So your gunshot incapacitated the perp, now what?

[JettaKnight]

Wow, at least half the people get this right. The other half need to learn how to use purple text. I'm surprised no one said get a pillow and suffocate the SOB.

You don't shoot to wound or kill, you shoot to stop an immediate threat. (If you wanted to shoot to kill, get some of those BB's loaded with ricin used by MI6 and KGB.) Once the threat is neutralized, you don't want to put yourself in jeopardy, but to callously ignore a dying person is unlawful and immoral (IMHO). I say, do the right thing, call a Bambilance and prepare for arrival of EMT and police (turn on exterior lights, etc.), physically and mentally while continuing to monitor the suspect (they occasionally get back up, or die and instantly become a zombie). You should have a mental checklist of what to do post shooting, right experts?

 

[swilk]

There's the difference. I would shoot with the intentions of stopping whatever the threat was.

If that kills them, so be it.

If it doesn't, as long as the threat is stopped, I have no need or further intention for them to die.

I hope to never be in that situation.

If I ever am I will come back and report exactly what happened ..... before, during and after. Promise.

 

[Shay]

Not touching him and not calling until he bleeds out....as long as there are no witnesses.

Did you really just write that?

 

[Hemingway]

You just de-escalated a serious threat by gaining distance and putting a BG down. You now want to re-escalate the potential injury by giving up that distance to approach a threat that still may be armed with more weapons?

I can tell you EXACTLY what an attorney will say at the civil trial if you are non-LEO and you render aid:

"You KNEW what you did was wrong, didn't you? And after you did it, you felt so bad for your actions, you went over and tried to make things right, didn't you, sir? You tried to undo the negative consequences of your unjustified actions, didn't you, sir? You can't think you are justified in shooting someone and ALSO feel you need to save his life."

or

"You testified that you HAD to shoot because he was so dangerous, but your actions seem to indicate that you weren't that scared of him. Not only did you approach him, you tried to HELP him. Do people generally help those they are terrified of and think should be killed???"

(I said non-LEO above because most LEO agencies have protocols that address this situation and they are covered by dept policy. As long as they adhere to policy, dept attorneys can cover them in a civil trial. As a non-LEO, no one's coming to help you in the civil trial.)

Get some "After the Fight" training to help with this. Even if no criminal charges are filed, the civil suit can be the worst part of your entire life. Which is why one of the things I always teach is that although you may be justified in shooting someone, do you ABSOLUTELY HAVE to.

 

[longbow]

I'll post a poll on INGO on what to do after calling 911.

My first aid skills are for family, I'd get a lecture in court for some of the things I am not trained, or certified for with a stranger.

Response time at my place is 8 to 14 minutes.....just saying.

 

[ATM]

I hope to never be in that situation...

My hope as well.

 

[BroodXI]

There should not be any need to render first-aid. I guess i could say a prayer maybe.

 

[hacksawfg]

Even if he dropped the gun, hopefully I could get the wife to call 911, because I sure as hell am not taking my eyes off the guy. I'm not approaching him at all, but I will let the perp know if he makes a move I deem threatening, I'm ending him.

Course, if your home defense weapon is a shotgun, that is all probably moot.

On a humorous note, you could always go the South Park route:

It's Coming Right For Us (Season 1, Episode 3) - Video Clips - South Park Studios

 

[JettaKnight]

Not touching him and not calling until he bleeds out....as long as there are no witnesses.

You do realize that post made on INGO has actually been used in a court of law, right?

 

[cordex]

I don't think I would. Not because I don't want him to pull through, but because disabling one attacker (if, in fact, he is disabled) does not mean the situation is over. There may be additional attackers I'm not aware of, or other situations that would require my attention to continue to prevent harm from befalling innocents (fire, gas leak, etc).

You can bet I'd be getting on the horn to 911 to send cops and medics ASAP, though.

 

[hacksawfg]

I don't know that I would leave it up to a jury to determine the fine line of self defense vs. murder. Certainly shoot to kill, but don't waste your time letting the police know either. Unless you live in the country, you may not be the only one who knows that there was gunfire in your house, and I would bet you don't want to have phone records that show you called 15 minutes after your neighbor did.

 

[swilk]

My hope as well.

I have given this some thought and decided I will not use the words "to kill" again as it applies to self defense.

 

[JettaKnight]

I have given this some thought and decided I will not use the words "to kill" again as it applies to self defense.

We're not killers here - we're defenders!

 

[NapalmFTW]

It's tricky. One doesn't know if the person has hepatitis, AIDS or some other disease. Even medical professionals glove-up these days. Most of us don't travel with surgical gloves on hand. Also, there's a limit to what an unlicensed person can do from a medical perspective. Say the shoot is justified and Indiana has a cannot sue law. If a person provides medical treatment and does something injurious, it may give the perp grounds to sue where he could not have otherwise.

Why not?

Supermarkets carry them for around $11 a box of 100+. It's too cheap not to keep some in your car, a pair in your pockets etc.

You carry a gun, so whats two gloves?

 

[Sylvain]

Why not?

Supermarkets carry them for around $11 a box of 100+. It's too cheap not to keep some in your car, a pair in your pockets etc.

You carry a gun, so whats two gloves?

+1

Gloves are great to have no even for first aid but for a bunch of other things too (one if you drop your gun in the toilets? ).
One pair of gloves take no room and no weight.I always have two sets of gloves in my jacket pocket with my trauma kit, so I can give a pair to someone else who could help.
I have a bunch of them in my EDC bag and in my first aid kit too.

 

[88E30M50]

I'm not touching him/her. There are issues with blood borne diseases to worry about as well as the issue of personal safety. It's not being hard hearted, it's just common sense. I am not a doctor and even if I could safely attend to the person, I am just as likely to do something wrong as I am to do it right.

 

[patience0830]

Keep shooting while yelling "STOP RESISTING!" Anything worth shooting is worth shooting 16 times.





(insert purple where needed)

Shoot him til HE knows he's dead. No first aid necessary. Seriously tho', If I'm in enough fear to shoot the perp in the first place it will prolly be a complete mag dump just from adrenaline. Nothing I own holds less than 8 rounds. Guess I should ask him before the shooting commences, "Would you prefer to be shot 8 times with a .45 or 17 times with a 9MM?"

If it's good enough for the Mossad dealing with terrorists, it's good enough for me.

 

[hoosierdoc]

There's been a few comments about contracting diseases from touching people who are bleeding. It's funny we feel that way but on spring break it's always game on with the drunk chicks. Anyway...

Your skin is a phenomenal protective barrier. You can dunk your hand into liquid nitrogen and grab something out and be just fine. Unless you have an open wound on the body part you get exposed blood (or CSF, depending on your shot placement) you are good to go. If you don't want to render aid, fine. But don't let the risk of contracting HIV, HepC, gonorrhea, or scabies stop you from holding pressure on a hole you poked in a guy. No, you didn't ask to be put in that position. No, he doesn't "deserve" your help. Yes, you will replay those 5 minutes while you sit there and watch him bleed the rest of your life if he dies.

Finally, to those opposed to contracting diseases, do you take the common cup at Communion?

 

[011101110111]

It's tricky. One doesn't know if the person has hepatitis, AIDS or some other disease. Even medical professionals glove-up these days. Most of us don't travel with surgical gloves on hand. Also, there's a limit to what an unlicensed person can do from a medical perspective. Say the shoot is justified and Indiana has a cannot sue law. If a person provides medical treatment and does something injurious, it may give the perp grounds to sue where he could not have otherwise.

Why not?

Why don't most of us carry surgical gloves around? Probably because it's not practical and many of us are not surgeons. I also don't carry suture kits, tourniquets or any of a host of other medical equipment. I do have tools and a small emergency kit in my car, but that's only good if something were to happen when I'm near it. However, I personally don't spend a whole lot of time in my car, and I can't see carrying surgical gloves with me while wearing a suit, or going to a meeting or even in the back pocket of a pair of jeans, in the off chance that I'm involved in an incident that requires me to perform medical treatment that I'm not licensed to administer in the first place.

Oh, and I don't know nothing about birthing no babies.

 

[HICKMAN]

no comment

everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

and this is now cached on the interwebs forever.