But is failure to call 911 further harm? I’m not shooting or beating him more.
I would think that allowing someone to bleed out on your living room floor, thus moving from a state of “alive” to “dead”, which transition you currently have control of, is causing further harm.
At least, that’s definitely how id feel if I were on a jury and the facts were presented as above.
The fact that you caused the person to be bleeding out on your floor—even if justified—will also be relevant.
So if I walk by you and a pitbull has torn your leg off and you are bleeding out, I am harming you if I do not call 911? And if so, are you saying that now becomes a legal (not moral) obligation?
I think if you saw somebody injured out in public, you might have a moral obligation to act, but not a legal obligation.
But (and IANAL) if you shoot somebody on your property, and then intentionally allow them to die, there is a completely different dynamic at play.
It matters that you caused the harm.
What we are talking about here, in effect, is whether your failure to act after shooting someone, even with justification amounts to an “actus reus” sufficient, along with your state of mind, to give rise to criminal liability when your inaction causes death. Arguably, it does. This is a pretty good description of the general principle:
Omission
Alternately, the actus reus requirement can also be satisfied by an omission. This is true only when the individual had a duty to act, and failed to act.
Generally, for the purposes of criminal liability, an individual may be under a duty to act if:
- A statute requires a person to act in a certain way.
- A contract requires a person to act in a certain way.
- Some special status relationship exists that creates a duty to act in a certain way (i.e. parental responsibilities).
- A voluntary assumption of care creates a duty to act in a certain way.
- The individual created the risk.
Note the last line. If you shoot someone in self-defense, but then circumstances change such that you can mitigate the harm done to them without risk to yourself (eg: you could just as easily—and more safely, actually—step outside and call 911 as you could stand there watching them bleed out on your carpet while doing nothing) then you have assumed a legal obligation to act and could be criminally liable if you don’t. At least under the law of a great many jurisdictions (and, for all I know, every one of them in the US and Canada).
Frankly the sort of person who would stand there and watch someone bleed out on their carpet, and not even call 911, after having shot an intruder is precisely the sort of person I think should be locked up. More so even than burglars.
I agree that the law should impose a duty to immediately summon the authorities in this hypothetical. However, concepts like actus reus do not in themselves create legal duties and certainly do not confer criminal liability. Actus reus, mens rea, etc. are elements of specific crimes, but they are not transitive in the sense that one can create new crimes simply by articulating them.
This is because due process in American jurisprudence requires fair notice that an act is unlawful, meaning there must be a statute that clearly prohibits an act or omission. The only that come to mind in this scenario are misprision, accessory, and obstruction laws. However, as noted in my prior post, absent active concealment (affirmative steps to conceal the crime) none would create criminal liability for failing to make an immediate report to authorities. Emphasis on “immediate” because it will subsequently become necessary to report a death/corpse.
I’m happy to be corrected if someone can cite a criminal statute that confers an obligation to immediately report the incident. However, absent a specific citation, there is no crime. Yes, there may be civil liability but that’s a different analysis.
It’s not a “new crime,” it’s merely another way of satisfying the actus reus of any one of a great many existing crimes. If the result is death, and the intent was to cause death, that would be murder.
I cited to a law school’s textbook definition of “actus reus,” to include when an omission may take on the character of an act for criminal liability purposes. It matches what I learned in law school (criminal law, even). If you want case law, you are free to look for it.
And I don’t know why you’re jumping on “immediate.”
It’s not murder because the OP expressly presumed self defense (“…if I’m acting in self-defense?”). If you have a citation for a statute (ETA in the criminal context) that confers a duty to render aid or summon authorities after defending oneself, I’d be very interested to read it.
“Immediate” matters because the OP inquired whether one could “let them die before calling the police.” And, as noted in my prior posts, because I’m aware of no law that makes it a crime to fail to immediately report a self-defense incident but there are laws that will subsequently require a death/corpse report given the facts in the OP’s hypothetical.
It’s fine to cite the definition of actus reus from a law school textbook. But textbooks do not codify crimes. In order for there to be a crime, there must be a statute that makes that act a crime. Look up “fair notice” in the same law school textbook. Or read what the Supreme Court has said about it:
"A fundamental principle in our legal system is that laws which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required… Living under a rule of law entails various suppositions, one of which is that all persons are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids.” FCC v. Fox (citing a host of other Supreme Court cases on fair notice and due process).
I would have called 911 before attacking the guy…
My guess is that even if you are required to render aid, “i was in shock, and just stood there not knowing what to do” would be a good defense. At least for moderately short delays.
“I decided to let him bleed out, because fuck him” might not go over well with a jury. Certainly not if i were on the jury.
Years ago I had my concealed carry permit as well as a handgun. I no longer have either. But, when I did I had a cop-friend teach me how to safely handle and fire my handgun.
For the intruder-in-my-home scenario, his suggestion was first to confirm my target, then to confirm that I felt threatened/at risk. Then to shoot, aiming at center of mass.
Once my intruder was no longer a threat (which practically speaking, meant dead) I was taught that I should first compose myself. Once I wasn’t “hysterical” I should call 911 and explain that I discovered an intruder and fearing for my life have shot the intruder. I should make sure 911 understands that I am still on premises and have placed my handgun on my dining room table (or wherever it was).
Other than calling 911 he said I shouldn’t try to do any first aid, since I’m not trained and wouldn’t have personal protective gear on my premises.
How about this? We’ll use Texas (an infamously pro-shooting-suspected-criminals-and-letting-them-die state) as an example (all bolding mine):
I’ll tell you what: here’s a statutory path:
Texas Penal Code Section 1.07 - Definitions
(10) “Conduct” means an act or omission and its accompanying mental state.
and
(34) “Omission” means failure to act.
Texas Penal Code Section 6.01 - Requirement of Voluntary Act or Omission
(a) A person commits an offense only if he voluntarily engages in conduct, including an act, an omission, or possession.
(b) Possession is a voluntary act if the possessor knowingly obtains or receives the thing possessed or is aware of his control of the thing for a sufficient time to permit him to terminate his control.
(c) A person who omits to perform an act does not commit an offense unless a law as defined by Section 1.07 provides that the omission is an offense or otherwise provides that he has a duty to perform the act.
Texas Penal Code Section 38.171 - Failure to Report Felony
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) observes the commission of a felony under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that an offense had been committed in which serious bodily injury or death may have resulted; and
(2) fails to immediately report the commission of the offense to a peace officer or law enforcement agency under circumstances in which:
(A) a reasonable person would believe that the commission of the offense had not been reported; and
(B) the person could immediately report the commission of the offense without placing himself or herself in danger of suffering serious bodily injury or death.
Under this sort of statutory scheme, which you yourself reference, there is a legal duty to IMMEDEATELY report the sort of criminal activity that might allow a homeowner to shoot an intruder, once it becomes safe to do so.
If you decline to immediately make such a report, you have not only violated Texas Penal Code Section 38.171, your omission rises to the level of conduct such as may be used to find you criminally liable for murder. Because your omission of a legally-imposed duty to act was for the purpose of causing the death of a person you just shot, after having witnessed them commit a crime that you had a legal duty to immediately report once it became safe to do so, and so rises to the level of criminal conduct.
And, I still maintain that a general statement of law from a top law school is more than enough of a citation to support my contention in any event.
When we first moved here there were no land line available for phone service (still isn’t) There was no cel service available.(still spotty some days) No internet service. The nearest phone was in the village where no police station is. County sheriff’s office would be who I’d need to see. Where he was on his county wide patrol would be anyone’s guess.
I was, at the time, the only line of defense for my children and animals.
I shot at a perceived threat.
Long story but a car was sitting on the drive to my house. A very out of the way house. Private road. You have had to know I was here to get here. Car had two occupants. Sat threateningly for an hour or so. It was getting dark. I decided I couldn’t leave (remember he’s blocking my drive way out), so I got my long gun. Loaded it. Put the kids and pets in a safe place. And went to my porch, brandishing the weapon.
Now. I’m a good shot(better back then).
Not in the market to kill anyone. I’ve taken gun safety classes. I know to shoot at the mass. But in my mind I think I would shoot towards the legs. You never know what you would really do with adrenaline.
The persons saw me and started the car. Headlights came on. They moved toward my house. To discourage them I shot out their headlights. Needless to say they left.
A sheriff’s deputy came to see me the next day. The guy had told about it. It got back to the Sheriffs office. They all know Mr. Wrekker. I got asked very rude questions as to my shooting at these people and why.
It was determined I was in fear and defending me and mine.
My point is even when no one is ever injured, even in the backwoods, even with a Podunk county sheriff’s office, and nothing is ever reported, you will be answering questions about why you shot at a person.
(Moral: no one has ever bothered me again after word got out I would shoot)
Yes, that’s an example of a misprision statute and you make a logical argument but courts have disagreed and imposed an active or affirmative concealment element in such cases, as noted in my initial post. See, e.g., U.S. v. Graves and U.S. v. Johnson.
I don’t practice in Texas (hence the “laws vary by jurisdiction” disclaimer in my post) and it’s certainly possible its law varies from other jurisdictions here but it seems unlikely that Texas, of all states, would impose a greater burden on a party acting in self defense. In the absence of clear precedent, I suppose reasonable minds can disagree on this.
Certainly. But what’s the contention? My point was that your contention that an omission can satisfy the actus reus element of a crime doesn’t really answer the question posed in this thread without citation to the crime that makes the specific omission criminal.
I don’t know if you have to call 911, but as a courtesy, you should hand your cellphone to the injured intruder so he can call 911 to report an assault causing grievous bodily harm. 
If he’s in any shape to do that, you didn’t do it right.
I was presuming that there wasn’t time – that the house invader was already in the middle of attacking me or someone else.
Yes, otherwise call 911 first – for one thing, if your defense fails you won’t be able to do so later.
In Florida, there is no requirement to render aid or even to call 911. The only time such a thing is required is during a traffic accident. However, you are required by Florida law to report a death. So, once the intruder bleeds out and dies in front of you, then you must call 911 to report the death or you could be found guilty of a misdemeanor. Before that, though, you’re fine.
Call The Cleaners, “This is Beckdawrek. Yes, Beckdawrek, that’s right. I’d like to make a dinner reservation for 1.”
What legions of people say may be different than what the law says.