TexasCHLforum.com

I agree that we are under no obligation.

Civil Practices and Remedies Code.

§ 74.152. UNLICENSED MEDICAL PERSONNEL. Persons not
licensed or certified in the healing arts who in good faith
administer emergency care as emergency medical service personnel
are not liable in civil damages for an act performed in
administering the care unless the act is wilfully or wantonly
negligent. This section applies without regard to whether the care
is provided for or in expectation of remuneration.

StrykerDM wrote:I was wondering about this myself...the other question I had was, if you have to put a BG down, I'm assuming you get the heck away from there and call the police and tell them what happened and where he is and you are? I'm assuming you don't wait around near the guy (in case he has another gun or weapon)...any thoughts?

In my Personal Protection In The Home [PPIH] and Personal Protection Outside The Home [PPOH] classes, I was taught the following:
Head for and use cover.
After stopping the threat, do a 360 scan to break tunnel vision and check for other threats.
Do a tactical reload when safe.
Keep your distance from the BG.
Do not approach even if he asks for your help or assistance.
Do not talk to BG except to give brief orders: stay down, don't move, etc.
Do not attempt to retrieve the BG's weapon.
Don't disturb any evidence and don't let any witnesses disturb evidence.
Keep your gun in the low ready position ready to stop the BG if he continues his deadly force.
Remain behind cover or in safe position until the police arrive.
Obviously, if there is another BG that you have to deal with your tactics can change.

NcongruNt wrote:I'd ask for police and when connected there would state the nature of the incident and request that medical services be sent as well.

I always recommended just the opposite order. Ask for EMS first, then police. I fully understand that you are under no obligation to even ask for the ambulance or provide any other form of aid. But, i always figured it would look better to a jury if I first tried to get the medical help. It may help convince someone who is otherwise anti-self defense that I was not trying to kill him and only shot to stop him.

Most larger cities have a PSAP, Public Safety Answering Point, that you connect to when dialing 911. They ask "what is the nature of your emergency," verify your location and callback number on E911, then transfer you to the appropriate resource (Fire, PD, EMS). Most likely a reported shooting will be sent to PD and their call takers will obtain the rest of the pertinent info (number of victims, location of the shooter, confirm address, etc) and then send the call info over to EMS and Fire. In smaller communities, there is usually a single call center with one or two call takers/dispatchers in the same room, so they will send the appropriate resources. Bottom line, just call 911 and report what has occurred, don't sweat who you think you need to talk to or who they should send.

I disagree and Stephen said it better than I did.

But the point isn't to make the most efficient call to 911.

Regardless of how 911 calls are handled, the point is to be recorded showing concern for the BG and trying to get an ambulance in route before the police.

I think this could greatly influence a grand jury and should the situation ever arise, will be my first response.

I figure that my job is to dial 911, state, "a man has been shot, we need an ambulance and police at 123 Main street...", and let the dispatchers sort out who to call first.

After I'm safe, I plan to call 911 to tell them a man attacked me and I need an ambulance and the police.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: There is no legal obligation to render aid under these circumstances.

Chas.

Thanks Charles. It's good to know that. I would be very concerned about that person remaining a threat and would not want to get too close to them.

KBCraig wrote:I figure that my job is to dial 911, state, "a man has been shot, we need an ambulance and police at 123 Main street...", and let the dispatchers sort out who to call first.

Yeah, but don't forget to mention the , "This man tried to kill me ... " part.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:There is no legal obligation to render aid under these circumstances.

Chas,

Is there ever a legal requirement to render aid?

Tom

range_rider13 wrote:If a law abiding citizen has to shoot (stab, club, hit etc.) someone in a legitimate act of self-defense and the bad guy goes down, is the law abiding citizen obligated legally (not morally) in Texas to render aid to the bad guy they just put down, other than calling 911?

Texas has the law, but I agree on the risk of blood and disease.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazin ... /22351.htm

Render Aid = One more round!

lawrnk wrote:

range_rider13 wrote:If a law abiding citizen has to shoot (stab, club, hit etc.) someone in a legitimate act of self-defense and the bad guy goes down, is the law abiding citizen obligated legally (not morally) in Texas to render aid to the bad guy they just put down, other than calling 911?

Texas has the law, but I agree on the risk of blood and disease.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazin ... /22351.htm

If I am reading your comment correctly, I think you may be misinterpreting the law. It says IF you provide good samaritan aid you have protection from liability. It doesn't say you HAVE TO provide aid.

I would think that you would have a greater chance of liability if you tried to treat some one who just used deadly force against you. I would be more afraid that the BGs family would say you tried to kill him after you shot him.

WildBill wrote:

lawrnk wrote:

range_rider13 wrote:If a law abiding citizen has to shoot (stab, club, hit etc.) someone in a legitimate act of self-defense and the bad guy goes down, is the law abiding citizen obligated legally (not morally) in Texas to render aid to the bad guy they just put down, other than calling 911?

Texas has the law, but I agree on the risk of blood and disease.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazin ... /22351.htm

If I am reading your comment correctly, I think you may be misinterpreting the law. It says IF you provide good samaritan aid you have protection from liability. It doesn't say you HAVE TO provide aid.

I would think that you would have a greater chance of liability if you tried to treat some one who just used deadly force against you. I would be more afraid that the BGs family would say you tried to kill him after you shot him.

The only time you are required to render aid to any individual is if you have a "duty to act' and this typically applies to those in the public safety sector - EMS, Fire/Rescue etc.

Us sillyvillians do not have a duty to act after shootin' someone.

Anygun

WildBill wrote:

lawrnk wrote:

range_rider13 wrote:If a law abiding citizen has to shoot (stab, club, hit etc.) someone in a legitimate act of self-defense and the bad guy goes down, is the law abiding citizen obligated legally (not morally) in Texas to render aid to the bad guy they just put down, other than calling 911?

Texas has the law, but I agree on the risk of blood and disease.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazin ... /22351.htm

If I am reading your comment correctly, I think you may be misinterpreting the law. It says IF you provide good samaritan aid you have protection from liability. It doesn't say you HAVE TO provide aid.

I would think that you would have a greater chance of liability if you tried to treat some one who just used deadly force against you. I would be more afraid that the BGs family would say you tried to kill him after you shot him.

Wildbill,

My point was that Texans are protected from legal abuse, not the obligation to render aid.