Rendering Aid

[Guest bkelm18]

^^^^^^ This is the single most important thing...INTENT

Shooting someone with the intent to kill is murder. There really is no way around that. Shooting someone with the intent of stopping a percieved threat is justifiable. The phrase "shoot to kill" suggests intent. Shooting to stop a threat isn't a "wink, wink and nod".... it is what it is; to stop a threat. It just so happens that it is acceptable to aim center mass in SD, which could result in death, but if the intent was to kill vs. stop then it is murder. Proving intent may not be so easy based on forensic evidence, but certainly expressing intent publically here would make a prosecuter's job very, very easy. I really hope for your sake that you don't have to use your weapon in a SD shoot because you'd be screwed.

Besides, your goal shouldn't be to kill. I'm not saying that you don't defend yourself, but when you say your goal is to kill the threat that suggests that you're doling out a punishment for home invasion rather than protecting yourself and your family. In your mind it may be simple as verbage, but in reality the verbage means everything.

Well, apparently you're a sissy if you're not shooting to kill according to some people.

[daddyo]

Stopping the threat is an inclusive term; it is irrespective of the outcome for the intruder. And as far as self-defense is concerned, it is the ONLY objective that is valid in the eyes of the law.

[Guest asaxton]

B - he may not be as incapacitated as you think. That is always when Freddy or Jason jump up to continue the killing spree in the movies. Horror movie 101. After he jumps up and kills me, he goes after the wife. Who inevitably falls down for no reason and twists/sprains her ankle in such a way that she cannot walk. Suddenly the score is intruder 2, homeowners 0.

Seriously, B is the only real answer here.

[JAB]

Well, apparently you're a sissy if you're not shooting to kill according to some people.

I don't know about 'sissy'. I mean, it would take a hell of a man (admittedly more man than me) to tickle fight some crowbar-wielding home invader into submission.

I mean...if guy breaks into your home and you feel that you are in imminent danger...and you want to tickle fight him...by all means. Go right ahead.

Edited February 2, 2012 by JAB

[Guest NYCrulesU]

I don't know about 'sissy'. I mean, it would take a hell of a man (admittedly more man than me) to tickle fight some crowbar-wielding home invader into submission.

lol Good one

[A.J. Holst]

Now that 911 has been called, you have to make a tough decision. It appears that douch bag connected with two of your rounds and they appear to be in the upper torso. He's bleeding all over your 3 week old carpet. It would be a safe bet he's some sort of junkie. So, what would you do?

"Honey, cover me, I'm going to slide him onto the tile floor in the kitchen and get the Resolve..."

Seriously, if I was 100% sure of a safe perimeter and felt the BG was not a threat, I would break out the first aid kit and apply bandages and pressure to the wounds.

[Guest nicemac]

Seriously, if I was 100% sure of a safe perimeter and felt the BG was not a threat, I would break out the first aid kit and apply bandages and pressure to the wounds.

And exactly how can you be 100% sure of those things? An accomplice could be hiding somewhere (even outside) and your BG could wake suddenly–with a rush of adrenaline. There is no way to be 100%. Let him lay there until professional help arrives.

[oldogy]

B. Keep covering him with your weapon. He could be faking it and waiting for an opportunity to escape.

This. oldogy

[Oh Shoot]

B. Keep covering him with your weapon. He could be faking it and waiting for an opportunity to escape.

This. oldogy

Guy fakes and escapes with 9 double naughts in COM, I'm letting him go!

- OS

Edited February 3, 2012 by OhShoot

[Pain103]

You have no obligation to render aid. If someone puts you in the position to use deadly force to protect your life or your loved ones' lives then they can wait for the emergency services to arrive. I'll say this if someone causes me to be in fear of my life to have to use my firearm they get handcuffed as normal and when the ambulance arrives they can do what they do best. If it happens at home they get covered until responding units arrive to take him in custody or for medical treatment then his free ride to jail.

[tnhawk]

The only attempt I would make at cpr for a wounded criminal, would be the previously made 45 cal breathing vents. If he's bleeding, his heart is working - cpr not needed.

[billyscott]

I read of a couple of cases lately where the bad guys wear bullet proof vests when they break in. What's the answer to that? You bend down to render aid, you open his jacket and you see Kevlar. Then you see his eyes open.

[Guest bkelm18]

I read of a couple of cases lately where the bad guys wear bullet proof vests when they break in. What's the answer to that? You bend down to render aid, you open his jacket and you see Kevlar. Then you see his eyes open.

The BG would have pretty big brass ones to "play dead" after having survived several gunshots. I think "fight or flight" would take over and he/she would cut his/her losses and GTFO.

[Guest JHansonLPN]

As an ER nurse myself, it would be hard for me to explain in court why I didn't immediantly administer aid...but. My families safety comes first. My plan is to escort my wife and kids next door to my in-laws and call 911 on the way across the yard.

[G27]

I'm not trained in first aid so I may do more harm than good.

And frankly, if I feel someone is dangerous enough to shoot, that (mixed with my lack of medical training) means I'm keeping my distance until trained folks can show up.

[TMF]

As an ER nurse myself, it would be hard for me to explain in court why I didn't immediantly administer aid...

No it wouldn't. Why does everyone believe that if they've had some kind of medical training or work in the health care field they are somehow obligated to provide immediate care for someone that was posing a deadly threat? If you shoot call 911 as soon as you reasonably can based on the situation.... problem solved, problem staying solved.

[Clod Stomper]

No it wouldn't. Why does everyone believe that if they've had some kind of medical training or work in the health care field they are somehow obligated to provide immediate care for someone that was posing a deadly threat? If you shoot call 911 as soon as you reasonably can based on the situation.... problem solved, problem staying solved.

Exactly. As stated in this thread, even EMS will wait until a LEO arrives to secure the scene. I've seen this firsthand. My Dad accidentally shot himself in the leg a couple years ago. As I was speeding home to try to help him, I passed the ambulance parked in my Grandmother's driveway, about a quarter mile away. I stopped to ask if they couldn't find the address. They told me that it was policy that they couldn't arrive on scene to a gunshot wound until law enforcement had secured the scene. It infuriated me at the time, though I understand the reason behind the policy.

Will

[tnhawk]

LEO have first aid training, but I don't remember hearing of them ever rendering aid to the criminal that a few seconds earlier has tried to take their life.

[Fallguy]

As an ER nurse myself, it would be hard for me to explain in court why I didn't immediantly administer aid...but. My families safety comes first. My plan is to escort my wife and kids next door to my in-laws and call 911 on the way across the yard.

It "might" be hard to explain yourself in the court of public opinon, but I doubt that even really.

But as far as legally goes, the law and all the policies from the Nursing Board are on your side as far as not rendering aid. This was dicussed, with laws and policies posted in another thread.

You have to first "accept" a patient-nurse relationship before you have any obligation to do anything.

Now if you start any aid and then quit without a good reason, that could be different.

[Fallguy]

No it wouldn't. Why does everyone believe that if they've had some kind of medical training or work in the health care field they are somehow obligated to provide immediate care for someone that was posing a deadly threat? If you shoot call 911 as soon as you reasonably can based on the situation.... problem solved, problem staying solved.

TV is the only reason I can think of.

[Makiaveli]

TV is the only reason I can think of.

My mom is a nurse and she always said she had an obligation to render aid. So maybe it was a law (or something they taught in school) back in the day. I am over 40 FTR so this could go way back.

[Fallguy]

My mom is a nurse and she always said she had an obligation to render aid. So maybe it was a law (or something they taught in school) back in the day. I am over 40 FTR so this could go way back.

My mother is also a nurse, she retired a few years ago after doing it for 40+ years.

I don't know about the past, but as of now and the recent past at least, there is no law or rule from the Board of Nursing that requires a nurse to give aid to anyone unless and until the accept them as a patient.

I do think someone said in another thread that some instructors have told students they have an obligation...but it is totally false.

[daddyo]

My mom is a nurse and she always said she had an obligation to render aid. So maybe it was a law (or something they taught in school) back in the day. I am over 40 FTR so this could go way back.

Dad was an MD back when people in the medical profession sported license plates with the medical symbol on their cars. He never put one of those on his car nor would he stop for an accident because he said the risk of being sued was too great.

[Makiaveli]

I do think someone said in another thread that some instructors have told students they have an obligation...but it is totally false.

I think this is where it came from. Some one made a offhand comment a 100+ years ago, and next thing you know it's being taught in schools.

Dad was an MD back when people in the medical profession sported license plates with the medical symbol on their cars. He never put one of those on his car nor would he stop for an accident because he said the risk of being sued was too great.

That was always a worry, but I remember several times growing up when we stopped because she wouldn't be able to live with herself wondering if someone died because she didn't stop.

[Fallguy]

I think this is where it came from. Some one made a offhand comment a 100+ years ago, and next thing you know it's being taught in schools.

Yep, sort of like not being able to carry in a commercial vehicle lol