This reminds of the scene in the film Sleeping with the Enemy where the estranged ex-husband breaks into the woman’s home. She picks up the phone, dials 911, and says, “I’ve just shot an intruder” then hangs up and blows him away.
So in theory, if they could prove this sentiment, wouldn’t that be a crime in itself? Even if it’s not a crime to fail to provide assistance, wouldn’t it be a crime to intentionally fail to provide assistance with the intent of killing someone?
Of course proving that would, at least, need them to state this intention in front of witnesses.
I’m not in the U.S. (obviously), but here, that is precisely how it goes. Failure to provide help (most typicallly by calling the authorities) is a punishable offence.
Before you call the police…call YOUR LAWYER!
Whatever you say to a cop “can AND WILL be used AGAINST YOU in a Court of Law”.
Anything you communicate to an attorney is Privileged Information…and Cannot be used against you.
Call him/her FIRST…and let them talk to the police for you.
I am trained in basic first aid, (and have out-of-date training in wilderness first aid) but i wouldn’t render aid to the intruder, because I’d be afraid he might still try to hurt me. I would call 911, though.
Yep, the cop who “trained” me said not to interact with the intruder but also pointed out that firing into the center of mass until the threat was neutralized meant the intruder would very likely be dead.
As others have mentioned, (a) you’re going to want Mr. Intruder removed from your living room and (b) if some dude is untimely removed from the rolls, authorities will want to Ask Some Questions anyway.
Stop the threat, report the incident. Someone willing to use deadly force had better be willing to deal with any consequences.
Of course it would be a crime. Manslaughter. Use of force, whether it’s for a cop or determining self defense, changes from second to second sometimes by split second. As soon as they are not a threat deadly force can’t be used. It would be really hard to argue someone was a threat while they are bleeding out on your floor. Not approaching to render aid is one thing. Staying away and calling 911 is another. It may be hard to prove but if you purposely kill someone who is no longer a threat you are committing a crime.
Take a look a few clips of combat footage on Reddit. You will see how often horrific injuries are not immediately fatal. Shooting someone center mass may often kill someone eventually but is often going to leave them alive for some time.
Though you aren’t actively killing someone (well you are, but in a way the US justice system has said is a-ok) you are letting someone die by not providing assistance, this is usually not a crime. But if, when the cops eventually turn up you say “I decided I was just going to let them die before calling the police”, does that intent make it a crime?
I’m not killing them, I’m just not saving them. What it sounds like you are referring to are people that continue to shoot after the intruder is incapacitated (double tap)
ETA: Ninja’d by griffin1977
Who shot him?
For what it’s worth, I asked a similar question a while back about a comic-book story where Daredevil justifiably kayoed a murderer in self-defense, and only then realized, say, he fell not so much On The Ground as he did On Train Tracks, and I have enough time to Do Something or Nothing…
You did. But in this hypothetical we are saying that was 100% cut-and-dried self defense (you were in your own home with a legally owned weapon, and the intruder was a clear threat to your life). So actually it doesn’t make much difference to the subsequent question (based on the thread above)
You are are going about your legitimate business (which in this case involved shooting an intruder in self defense) and you come across someone who’s been shot in the torso and is bleeding profusely. Not providing assistance is not (again based on what’s posted above, in most of the US at least) a crime. But if you tell police you didn’t provide assistance with the intention of killing him (“I decided to wait until he was dead before calling the police”, or even “I hate this guy, so when I realized it was him after shooting him I decided to wait a while so he’d die, before I called the police”), does that make it crime?
Or, if it helps: say A gets injured by B, who is acting in self-defense or whatever, and B then stands by and does nothing else; B could easily phone for help, but doesn’t. And C, a bystander who doesn’t injure anyone or get injured or anything, also then stands by and does nothing else; C could easily phone for help, but doesn’t. A then dies as B and C watch.
Is there, in law, a difference between B and C?
Once he isn’t a threat It’s no longer a self defense situation. Of course things are different from state to state. One of the elements of manslaughter is often showing extreme indifference to human life. In my state negligence is not enough. So legally shooting someone but not immediately applying a tourniquet is at best negligence (if that) and therefore not manslaughter. Shooting someone then sitting in your recliner for an hour while they slowly bleed out shows extreme indifference to human life and therefore manslaughter.
The standard is (often depending on the state) an extreme indifference to human life.
Take self defense out of it. A car accident is often found to be just that, an accident. If you hit someone accidentally while sober most often it won’t be a criminal act. It may be found to not be your fault. But if you drive home with the guy sticking out your windshield and he dies in your garage you are showing extreme indifference to human life.
The original scenario in the OP would be very hard to prove to be manslaughter except in extreme cases especially in castle doctrine or stand your ground states. We can take it to extremes and ask if you let him die of thirst or gangrene while on you floor will it be a crime. You’re not doing anything you just aren’t giving aid.
I think the best advice is to report quickly, then lawyer up.
Not all shootings in home are intruders. Some are murders. When you have a home shooting, you are still going to need to established why it happened. Did you know this person? Were they invited in? You are going to have to work through all of that.
That’s what I would suggest.
So I’d really hope this thread is about the legal hypothetical not actual advice. I mean surely no doper actually needs to see it written on the SDMB to realize you absolutely shouldn’t let someone bleed to death on your carpet because you didn’t call them an ambulance?
Whatever the legal liability you are absolutely 100% morally responsible if you let someone bleed to death when calling 911 could have saved them.
But that was kind of the whole point of my A-B-C formulation: you can of course argue that B, after injuring A, is displaying an extreme indifference to human life by not bothering to phone anyone, instead just standing by and watching A die — you can maybe even figure that he says “I’m displaying extreme indifference to human life” as he keeps his hands in his pockets and watches A die — but I’m saying that C is likewise standing right there, likewise not bothering to phone anyone while likewise simply watching A die (and while explicitly saying, if you like, that he, too, is “displaying extreme indifference to human life,” even).
B injured the guy, and C had nothing to do with that. But then B and C display an identical amount of indifference to human life while watching A die. Is there a law against what C did?