Defensive Carry banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have been reading through some of the older threads recently and I have a bit of a question.

How many people train for after the situation. I mean there is plenty of tactical/martial arts/weapon training going on. But what happens after the firefight? CPR? First Aid?

If I ever have to actually shoot a bad guy then I will shoot to kill. But if...and only if the situation permits it I also want to be able to render aid to anybody injured in the confrontation.

If not just for my own peace of mind but legally as well. If I only wind up wounding the bad guy and he bleeds to death waiting for an EMT I can easily see a legal battle in my future for 'Failure to render aid.'

Comments?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,468 Posts
I think this was discussed, in another thread. Bottom line (from an ex-metropolitan EMT's perspective) your duty is to yourself and yours. Rendering aid should be left to the pros,after the scene is cleared. Also, if you attempt aid, and fail, regardless of the shooting investigation's outcome, I guarantee, you'll lose your home, vehicle, anything of value to the civil suit that will come.

You're working on mindset, which is excellent. Here's a good link, you'll have to register to view:http://www.totalprotectioninteractive.com/forum/
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,004 Posts
I think it depends on the state. MI has a Good samaritian law. If you try to help someone , but fail or make it worse you are not liable. Now if you have training and certification, you need to perform to those standards.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,483 Posts
Sadly - our interference ''after the event'' - is in many cases not going to help us. Plus too we need to remember, we did not ask for the fight - the BG did and sad to say - he/she will have paid the price thru their choice and not ours.
If I ever have to actually shoot a bad guy then I will shoot to kill
I would here rephrase that. I do not think it is good to declare ''shoot to kill'' - even if that is the end result.

We have to remember at all times - we engage because we had no other options available and were in fear for our lives. We only shoot tho to stop a threat - we should not be entertaining a ''killing'' per se.

Semantics perhaps but - important I feel.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
143,583 Posts
Huge Difference

There is a huge difference between shooting to kill & shooting to stop an immediate violent threat.
Making a statement that you are shooting to kill would imply that you would continue to shoot even after the BG were no longer an immediate threat to your person. That's a big No No.
That WOULD get you into legal hot water since our goal is protect our lives & not ever to act as "on scene" judge, jury, & executioner.
You shoot until the Bad Guy Stops ~ if he then decides to die...or not...is between him & the devil. That is not your concern.
Do not render medical assistance to a wounded Bad Guy.
Request an ambulance at the same time you A.S.A.P. call to report the incident to 911/Police.
Always carry a cell phone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Semantics it might be, but in todays legal soceiety, semantics can be important.

Ok, shoot to stop ONLYand once those shots are fired the BG stays where they land until uniforms arrive to assist. I stand corrected.

Now back to my original thought, which I phrased poorly. I am more looking to find out how many people train in first aid/CPR as well as tactically. Leaving the BG out of the rescue efforts, what if you or a family member is wounded? I see lots of training where the BG is weilding a gun or knife and that leads to the fairly real possibility that you yourself might be wounded in the battle. Proper training tactically should minimize this chance, but that chance still exists.

-Rob72, I'll be checking out that forum. Thanks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,483 Posts
Chance - re others who may be injured - yes I think we should all have some basic ability to render first aid, prevention/reduction of blood loss probably being top of the list and CPR of course.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
143,583 Posts
Semantics For Sure

Very important semantics these days & you are 100% correct about that.

To answer your question regarding myself ~ I have basic survival First Aide training & the usual CPR added to a bit of "informal smarts" concerning Emergency GS & Knife Wounds.
Probably enough to hopefully keep myself or an innocent or family member "ticking" until the real help arrives....if it arrives quickly.
I do have a fairly decent First Aide pack in the trunk...I am not highly trained and I (for sure) am no Paramedic.
I honestly wish that I knew more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
CPR and general first aid training is never a bad thing to have...but in the unwanted case of having to shoot a criminal in self-defense or defense of others, such training would emphatically NOT go toward the perp I just shot. Their actions determined their fate, not mine. If they feel I should render aid to their sucking chest wound...too bad! They should have though of that before initiating a violent encounter. I am not going to approach someone that could still be very willing and able to finish their attempt to kill me using hidden weapons. Nor am I going risk exposure to whatever pathogens that may be infecting their filthy bodies. I have had 'informal' training in First-aid and CPR in the Boy Scouts, High School health class, and the Marine Corps, but I am not officially certified and feel no moral obligation to try to save the life of someone who just tried to take mine. Make sure an ambulance is on the way (even if you just did a Mozambique Drill and forgot that the first two are were supposed to be to the chest :rolleyes: ) keep them covered until the cops and or EMT's show up, reholster when they do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,468 Posts
rocky said:
I think it depends on the state. MI has a Good samaritian law. If you try to help someone , but fail or make it worse you are not liable. Now if you have training and certification, you need to perform to those standards.
In a word, "Don't". If you were the shooter(you just negated the Good Samaritan exemption), you will then be in the position of proving, in both criminal and civil court, that your interventions (after the shooting) 1) did not, and 2) were not intended to, bring about the death of your assailant. Not an argument I would care to try to support, even given a sterling personal and professional reputation. Good Samaritan laws apply when you are a by-stander or passer-by; there is a material difference if you are a party to the event that causes a fatal or permanently crippling injury. If you are LE, your dept. may have guidelines for "off-duty" inciodents and what actions are appropriate and/or required. The armed civvie will have to play a bit closer to the vest.

To answer Chance's rephrased question: my experiences in healthcare have given me great personal security, on more than one occasion! Take an EMT-B class, and do some volunteer ride-alongs, if you can.:wave:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
I am trained in both CPR and Emergency First Aid. I do not know how a "Good Sam" law might or might not apply when trying to aid the BG you just "stopped."

But if it did apply, remember it only shields you from a "legal attack," it won't protect you from whatever the BG might do, if he is physically capable at that time.

Personally, I'd only approach the "stopped BG" to see if he still has any obvious access to any weapon, and/or to isolate whatever weapon might be there as "evidence," or available to a confederate or other "by-stander."

I would also caution anyone approaching the down guy to stay BACK, unless they were uniformed Paramedics, or convincingly identified themselves as such. In either event, I'd watch them like a hawk until the LEO showed up. At that point, safety and security falls into his hands and out of mine. But only at that point.

mm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
Oh, to get back on topic, self defense training of any kind, empty-handed or otherwise, is a good thing to have.

As long as said training is "street-practical" and not in the realm of producing a "dojo-ballerina."

mm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,563 Posts
I have a brown belt in two different styles, have dabbled in a few more, and I'm currently looking to get back into the non-firearm martial arts. There have only been two instructors out of the 25 years I have been involved that had a practical, street orientation. Having said all that, akido is probably the best defensive MA and muay thai the best offensive (based on what I have seen or experienced).

It is reassuring training to have when you cannot carry, or want a less than lethal response.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top