Rendering Aid

[Guest dubaholic2]

I would empty my .44 mag that's on the night stand and then grab my pistol gripped 870 from under the bed. While my wife is has my 9mm and is on the phone with 911. After I know he's incapacitated, the wife and I would go into my 2 year old daughters room, console her, and wait for the police.

[RobertNashville]

Wow...a bit of discussion since my initial post.

I admit that making sure there is only "one" bad guy is important; however, I wasn't assuming any info not presented in the narrative.

I would also say that should I ever be put in a position to need to shoot an intruder in my home late at night/early morning, I'm probably going to keep shooting until I know for certain that the intruder is no longer a threat and assuming I have any decent aim at all, medical treatment will probably be a moot point.

Finally, whether someone would chose to give aid to the bad guy or not is totally up to you and your conscious...that said, and this is just my opinion of course, as some of you have mentioned not having medical training, etc....I would suggest that if one has decided to arm himself, especially for self-defense purposes, then being proficient with emergency medical care and having a real medical kit to treat gunshot wounds/serous injuries, is almost as important as being proficient with your firearm. Should any of us ever be unfortunate enough that we have to shoot someone there is a strong likelihood that someone will need medical attention...it could be your child...your spouse...the bad guy or YOU.

Edited February 4, 2012 by RobertNashville
correcting typing/spelling errors!

[TMF]

I wasn't attacking your way of handling the situation. Ive treated wounded enemy combatants before i don't see it as being that very different. You can prioritize things however you wish but watching people die in front of you isn't a whole lot of fun.

So have I, but I didn't lay a hand on the enemy until such time as the objective was secure. Up until that point the bastard gets to bleed while someone covers him. I have watched someone bleed to death because we didn't have adequate personnel to provide medical aid without dropping security... guess what? I sleep just fine when my head hits the pillow. He chose to fight and he lost.

With that in mind, my house isn't a combat zone. My wife isn't a trained soldier capable of providing adequate security while I perform first aid. My two children can't strong point the house to prevent the possibility of more bad guys (who knows if he's alone) from entering and finishing the job. I have no legal obligation to provide first aid, and any moral obligation to give life saving treatment is trumped by my duty to ensure the safety of my wife and kids. The second I drop security to render first aid I'm putting them at risk for the sake of my own conscience. He chose to victimize my family and he lost.

B. His medical care is the duty of the responding personnel.

[Guest msparks]

IMO, if the guys lives you are open to a legal suite, if he dies, you are open to a legal suite from that one person who cared about this ****bag. Rendering medical care could get you further into hot water, he dies it's your fault, he lives it's your fault.

If I were in the situation, I would have the wife call 911, then grab her gun while I scan the front and back door for any of his buddies.

Like someone else said most of the time an intruder especially one that is dressed for the occasion (in all black with their own weapon) didn't come alone.

Good thing about carpet is that it will hold the blood in a relative small area. In my house we have laminate, I would probably grab a towel to keep the blood from getting out of hand. Several gallons of blood can make a big ole mess.

[Guest Grubbah]

For me - A would be completely out of the question. I am not trained in medical assistance and I have zero desire to come into contact with any of this person's bodily fluids. There is no telling what he may or may not have and its not worth the risk. My number 1 goal is protecting myself and my wife, and contracting aids or some other nasty seems to go against that goal. Plus I dont want to have my head down and be unarmed when this punk's buddy comes around the corner. I'll hire someone to clean up whatever mess is left behind.

I would go with B, while keeping my guard up against any other potential threat. As long as he is laying there motionless there's no reason to use any more force. But golly, if he moves he might just be going for a weapon, I cant tell what he has in his pockets. Since I feel threatened that he might be going for a weapon - I would ensure he stops moving once again...whatever that takes.

[Guest PapaB]

I've seen a guy shot 7 times in the torso by LE. At the time I worked in maximum security at a State Mental Institution. Officers on the scene said he lay on the ground bleeding and moaning. 3 officers that tried to give aid were sent to the emergency room with various injuries. 2 of them spent multiple days in the hospital. We had to take care of the perp while he recovered from his wounds and came down from the angel dust he'd taken.

In the op's senario, I don't get within 6 feet of the guy and 10 foot is preferred. For those that decided to give aid, I hope you survive your choice. imho, it's a foolish one. You just spent time protecting yourself and possibly others, don't undo your actions.

Edited February 1, 2012 by PapaB

[daddyo]

Good grief. I shoot to neutralize the threat, whether it's in my home or on the street. I don't shoot to kill. Anyone who has that mindset needs to stay as far away from guns as possible.

I won't try to stop the bleeding. The scumbag could have AIDS, hepatitis or some other blood borne pathogen that I don't want and I won't take that risk.

[Mike.357]

I have not read all the replies. Don't want to taint my response.

I am gonna call 911. Check the house for his buddies. Under no circumstance am i gonna offer aid.

[Guest nicemac]

If the scum broke into my house and is even moving I am justifyed in killing "it" , 2nd 3rd or whatever shot.

No, you are not. You are only justified in stopping "it." Once it stops, if you continue, you wind up in jail.

[Mike.357]

And as advised by the KCSO officer who taught my class, if you render "aid" and the criminal dies from your "aid" what do think may happen.

The guy obviously had no care for your safety, why would you try to save him after seeing fit to shoot him?

[wjh2657]

since my defense gun would likely be a 12 gauge pump alternating 00 buck and slugs, I'm guessing he won't be needing any aid

Glenn

HD is Mossberg 500A with #1 buck. Trained to fire two in quick succession on first and closest target. Wound will be far too extensive for me to help with. Major problem here will be buying new carpet.

[JAB]

Don't do anything like the pharmacist in Oklahoma who just had to go back and shoot the robber 5 more times and is now serving a life sentence for murder.

Unless I am mistaken, however, the case against the pharmacist wasn't proven by some uber-forensic expert. Instead, that pharmacist got into trouble because there were security cameras that showed the assailant he killed was pretty much lying motionless on the floor when the pharmacist finished him off. I'm not sure that forensics could have conclusively proven that the assailant was lying still at that point and not reaching for a weapon or something that might have been perceived as a weapon.

I agree that shooting an assailant after the assailant is no longer a threat is likely a bad decision. Of course, only the person who is in the situation at the time can judge if the assailant is still a threat or not. Whatever the case, basically executing the dude on camera is certainly not a good idea.

As for me, I live alone. I would not necessarily 'want' the guy to die but if such is the result of my stopping him from being a threat to me then so be it. I am not dropping my guard in order to render aid beyond calling 911. I am also not risking being exposed to disease nor do I feel the least inkling of a 'moral obligation', beyond calling 911, to aid some scumbag who would kill me without a second thought. Honestly, I don't understand why anyone would feel such a moral obligation (not criticizing - simply stating my point of view.) If the guy is moaning then there is a chance he is conscious and so getting too close could still be dangerous. I'd probably toss him an old bath towel and tell him to apply direct pressure until professional help arrives. Honestly, I have no real medical training and certainly am not a trauma surgeon. My HD weapons at hand are a 12 gauge loaded with 00 Buckshot and a .357 Magnum. Where I live, there are coyotes. I carry the .357 when I need to be outside after dark so I have it loaded to deal with a potential threat such as a rabid coyote or other potentially dangerous, wild animal (158 grain JSP) as I honestly consider that to be a more likely threat, if I am at home, than a human assailant. If I am forced to shoot an assailant and put two rounds from either of those firearms in his upper torso, I doubt that any level of basic first aid - or anything less than intravenous fluids and a trauma surgeon - would be of much help, anyhow.

Edited February 1, 2012 by JAB

[Guest NYCrulesU]

Shoot to neutralize, not to kill? Hope not to draw your name out of a hat for "battle buddy". Good grief.

If a threat presents itself to the point to where I am forced to draw and fire my weapon in defense of myself and/or my family...I sure as hell am not not shooting to wound, wing, slow down or deter the threat. I am not shooting to temporarily disable or momentarily delay the threat. I'm shooting to permanently stop the threat...today, tomorrow or any time ever again. If the word "kill" disturbs anyone around here...maybe you should go invest in some old school Laser Tag equipment and keep that handy for self defense.

If someone poses such a threat to my and my family's lives....to the point that it absolutely warrants the use of DEADLY force...then that is exactly what I am going to use. There will be no opportunity for retailation, no trial with "I don't know why he shot me, I was confused and lost ...boo-hoo I'm the victim".

If someone breaks into my home and poses a threat to the lives of my family....he/they have chosen to die. I will have no problem obliging them.

[daddyo]

Shoot to neutralize, not to kill?

Exactly. Any reputable firearms instructor who understands the law will tell you the exact same thing, and if you've been taught to shoot to kill, then I would seriously consider getting my money back.

I never said anything about having the intent to "wound, wing, slow down or deter". You're made quite a mental leap and construed what I said to mean something that it didn't. If the intruder dies, then he dies, and I won't regret what I did, which is to protect myself and my family. "Neutralize" may mean death for the intruder, but killing him is not my objective. I won't stand over him and "finish him off" if I determine that I have accomplished my goal of "neutralizing". Is that simple enough?

It is absolutely stupefying to me how many people don't seem to get that concept.

Let me say it again without reservation: ANYONE who fully intends to "shoot to kill" has no business owning firearms, period. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Edited February 1, 2012 by DaddyO

[Mike.357]

I would not say in an open forum that i am shooting to kill.

I will shoot to stop the threat of imminent fear for the lives of loved one's or myself.

If the bad guys dies then so be it, but i will not shoot to kill.

[Guest nicemac]

I would not say in an open forum that i am shooting to kill.

I will shoot to stop the threat of imminent fear for the lives of loved one's or myself.

If the bad guys dies then so be it, but i will not shoot to kill.

This.

[mikegideon]

I would not say in an open forum that i am shooting to kill.

I will shoot to stop the threat of imminent fear for the lives of loved one's or myself.

If the bad guys dies then so be it, but i will not shoot to kill.

Stopping and killing are exactly the same sight picture.

[daddyo]

Stopping and killing are exactly the same sight picture.

That's still a far cry from advocating standing over him and "finishing him off".

[Oh Shoot]

TN's "castle doctrine" is not a license to execute the perp.

Just an example, a perp drops to his knees with his hands in the air before you shoot, or after you shoot and wing him -- that doesn't give you the right to go ahead and terminate him.

Yes, it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you did, otherwise you have the presumption of justified shoot.

Far as forensics, it doesn't take a CSI genius to make some uncomfortable inferences from a point blank head shot, multiple close up torso shots, etc.

- OS

[mikegideon]

That's still a far cry from advocating standing over him and "finishing him off".

I agree 100%.

[Guest NYCrulesU]

TN's "castle doctrine" is not a license to execute the perp.

Just an example, a perp drops to his knees with his hands in the air before you shoot, or after you shoot and wing him -- that doesn't give you the right to go ahead and terminate him.

Yes, it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you did, otherwise you have the presumption of justified shoot.

Far as forensics, it doesn't take a CSI genius to make some uncomfortable inferences from a point blank head shot, multiple close up torso shots, etc.

- OS

We are really talking two different things. No one here is talking about executing someone. I'm clearly saying...IF I am forced to fire my weapon in defense of my or my family's lives....I will be shooting to kill. Some of you might be afraid to say it aloud...I'm not. It is not my intention to look to kill someone. But should I be put in a position to where I have to...so be it.

Common sense dictates that should you come down the stairs and see the intruder...and before you fire...he drops to his knees, prones himself out and effectively gives up...DUH?. Keep him covered and call 911. Or if he runs away...let him go and call 911. He's running AWAY. He is no longer posing an immediate threat to my or my family's lives. I'll stay alert until police arrive..I'm not chasing him and sure am not firing at a fleeing intruder. Would take a moron to do that.

I'm talking about a THREAT. An intruder with a knife/bat/crowbar/screwdriver/even empty handed... advancing towards you. I'm talking about where his intent is clear. Aim, fire. If he goes down and STAYS down... keep him covered while 911 is called. Should he not go down? Continue firing until he does go down and stays down and no longer poses a threat to me or mine.

I don't practice leg, arm, shoulder shots. I practice center mass shots that will inflict the most damage to the heart and lungs and if not on target will have a high likelihood to hit the liver, kidneys, intestines etc.

They are called "kill shots" for a reason.

By the sounds of some of the responses here I should go practice kneecapping intruders. God forbid I actually kill aomeone while defending my life or my family's lives. /sarcasm.

Edited February 1, 2012 by NYCrulesU

[daddyo]

We are really talking two different things. No one here is talking about executing someone. I'm clearly saying...IF I am forced to fire my weapon in defense of my or my family's lives....I will be shooting to kill. Some of you might be afraid to say it aloud...I'm not. It is not my intention to look to kill someone. But should I be put in a position to where I have to...so be it.

Common sense dictates that should you come down the stairs and see the intruder...and before you fire...he drops to his knees, prones himself out and effectively gives up...DUH?. Keep him covered and call 911.

I'm talking about a THREAT. An intruder with a knife/bat/crowbar/screwdriver/even empty handed... advancing towards you. I'm talking about where his intent is clear. Aim, fire. If he goes down and STAYS down... keep him covered while 911 is called. Should he not go down? Continue firing until he does go down and stays down and no longer poses a threat to me or mine.

I don't practice leg, arm, shoulder shots. I practice center mass shots that will inflict the most damage to the heart and lungs and if not on target will have a high likelihood to hit the liver, kidneys, intestines etc.

They are called "kill shots" for a reason.

You still don't get it.

[Guest NYCrulesU]

You still don't get it.

Clearly, either do you.

[daddyo]

Clearly, either do you.

No, I get the difference between stopping the threat and shooting to kill, and most people here seem to grasp that as well. You apparently do not. Not a single person here has advocated trying to stop someone by aiming for extremities, but you insist on making that strawman argument. Why is it that hard to get your head around the idea that stopping the threat doesn't always necessitate killing?

Are you that bullheaded?

[Guest pfries]

DaddyO has it, some of the above posts would seriously work against any defense you needed in an actual SD shooting. Just because the DA does not wish to prosecute does not mean that a family cannot try to dig up enough dirt and have an attorney present the findings to the DA to pursue the charges. You shoot to stop the threat period, no more and no less. Weather the perp lives or dies is irrelevant. Once there is not an immediate threat to life or serious bodily injury, you have lost your legal defense.

The fact that you live alone and no witnesses, well when that statement is found you are left with no witnesses to give merit to the fact that you did not just finish the perp off. At that point, the burden is on you to prove that you did not do just that.

I can hear it now

“As you can see the Defendant has clearly stated that he would murder anyone who dare broke into his home. He has, of his own accord made the statement that he would finish off someone and leave no witnesses. These are not the words of a man in fear, but of a man intent on taking a life in cold blood.”