If a badguy draws on you and you're in fear of your life, you draw and shoot badguy.
while he is rolling on he ground in a world of hurt from bullet wound.
Should you then leave the crime sceen and get the hell out of dodge, or escape to safe place & call cops,  
We all hope we're never in said issue, but what would you do while your heart is pumping 1mil X a min.
Would you be thinking stright?
These questions can go on and on, like if you stay and badguy has hidden backup friends.
I mean you never know

What do you do?????????????

thanks

Leaving the scene for reasons other than escaping an immediate secondary thread will definitely not cast you in a good light to the LEOs or a subsequent jury (should you be charged with anything).

First, one's personal safety takes precedence over all else. Everything else is secondary to that.
That said here is what I would do:

If the threat is down and no other immediate threats exist:

1. Remain on scene and call 911 (or call from nearest location and return to the scene)
2. Assist medically as best  you can. (Sounds absurd but it will pay off in the end should you be charges)
3. When LEOs arrive make only ONE statement: “I was in fear for my life and I was forced to defend myself."
4. Say absolutely nothing more until you contact a lawyer.
5. If in doubt, go to step 4......

If there is still a threat present:

1. Leave the scene immediately and get to nearby safety (Do not go home). Find the nearest safe place (Firehouse, Police Station, Gas Station, etc), and place the 911 call.
2. Be sure you clearly articulate to the 911 Operator that you left the scene only because there was still a threat present...(Remember! the phone is taped)
3. Await further instructions from the 911 operator as to what to do next.
4. When LEOs arrive, in addition to making the above mentioned statement, be sure to reemphasize the fact that you left the scene because there was still a threat present.
5. Say nothing more and call a lawyer.

The issue at hand here, unfortunately, is that we live in a litigious society. A society where overzealous District Attorneys, Sheriffs, and, to a lesser extent, some LEOs are looking to 'make their bones' via prosecuting a high profile case. And, depending on where the incident occurred (Liberal city/community), you may indeed be charged despite being in the right.

That said, not leaving the scene of the incident and providing medical care will be looked upon very favorable by the jury if it should ever go to trial. And the medical care rendered will be even more important in the inevitable civil suit.

Leaving the scene, however, will almost certainly seal your fate in the eyes of the law.
Sadly, the consequences of our actions can be worse than the threat that actually initiated said actions. What a wonderful world we live in.

I would *NOT* assist medically.  Unless you are a trained EMT all you will be doing is putting your own life further at risk.  Do you have latex gloves? how do you plan to deal with him if he suddenly attacks you while your trying to "help".  What if you get bit or he spits blood all over your face?

Saving my life and then getting some rotten disease trying to provide some sort of medical attention to the guy who just tried to kill you would suck.

The fact that you call 911 right away should be evidence enough of your intent.

To bring that point home read through a year or twos worth of "Armed Citizen" reports in american rifleman magazine.  How many provide medical assistence to the attacker?

Crystal clear explanation,
i will always remember Rule #3 
thanks guys

Nope... no medical assistance here as I'm not trained in that area.
In fact, I follow the rule of "If he's worthy of shooting once, he's worthy of shooting twice".

If it's dark out, the best thing to do is load his body into your car and go bury it in a field somewhere (NOT on your own property.)  

Totally depends on the situation.

If it's clear that he is, er was, the only threat. And he's been incapacitated, I'd stay.
If the original threat hasn't been, and can't be, neutralized, and/or there's a good possibility that there are other threats, I'd go.

Basically, I'd do whatever I need to do to save my ass, and the folks I'm with, and try to contact the police as quickly as possible.

My .02

Well if you get into a shootout and you hit your target, and don't get shot yourself, I'd say the first thing to do would be to get behind some cover and make sure he's not in any condition to fire on you again.

Then call 911 immediately, this is why you should be carrying a cell phone, tell them you've been attacked by a man with a gun and that you need an officer and medical attention at your location. 99% of the time the 911 operator will ask if you've been hurt, if you haven't been just say something along the line of "No but I had to draw my gun and I think I may have shot the guy attacking me."

Now might be a good time to slip in that you hold a CCW permit.

I don't know how close I'd want to get to the perp. but if he's clearly out of it you might want to move his gun out of his reach so he can't grab it and shoot you or anyone else walking up. Just be sure not to touch his gun with your hands. You don't want any of your prints on his gun.

Stay on the phone till the cops arrive. And, if you can, holster your weapon before they get there too.

No be prepared to get handcuffed, searched, relieved of your weapon and questioned about what happen.

-------

ETA: And KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT TILL YOU TALK TO YOUR LAWYER & THEN LET YOUR LAWYER TALK FOR YOU.  Even cops involved in shootings get at least a day to calm down and get their thoughts right about what happened.

This is exactly the reason why ALL CCW holders should have a lawyer who has experience with self-defense shootings. Instead of buying that pistol or upper receiver you have to have, spend that money for a consultation and keep his/her card next to your CCW permit in your wallet.

Sorry about that, Gents. I’m a former Paramedic so helping medically is second nature to me. I forgot that not everybody is a Medic. That said, what constitutes medical care for the layman? Even the token effort of simply placing a shirt, cloth, blanket etc. on the wound, or a shirt under the victim's head can be considered rendering care for the layman. The point here is to be able to show and articulate to a potential jury that you made even a small effort to help the victim. It will cast you in a much better light. You don't even, nor should you, have to touch him and possibly contaminate yourself.....



ETA: Just to expand on what AJ-IN-JAX said, LEOs aren’t specifically given time to compose themselves. Rather, immediately after being involved in a shooting, they go to the Emergency Room for 'emotional stress' or 'chest pain.' It would behoove you to follow their lead if need be. If you're being pressured for a statement, and for whatever reason your lawyer is not present/can't be reached, IMMEDIATELY indicate to them that you are in need of medical attention, be it chest pain, shortness of breath, hyperventilation, etc, and get transported to the ER. Any smart LEO would immediately stop interviewing you as any potentially incriminating statements you make can be attributed to being said under duress and/or under physical or mental hardship.

It depends if it was a good shoot and where you're at.

ETA: Just to expand on what AJ-IN-JAX said, LEOs aren’t specifically given time to compose themselves. Rather, immediately after being involved in a shooting, they go to the Emergency Room for 'emotional stress' or 'chest pain.' It would behoove you to follow their lead if need be. If you're being pressured for a statement, and for whatever reason your lawyer is not present/can't be reached, IMMEDIATELY indicate to them that you are in need of medical attention, be it chest pain, shortness of breath, hyperventilation, etc, and get transported to the ER. Any smart LEO would immediately stop interviewing you as any potentially incriminating statements you make can be attributed to being said under duress and/or under physical or mental hardship.

Excellent advice. That's exactly what the lawyer told us when I took my CCW class years ago.

Quoted: Sorry about that, Gents. I’m a former Paramedic so helping medically is second nature to me. I forgot that not everybody is a Medic. That said, what constitutes medical care for the layman? Even the token effort of simply placing a shirt, cloth, blanket etc. on the wound, or a shirt under the victim's head can be considered rendering care for the layman. The point here is to be able to show and articulate to a potential jury that you made even a small effort to help the victim. It will cast you in a much better light. You don't even, nor should you, have to touch him and possibly contaminate yourself..... ETA: Just to expand on what AJ-IN-JAX said, LEOs aren’t specifically given time to compose themselves. Rather, immediately after being involved in a shooting, they go to the Emergency Room for 'emotional stress' or 'chest pain.' It would behoove you to follow their lead if need be. If you're being pressured for a statement, and for whatever reason your lawyer is not present/can't be reached, IMMEDIATELY indicate to them that you are in need of medical attention, be it chest pain, shortness of breath, hyperventilation, etc, and get transported to the ER. Any smart LEO would immediately stop interviewing you as any potentially incriminating statements you make can be attributed to being said under duress and/or under physical or mental hardship.

The parameters for off-duty paramedics and EMT's involved in  self defense shootings are different than for an untrained civilian. If it is shown in court that you failed to act in treating the attacker, only as long as there is no present threat, your certification can be revoked and you can be sued if the assailant lives. Jail time is also a possibility. You can no longer be employed as a  FF or parmedic after that. The Good Samaritan act protects civilians, but doesn't apply to us paramedics or EMT's.  We have a duty to act and can be held negligible for not doing so. Something to keep in mind for those EMT's and paramedics who carry.

ChrisLe

I am wondering something. You being a former paramedic and all.
How conflicted are or aren’t you?

On one hand you dedicated a great part of your life to saving people. Maybe still do in other ways.
And you are in the carry issue forum on a pro gun website with close to 5K posts. This leads me to believe you are or will be a CCW holder and obviously prepared to take a life.

I have found that most people who dedicate themselves to helping people in the medical or religious areas are in no way going to be a gun advocate or CCW holder.
I can only use my small circle of friends and family to have come to this conclusion.
The Doctors and Church members I know personally are just not gun advocates in any way and would never even dream of carrying one. They don’t understand my thoughts on the subject at all.

I don’t know if there is really a question here more of a personal observation on my part.
It just caught me off guard you being the odd ball in my world anyway. No offence meant by the odd ball comment. But I am interested in your way of thinking. I gather this would be my question.


     

Sabrexr15

This hypothetical point has few answers.
If it were known that there were multiple attackers and you shot one then fled to safety then called 911 would be a correct choice.
If there was only a thought but no proof of multiple attackers then you just put yourself in a bad spot.
If you were being chased turned and shot then turned and kept running then stopped and called 911 after you realized you were no longer being chased then you would be ok.

In my opinion to try to help or aid the guy you just shot, medical knowledge or not is the wrong thing to do in any situation.
First off you need to control the entire situation from the start. Putting yourself head down and focused on the BG’S injuries leaves you open to further attack from many situations from BG’s to LEO’S.  

Let me tell you all something you need to learn and remember.
No matter what! If you shot someone there is nothing you can do after the fact that will put you in good light or favor.
The next thing to learn and remember is there is nothing short of a miracle you can do to save your ass in a civil trial. You will be paying the BG or the family of the dead BG a lot of money end of story.

Quoted: ChrisLe I am wondering something. You being a former paramedic and all. How conflicted are or aren’t you? On one hand you dedicated a great part of your life to saving people. Maybe still do in other ways. And you are in the carry issue forum on a pro gun website with close to 5K posts. This leads me to believe you are or will be a CCW holder and obviously prepared to take a life. I have found that most people who dedicate themselves to helping people in the medical or religious areas are in no way going to be a gun advocate or CCW holder. I can only use my small circle of friends and family to have come to this conclusion. The Doctors and Church members I know personally are just not gun advocates in any way and would never even dream of carrying one. They don’t understand my thoughts on the subject at all. I don’t know if there is really a question here more of a personal observation on my part. It just caught me off guard you being the odd ball in my world anyway. No offence meant by the odd ball comment. But I am interested in your way of thinking. I gather this would be my question.

As far as me, personally, two tours in Iraq took care of what little apprehension I potentially had insofar as whether or not I could take a human life. You would be surprised how quickly you're able to pull the trigger when your life or the life of a fellow Serviceman is in immediate danger.

As for EMS people in general, you would be surprised to hear that the overwhelming majority of those I worked with are pro 2nd amendment. This is primarily because, unlike the sheeple that think it could never happen to 'them,' EMTS and Paramedics are exposed to the real world on a daily basis. They are acutely aware of how cruel man can actually be, and know full well that what one reads in the paper is but an extremely small percentage of what really happens on a minute by minute basis.

They're also aware of the fact that, when it comes down to a life or death struggle, that the Police will not be there in time to protect you........As such, the vast majority of them are shooters and CCW holders. As to whether they would be conflicted if ever put in a shoot/no shoot situation, I would venture a guess and say that they're acutely aware of the consequences of what would happen if they didn't shoot.

Doctors, on the other hand, are overwhelmingly anti-2nd. Primarily because they're in a sheltered ER. Sheltered in the sense that they don't see all the circumstances behind the shootings and stabbings that we prepackage and bring to them. They only see a 'poor 18 y/o kid that was a victim of violence (i.e. shot)' whereas we see the same 18 y/o as what he really was, a drug dealer that got shot in a turf war. It’s all a matter of perception....When you see the naked world for what it really is you want to carry a gun each and every day.....

Quoted: The next thing to learn and remember is there is nothing short of a miracle you can do to save your ass in a civil trial. You will be paying the BG or the family of the dead BG a lot of money end of story.

May want to contact your state representatives and try and get a law like this passed. Ours goes into effect July 1st 2006. Line #92 deals with lawsuits.

H. B. No. 369 *HR03/R316* G1/2
06/HR03/R316
PAGE 1 (CJR\LH)
To: Judiciary A
MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION 2006
By: Representative Denny
HOUSE BILL NO. 369
1 AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 97-3-15, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO
2 DEFINE "DWELLING," TO CREATE A PRESUMPTION OF THE RIGHT TO USE
3 DEFENSIVE FORCE, TO SPECIFY WHEN NO DUTY TO RETREAT EXISTS, AND TO
4 PROVIDE IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION UNDER CERTAIN
5 CIRCUMSTANCES AS THEY RELATE TO JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE; AND FOR
6 RELATED PURPOSES.
7 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:
8 SECTION 1. Section 97-3-15, Mississippi Code of 1972, is
9 amended as follows:
10 97-3-15. (1) The killing of a human being by the act,
11 procurement, or omission of another shall be justifiable in the
12 following cases:
13 (a) When committed by public officers, or those acting
14 by their command in their aid and assistance, in obedience to any
15 judgment of a competent court;
16 (b) When necessarily committed by public officers, or
17 those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in
18 overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal
19 process, or to the discharge of any other legal duty;
20 (c) When necessarily committed by public officers, or
21 those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in
22 retaking any felon who has been rescued or has escaped;
23 (d) When necessarily committed by public officers, or
24 those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in
25 arresting any felon fleeing from justice;
26 (e) When committed by any person in resisting any
27 attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony
28 upon him, or upon or in any dwelling or in any occupied vehicle in
29 which such person shall be:
H. B. No. 369 *HR03/R316*
06/HR03/R316
PAGE 2 (CJR\LH)
30 (i) For purposes of this paragraph, "dwelling"
31 means a building or conveyance of any kind that has a roof over
32 it, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent,
33 mobile or immobile, including a tent, that is designed to be
34 occupied by people lodging therein at night, including any
35 attached porch;
36 (ii) A person who uses defensive force shall be
37 presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily
38 harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or upon his dwelling,
39 or against a vehicle in which he was, if the person against whom
40 the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and
41 forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a
42 dwelling or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was
43 attempting to remove another against the other person's will from
44 that dwelling or occupied vehicle, and the person who used
45 defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible
46 entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
47 This presumption shall not apply if the person against whom
48 defensive force was used has a right to be in or is a lawful
49 resident or owner of the dwelling or vehicle, or is the lawful
50 resident or owner of the dwelling or vehicle, or if the person who
51 uses defensive force is engaged in unlawful activity;
52 (f) When committed in the lawful defense of one's own
53 person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable
54 ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some
55 great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such
56 design being accomplished;
57 (g) When necessarily committed in attempting by lawful
58 ways and means to apprehend any person for any felony committed;
59 (h) When necessarily committed in lawfully suppressing
60 any riot or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
61 (2) As used in paragraphs (1)(c) and (1)(d) of this section,
62 the term "when necessarily committed" means that a public officer
H. B. No. 369 *HR03/R316*
06/HR03/R316
PAGE 3 (CJR\LH)
63 or a person acting by or at the officer's command, aid or
64 assistance is authorized to use such force as necessary in
65 securing and detaining the felon offender, overcoming the
66 offender's resistance, preventing the offender's escape,
67 recapturing the offender if the offender escapes or in protecting
68 himself or others from bodily harm; but such officer or person
69 shall not be authorized to resort to deadly or dangerous means
70 when to do so would be unreasonable under the circumstances. The
71 public officer or person acting by or at the officer's command may
72 act upon a reasonable apprehension of the surrounding
73 circumstances; however, such officer or person shall not use
74 excessive force or force that is greater than reasonably necessary
75 in securing and detaining the offender, overcoming the offender's
76 resistance, preventing the offender's escape, recapturing the
77 offender if the offender escapes or in protecting himself or
78 others from bodily harm.
79 (3) As used in paragraphs (1)(c) and (1)(d) of this section,
80 the term "felon" shall include an offender who has been convicted
81 of a felony and shall also include an offender who is in custody,
82 or whose custody is being sought, on a charge or for an offense
83 which is punishable, upon conviction, by death or confinement in
84 the Penitentiary.
85 (4) A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not
86 engaged in unlawful activity shall have no duty to retreat before
87 using deadly force under subsection (1)(e) or (1)(f) of this
88 section if the person is in a place where the person has a right
89 to be, and no finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the
90 person's failure to retreat as evidence that the person's use of
91 force was unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable.
92 (5) A person using deadly force in accordance with the
93 provisions of subsection (1)(e) or (1)(f) shall be immune from
94 criminal prosecution for the use of such force and shall be immune
95 from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the
H. B. No. 369 *HR03/R316*
06/HR03/R316
PAGE 4 (CJR\LH)
ST: Justifiable homicide; clarify the
definition of dwelling and when duty to retreat
does not exist.
96 use of force. The presumptions contained in subsection (1)(e) and
97 (1)(f) shall apply in civil cases in which self-defense is claimed
98 as a defense.
99 SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from
100 and after July 1, 2006.

Quoted: Quoted: Sorry about that, Gents. I’m a former Paramedic so helping medically is second nature to me. I forgot that not everybody is a Medic. That said, what constitutes medical care for the layman? Even the token effort of simply placing a shirt, cloth, blanket etc. on the wound, or a shirt under the victim's head can be considered rendering care for the layman. The point here is to be able to show and articulate to a potential jury that you made even a small effort to help the victim. It will cast you in a much better light. You don't even, nor should you, have to touch him and possibly contaminate yourself..... ETA: Just to expand on what AJ-IN-JAX said, LEOs aren’t specifically given time to compose themselves. Rather, immediately after being involved in a shooting, they go to the Emergency Room for 'emotional stress' or 'chest pain.' It would behoove you to follow their lead if need be. If you're being pressured for a statement, and for whatever reason your lawyer is not present/can't be reached, IMMEDIATELY indicate to them that you are in need of medical attention, be it chest pain, shortness of breath, hyperventilation, etc, and get transported to the ER. Any smart LEO would immediately stop interviewing you as any potentially incriminating statements you make can be attributed to being said under duress and/or under physical or mental hardship. The parameters for off-duty paramedics and EMT's involved in  self defense shootings are different than for an untrained civilian. If it is shown in court that you failed to act in treating the attacker, only as long as there is no present threat, your certification can be revoked and you can be sued if the assailant lives. Jail time is also a possibility. You can no longer be employed as a  FF or parmedic after that. The Good Samaritan act protects civilians, but doesn't apply to us paramedics or EMT's.  We have a duty to act and can be held negligible for not doing so. Something to keep in mind for those EMT's and paramedics who carry.

In actuality you do not have a duty to act when you're off duty (NYS). If that were the case you would be required to stop for every accident, drunk on the street, fire, fight, etc., and State health Departments have ruled that to be an unreasonable request to ask of a Medic or EMT, and courts have agreed. I have never in 20 yrs as a Medic and an LEO ever heard of one Medic or EMT in NYS even get charged (be it in Ciriminal or Civil Court) for failure to act when off duty. Do you honestly think all the MD's, EMTs and Medics would be driving around in cars festooned with MD plates, FD Stickers, and various 'buff' stickers on their cars if there was the potential for them to have their licenses revoked if they failed to stop and render aid? I know my car would be devoid of such items if that was the case...

Also, when you're off duty you are not operating under your Medical Director's license, and, therefore, are not covered by your agency for what you potentially can do wrong. As such, you fall under and are covered by the Good Samaritan Act. Look it up as this issue has been covered at length within the EMS circles....Besides, if in doubt, simply stating that you were not comfortable as far as scene security and/or situational awareness, will take care of the fact that you weren't able to treat the guy. In this situation you are first a victim and a medic second.....Just my .02 cents

Quoted: Quoted: The next thing to learn and remember is there is nothing short of a miracle you can do to save your ass in a civil trial. You will be paying the BG or the family of the dead BG a lot of money end of story. May want to contact your state representatives and try and get a law like this passed. Ours goes into effect July 1st 2006. Line #92 deals with lawsuits. H. B. No. 369 *HR03/R316* G1/2 06/HR03/R316 PAGE 1 (CJR\LH) To: Judiciary A MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION 2006 By: Representative Denny HOUSE BILL NO. 369 1 AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 97-3-15, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO 2 DEFINE "DWELLING," TO CREATE A PRESUMPTION OF THE RIGHT TO USE 3 DEFENSIVE FORCE, TO SPECIFY WHEN NO DUTY TO RETREAT EXISTS, AND TO 4 PROVIDE IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION UNDER CERTAIN 5 CIRCUMSTANCES AS THEY RELATE TO JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE; AND FOR 6 RELATED PURPOSES. 7 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI: 8 SECTION 1. Section 97-3-15, Mississippi Code of 1972, is 9 amended as follows: 10 97-3-15. (1) The killing of a human being by the act, 11 procurement, or omission of another shall be justifiable in the 12 following cases: 13 (a) When committed by public officers, or those acting 14 by their command in their aid and assistance, in obedience to any 15 judgment of a competent court; 16 (b) When necessarily committed by public officers, or 17 those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in 18 overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal 19 process, or to the discharge of any other legal duty; 20 (c) When necessarily committed by public officers, or 21 those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in 22 retaking any felon who has been rescued or has escaped; 23 (d) When necessarily committed by public officers, or 24 those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in 25 arresting any felon fleeing from justice; 26 (e) When committed by any person in resisting any 27 attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony 28 upon him, or upon or in any dwelling or in any occupied vehicle in 29 which such person shall be: H. B. No. 369 *HR03/R316* 06/HR03/R316 PAGE 2 (CJR\LH) 30 (i) For purposes of this paragraph, "dwelling" 31 means a building or conveyance of any kind that has a roof over 32 it, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, 33 mobile or immobile, including a tent, that is designed to be 34 occupied by people lodging therein at night, including any 35 attached porch; 36 (ii) A person who uses defensive force shall be 37 presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily 38 harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or upon his dwelling, 39 or against a vehicle in which he was, if the person against whom 40 the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and 41 forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a 42 dwelling or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was 43 attempting to remove another against the other person's will from 44 that dwelling or occupied vehicle, and the person who used 45 defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible 46 entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. 47 This presumption shall not apply if the person against whom 48 defensive force was used has a right to be in or is a lawful 49 resident or owner of the dwelling or vehicle, or is the lawful 50 resident or owner of the dwelling or vehicle, or if the person who 51 uses defensive force is engaged in unlawful activity; 52 (f) When committed in the lawful defense of one's own 53 person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable 54 ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some 55 great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such 56 design being accomplished; 57 (g) When necessarily committed in attempting by lawful 58 ways and means to apprehend any person for any felony committed; 59 (h) When necessarily committed in lawfully suppressing 60 any riot or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace. 61 (2) As used in paragraphs (1)(c) and (1)(d) of this section, 62 the term "when necessarily committed" means that a public officer H. B. No. 369 *HR03/R316* 06/HR03/R316 PAGE 3 (CJR\LH) 63 or a person acting by or at the officer's command, aid or 64 assistance is authorized to use such force as necessary in 65 securing and detaining the felon offender, overcoming the 66 offender's resistance, preventing the offender's escape, 67 recapturing the offender if the offender escapes or in protecting 68 himself or others from bodily harm; but such officer or person 69 shall not be authorized to resort to deadly or dangerous means 70 when to do so would be unreasonable under the circumstances. The 71 public officer or person acting by or at the officer's command may 72 act upon a reasonable apprehension of the surrounding 73 circumstances; however, such officer or person shall not use 74 excessive force or force that is greater than reasonably necessary 75 in securing and detaining the offender, overcoming the offender's 76 resistance, preventing the offender's escape, recapturing the 77 offender if the offender escapes or in protecting himself or 78 others from bodily harm. 79 (3) As used in paragraphs (1)(c) and (1)(d) of this section, 80 the term "felon" shall include an offender who has been convicted 81 of a felony and shall also include an offender who is in custody, 82 or whose custody is being sought, on a charge or for an offense 83 which is punishable, upon conviction, by death or confinement in 84 the Penitentiary. 85 (4) A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not 86 engaged in unlawful activity shall have no duty to retreat before 87 using deadly force under subsection (1)(e) or (1)(f) of this 88 section if the person is in a place where the person has a right 89 to be, and no finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the 90 person's failure to retreat as evidence that the person's use of 91 force was unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable. 92 (5) A person using deadly force in accordance with the 93 provisions of subsection (1)(e) or (1)(f) shall be immune from 94 criminal prosecution for the use of such force and shall be immune 95 from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the H. B. No. 369 *HR03/R316* 06/HR03/R316 PAGE 4 (CJR\LH) ST: Justifiable homicide; clarify the definition of dwelling and when duty to retreat does not exist. 96 use of force. The presumptions contained in subsection (1)(e) and 97 (1)(f) shall apply in civil cases in which self-defense is claimed 98 as a defense. 99 SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from 100 and after July 1, 2006.

unclez,

I'll be sure to call Hitlary Clinton and Chucky Shumer first thing in the morning. I'm sure they'll get right on it.

Hahaha...yep, good luck in NY

Quoted: Hahaha...yep, good luck in NY

what state are you in?

Quoted: In actuality you do not have a duty to act when you're off duty (NYS). If that were the case you would be required to stop for every accident, drunk on the street, fire, fight, etc., and State health Departments have ruled that to be an unreasonable request to ask of a Medic or EMT, and courts have agreed. I have never in 20 yrs as a Medic and an LEO ever heard of one Medic or EMT in NYS even get charged (be it in Ciriminal or Civil Court) for failure to act when off duty. Do you honestly think all the MD's, EMTs and Medics would be driving around in cars festooned with MD plates, FD Stickers, and various 'buff' stickers on their cars if there was the potential for them to have their licenses revoked if they failed to stop and render aid? I know my car would be devoid of such items if that was the case... Also, when you're off duty you are not operating under your Medical Director's license, and, therefore, are not covered by your agency for what you potentially can do wrong. As such, you fall under and are covered by the Good Samaritan Act. Look it up as this issue has been covered at length within the EMS circles....Besides, if in doubt, simply stating that you were not comfortable as far as scene security and/or situational awareness, will take care of the fact that you weren't able to treat the guy. In this situation you are first a victim and a medic second.....Just my .02 cents

Not every state is the same as NY so this isn't going to always be the case. As long as you don't go outside your scope of practice while treating as on off duty EMT/Paramedic, medical direction has nothing to to with it. Besides we only call the MD when assisting a patient with meds or giving glucose or activated charcoal. I'm sure I won't be carrying my kit with me if I'm walking through a parking lot late at night coming home from a bar. So rendering simple first aid, assuring airway is open, assessing circulation, controling any major bleeding, and treating for shock, aren't going to require medical direction. The Good Samaritian law does not apply to any EMT/Paramedics off or on duty, period. We are trained professionals. If we cause further harm, are negligent, and then don't hand over care to someone with the same or more training you can say goodbye to your card and hello to a civil trial. That applies always. Off duty or on.This is all null and void if the scene is not yet safe. Although you are not required to stop for accidents or bar fights if you do all of this still applies. If you are involved in a self defense shooting and fail to act as an EMT/Paramedic, I can guarantee it will be brought up in a civil case if the attacker lives, that you are or were a paramedic, and your failure to act caused more harm and in turn you will be found negligent. You are right about us boys in the Fire service being extremely pro-rights and this is a discussion that comes up alot.

When the guy came up and hit me in the back of the head at the ATM police said if I had shot gim I would be going to jail for it.

They are not your friends.

good Samaritan act in ohio covers everyone within the scope of practice.
i did wonder if duty to act would cause me problems if i was still an emt but i am not so i dont think it would count. i think the only thing necessary would be some bleeding control.

Well, if the BG happens to be alive after I shot him, the only thing I could do is make him confortable. Since I'm not trained in first aid and I don't think it would be medically advisable to give him some Advil(he may choke on the pills after all), the only confort I could offer him is a .45 to the head to end his suffering.

That's why I practice shooting 2 to the chest 1 to the head.

Seriously, I would go to a secure location, call 911 and let the LEOs and medics do their thing.

great advise

Thanks

Quoted: Sabrexr15 This hypothetical point has few answers. If it were known that there were multiple attackers and you shot one then fled to safety then called 911 would be a correct choice. If there was only a thought but no proof of multiple attackers then you just put yourself in a bad spot. If you were being chased turned and shot then turned and kept running then stopped and called 911 after you realized you were no longer being chased then you would be ok. In my opinion to try to help or aid the guy you just shot, medical knowledge or not is the wrong thing to do in any situation. First off you need to control the entire situation from the start. Putting yourself head down and focused on the BG’S injuries leaves you open to further attack from many situations from BG’s to LEO’S.   Let me tell you all something you need to learn and remember. No matter what! If you shot someone there is nothing you can do after the fact that will put you in good light or favor. The next thing to learn and remember is there is nothing short of a miracle you can do to save your ass in a civil trial. You will be paying the BG or the family of the dead BG a lot of money end of story.

Yes there is. Move for FL or another state with a castle doctrine that has civil suit protection.
Or better yet, pressure people in your state to get such laws.  Me, I plan on moving.

Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted: Sabrexr15 This hypothetical point has few answers. If it were known that there were multiple attackers and you shot one then fled to safety then called 911 would be a correct choice. If there was only a thought but no proof of multiple attackers then you just put yourself in a bad spot. If you were being chased turned and shot then turned and kept running then stopped and called 911 after you realized you were no longer being chased then you would be ok. In my opinion to try to help or aid the guy you just shot, medical knowledge or not is the wrong thing to do in any situation. First off you need to control the entire situation from the start. Putting yourself head down and focused on the BG’S injuries leaves you open to further attack from many situations from BG’s to LEO’S. Let me tell you all something you need to learn and remember. No matter what! If you shot someone there is nothing you can do after the fact that will put you in good light or favor. The next thing to learn and remember is there is nothing short of a miracle you can do to save your ass in a civil trial. You will be paying the BG or the family of the dead BG a lot of money end of story. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes there is. Move for FL or another state with a castle doctrine that has civil suit protection. Or better yet, pressure people in your state to get such laws. Me, I plan on moving.

I hear you but most of us have to much invested where we live to move based on a potential civil court case that for the most part will never occur.
I am going with the odds here of never having to use my weapon in the first place.

With that said I am a realist and I know things go wrong everyday. That’s why I have and will continue to pay for professional training as well as practice every chance I get. It is my intention to give myself the best odds of survival in any given situation.

If I was more politically involved and had the time I would put pressure on the politicians.
I do what I can but it is not enough.

Quoted: ETA: And KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT TILL YOU TALK TO YOUR LAWYER & THEN LET YOUR LAWYER TALK FOR YOU.  Even cops involved in shootings get at least a day to calm down and get their thoughts right about what happened.

That is complete BS...... cops have NO time between the interview and the incident. Just more than an hour break is normal.

You lawyer up and they will look at it negatively. BTW, you have NO right to an attorney if this is a legal shoot. No crime would have been committed and there would be no interrogation, since there is no crime.

I have responded to numerous incidents where good people shot bad guys. They were only handcuffed once when we had conflicting reports on 911. That was it. Once the story was straightened out, the guy was uncuffed and fully supported.

BTW, some of you live in Nazi communities. So, the laws may differ along with the public outlook. I understand that.

Don't believe everything you hear.

As for Taxman's "When the guy came up and hit me in the back of the head at the ATM police said if I had shot gim I would be going to jail for it.

They are not your friends."

Yep, you are right...when did getting hit in the head equal deadly force? Or is your story missing pertinent facts? A single blow does not equal deadly force. I do hope you realize this.

Quoted: I hear you but most of us have to much invested where we live to move based on a potential civil court case that for the most part will never occur. I am going with the odds here of never having to use my weapon in the first place. With that said I am a realist and I know things go wrong everyday. That’s why I have and will continue to pay for professional training as well as practice every chance I get. It is my intention to give myself the best odds of survival in any given situation. If I was more politically involved and had the time I would put pressure on the politicians. I do what I can but it is not enough.

Guess you missed the NV law that already covers you. Read the law and you will know what your protection is.

The other side is- Homestead your house and buy an umbrella policy.

Quoted: Quoted: ETA: And KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT TILL YOU TALK TO YOUR LAWYER & THEN LET YOUR LAWYER TALK FOR YOU.  Even cops involved in shootings get at least a day to calm down and get their thoughts right about what happened. That is complete BS...... cops have NO time between the interview and the incident. Just more than an hour break is normal. You lawyer up and they will look at it negatively. BTW, you have NO right to an attorney if this is a legal shoot. No crime would have been committed and there would be no interrogation, since there is no crime.

Really?

Then I guess the city of Los Angeles is wrong too?

Officer-Involved Shooting Guidelines

4. Offer the officer an opportunity to step away from the scene and away from media attention (by waiting at a remote location, for instance). When possible, place the officer with supportive peers or supervisors and return the officer to the scene only if strictly necessary. Personnel on the scene should help the officer follow departmental policies regarding talking about the incident before the initial investigation interviews. If the officer has an immediate need to talk about the incident, he or she should be provided with a resource that offers the officer confidentiality or privileged communication. [Like a laywer?] 5. Ideally, the officer should be provided with some recovery time before detailed interviewing begins. This can range from a few hours to overnight. Officers who have been afforded this opportunity are likely to provide a more coherent and accurate statements. Providing a secure setting, insulated from the press and curious officers, is desirable during the interview process.

So we know the police have time to collect their thought and cool down to say.(because they have the law on their side, coaching what to day and do)
So what help would CCL people have? Nothing? Little luck, faith in the system, good witnessess, video? All of which won't be around at the time of need.
Sounds like one must be either already shot or shot at, wounded, damn near dead before pulling trigger, huh.
So from what I gather a CCL is only good just for carrying, not to use. Only to range for pratice.
Here is the million dollar question;

Fear of being shot or fear of shooting?

I am much confused now.

What are good people suppose to do

If it every came down to it, I would shoot to save my ass or my family

Quoted: So from what I gather a CCL is only good just for carrying, not to use. Only to range for pratice.

Well, in a sense you're correct.  A CHL does not give you any additional leeway when it comes to using a firearm in self defense.  It only ensures that your possession of said firearm is legal.

That is to say that if I carry illegally and shoot someone in self defense, I'm going to be subjected to scrutiny.  If you carry legally and shoot someone under the same exact circumstances / laws, you're going to be subjected to the same scrutiny as I was.  If both are completely justifiable shootings, then it's possible I will be charged with illegally carry whereas you will not.  Your license to carry does not mean that you can shoot somebody under circumstances where you could shoot them were you not licensed to carry.

License to carry, not license to kill.  Don't use it unless you really need it.  If you really need it, I believe most prosecutors / juries / judges will agree that you really needed it.  However, it's possible they would not.  Shooting somebody IS a legal risk, and there is no license which reduces that risk (unless you're 007.)  

It's also possible, through stupid behavior, to turn what was in any other situation a justifiable shooting and into an illegal one, or make it very hard for the legal system to believe it was justifiable.  The flip side is that there are things you can do and say to help reinforce the fact that you are the victim and the shooting was justified.

So basicaly use only as last option.
I can live with that.
thanks

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ETA: And KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT TILL YOU TALK TO YOUR LAWYER & THEN LET YOUR LAWYER TALK FOR YOU.  Even cops involved in shootings get at least a day to calm down and get their thoughts right about what happened. That is complete BS...... cops have NO time between the interview and the incident. Just more than an hour break is normal. You lawyer up and they will look at it negatively. BTW, you have NO right to an attorney if this is a legal shoot. No crime would have been committed and there would be no interrogation, since there is no crime. Really? Then I guess the city of Los Angeles is wrong too? Officer-Involved Shooting Guidelines

Did you read what you linked to?? It was a recommendation, not a policy

We have plenty of OIS's here each year. I know how they work.

Sorry, I have been on both sides of the fence as for shootings........ Don't confuse either the police officer MUST testify in an internal investigation about the incident. He can have a lawyer or even the Pope. It will not matter. LEOs are compelled to testify against themselves.

I would liked to have thought that after I'd incapacitated the BG I'd been keen to give first aid.
I thought that would be the more honourable thing to do. I know UK LEO's are duty bound to administer first aid after shooting someone and I'd like to think I'd do the same.

However

After reading this thread I'm begining to think I'd not bother...due to very persuasive arguments by you guys.

My safety primarily and then there's the thought of Aids/hepatitis etc etc that I could put myself at risk from by trying to help.

Taffy

Quoted: I would *NOT* assist medically.  Unless you are a trained EMT all you will be doing is putting your own life further at risk.  Do you have latex gloves? how do you plan to deal with him if he suddenly attacks you while your trying to "help".  What if you get bit or he spits blood all over your face? Saving my life and then getting some rotten disease trying to provide some sort of medical attention to the guy who just tried to kill you would suck. The fact that you call 911 right away should be evidence enough of your intent. To bring that point home read through a year or twos worth of "Armed Citizen" reports in american rifleman magazine.  How many provide medical assistence to the attacker?

plus in our society, if you help him out and he gets like paralyzed, he may sue you, like the robber who fell on the knife and sued the homeowner type of thing. It maybe far fetched but who really knows with layers these days

Quoted: If it every came down to it, I would shoot to save my ass or my family

You got it right.  Trust me, you will know if you are in deadly danger.  When that happens, solve the problem the best way you can.  If that involves killing the perpetrator, so be it.  

As one of my instructors told me "If you have to think about whether you're in mortal danger, you're not.  You will know".

It's a yardstick that's worked for me so far.

It would behoove you to follow their lead if need be. If you're being pressured for a statement, and for whatever reason your lawyer is not present/can't be reached, IMMEDIATELY indicate to them that you are in need of medical attention, be it chest pain, shortness of breath, hyperventilation, etc, and get transported to the ER. Any smart LEO would immediately stop interviewing you as any potentially incriminating statements you make can be attributed to being said under duress and/or under physical or mental hardship.

That is a goddam brilliant statement.

Quoted: "If he's worthy of shooting once, he's worthy of shooting twice".

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!

Quoted: Quoted: ETA: And KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT TILL YOU TALK TO YOUR LAWYER & THEN LET YOUR LAWYER TALK FOR YOU.  Even cops involved in shootings get at least a day to calm down and get their thoughts right about what happened. That is complete BS...... cops have NO time between the interview and the incident. Just more than an hour break is normal. You lawyer up and they will look at it negatively. BTW, you have NO right to an attorney if this is a legal shoot. No crime would have been committed and there would be no interrogation, since there is no crime. I have responded to numerous incidents where good people shot bad guys. They were only handcuffed once when we had conflicting reports on 911. That was it. Once the story was straightened out, the guy was uncuffed and fully supported. BTW, some of you live in Nazi communities. So, the laws may differ along with the public outlook. I understand that. Don't believe everything you hear. As for Taxman's "When the guy came up and hit me in the back of the head at the ATM police said if I had shot gim I would be going to jail for it. They are not your friends." Yep, you are right...when did getting hit in the head equal deadly force? Or is your story missing pertinent facts? A single blow does not equal deadly force. I do hope you realize this.

I hope you're joking about the blue part.

A.)  I don't give two shits what the police think.  They don't make the call on good or bad shoot.  That's done by the AG. They can haul you in either way and you know it.

B.) If it's your opinion I have "NO right to an attorney", guess what: I can get my attorney if I talk to you casually on the street if I so desire.  But if I'm involved in a shoot, all I'm giving the police to attempt to hang me with is "I was in fear of my life, I need to speak to my attorney before I answer questions."  No matter what the officers ask me at the scene or say "we can straighten this out right here", if the AG wants to prosecute me, do you seriously think I'm going to add to the problem by giving the police ammunition for their turn on the witness stand? No, I'm NOT talking about "test-lying" either.  Hey, guess what?  Police asking me questions = Interrogation.  Anything I say or do can be used in a court of law.  Heard that before?  And guess what?  Just in case you're not up on the lastest court cases, police don't have to Mirandize me.  Better to keep my big mouth shut.

From what i am reading, when the police arrive, one should be prepaired to be cuffed and taken downtown. Make atatement that I was in fear of my or my family's life, call lawyer, be cool and patient.

This whole topic had been very informative.
thanks

Quoted: I hope you're joking about the blue part. A.)  I don't give two shits what the police think.  They don't make the call on good or bad shoot.  That's done by the AG. They can haul you in either way and you know it. B.) If it's your opinion I have "NO right to an attorney", guess what: I can get my attorney if I talk to you casually on the street if I so desire.  But if I'm involved in a shoot, all I'm giving the police to attempt to hang me with is "I was in fear of my life, I need to speak to my attorney before I answer questions."  No matter what the officers ask me at the scene or say "we can straighten this out right here", if the AG wants to prosecute me, do you seriously think I'm going to add to the problem by giving the police ammunition for their turn on the witness stand? No, I'm NOT talking about "test-lying" either.  Hey, guess what?  Police asking me questions = Interrogation.  Anything I say or do can be used in a court of law.  Heard that before?  And guess what?  Just in case you're not up on the lastest court cases, police don't have to Mirandize me.  Better to keep my big mouth shut.

In this case, geerhed is correct. I spoke with a deputy recently about off-duty shootings(as part of another coversation). His stance: Shut the fuck up. Even when it's your friends doing the investigation(as is likely in the case of he or I being involved in a shooting), SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Let me say it one more time for those who didn't hear. During an investigation, you don't have friends. SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Quoted: Quoted: ChrisLe I am wondering something. You being a former paramedic and all. How conflicted are or aren’t you? On one hand you dedicated a great part of your life to saving people. Maybe still do in other ways. And you are in the carry issue forum on a pro gun website with close to 5K posts. This leads me to believe you are or will be a CCW holder and obviously prepared to take a life. I have found that most people who dedicate themselves to helping people in the medical or religious areas are in no way going to be a gun advocate or CCW holder. I can only use my small circle of friends and family to have come to this conclusion. The Doctors and Church members I know personally are just not gun advocates in any way and would never even dream of carrying one. They don’t understand my thoughts on the subject at all. I don’t know if there is really a question here more of a personal observation on my part. It just caught me off guard you being the odd ball in my world anyway. No offence meant by the odd ball comment. But I am interested in your way of thinking. I gather this would be my question.   As far as me, personally, two tours in Iraq took care of what little apprehension I potentially had insofar as whether or not I could take a human life. You would be surprised how quickly you're able to pull the trigger when your life or the life of a fellow Serviceman is in immediate danger. As for EMS people in general, you would be surprised to hear that the overwhelming majority of those I worked with are pro 2nd amendment. This is primarily because, unlike the sheeple that think it could never happen to 'them,' EMTS and Paramedics are exposed to the real world on a daily basis. They are acutely aware of how cruel man can actually be, and know full well that what one reads in the paper is but an extremely small percentage of what really happens on a minute by minute basis. They're also aware of the fact that, when it comes down to a life or death struggle, that the Police will not be there in time to protect you........As such, the vast majority of them are shooters and CCW holders. As to whether they would be conflicted if ever put in a shoot/no shoot situation, I would venture a guess and say that they're acutely aware of the consequences of what would happen if they didn't shoot. Doctors, on the other hand, are overwhelmingly anti-2nd. Primarily because they're in a sheltered ER. Sheltered in the sense that they don't see all the circumstances behind the shootings and stabbings that we prepackage and bring to them. They only see a 'poor 18 y/o kid that was a victim of violence (i.e. shot)' whereas we see the same 18 y/o as what he really was, a drug dealer that got shot in a turf war. It’s all a matter of perception....When you see the naked world for what it really is you want to carry a gun each and every day.....

I'd be careful about making such a generalization.

I've been in Emergency Medicine practice for 15 years, and of the 42 members in my group, I can think of 5 who don't hunt/shoot or at least support the RKBA.  To be sure, no one has  a sympathetic attitude for the "poor" 18 year-old.  One dictum of Emergency Medicine is, "Most people who get shot/stabbed deserve it."

height=8

Quoted: I'd be careful about making such a generalization. I've been in Emergency Medicine practice for 15 years, and of the 42 members in my group, I can think of 5 who don't hunt/shoot or at least support the RKBA.  To be sure, no one has  a sympathetic attitude for the "poor" 18 year-old.  One dictum of Emergency Medicine is, "Most people who get shot/stabbed deserve it."

Thanks for saying it before I did.  
I'm a pro-RKBA Internal Medicine physician.

It's not a contradiction to support RKBA because the proper use of the firearm in personal defense is to STOP an act of violence directed against myself or a loved one.  In such a scenario my prime concern is not about inflicting HARM on an individual but in STOPPING them - Any consequent morbidity/mortality on them is a secondary consideration.  I hope that makes sense.  Perhaps it's akin to shooting a charging animal ... you don't have to hate the animal to stop it - it's just self-defense.