DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Would You Treat Your Assailant?

(courtesy tacticalshit.com)

You’ve just shot someone who posed an imminent, credible threat of death or grievous bodily harm. They are lying on the floor, bleeding. “Make sure you eliminate the threat,” Former Combat Medic Jon Wayne Taylor cautions, meaning continue shooting or leave. “But if they’re no longer a threat you have a moral obligation to treat them.” (“Apply pressure until the bright red blood stops.”) Yes?

desantis blue logo no back 4 small

comments

  1. avatar Stoopid1 says:

    Sure, with anther 4 or 5 bullets.

    1. avatar henry bowman says:

      “you have a moral obligation to treat them”…Ah no, LOL.

      And get sued for Practicing Medicine Without a License, or maybe get AIDS in the name of “muh feels”? Get fucked.

      1. avatar Dane says:

        Legally you don’t have any obligation but good Samaritan laws would cover you liability wise in most states. And unless you have an open wound your chances of contracting HIV/AIDs is virtually nil.

        1. avatar Junk Jones says:

          The question is a gun shot wound, which by definition, is an open wound.

          Do you read, Bro?

        2. avatar Dane says:

          I do in fact know how to read, junk. I suppose I will have to elaborate for you. If you shoot someone they do indeed have an open wound. However, unless YOU have an open wound, you could go ahead and splash your face with their blood and still have very little chance of contracting something nasty. BTW, that bit about splashing blood on your face. Don’t actually do that. I don’t want you to get confused.

        3. avatar Junk Jones says:

          I missed that day of Immunology class where the whole splashing the bad guy’s blood on your face is no big deal thing.

        4. avatar dane says:

          I’m sorry you missed that day. But if you had not missed that day, you would know that it is statistically improbable, even in cases of a direct needle stick,to get HIV/AIDS specifically. Remember, I left that last bit just for you, because I knew you would try to take the point too literally.

        5. avatar John in CT says:

          I wouldn’t want to risk it.

          First of all, I imagine that the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is higher in the criminal population than the general population, and second, by definition I just got out of a life-or-death situation and increased levels of adrenaline mean that I cannot be sure that my outer protective layer is whole. Especially my hands, due to the possibility of things like slide bite in a tense situation.

          Not to mention that I’m going to be extremely cautious about making sure that the threat had ended, meaning exit to another room and call 911.

          So, no, I’m not likely to treat the assailant. I hope this never happens, and if it does, I hope the assailant survives, but I’m not going to put myself in any further risk on his behalf.

        6. avatar Junk Jones says:

          Tell that to Dr. Acer and Dr. Harrington’s patients.

        7. avatar Stoopid1 says:

          Why are you defending a fag problem? AIDs

        8. avatar Chris says:

          Sorry, Dane, but if the chances of catching anything are virtually nil, why do ALL med professionals wear gloves? Also, virtually nil is not the same as nil. As a former EMT, I can tell you that you are trained to ALWAYS wear gloves to prevent the transfer of bloodborne pathogens, even when there is no visible blood. To everyone else, YOU CAN GET DISEASES FROM OTHER PEOPLE’S BLOOD! Don’t let anyone tell you different. Even if you have no open wounds, it will still transfer through deep scratches, eyes, mouth, mucous membranes, etc.

    2. avatar Redfoot says:

      I am a nurse, and no, I would not. I can envision the counsel bending what I would be doing into me inflicting further harm to the perp instead of trying to save him. Oh, and that meth and adrenaline kicking back in and perp attacking me again.

  2. avatar Dr Brainwash says:

    Nope.

    1. avatar Mk10108 says:

      Agree. Where was the criminals humanity when he decided to impose his values on you? If he shot someone else and you ended him. You go all out helping the victims.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      I fail to see on any level where I have the moral obligation to attempt to save the life of ANYONE who has just threatened me with death or grievous bodily harm. If I am legally justified following the shooting to depart the scene, how can I be morally obligated to wait around long enough to find out whether or not he/she is dead and then attempt to save their life?

      My sole responsibility is to ensure I am justified before the shoot and to stop the imminent threat. What happens my attacker past that point is entirely on them and their luck in the response time of 911 (when seconds count ambulances are also minutes away).

      My consideration is that this person was willing to kill me or I would not have shot. If they survive there will be long-term legal ramifications in court appearances to hopefully get their conviction, taxes spent on hospital treatment, court costs and incarceration. And the threat that should they survive solely due to my timely intervention I am personally responsible for ANY crime that they commit in the future. YMMV.

  3. avatar Removed_californian says:

    Sure I’ll put some pressure on that hole if I think about it. But only after I’m damn certain that they no longer pose any threat to myself or the other people around me. There’s a saying, something about playing stupid games?

    More likely than not I’m going to be too busy taking care of myself.

  4. avatar Junk Jones says:

    Wrong. Once again. I’ve never really gotten why JWT is featured so prominently around here. Man crush issues??

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      ” I’ve never really gotten why JWT is featured so prominently around here.”

      JWT has had direct personal experience as a combat medic.

      Do you?

      1. avatar Dr Brainwash says:

        While I wouldn’t attack Mr Taylor personally, I would argue that fighting/killing in combat in a foriegn nation does have some differences to doing so locally. Here’s my concerns. 1. In combat overseas, rendering medical aid to fallen enemy combatants occurs. This happens for a varatiey of reasons, but generally speaking, after the even is over, and you return to the U.S, you don’t have to worry about it anymore. If you shoot a criminal in the United States, they likley live relatively close to you. They live close to your family. They know where you live. If they live, you may very well see them again, in public, or them seeking revenge. Not just for being shot, but they’ll likley serve a few years. But they eventually get out of prison, much “harder” than when they went in. Them surviving comes with a much more personal threat to you and your family than someone in half a world away. (I fully realize a jihadi in the Middle East may figure out who a soldier is, and seek revenge stateside, but that possibility is much, much lower than your local gang banger.)

        1. avatar M3M9 says:

          Bingo. The ROE on the battlefield is not the same as on the street. That goes for shooting or saving someone.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Generally speaking, in a normal war, say WWII as an example, an enemy soldier is serving his country just like you are serving yours, does not know you, hate you, or bear you any ill will. As a medic, I can see training including attempting to save the life of a wounded enemy soldier. That is not the case with a criminal attacker, I would keep him muzzled until help arrived. OTOH, if during the attack I heard anything mentioned about a snack bar, I would continue shooting until I was certain he was dead. People willing to die with pleasure in order to kill me, should get their wish, which is to die and receive their assigned 72 Virginians. BTW, I have heard it argued that is actually 72 “virgins”, rather than Virginians, without the poor suckers realizing that 10,000 years from now, all will still be virgins, and will have constant meetings about what chores he must perform next, and what form of nagging/bitching at him is working best this century.

        3. avatar neiowa says:

          Larry in theory you’re correct. BUT even in the Western Front between WASP or WASP of WWI and WWII there very much was considerable hate for the enemy. Certainly for front line combat units. In the Eastern Front ot the Pacific burning hatred was near universal. But when convenient, a call for a medic/corpsman for an wounded enemy combatant frequently happened. Western civilizations with shared values.

          A thug in your home is an entirely different situation. Perhaps call 911 at a convenient moment. Let EMS bag ’em.

      2. avatar Junk Jones says:

        “Are you a combat medic?”

        What correlation exists between combat medic and morality?

        And why do I have to be a combat medic to notice the man crushing around here?

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Geoff’s point is that I have experience shooting people and with rendering aide, which is what RF’s question of the day was about. If, given the question, the value of that experience here remains elusive to you, I don’t think anyone can help you.

        2. avatar Junk Jones says:

          “Eliminate the threat. If not, you have a moral obligation to provide assistance”.

          Your advice is tripe. Entry level bullshit. Sorry, I’m not in blind awe of your combat experience. Unlike some of the ownership team.

        3. avatar joe3 says:

          You have proved yourself to be a stupid piece of white trash asshole a few times already. Why don’t you go fuck off and die somewhere else, ok, shit-for-brains?

    2. avatar kenneth says:

      Also keep it in mind that he is coming from the perspective of a combat medic. I’m sure that is exactly how he was trained. There is need for a system to teach soldiers what to do in general situations on the battlefield, and this ‘moral dilemma’ is a perfect example of this for a battlefield setting.
      Does it apply the same off the battlefield? I don’t think so. The situation has changed, and actions must change with it.

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      Junk – Stop being a Trump

  5. avatar Dr Brainwash says:

    Also, keep in mind I could see the perp sueing you for rendering “improper medical aid” or some bullshit if you are not “medically trained.”

    1. avatar MLee says:

      Most jurisdictions have good samaritan laws in place. For instance, let’s say you roll up on a vehicle collision and attempt to move someone and further injure them. You did so in good faith attempting to provide aid and are shielded by law. They are barred from trying to sue you by law.

      1. avatar Paul53 says:

        Common error. The good samaritan law DOES NOT stop people from suing you! It’s a law you use for your defense once somebody sues you.

        1. avatar MLee says:

          Laws differ in jurisdiction. Let’s make this is simple terms; it’s all about money. Lawyers want to make money. They take on case free of charge with the idea that in the end, there is a payday. They don’t chase cases they can’t win.
          Here is a short part of Washington States RCW on rendering aid. The key part in this and every law that uses the term (SHALL) is the key to this. BTW, I know anyone can sue anyone for anything. But no lawyer will take on a case when there is zero chance of prevailing.

          RCW 4.24.300 (1) Any person, including but not limited to a volunteer provider of emergency or medical services, who without compensation or the expectation of compensation renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency or who participates in transporting, not for compensation, therefrom an injured person or persons for emergency medical treatment shall not be liable for civil damages resulting from any act or omission in the rendering of such emergency care or in transporting such persons.

          For you folks less than educated on legal terms, SHALL NOT is the key term. THere is no hope in even getting a case to court let alone finding a lawyer to take it.

      2. avatar Jim says:

        No one is ever barred from suing you. “Good samaritan” is an affirmative defense, where applicable. Your attorney, whom you just paid most of your life savings to, must demonstrate to the court that you were acting as a good samaritan, during your trial, and if the court accepts that defense, then you are not held liable for your actions. Maybe. Also, good luck counter suing to recoup your attorneys fees.

        Either way, you are now broke and you really wish you thought twice about helping someone.

        1. avatar MLee says:

          @ Jim
          I dismiss your entire comment. See above.

      3. avatar Ralph says:

        Most jurisdictions have good samaritan laws in place.

        Yes, but some of those jurisdictions only protect trained rescuers, such as docs, nurses and EMTs. They offer no protection to untrained people who try to help. The scope of Good Samaritan Laws differ from state to state.

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          If the law only protects ‘trained rescuers’ then it is not a “Good Samaritan” law at all. GS laws are specifically meant for passersby.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          The point would be, find out what law in your state is. Not that hard. Go to bing.com (or if still on the evil empire’s training wheels go to google.com). You’ve read up on weapons laws in your state? Know something about trauma so you can self treat when the moron next to you at the range shoots you (or your loved one)?

          http://www.citylab.com/crime/2015/01/the-sorry-state-of-good-samaritan-laws/384793/

          the answer
          https://www.shrm.org/legalissues/stateandlocalresources/stateandlocalstatutesandregulations/documents/goodsamaritanlaws.pdf

      4. avatar Katy says:

        However, you are still held to the standard of care you have been trained to provide. Taylor may be held to a higher standard then the active medics with my department (don’t know what his training and experience levels are, but he should be more familiar with GSW), who are held to a higher standard than me as a former medic, who will be held to a higher standard than the ordinary person.

        Which is why I normally won’t stop – risk of being held to that standard under personal liability is not my cup of tea.

        Bringing it full circle to TTAG, per my understanding and training, if pulled over as an LTC holder I have a duty to disclose to TX LE if I am carrying. John Doe, as a non-holder does not have a duty to disclose. For coworkers who only want a car gun, especially in light of race relation issues and their travel routes, I usually suggest skipping the LTC. You want to only act, train, or certify, in ways that minimize your legal liability.

      5. avatar CLarson says:

        This is why I love TTAG. Come for the guns; stay for the legal education. I did not know how perverse the good Samaritan laws were. How sad that they disincentivize people who might provide the best care from intervening. This probably explains the occasional stories I hear about uniformed but off duty EMTs who are loath to get involved in health emergencies.

        1. avatar Shocktastic says:

          Whether combat medic, volunteer EMT, ER doc, or registered nurse, there ain’t much you can do out in off-duty land without your work gizmos. So you ventilated Jethro’s face & chest when he tried to shiv you…now what? Do you have a chest tube set-up in your trunk? A tracheostomy kit? The perverse logic of court/lawyer land is you have duty to act if you carry EMT gizmos in your trunk and know how to use them. Otherwise you just maintain c-spine precautions after your scene survey and perform CPR when Jethro codes.

      6. avatar kenneth says:

        You might add to this that when you yourself caused said injury in the first place, any jury or judge is likely to reject the “Good Samaritan” defense, which is generally for either passersby or first responders.

        1. avatar Paul53 says:

          A wise answer. Not a lot of wisdom going around here today.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      I doubt that. Good Samaritan laws cover you, as long as you don’t do something utterly preposterous in the course of treating someone, like administering some kind of voodoo medicine, or even your own prescription meds, for that matter.

      Don’t try anything you’re obviously not qualified to attempt, either, like hacking them open and performing surgery, and you’ll be clear of liability for treating someone.

      If they’re conscious, it’s best to ask their consent to administer 1st aid, though. If they’re a minor and a parent is there, ask the parent. Now, not too many spree shooters go do so with their parents around, but maybe it could happen in a school while they’re there?

      Still, in any first aid event with a stranger, attempting to get consent is a good move. It’s another layer of insulation against liability. It also helps prevent misunderstandings that you’re trying to rob or otherwise harm that person.

      1. avatar Jim says:

        You doubt reality. OK. Cool. Please feel free to ignore the facts as you see fit. It’s a free country.

        There is a law in this country that says no one can sue a gun manufacturer for the actions of a criminal using their product. That hasn’t prevented Bushmaster from paying millions in legal costs while they defend themselves from an ongoing lawsuit alleging their liability in the Newtown shootings. But there’s a law that prevents them from being sued.

        Do you think Joe Blow the Good Samaritan is more protected from a lawsuit? He is not. No one is protected from lawsuit by legal code in this country. It is simply an established defense that your attorney may use in your defense, at trial.

        Hopefully, the other party’s attorney will advise them that the suit is unlikely to succeed due to Good Samaritan being applicable, and they decide not to sue you. But what attorney is really going to throw away perfectly good billable hours like that?

        1. avatar Katy says:

          Most of those PI cases will be taken on contingency. When you are that unlikely to collect and don’t have an insurance agency willing to settle (maybe we need mandatory insurance for all firearm owners _and_ Samaritans), the unlikely payout isn’t going to be worth the hassle.

  6. avatar MLee says:

    Depends if he had directed profanity at me. For-instance, saying “give me your fu— money” as opposed to “excuse me, sorry to inconvenience you, but if you would please hand over any available money to me, I’d be appreciative”
    See, one request gets you shot, then maybe shot again, and then maybe spit on with no f—-s given. The other gets him emergency aid, a remorseful apology for nasty .40 hollow-point wound(s) and flowers sent to his hospital room.

  7. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    when are they “no longer a threat” ?

    I used lethal force to stop a threat of death of grievous bodily harm. If I close with that person to provide aid I’m exposing myself to the risk of further attack. “Help me, help me!” followed by an unconscious slump. But are they truly unconscious, or just playing possum to draw me in for a gun takeaway, a sucker punch, or an edged-weapon attack?

    I’m a healthcare professional. About the only way I can see clear to help a person in this instance would be if law enforcement arrived on scene, secured the individual, and then I would render aid in a more controlled, safer environment. Might they die before that occurred? Yes – but I did not create the situation, they did.

    I do feel a moral and ethical obligation to provide care for the sick and injured, but just as I would not treat someone with a highly contagious disease without taking adequate protective precautions, I would not treat someone who moments before was trying to kill me without taking adequate protective precautions.

    1. avatar Jack Crow says:

      This. 1000x this.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Good points. Plus, you never know whether they have a partner. If they’re a terrorist, their body could be booby trapped.

    3. avatar Bernard says:

      Yup, that person might have a bomb strapped or a bloodborne disease like HIV or something. Call 911, let law enforcement/bomb squad handle it first, then a qualified medical professional can help.

    4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      TheOtherDavid,

      By far and away the best and most comprehensive response that I can imagine for the question of this article.

    5. avatar Sian says:

      “when are they “no longer a threat” ?”

      Post-anchor shot, at which point emergency medical aid is kind of moot.

      Otherwise, I’m leaving it to the professionals.

    6. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “But are they truly unconscious, or just playing possum”

      I think the best way to tell is shoot him 3-4 more times, see if he complains.

    7. avatar jwtaylor says:

      ” I would not treat someone who moments before was trying to kill me without taking adequate protective precautions.”
      That begs the question, with adequate protective precautions, would you treat your assailant? You get to define what is adequate for your own safety. You may define that differently than me, which is completely reasonable. But if you are saying that you would treat your assailant after taking adequate protective precautions, then we are at the same place.

      1. avatar The Other David says:

        Bingo – yes, if adequately protected, however we want to define that, then I would have no issues providing medical aid to that person. My aim is to stop the threat, not to punish or kill them.

        Thank you for your service and for the ongoing knowledge, information, and food for thought you provide here.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          And thank you, Sir, for a well thought out, polite, and rational discussion.

    8. avatar Chief Master says:

      I couldn’t have said it any better. I think this is the proper perspective to have when dealing with someone who just threatened your life.

  8. avatar Publius says:

    If you save the life of a violent criminal and they hurt anyone else in the future, that blood is on your hands.

    1. avatar Dr Brainwash says:

      Well put.

    2. avatar Anthony says:

      “If you save the life of a violent criminal and they hurt anyone else in the future, that blood is on your hands.”

      Absolutely not true. The only person responsible for the criminal’s actions is the criminal is the criminal.

      1. avatar Publius says:

        And they wouldn’t be alive to hurt people in the future if some idiot didn’t save them. Both people are responsible for their actions and no one would be hurt if someone didn’t save their life.

    3. avatar Chief Master says:

      So…what do you think a nurse should do when an injured criminal comes into the ER?

      1. avatar Paul53 says:

        I do everything I can to save his useless carcass so that he can spend years in the gray bar hotel with a room mate named Baba. Let God decide if he lives or dies. I’m just the mechanic. And yes, I’ve worked in a Prison, so before anybody starts telling me about prisons, I got that T-shirt.

  9. avatar jwm says:

    I will call 911 and then monitor him from a defensive stance until aid arrives. JWT is used to operating as part of a unit. His back will be covered by his buddies while he’s distracted administering aid.

    We potg don’t have that luxury in a dgu. Being distracted rendering aid can open you to further attacks by any partners in crime.

    1. avatar JohnS says:

      I _am_ medically trained, and I’d do exactly the same.

      I believe in allowing people to make their own choices. Choose armed criminal action, choose the risks the job brings.

    2. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Why monitor him? Why not just leave? Why stay to watch the assailant if you are just going to watch them die?
      And jwm, my entire team was often not much more than a squad, and sometimes only 4 men. I was often working alone with only other Afghans, few of whom I had any idea who they were.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        I live in CA, JWT. The only place I can legally carry, unless I’m hunting or fishing, is my home. I’m not leaving my home after a dgu til the cops arrive. I could well be screening my grand daughters, wife and daughter.

        As thin as your support was, and it was thin, you had some.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          jwm, great point, but now we are talking tactics. If I was targeted in my home, as soon as I can, and probably after a shitton of .458SOCOM rounds have been deposited into a meat sack, I’m leaving that area. I was targeted there. I’m gathering the family and leaving the target area.

        2. avatar billy.hill says:

          Why leave? You have a distinct advantage of knowing the terrain. clearing an unfamiliar house room to room will not go easy for them (what home intruder knows how to properly rooms?). You have no idea of where the threat will be on any egress route you take which will probably be covering a open area with little means of cover or concealment (most suburban homes). why not go to a basement (most people will clear up before down) and tell 911 thats where you are and stay put. My basement has 2 entry/exit points, one to the first floor and 1 directly to the outside which is through a locked door and up concrete stairs through a set of bilco doors. Anyone trying to come down either of those fatal funnels without iding themselves would not be leaving upright.

          unless they burn the house down medieval style around you and that point I think you need to evaluate who you made mad…

  10. avatar Vhyrus says:

    If I can do it without putting myself at risk, I’ll give it a shot. I’m not sure what scenario that would be, though. Maybe if I had someone else covering me I could do it, or if I had a big guy with me to sit on the dude’s arms while I work. That’s about it.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      I’m with you on that.

      The thing is, if I need to use a gun, I doubt there will be many other people around I could trust…

    2. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      Seems impossible. You’ve got to put down or holster your gun, come in grabbing range of the perp. If I shot someone, it’s because I thought they were a credible threat to my life. I’m not going close to them. The cops and paramedics and make that call when they get there.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Esqueeze me? You’ll “give it a shot”? Didn’t you already do that?

    4. avatar Paul53 says:

      Points for acknowledging “scenario.” All these comments are coming from people imagining different scenarios. The first rule of first aid is to never make yourself a victim. As JWT points out, and as I was taught in the prison system, NEVER SHOOT TO KILL! You shoot TO STOP THE THREAT! If you ever say you wanted to kill the bad guy, you are screwed. Never, no matter how the police and lawyers word it, say you intended to kill. You shot to STOP THE THREAT! and never budge from that. It’ll keep your asterisk out of jail. If I’m in danger, I shoot to stop the threat, then I stop shooting. If the dirt bag decides to die, well that was his choice not my intent.

  11. avatar River Walker says:

    BS. Same reason cops don’t treat BGs who they shot. Discussion over.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      I don’t know where you are, but in Texas, yes, law enforcement is required to render aide, if the scene is safe.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Treated by a cop or THE cop? Big difference.

        How much EMS training to the cops in Tx have? Carry a trauma bag on them.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          neiowa, in Texas, yes, The actual officer that shot the assailant would be legally required to render aide, IF the scene was safe. The amount of medical training and equipment varies widely between the forces. Some have nothing at all, some require EMT level certifications.

  12. avatar john thomas says:

    Respectfully to Former Combat Medic John Wayne Taylor, go and do as your conscience directs you. As for me, I have no moral obligation to render life saving aid to my own would-be murderer.

  13. avatar George in NC says:

    Someone who is dangerous enough that I am forced to shoot him is someone I never want to deal with again. Not in six months when he gets out of the hospital. Not in ten years when he gets out of prison.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      not in 14 months when he gets early release due to some liberal lawmaker policy

      FTFY

  14. avatar Geoff PR says:

    I’m not qualified to determine if they aren’t a threat anymore.

    They might have a knife or other weapon, and I am damn sure not inclined to risk myself to search them.

    I’ll notify LE and request an ambulance, then I’ll step back and keep the attacker covered untill the professional responders arrive…

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “I’ll notify LE and request an ambulance”

      Me, too, if I believe I may have some manner of witnesses or cameras trained on me. Otherwise, I’ll probably fear he has accomplices, and simply leave.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        “Otherwise, I’ll probably fear he has accomplices, and simply leave.”
        This is one of the only 2 moral options you have in this scenario and there are very few times it is not the right one.

    2. avatar Paul53 says:

      I like your way of thinking. If you want, you might throw a bandaid his way just for argument sake.

    3. avatar Defens says:

      Bingo! Correct answer. You’ve fulfilled any “moral” obligations you might have, as well as made proper notification of a shooting. Your time now should be spent in watching your own back to make sure the perps homies aren’t going to sneak up and beat your ass, and calming yourself down so you can properly inform the arriving LEO that you’ll be happy to cooperate in the investigation, when you have legal representation.

      I, for one, do not want to be trying to stem blood flow from some perp without backup.

  15. avatar HandyDan says:

    I have pondered this, and have come to the conclusion that some idiot prosecutor could say that me rendering aid to my attacker could mean that I did not mean to shoot him (or her, I guess, but probably him)
    I would definitely render aid to any other nonviolent victims in the area, and I carry medical supplies to this effect (and am trained in their use). Sorry to my attacker, but until the law catches up to reality, he/she is SOL.

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      I see a lot of these ‘accidental shooting’ arguments on gun forums, and I can only wonder: Wouldn’t an adequate defense to “you didn’t intend to shoot him!” be to get up on the stand and say “Why yes, I did in fact intend to shoot him, and I did!” Unless they have you on record saying something else, that seems like a pretty rock solid defense right there.

      1. avatar HandyDan says:

        I’m not sure what an actual court case looks like, but I don’t think it works like an interview. The prosecutor has their chance (hours or days depending on what they have) to say something and plant an idea in a juror’s mind, and human nature being what it is, effectively you have to prove that is false. It shouldn’t work that way, but when defending yourself you have to be pragmatic.
        Admittedly, most if my knowledge of courts comes from Law ad Order, and other tv/movies, so somebody with more knowledge of the process might chime in and correct me.

    2. avatar Paul53 says:

      “Intent.” The LEO’s and lawyers will try every way to get you to say what your “intent” was. The smart answer is “I shot to stop the threat” and never ever waver from that. Just one I shot to kill makes you the bad guy.

  16. avatar fiun dagner says:

    Absolutely. But be advised Force may be applied at approximately 1200 feet per second squared as needed until the bright red blood stops.

    1. avatar Chief Master says:

      I think you just mean feet per second.

      1. avatar MeRp says:

        Well, he did say force was being applied, not velocity, so he probably meant pounds (or slug ft/s^2) or Newtons (kg m/s^2) or, more ballistically appropriate – grain ft/s^2. 😉

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    I’d call 911 and tell them to send an ambulance. As far as tending to the guy who tried to kill me, not a chance.

    Besides, “Apply pressure until the bright red blood stops” implies that there’s only one hole and it isn’t between the BG’s eyes.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      True. However correct application would result in approx. 4 holes in center of mass and 2 in the noggin. Proper gun control negates this entire “issue”.

  18. avatar Paul53 says:

    After a self defense shooting it would be best to provise first aid to the limits of your training and knowledge. However it’s up to you to determine if you are in a physical and emotional state to do so correctly. If you are not a well trained healthcare pro, it’s easy to say you weren’t capable of providing corect care.

  19. avatar the ruester says:

    Throw him a tampon and pray he turns his life around if he survives. But do NOT close distance with a wounded, cornered criminal.

  20. avatar Erik says:

    If I’ve drawn my weapon and fired, there is no way I’m getting within arms reach while the criminal is not clearly dead, and if he is clearly dead, no point…

  21. avatar Jomo says:

    Sadly, in liberal Minnsota, I am required to render aid to the dude I just lit up with 9mm. It’s the law. You can be charged if you don’t, though I’m not sure of the penalty.

    1. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

      “Duty to assist. A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person. Reasonable assistance may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel. A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.”

      Did a quick search for the Minnesota statutes. Looks like you need to provide aid but the “do so without danger or peril to self or others” seems like the “get out of first aid free” card in the instance of a person who just tried to kill you. Simply asking someone to call 911 seems to meet the needs of the statute in any event.

      1. avatar Todd Spencer says:

        You can’t be sure he doesn’t have some bloodborne disease… I have to wear PPE when one of my students gets a nosebleed in my class and I damn sure don’t carry it with me when I leave school.

  22. avatar Gman says:

    Absolutely not. Having just survived a deadly attack I don’t plan on possibly subjecting myself to some unknown blood borne pathogen. Call 911

  23. avatar CLarson says:

    Captain Malcolm might disagree.

  24. avatar Table says:

    No, but I’d throw him a Jesus pamphlet that says “Accept Jesus as your lord and savior right now, ‘cus you’re about to die.”

  25. avatar Stinkeye says:

    Nice photo to post at lunchtime…

    As to the question, if I felt someone was enough of a threat that I had to shoot them, then as far as I’m concerned, they’re still a threat until they’re in handcuffs or “the bright red blood” has stopped on its own, if you get my drift.

    Being neither psychic nor telepathic, I am not qualified to determine that the person who was an imminent lethal danger just a few seconds ago is now so harmless that I can put my weapon away and get up close and personal with them.

  26. avatar Alphonse says:

    I wouldn’t feel a moral obligation, and the stars would have to be in alignment as far as feeling it’s safe to do so shortly after an attack. But yeah, generally I’d want to treat the assailent. It wouldn’t be a punitive thing, I wouldn’t want anyone to die or suffer beyond being subdued.

  27. avatar Hannibal says:

    No. When acting as a private citizen I am not taking chances with my own life like that. If I’ve had to shoot someone to stop them I am getting the hell out of there or, if I’m in my home, getting somewhere I can protect my family from the criminal’s best buddy who was waiting outside.

  28. WWTPD?

    I don’t think police have more rights than I do. They have more support (or at least used to). I like to rationalize DGU by thinking what would the police do. So in this case, after a cop aerated a perp, would he administer first aid? If you call handcuffing him and stepping on his neck first aid then, yes, he would.

  29. avatar The guy says:

    No. First of all the person could still attack me as I was trying to help. Second, if the person died the prosecution might try to make a case that my attempted aid made the situation worse since I’m not a trained medical professional.

  30. avatar H says:

    You might be too busy guarding the perp and transitioning to not getting shot by the police when they arrive. 🙂

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Right. The primo plan seems to be to go home and wait for the police to arrive. If they don’t, oh well.

  31. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    “But if they’re no longer a threat you have a moral obligation to treat them.”

    Complete Horseshit. There is no moral obligation. All life is not precious. The commandment is “Thou Shalt not Murder”which in a defensive gun use, clears anyone of any moral obligation because a defensive killing is morally just. Just ask God.

    JWT’s moral compass needs some re calibration

    1. avatar Paul53 says:

      Actually he’s spot on. Once the threat is gone, as a combat medic, in court he’ll be held to a high standard to provide care for injuries he’s trained and experienced with treating. Like me, the only limit will bethe supplies at hand and the limits from your own injuries. I as a former Paramedic and trauma nurse covering over 3 decades would be judged by a high standard of care. If you’ve never had first aid training of any kind, providing a bandaid might satisfy the jury. There’s a good deal of knee jerk responses in this thread. Shame that if you find yourself in court that will come back to bite you in the asterisk.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        That guy wasn’t me.

    2. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Mack, being told my moral compass is off by you is a compliment. Congratulations for one post without saying something overtly racist. Let’s make a sign and count the days.

    3. avatar Martin B says:

      Aah, but that argument only holds up until sunrise. Exodus 22:2.

  32. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Would I treat my assailant? Sure. I’d treat him to an ounce or two of lead. My treat.

  33. avatar Nynemillameetuh says:

    The perpetrator may still pose a threat and/or have a weapon the defender missed in his initial observation or patdown. It’s not worth the risk. Playing doctor with a bleeding attacker also opens one up to new legal liabilities. Just call 911 from a safe distance.

    Which moral framework obliges the citizen that defends himself to render aid unto an attacker? Why should those “moral obligations” you hint at override survival values? Why are these “morals” superior to a normal, human morals about self-defense?

  34. avatar billy-bob says:

    After 2 in the chest and 1 in the head, any treatment provided should be taken care of at the funeral home.

  35. avatar lew says:

    I would dig out the bullet and analyse the expansion properties and wound cavity……and call it “first aid”.

  36. avatar Justin says:

    In the case of a defensive firearm use I’ve already opened myself up to liability but neutralizing the threat, if not by the perp then by the next of kin. I would not open myself up to more liability by administering aid to the perp. I dropped my EMT basic cert for the same reason. I’ve been named in a lawsuit before and if it goes to trial then you are going to pay someone if not the plaintiff than your lawyer.

    I’d let the 911 operator know an ambulance is needed for a GSW but that’s about it unless asked.

  37. avatar Jp says:

    While I agree that there is a possibility of further violence if you try to render aid to your attacker, people generally lose the will to fight after getting a hole punched in them.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      “Generally” is a dangerous word along with “usually” and “in my experience.”

  38. avatar achmed says:

    You would have a moral obligation to treat. My concern would be that treating the perp might be interpreted as undermining my reasons for shooting him in the first place or allow the wrong prosecutor to argue that somehow I felt bad, etc. Placing multiple shots center mass or in CNS should make it moot.

  39. Wouldn’t that be considered tampering with evidence?

  40. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Call 911.

    Tell them you were attached and you shot the attacker.

    Keep an eye on their weapon so that one of their friends cant gank you.

    Just one scenario but Im not putting myself or others at risk by lowering my defense to be blindsided as i try to help my attacker.

    What if it were multiple assailants? What if your family was with you? The list is unlimited.

  41. avatar 2AMexican says:

    Treating a headshot is kinda pointless. I’d be more worried about carpet staining.

  42. avatar NJGunGuy says:

    Nope.

  43. avatar pod says:

    Florida seems to require that you attempt to render aid, as well.

    http://folioweekly.com/Hot-Bullets-Cold-Truth,5556

  44. avatar Neopath says:

    So while you are bent over trying to save the life of a guy you just shot (who wanted you dead), his homies or family come and shoot you. No thanks. In the urban environment, the entire situation is hostile until the police arrive and secure it.

  45. avatar Chris Morton says:

    I have NO duty, NONE, legal or moral to render ANY aid to an assailant apart from dialing 911.

    1. I’m getting no closer to my assailant than is necessary to kick a weapon out of his reach.
    2. I’m neither a doctor nor a paramedic. My last medical training was in IOBC.
    3. In Ohio, if it’s a good shoot, he can sue me all day… but can’t recover a PENNY. Why would I want to expose myself to a lawsuit for having [unnecessarily] rendered incompetent medical assistance?

    I’ll call 911 to report the shooting and any casualties. Beyond that, my involvement is over.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “I have NO duty, NONE, legal or moral to render ANY aid to an assailant apart from dialing 911”

      When you think about it, that goes for a person who has NOT assaulted you and been shot for it, as well.

  46. avatar HP says:

    Negative. Handcuff him (if you have some) and wait for the paramedics to arrive.

  47. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    As a former paramedic, I’d hate for that fact alone to come back to bite me if I didn’t render first aid. That and the first aid kit I carry.
    I would also feel morally obligated.
    I do have some first gen clotting agent that I understand burns like hell…

    1. avatar jwm says:

      A neck tourniquet will stop the bleeding.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        First rule of ACLS: All cardiac dysrhythmias eventually resolve.

      2. avatar Stoopid1 says:

        Agreed, a couple face stabs might also help.

  48. avatar Frederick R. Espinosa says:

    Guy just tried to kill you and they suggest getting in contact range?
    How about “No”, does “No” work for you?

  49. avatar notalima says:

    Absolutely.

    After I ensure he/she/it is no longer a threat. Cuffs applied first if I am in easy proximity to them.

  50. avatar signintoooften says:

    Quick! Perform Civil War Surgery to prevent gangrene.
    Chainsaw and frying pan.

  51. avatar Don says:

    Hell no. Wherever I am isn’t safe to stay just because I may (or may not) have stopped the first threat. If I’m not retreating between shots fired and when the next bad guy potentially shows up I’m not fearing for my life enough.

  52. avatar J0shua says:

    No one here wants to try and find out why they were attacked in the first place? Are there more attackers on the way? Did the attacker(s) target the right person in the first place? Is it just a mugging or are they attacking you for prior service? Maybe they are attacking you because you posted pics of your (in service) friend, relative Co-worker on facebook? Were they going to kidnap you or just take your shit?

  53. avatar jwtaylor says:

    The mental gymnastics some of you are attempting to justify watching someone die is exhausting.
    Remember, the question started with my advice of shoot until you stop the threat or leave. So any arguments about the possibility that there is still a threat is moot. If there is still a threat, shoot to stop the threat or leave. Those are your options. Hang out and wait to see what happens is not a responsible, or moral action. But what if…what if…no, shoot to stop the threat or leave.
    If you have determined that there is no threat, and for some reason you have chosen not to leave (which is a really bad choice), you have the moral obligation to render aide. Remember, the question RF asked presupposed that there was no longer a threat. Do you have a legal obligation? In Texas and many other states, yes, but I really don’t care. If legality is defining your moral actions you are in some real trouble.
    If you are not rendering aide because you are scared that they might come back and hurt you or someone else later, then the only responsible thing to is to execute them before calling 911.

    1. avatar Stoopid1 says:

      Yea, watching you flap away is causing global warming. Shut it.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        You don’t need to go all Trump on him.

    2. avatar schernobyl says:

      My wife’s an ICU nurse and trained me to do a lot of stuff unofficially. Now having those skills and being prepared to do those after the adrenaline dump and post shooting emotional fallout is a lot to ask of those who haven’t run a code, been a first responder or served on the battlefield.

      While i value life my first response is dialing 911. If as you say the threat is over maybe i can help. Or maybe i cover my wife and she helps. Or maybe I’m to busy dealing with the aftermath to give a crap about the person who decided to escalate to imminent threat level

    3. avatar Tal says:

      “The mental gymnastics some of you are attempting to justify____”

      This is a matter of perspective. Just like morality is subjective.

      Stop virtue signaling. It’s gross.

  54. avatar Cesare says:

    No, absolutely NO. The idea that an individual would want sympathy much less active medical care from an innocent civilian he just attacked is patently contemptible. If you start it, you don’t always get to say how it ends, ask the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere on that score.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      “The idea that an individual would want sympathy much less active medical care from an innocent civilian he just attacked is patently contemptible.”
      The likelihood of a conscious patient no longer being a threat is very very small.

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        What’s the likelihood of an unconscious patient regaining consciousness and attacking you while you’re distracted trying to tend his wounds? If the answer is non-zero, I’m not putting myself in that situation to save the life of someone who very recently was trying to hurt or kill me. I’ll happily cede the moral high ground to you on this one.

  55. avatar Tal says:

    Morality is subjective.

    IMO the only moral responsibility I have is to defend myself and my loved ones.

  56. avatar John says:

    No because I would feel partially responsible if my first aid led to him surviving and victimizing someone else when he got out of hospital/prison.

  57. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    Yeah, I would be very reluctant to help although I would _call_ for an ambulance.

  58. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    I’m calling the po-leece…and that’s it. I may say a prayer for his/her soul but I am NOT a medic and don’t want to be sued-or worse.

  59. avatar billy rohe says:

    Dead men tell no tales. I don’t need “Dindu Nuffin” testifying against me in court, criminally OR civilly.

  60. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Hell no. If I had to shoot someone to protect myself or mine.
    Let them bleed where they lie.

  61. avatar Paul53 says:

    But it’s so easy to do the minimum if you don’t keep trauma supplies around the house. Pull some corks out of the wine bottles in the corner and shove them in the holes you just made. GSW’s are really dirty anyway, so your not worried about the infection that he needs to live long enought to worry about! JUST KIDDING.

  62. avatar Icabod says:

    I’d call 911.
    1. Really would be having the shakes after the shooting.
    2. Good DFGU. Why then go over there and have someone think I’m continuing the hurt?
    3. I don’t know if this is the only attacker, or what happens when his family shows up.
    4, when seconds matter call 911. The police and medical help is nly minutes away. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
    5. Good Samaritan laws protect you if you choose to render aid. They do not require you to render aid.

  63. avatar Will P says:

    There is no treating that guy very likely. That GSW was at muzzle flash point blank distance, hence the burns and blackening around the entrance wound. But even though I’m a paramedic and it’s my job to treat people when my adrenaline is through the roof on a daily I still don’t know that I could treat someone that literally just attacked/threatened me. I have done it hundreds of times with people that attacked others but I had no emotional involvement in thier turmoil.

  64. avatar Philthegardner says:

    I would apply a tourniquet to his neck in order to stop the bleeding made by the hole in his forehead, yes.

  65. avatar Patriot says:

    Dead men tell no tales, waste that fucker.

  66. avatar Watts' Twat says:

    Anyone who acted in a manner that results in me busting a cap in his ass can bleed out in the street. Hell it wouldn’t be the first time I watched as someone grew ever closer to taking their last breath after being shot. The fact is the 45 minutes I watched a crack dealer ooze the liquid necessary to continue his life of crime after he was shot twice in the upper thigh (which expanded exponentially with each passing minute) while slinging crack near our shop and crawled under our fence to escape his assailant was one of the most memorable experiences of my life. Oh and some may ask “where does it take 45 minutes for police and EMS to arrive ‘on scene’?” Why it’s in NYC’s Borough of Staten Island when both the NYPD and EMS were in the middle of the midnight shift change. Yep I’m a cold-hearted bastard alright, best not give me cause to put 5-in-your-10 ring.

  67. avatar Will Drider says:

    If you shoot a BG, there is no moral or legal obligation to be a Good Samaritan and render First Aid. It may look good on the Police report, in front of the DA or Grand Jury though. Do call 911 and exercise due caution wjth what you say.

    Staay away even if BG is shot in an extremity and down with his weapon 10 feet from him. Does he have another weapon? If he faking extent of injury to draw you in? What makes it benificial to you the put yourself and your weapon in close proximity to someone that was just a major therat to you. A fools errand.

  68. avatar ozzallos says:

    “When seconds help, life saving medical help is minutes away.”
    See? Works both ways 🙂

  69. avatar The Dude Abides says:

    95% of the people shot with handguns survive. So you’ll all be standing there watching someone *not* bleed to death.

    1. avatar Herb says:

      Does that mean your wounded attacker can sue because you did nothing other than call 911 and wait for help to arrive?

  70. avatar Anonymous says:

    I’d treat my attacker as best I could after unreasonably concluding they were no longer a threat.

    After all, the goal is to end the threat/attack on me of grievous bodily harm, not end the life of the attacker.

  71. avatar Somebody says:

    JWT may feel an obligation to treat an enemy as a combat medic but that obligation, moral or otherwise, does not extend to me as a civilian if I have just had to use deadly force to defend my life.

    NO FREAKING WAY am I gonna get that close to the source of the threat. They’ll be held at gunpoint from a safe distance until the police and EMS can arrive to deal with them.

  72. avatar mike says:

    Cops dont try to treat people they shoot, they just cuff them and wait for paramedics, so I will follow their lead.

  73. avatar Priest of the center mass says:

    Jwt…….you must be thinking wtf? (thank for your service lad)
    What a conversation this turned out to be.
    I’ve seen others flamed for less in the way of responses here but found this entire discussion entertaining at least.
    Stop the threat ,secure your scene and call 911 as a former 12 b now civilian thats the extent of my arm chair key board response.
    But things are never this cut and dry, whatever the scene requires should be anyone’s mantra.what dgu scene isn’t a fluid situation?
    Thanks to all here who have served, despite our disagreements from time to time we are all brothers .

  74. avatar Priest of the center mass says:

    Jwt…….you must be thinking wtf? (thank for your service lad)
    What a conversation this turned out to be.
    I’ve seen others flamed for less in the way of responses here but found this entire discussion entertaining at least.I
    Stop the threat ,secure your scene and call 911 as a former 12 b now civilian thats the extent of my arm chair key board response.
    But things are never this cut and dry, whatever the scene requires should be anyone’s mantra.what dgu scene isn’t a fluid situation?
    Thanks to all here who have served, despite our disagreements from time to time we are all brothers .

  75. avatar ChrisL says:

    My opinion, since we’re talkin’ morals:

    -No obligation to help. The attacker lost all privilege of my consideration of him as someone worth aiding when he attacked me. People die all the time who don’t deserve to. If this guys dies, he certainly deserves it. No tears. World’s a better place.

    -Bad idea to help, for several reasons.
    1) Blood-born disease transmission is a HUGE risk, can you say “mucus membrane?” That’s your eyes, which you rub with your fingers all the time without being aware of it. And your mouth and nose, if he coughs/pukes/spits. Many blood borne diseases can enter you through a mucus membrane, and it’s not just AIDS you’re worried about. Their blood IS a threat to you. Staying away is the way to stop that threat.
    2) Getting into contact range of someone who has demonstrated that they mean to harm you is a bad idea. All they need is their hands. You can’t ever be confident that there’s “no chance” that they won’t become conscious. You stand off, remain vigilant for other threats, and to insure that they don’t once again become a threat, and wait for LE to arrive.

    This one is easy, don’t quite get all the “debate.” Help if you want, but I think it’s a stupid idea and the arguments that I “should” help don’t sway me at all.

    Again, my moral opinion. Not a legal opinion.

  76. avatar jlp says:

    On the show the Best Defense there was a shooting mentioned that went to court and could have gone either way towards the shooter. Because he did give aid the jury sympathized with him and he was not convicted of any crime although it was close.

  77. avatar Hannibal says:

    Chiefs represent their political bosses, not cops.

  78. avatar Chris says:

    Treat them to another dose of lead if they move, beyond that i’m not touching them.

    1. avatar Watts' Twat says:

      “Lead” the ultimate antibiotic, it cures ALL the ills of society

  79. avatar PKaban says:

    Three words: get legal advice.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Would You Treat Your Assailant? http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/05/robert-farago/desantis-gunhide-question-day-treat-assailant/" title="Email to a friend/colleague">
button to share via email