Obligation to render aid to attacker after shooting?

[BSA1]

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...

What a bunch of cow pies!!! You need a new instructor and that instructor needs to find a different line of teaching.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Personally if the situation was bad enough to where the trigger had to be pulled, you would not see me getting any closer to the bad guy even if he was down. I was always taught to shoot till they stop moving so hopefully I won't ever have to deal with this though!

 

[xxjumbojimboxx]

"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"


So let me sort of frame what I'm talking about here.

In the class the question about whether or not to shoot to disable someone came up. you know, "Can I just shoot a guy in the leg to stop him?" which would indeed be using what we would call "deadly force"... As it was explained to me, you should NEVER shoot to maim someone (to disable). Because a jury could look at it like, well, you had time to aim, and take a calculated shot, so you could have probably fled the scene, and were not within reasonable fear for your life, and your use of deadly force was not justified. See how that works? not only that, but now you've shot someone who's still alive, and may formulate whatever story they please. They second part is a little much, but that's how it was presented.

 

[mljdeckard]

Yes, I would like to be shown the CCW instructor who does not instruct to shoot to stop.

 

[zxcvbob]

In the class the question about whether or not to shoot to disable someone came up. you know, "Can I just shoot a guy in the leg to stop him?" which would indeed be using what we would call "deadly force"... As it was explained to me, you should NEVER shoot to maim someone (to disable). Because a jury could look at it like, well, you had time to aim, and take a calculated shot, so you could have probably fled the scene, and were not within reasonable fear for your life, and your use of deadly force was not justified. See how that works? not only that, but now you've shot someone who's still alive, and may formulate whatever story they please. They second part is a little much, but that's how it was presented.

Your logic may be sound, but if you say "shoot to kill" all that might not matter; you'll be trying to explain your way out of a murder charge. Shooting COM until he's no longer a threat is the quickest and surest way to stop the threat. If your attacker dies because of that... well, that's unfortunate.

Your shot might be not only justified but *righteous*, and if you say the wrong thing you're screwed. So practice saying it right. (IANAL, and all that)

 

[xxjumbojimboxx]

Your logic may be sound, but if you say "shoot to kill" all that might not matter; you'll be trying to explain your way out of a murder charge. Shooting COM until he's no longer a threat is the quickest and surest way to stop the threat. If your attacker dies because of that... well, that's unfortunate.

Your shot might be not only justified but *righteous*, and if you say the wrong thing you're screwed. So practice saying it right. (IANAL, and all that)

I'm with ya on that... The instructor also stated not to use threating words like kill.. And to avoid talking as much as possible. When they were discussing the topic they spoke freely, as there was no interrogation going on at that time. I think it all makes sense. I'm not going to draw my weapon unless it is absolutely necessary. In that situation, I'm not intentionally going to shoot to maim. I'm going to stop the threat as quickly and efficiently as humanly possible. To tie this back into the thread, I also would not render aid at that point.

 

[clutch]

There has been a shooting. Call 911 and try to preserve the evidence. The paramedics will likely wait away from the scene for the LEO's to check it out so it might not be the bad persons day. Same goes for you if you have holes in you.

 

[JohnKSa]

In the class the question about whether or not to shoot to disable someone came up.

Shooting to disable is NOT shooting to stop. Shooting to stop is generally defined as shooting so as to maximize the chance of a hit and to minimize the time that the attacker remains a threat.

In very practical terms, that usually means shooting at the center of the biggest part of the attacker that is visible. If the attacker is not behind cover that means shooting him in the middle of the torso.

You should never shoot to disable, if "shooting to disable" is defined as: "shooting in such a way as to minimize the chances of seriously inuring/killing the attacker". That can be used as evidence to suggest that you were not justified in using deadly force. The reason that is true is that your mindset is important--your reasonable belief that nothing less than deadly force could resolve the situation is a necessary criteria to establishing the legality of your use of deadly force. If your actions, and especially your statements, make it clear that you didn't think deadly force was really necessary (as evidenced by your attempt to avoid using deadly force by shooting to disable but not seriously injure or kill) then you have severely damaged, if not destroyed, your ability to claim self-defense.

The bottom line is that you should NOT be concerned with the prognosis of the attacker.

If you are concerned about saving his life at the moment you are making the decision to fire, then hold your fire. It's almost certain that if your own survival is not the uppermost priority in your mind then there's not sufficient justification for using deadly force.

If you are concerned about ending his life at the moment you are making the decision to fire (as opposed to stopping his attack as quickly as possible) then you are in danger of overstepping the justification that exists in the law. You shouldn't be acting out of anger or with the idea of punishing or taking revenge, or even with the motivation of upholding the law. Your actions should be driven by the desire to survive.

Furthermore, what many people think of as a "kill shot" may actually hurt your chances of rapid incapacitation. For example, if your desire to kill the assailant results in your targeting his head, that will likely reduce your chances of scoring a solid hit since the head is a small target that is armored by the skull, and that also typically moves around a good bit. Aiming at the center of the torso increases your chances of a hit and getting a hit generally improves your chances of getting a stop over shooting and missing.

The simplest way to keep the proper mindset is to understand that deadly force laws are about preventing loss of innocent life. They are not provided as a way for citizens to punish criminals, to kill criminals, to take revenge on criminals, to help the police, or to take criminals off the street. They are provided as a last resort to insure that innocent victims have the legal ability to preserve their own life in the face of a violent attack. What happens to the attacker is immaterial in terms of the focus of deadly-force laws. The point of the laws is to preserve the life of the innocent defender.

 

[perpster]

One Less 1

Call on 1911.

Call 911.

You've covered the bases.

 

[JohnKSa]

As far as the original question goes. I am not aware of any jurisdiction that requires a citizen to render aid if doing so puts him in jeopardy. Even first responders are generally allowed to wait until threats are neutralized before approaching to render aid. One of the North Hollywood shooters bled to death while paramedics waited as police swept the area to insure that there were no other active shooters.

In addition, many jurisdictions have laws that provide some level of protection to those who do make the decision to render aid.

 

[coloradokevin]

As a first responder myself (police), I can tell you that when someone gets shot by one of us in the line of duty the most common response is to request cover for us and an ambulance for the suspect. If I'm alone with someone who just tried to kill me, and they've somehow managed to remain in a state where rendering aid could actually do them any good, they're simply going to have to wait for more people to arrive at our location. It's tactically unsound to reholster your gun and start providing first aid to someone who just gave you cause to shoot them in the first place. Get the police (or in my case, more police) to the scene along with an ambulance. Don't delay in making such a call, but don't get yourself hurt or killed by trying to help someone who just tried to kill you.

That's my $0.02. It's your life and your conscience to do with as you please.

 

[SC Shooter]

As previous members have stated, dial 911. Let the pro's render aid. Hopefully this will always be a hypathetical question for you.

 

[HexHead]

If I have to shoot, I couldn't care less if they bleed out. I'd call 911 to report the incident, and that's it.

 

[MartinS]

Maybe when you call ask for the ambulance first? It's recorded.

 

[Rob G]

As many have said call 911 and let them handle it.

As an RN who spends a lot of time around blood I can assure you of two things:
1. There are a ton of really nasty bloodborne pathogens and you never know who is carrying them. Some of them transmit almost ridiculously easily. Some are also guaranteed killers without cure.
2. The odds of you having the proper safety equipment in your home, car, etc. to be dealing with blood are pretty small. Even I don't have that kind of stuff around my house.

Call 911, wait for the professionals with the right training and equipment to arrive and deal with it. Contracting HIV, HEP B, HEP C, etc. trying to help out somebody who just tried to kill you is not worth it.

 

[SHOOT1SAM]

^+1 to Post 39.

This is what I was taught: Call 9-11, tell them you've shot someone in self-defense, and to please send an AMBULANCE and the police. The emphasis was on asking for the Ambulance first.

Sam

 

[Sol]

Though it's statisticaly unreal, I know a handful of people who had to have their weapon oblige the situation, one person 4 times (store owner). None of them LEO or military. In all the situations the coroner was the appropriate response team except one incident with the store owner, whom shot a cracked out female in the neck (lived) and killed the pitbull she tried to rob the store with, after she hit the store owners wife with a club and demanded money..

Most these situations happened within 6 feet. The store owners weapon was always a .38 snubnose loaded with lead dum dums. The last attempted robber was dropped of by his mother and when she came back 15 minutes later to "pick him up from shopping" and saw the fleet of emergency vehicles she told one of the men standing outside (the owners son) that "my baby was in there doing some shopping where he at?" he responded "Your babys brains are all over my cooler and he tried to kill my father." Needless to say he was whisked away by the police after a response like that...

I tell you, some people are plain stupid as the store owner had a nasty reputation for being a crackshot and not one for hesitating to pull the trigger, yet these morons always decided it was a good idea to test the old man for $400 in the register.

The moral of the stories are: You knew the job came with it's perks, but you also knew the job is stupid, dangerous and criminal. So medical aide is only rendered by medical staff.

 

[Mike1234567]

I saw an old black-and-white movie many years ago. In the end scene a woman called the police and told them she'd just shot and killed an intruder. She hung up the phone... then shot the intruder. See... the intruder was here estranged psycho husband who had been and was still trying to murder her. The expression on the bad guy's face when she hung up the phone was priceless. Of course, I don't condone such an act nor would I ever do that. Render aid to an attacker? Yes... if I'm 100 percent positive the attacker can't gain control and harm me... but 100 percent assuredness is not probable.

 

[CLP]

Being a physician, I've given this a good bit of though previously. No, I wouldn't do anything more than call 911 and report the incident.

 

[PBR Streetgang]

I taught as a LEO academy firearms instructor in the use of deadly force. We taught that you used deadly force to stop the immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm from the attacker .
You used the proper amount of force until the threat no longer existed.
We didn't teach shoot to kill.
The consensus was if the attacker died from his wounds ,it didn't have any more or less bearing on the original reason for the use of deadly force.

Cover from a safe position ,call 911,request police and EMS for a gunshot wound.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

I come from a military background so if he is out of the fight and not a threat anymore then yes, I would attempt to provide aid.

One thing to kill a man. Another thing to watch one die rather than putting pressure on a wound.

 

[dogrunner]

Sorry for the dirt bags bad luck, but if he's put me in enough fear for my own life to use deadly force on him then HE is on his own...........I would not get near him. Call 911 and let the folks that get paid to render that sort of service deal with him or her!

 

[JohnKSa]

I come from a military background so if he is out of the fight and not a threat anymore then yes, I would attempt to provide aid.

In a military scenario, you have fellow soldiers to back you up and provide additional "motivation" to the attacker to remain a non-threat should such a need arise.

I applaud your basic sentiment, but you need to be sure that it applies in the context in which you currently find yourself.

If you are absolutely sure he is out of the fight and not a threat, and if you have the means to protect yourself against fluid borne disease threats, then I agree that providing aid is the right thing to do.

The "ifs" in that sentence are critical. It wouldn't make any sense to resort to deadly force to save your life or that of another innocent only to put it in back in jeopardy.

 

[mljdeckard]

This is certainly something to consider. Realize that when you are treating fellow soldiers, you can be reasonably sure they don't carry any serious blood-borne diseases, because soldiers are frequently tested. With the enemy, not so much. And in my CLS bag, I had gloves. If I have time to treat enemy soldiers, I would take the time to glove up. With the gear I already carry daily, I see no practical way to add gloves, nor am I inclined to try.

 

[henschman]

It is frequently legally preferable for the attacker to die. Then he can't go telling the cops some BS story about how you were the aggressor, etc. Also it means that he will never be able to victimize someone else again, or come back for revenge on you. You are not legally obligated to render aid, and I see no upside for you to do so in the vast majority of such situations. To a rational man, the life of a person who caused him to be in fear of death/SBI holds a negative value almost every time.