily fluids.

I am not sure if I would help if I just had to defend myself or family from said person

And

You do have the duty to render aid.

Well I have several family members that are RN’s and know many health care professionals that will not stop and render aid outside of their workplace. As harsh as it sounds it just is not worth the possible legal and civil lawsuit risks.
 
From what I gather, the cops don't. Ive seen quite a few youtube videos where the cops just stand around the person and wait for paramedics to arrive... If they don't, why should you?
 
DT Guy said:
If I could do it without endangering myself (i.e., obviously incapacitated attacker, no possibility of a confederate, ability to barrier a BBP) I would do so.

I shot to stop, not to kill; once the threat is stopped, they become a human being again, and I would prefer they not die if I can prevent it without risk.


Larry
Click to expand...
In my Texas CHL class, They advise against "shooting to stop" as it weakens your defense of being in fear for your life. Always shoot to kill they said. And nothing else...
 
I would disagree with the 'shoot to kill' attitude strenuously; my 'fear for my life' requires me to stop the threat. Consider this: would I continue to shoot if, after my first shot, my attacker turned and ran away? If I were shooting to kill, I would, but I'm shooting to stop-when the threat is over, so is my shooting.


Larry
 
BSA1 said:
Well I have several family members that are RN’s and know many health care professionals that will not stop and render aid outside of their workplace. As harsh as it sounds it just is not worth the possible legal and civil lawsuit risks.
Click to expand...

Sad but true. But usually doesn't stop me. Hope it doesn't bite me in the butt one day

I know when I said I would not help someone that I just defended myself or family from said person sounds callous, but I just would not have any sympathy for someone who tried to hurt my family. I really am not a callous person but if someone messed with my family, that would change. I just hope and pray that never happens
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Medical related Duty to Act
Replies
21
Views
888
MedWheeler
M
S
  • Locked
Personal Defense Obligations
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
HonorsDaddy
H
O
  • Locked
After the shooting is over?
2 3
Replies
69
Views
3K
Quartus
Q
2
  • Locked
Germany Will Not Aid US Soldiers In Chemical, Biological Attack
Replies
23
Views
775
publius
P
3
  • Locked
After training: Legal issues need clarification
Replies
7
Views
512
357to44
3
Back
Top