Obligation to render aid to attacker after shooting?

[JohnKSa]

It is frequently legally preferable for the attacker to die.

I think you mean that "while the death of a human being is regrettable, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, the death of a violent attacker can simplify some aspects of the legal aftermath."

Implying, in a public forum, that you would find it preferable to kill an attacker even if it's not necessary, is probably not wise.

It's a long shot, speaking probabilistically, but if things went wrong and it actually came to pass; I believe it would be preferable not to have to explain a statement like that in court.

 

[DT Guy]

Henschman, we are not judges or juries, so applying 'death sentences' is not our right. We can defend ourselves when necessary, to stop a threat; purposefully letting/causing someone to die is not self defense.

Larry

 

[Carl N. Brown]

In the controversial Costco shooting where the man carrying a gun was apparently confused by conflicting commands and shot by police, or the recent California case where a boy was carrying an Airsoft AK past the field where neighborhood kids played with their Airsoft guns, and was challenged and shot by police, I believe the rule used was, if you render first aid, the lawyer in the wrongful death suit will claim that you were not really in fear of imminent death or greivous bodily harm at the hand of the person you shot if you are willing to get close enough to render first aid to the wounded. Some lawyers will cite rendering assistance as proof of a guilty conscience.

 

[Rob G]

Bear in mind too that the Good Samaritan laws that protect people giving assistance may only cover assistance that falls "within the scope of your training." Exactly how that translates will change a bit from state to state but it's a good idea to know what the local laws are. In some states if you rendered first aid, but had no first aid certifications from say the Red Cross or a similar organization, then you could be held liable for any mistakes you made rendering aid. So depending on local laws in your area, and your own level of provable training, you might not want to try and render aid beyond calling 911.

 

[rondog]

IMO, no. Call for help and stay away from him. Anything you do to "help" can put you in danger of further attack and/or legal liabilities.

 

[coolluke01]

Henschman This is a very dangerous way of thinking.

You are not judge, jury and executioner. You are not in the place to determine if it's better for this person to live or not.

Everyone does have the responsibility to render aid! If you don't believe me look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
Rendering aid can be as simple as calling 911 and you must do that at the minimum.

Be very careful about this "shoot em all let God sort them out" mentality. We shoot to stop to save a life, it's only consistent to continue to act in a way that will help preserve another life.

I totally agree that it is a bad idea in most cases to approach the attacker and try and render medical aid. But we must understand that we have the requirement to call 911 at the minimum.

Carl, that's a huge stretch for any reasonable person to make. Rendering medical attention is not in any way an indicator of guilt.

Rob, The good Samaritan law "only" applies to those who don't have medical training. Once you have training you are held by the "do no harm" laws. The Good samaritan law is there to protect someone from legal and civil suits for injuring someone further when trying to help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

 

[JohnKSa]

Everyone does have the responsibility to render aid!

Even the contents of your link say otherwise.

In the common law of most anglosphere countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another. Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril.

They do correctly note that there can be exceptions.

However, such a duty may arise in two situations:

A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator of the hazard – who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril.

Such a duty also arises where a "special relationship" exists.

In short, if you created the hazard, you may be responsible to try to help those to run afoul of it. In addition, if you have taken on a special responsibility then you may be expected to exercise it when the need arises.

In most cases, there is no penalty for failing to render aid.

Rendering medical attention is not in any way an indicator of guilt.

No, but as mentioned, it could be used to try to suggest that the defender wasn't really in fear of his life if he felt safe approaching to render aid after the shooting. It could also be used to suggest that the defender might be acting out of a feeling of remorse for his actions--that maybe he felt he over-reacted.

The prosecutor will certainly try to do what he can to paint the picture he wants the jury to see, the key is that the defender should be able to articulate why he did what he did.

So, for example, if asked why he rendered aid, the defender should state something along the lines that the attacker was clearly no longer a threat and therefore the defender did what anyone would have done to help a fellow human being.

It always makes sense to consider the possibility of such questions arising so one doesn't inadvertently say or do something that might give a false impression.

 

[coolluke01]

Shooting holes is someone is commonly seen as creating a hazard. lol And case law supports that view. MN Statute https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.662

I agree that things could be twisted and questions like that could be asked. But I believe that simple factual (true) statements will keep you in the clear. We can speculate all day about what a lawyer may say or do. In the end, almost all the laws in different states have the word "reasonable" in their use of force laws. This is certainly up to interpretation and will require you articulating things properly.

 

[JohnKSa]

Shooting holes is someone is commonly seen as creating a hazard.

If the attacker created a situation where the defender was legally justified in shooting, then the attacker created the hazard and the defender is not legally responsible.

This principle is carried through clearly in the laws of some states where if any death results from a violent crime, even the death of one of the criminal's accomplices at the hand of a defender, the surviving criminal is charged with murder. The crime/criminal created the hazard, and the criminal, not the defender, is responsible for the outcomes of that hazard.

Ok, I'm not an expert on MN law and states can have weird laws; but here's my take on the law you quoted.

1. It's not from the homicide/criminal assault section of the law, nor is it from the section of the law related to self-defense. Instead it is from the section about public safety. In my state, that would imply that the discussion is about unintentionally dangerous acts, not intentional acts of violence or self-defense.

2. The law you quoted clearly states that there is no responsibility to provide aid if the person reasonably perceived that trying to provide aid would create a significant risk of bodily harm. In virtually any self-defense shooting, there's already the underlying assumption that the defender was placed at significant risk of bodily harm by the attacker.

3. The penalties set forth are in the case that the shooting victim dies or suffers serious bodily injury. In a self-defense case, the defender is justified in spite of the attacker's death or serious injury, so that makes no sense.

Taken together, those points make it clear that this law is applicable to unintentional/negligent shootings and would be used to prosecute, for example, someone who accidentally shot another person while hunting and then failed to render aid. Not someone who was forced to use deadly force in self-defense and then didn't rush to bandage the attacker.

You should consult a lawyer in your state for an official read.

 

[coolluke01]

The legal advice I've been given to teach the Permit to Carry Classes in MN has been that a SD shooting will start out as a criminal homicide investigation. This means that you could be charged with failure to render aid under this law.

Likely you are right that if the charges of homicide are dropped then the failure to render aid would be as well, but that could be a big "if". Depending on how the jury feels about the issue, they may stick you with failure to render aid, if they can't prove homicide.

 

[coolluke01]

Subd. 4.Defense. It is an affirmative defense to a charge under this section if the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant failed to investigate or render assistance as required under this section because the defendant reasonably perceived that these actions could not be taken without a significant risk of bodily harm to the defendant or others.

This also further tells me that this was written not only for accidental shootings, but intentional ones as well. Notice it doesn't give justified use of deadly force as a defense. All the lawyers and law enforcement I've talked to about this have stated that you do have a duty to render aid in the case of SD.

 

[JohnKSa]

...a SD shooting will start out as a criminal homicide investigation. This means that you could be charged with failure to render aid under this law.

I don't see how those two statements are related. There is an entirely different section of MN law relating to criminal homicide with different penalties spelled out.

If anything, treating it as a criminal homicide would seem to make it extremely unlikely that 609.662 would ever come up.

Depending on how the jury feels about the issue, they may stick you with failure to render aid, if they can't prove homicide.

IF the defender claims that the shooting was accidental, or if the prosecution proves that it was accidental, then 609.662 would certainly come into play. Otherwise, it seems unlikely.

Subd. 4.Defense. It is an...

Right, I mentioned the contents of Subd. 4. in item 2. of my previous post. If self-defense were claimed, that would also automatically imply that the defender felt that the attacker was a risk, and if self-defense were proved, that would also prove that the attacker was a risk. Logically speaking, there would be no need for a defender claiming self-defense to twice prove that an attacker was a threat and that's actually a strong argument that 609.662 does not apply when self-defense is claimed/proven.

All the lawyers and law enforcement I've talked to about this have stated that you do have a duty to render aid in the case of SD.

LE probably is trained that they have a duty to render aid. That duty would stem from the special responsibility that they voluntarily assume with their other duties--it doesn't surprise me that they could think that duty was universal.

I'd be interested to hear an MN attorney weigh into clarify why MN lawyers would make a claim that a person claiming SD is required to render aid. I'm not saying it couldn't be true, but it would indeed be a strange wrinkle. That said, as I mentioned earlier, some states have weird laws...

 

[docsleepy]

I think the funniest thing I ever heard was the guy above whosaid that he was going to stand back and protect the attacker by covering him from a safe distance "to keep him from doing anything that would cause him to get shot again! "


Several years back, I took care of a person who had had a steering wheel injury in a motor vehicle accident. When the surgeon opened the chest, all the blood in the man's body began to pump out onto the floor from a torn aorta. The surgeon merely stood there, watching, and announced, we're finished here. I was stunned. The surgeon however new his capabilities, and knew what you could and could not fix.

God help me if I ever have to shoot someone. However I'm a good enough shot, when I'm finished stopping the threat, there won't be anything that I'm capable of fixing with a penknife and a ball point pen!

 

[powder]

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

Absolutely, positively, 100% INCORRECT!!

I have just stopped the threat against a subject I can articulate was a deadly threat to me, or someone else.

 

[CornCod]

I would render first aid if it were safely possible to do so....and that's a very big if. Still, it will make you look like a good guy to a jury when you are almost certainly sued in civil court by the perps greedy relatives looking for money.

 

[coolluke01]

I think there is a misunderstanding on what rendering aid is.

As has been explained to me by EMS, LE and Lawyers.
Rendering aid can range from applying medical aid to simply calling 911. For the most part calling 911 is the minimum required by many laws. If for any reason you shoot someone you must at least call 911. That is rendering aid! If you feel you have the skills, equipment and desire to go beyond that, that's your choice.

Powder. You should check and see what the laws really say before you start stating things so factually.
It's also important to understand what rendering aid really is. it's not just applying pressure to a wound and laws rarely require physical contact.

Even in the case of a SD shooting, you still have the responsibility to render aid. Check your local laws. Most states have a render aid law. Case law shows that you can not shoot someone in SD and then just leave. A reasonable person would call 911 and that's the criteria you will be judged against.

 

[powder]

Yeah Luke, in the fact that I AM LE, and HAVE BEEN the lead investigator on several deaths including firearms being involved, I HAVE an excellent understanding of what I am talking about.

STOP telling these good people they have a duty to render aid, to the threat they just stopped, or even muddying the waters of what the scenario involves. STOP NOW!

It appears that the extent of your legal knowledge comes from being a CCP instructor?! STOP misinforming these good people NOW!

There is a MONSTROUS difference in legal application per a self-defense shoot, and wandering into a crime/accident scene as a person not previously involved. THIS thread is about a SD shooting, and what the legally acting individual should do for after-care, after they have stopped the threat.

 

[docsleepy]

Surely there are exceptions, but in general, any CONSCIOUS person remains a threat to you, even without a weapon, if you are within an extremity's reach. [unless a neck-down paralysis]

So if you get within an extremity's reach of a CONSCIOUS person [other than one who is paralyzed from the neck down] you are putting yourself again within risk....and possibly requiring yet another shot.....I don't even want to think about the legal hazard of that....

Now, as for an UNconcious person, there are only two ways to become comatose that result from a firearm:
1) significant structural damage to the central nervous system
2) very low blood pressure (e.g., bled out, cardiac tamponade, hemo/pneumo thorax)

You aren't going to fix (1) without a neurosurgeon and an ICU. The only thing that would be in any significant effect on the outcome is to open the airway so that the person does not die of hypoxia or herniate (brain) from hypercarbia....and maybe, maybe artificial respiration -- which the latest recommendations suggest simple chest compression rather than mouth-to-mouth.... If the person is BREATHING, there is precious little you can do. Mild hypothermia is HELPFUL to brain survival, so even covering them in moderate temperatures might not be worth doing.

If you have (2), and there is ongoing, visible bleeding, then, yes, applying pressure to a wound might give them a better chance. Belt or other encircling device ontop of cloth bandage maybe. If the person is not absolutely unconcsious this would be extremely risky. If they are concious, instruct them to put pressure on their wounds.

If you are a decent shot, they are going to be bleeding from a cardiac wound -- and they are going to DIE from either loss of blood or cardiac tamponade. I've watched both. -- or they have a bullet through a lung and if they are LUCKY will only spit up blood. There is little you can do to fix hemoptysis (spitting up blood) until they make it to an operating room. Putting pressure on a chest wound that is not bleeding so badly as to be a risk to life, is very risky, as you could cause pneumothorax (air trapped in chest, making breathing difficult or impossible, and dropping blood pressure if it develops tension due to a flap/valve effect.


So my bottom line is, if concsious, they can put their own pressure on -- if they have enough hands to cover all the holes that were required to stop the threat --

If unconsious, only obvious, fixable bleeding would be of any possible amelioration. (and airway maneuvers)

Call 911, think very very carefully before you get much farther. You've just been through a very traumatic event.

 

[tomrkba]

Do not give aid. Your job is to keep yourself and others safe, manage the scene so nothing is disturbed and stay alert for more violence. You will need to be on the lookout for the police. Some people advocate holding your wallet with ID and gun permit visible to the police.

911:

"I am calling to report that I was attacked with lethal force and defended myself. I am at <insert location here>. Send the police and X ambulances. I am wearing <insert description> and will comply with police commands when they arrive."

X = number of people injured.

Do not get into a conversation with 911. Everything you say WILL be used against you. Make short declarations and hang up.

Follow police commands when they arrive. Holster your weapon prior to their arrival if safe to do so. If not, then you will need to be very careful.

Your statements should be something like:

"Officer, <that/those male/female/people> attacked me with <insert weapon here, or "lethal force" if you want>. I lawfully defended myself. I will cooperate with your investigation after I consult with my attorney. I positively assert my right to remain silent."

THEN SHUT UP!

You must positively assert your right to remain silent. If you speak after that, you are giving up the right. The new law sucks, but the government has put us into an adversarial relationship with the police. You must protect yourself especially when under the effects of adrenaline. Remember, EVERY misstatement you make WILL be used against you. People are getting time for lying to the police if they cannot get them on anything else.

 

[Deanimator]

The ONLY aid my assailant is going to get from me is a call to 911. The State of Ohio imposes no duty beyond that, and not even really that.

People with bad enough judgment to put others in immediate and reasonable fear of life and limb often have bad judgment in other areas, including questionable sexual practices and intravenous drug use. I'm not going to save my life from an immediate threat, only to die later of avoidable exposure to HIV/AIDS.

I don't expect somebody trying to rob or murder me to take any risks to help me. He shouldn't have any such expectations from me.

 

[Blackbeard]

I'd render any aid that I could do in complete safety. Given my lack of medical training and the fact that the person just tried to kill me, the list of things I could do is pretty short. Bottom line, I'd call 9-1-1.

 

[Onward Allusion]

Heh, ran across this late in the thread. Back in the old days, we'd just shoot 'em until they stop moving and maybe call the cops from a pay phone. Of course, this was growing up in Chicago in the 70's / 80's where lots of bad people were found dead with a gun or knife just lying next to 'em but there weren't surveillance cameras all over, either.

These days, shoot 'em and stop 'em from causing more harm. Wait until you know there are none of his buddies hiding anywhere (this could take 1 minute or 15 minutes ) and then call 911 to cover yourself. As for going up to them and rendering aid? Probably not the smartest thing to do and that's putting it mildly.

 

[Fisherman_48768]

Regarding original OP's question: I presume and hope that you fired the shot to stop the aggression? If that is the case why would you initiate care that would potentially allow the aggression to resume?
Should you start to aid the aggressor remember that once the aid is initiated you cannot stop until another higher qualified person assumes the duty or you cannot physically continue.
Shoot to stop the aggression/threat, then take precaution to protect the scene/yourself and other innocents then call 911.
Stay on the phone and follow instructions without offering anything other than location and identifying yourself. The conversation is being taped and anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. Mum is the word until you have legal representation.

 

[rondog]

My opinion has always been that first aid is pretty much limited to external injuries, and GSW's cause so much damage internally there's not really anything you could do. You might be able to stop external bleeding, but not internal. Plus all the other issues mentioned.

 

[coolluke01]

Powder,

Didn't you even read my posts?

I think there is a misunderstanding on what rendering aid is.

As has been explained to me by EMS, LE and Lawyers.
Rendering aid can range from applying medical aid to simply calling 911. For the most part calling 911 is the minimum required by many laws. If for any reason you shoot someone you must at least call 911. That is rendering aid! If you feel you have the skills, equipment and desire to go beyond that, that's your choice.

I don't believe that you should apply medical assistance to a attacker. Rendering aid however is not only limited to medical but also includes contacting those who could help.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I do think there is a misunderstanding of what I'm trying to say. Again, you don't have to approach the suspect, but you do need to actively render some sort of aid. The minimum requirement that I have been told and read of is calling 911. Calling 911 will satisfy all duty to render aid laws you will likely run across.