ninjamedic2293 wrote:Thats an awful lot of black and white. Perhaps working in an urban environment on the streets my threat and risk analysis leads me to different conclusions than yours.
We'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree. What you refer to as black and white is actually a lot of advance thinking about this possibility, and what my responsibilities ought to be if the worst comes to happen. Also, you might feel more confident about your viewpoint because of age and physical capability. There are a number of us on this board, myself included, who are older and who deal daily with various physical incapacities. If you are young and fit, you have more physical options available to you than if you are approaching 60, have titanium hardware in your body, and limited mobility.
And I want to emphasize, this is NOT a vengeance thing. I would
much rather not have to shoot anybody at all. But there are two factors operating here. One is simple self preservation. The other is my responsibility to my family to survive. That total responsibility far outweighs any social responsibility I have to my attacker or
his family. Believe me, I've thought long and hard about this.
I did specify in my post that I would attempt to help that person "when you can safely attempt to." I carry a tourniquet at all times as I operate under the assumption that if I am forced to discharge my weapon it is highly likely that I will be injured as well, and it would be no consolation to my family that I killed the perp also if I die from a femoral artery transection. Thus I feel that I have a moral obligation, (if it doesn't require me to place myself in grave danger as I too have a responsibility to come home to my family) to attempt to stop that person from dying from a preventable cause.
And I have a tourniquet too in the event I need one. It's called a gun belt.
If you feel no moral obligation to do so then thats your business I wont judge you, this is why there is a difference between morals and legalities. ...its between you and god
Thank you for not judging. If you've read any of my posts regarding a relationship with God (uppercase "G"), AKA Jesus Christ, you'll know that my faith is a big part of my life. Indeed, it is the only filter through which I am capable of viewing the world. This is the filter through which I've arrived at my conclusions regarding my responsibilities to myself and my family, versus any responsibilities to a wounded attacker.
Too each, his own.
On February 28, 1997, two bank robbers named Larry Phillips, Jr. and Emil Matasareanu armed with automatic weapons tried to hold up a Bank of America in North Hollywood which ended in the well-known shootout with the LAPD. I lived and worked in SoCal at the time, and I was actually on the phone with a vendor as he heard and watched a stream of LAPD squad cars rolling code 3 past his office a few blocks away from the bank, on their way to the scene of the shootout. 3 years later, I worked near the scene, and ate lots of lunches at a Subway shop across the street from that bank branch. Indeed, I used to deposit my paychecks there. To this day, the walls and fences in the neighborhood bear mute testimony to the total number of rounds fired.
Here is the picture of Matasareanu when he was wounded and captured, but very much still alive:
He bled out and died without receiving medical attention, including any tourniquets, from LAPD officers; and
according to Wikipedia:
The LAPD was later criticized for not allowing Matasareanu to receive medical attention, to which the department countered by stating that ambulance personnel were following standard procedure in hostile situations by refusing to enter "the hot zone", as Matasareanu was still considered to be dangerous.
Was the behavior of those LAPD officers in close proximity to Matasareanu immoral according your view, meaning, if you were actually in their shoes at the time? Keep in mind that (also according to the Wiki article):
The responding police officers directed their fire at the "center mass" or torsos of Matasareanu and Phillips. Each man was shot and penetrated by at least ten bullets, yet both continued to attack officers.
AND...
Multiple officers and civilians were wounded in the seven to eight minutes spanning from when the shooting began to when Matasareanu entered the robbers' white sedan to make a getaway...
AND...
At least one SWAT officer fired his M16 rifle below the cars and wounded Matasareanu in his unprotected lower legs, and he was soon unable to continue. The police radioed for an ambulance, but Matasareanu, who was cursing and swearing, succumbed to his wounds by the time the ambulance had reached the scene.
Yes, this is an extreme example, but it brings to the fore several points which are very relevant to this discussion:
1. The wounds from which Matasareanu succumbed were to his lower legs, which a non-medical lay person might reasonably believe to be non-fatal. My guess is that one of those rounds nailed his popliteal artery, which could definitely be a fatal wound if not treated. Even so, the officers did not apparently believe that his wounds would be fatal, so they did not apply first aid themselves. Were they in the wrong?
2.
EVEN THE PROFESSIONALS considered bringing unarmed paramedics into the scene to be too dangerous to those paramedic crews. This was department policy, and so far as I know, it remains so today. Were they in the wrong?
3. Both Phillips and Matasareanu received multiple gunshot wounds — despite their body armor — and they stayed in the fight until Phillips was killed (by the simultaneous severing of his spinal cord at C1 by a SWAT bullet and a self-inflicted GSW to the brain) and Matasareanu was wounded in the lower legs severely enough to take him down. There was much talk in the press at the time, although it is not mentioned in the the Wiki article, that both men were substantially hopped up on methamphetamines which explained their ability to absorb the hits without going down. This may be the situation if one of us is faced with having to shoot an assailant. He may be high as a kite and not go down with the first hit, or two, or three. That person is extremely dangerous to approach as long as they are conscious, and determining their conscious state may very well place you into grave danger. Matasareanu was taken down by several armed SWAT officers. He was described at the time as "cursing and swearing," and you can see from his picture that he was VERY much still conscious. There can be no doubt that if there had not been several officers there at that point to rush him and cuff him, he would have kept shooting from the prone for as long as his ammo held out.
Again, I realize that this is an extreme example, but the same principles apply. Personally, if it were just me and him, I would have let him lay there without trying to administer any medical aid. I would have called 911 and kept a safe distance, keeping him covered with a firearm until the cops arrived. He was a bad, bad, dangerous man; and any attempt to help him might well have caused the helper's death.