• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Self-Defense Shooting: Duty To Render Aid Afterwards?

PDinDetroit

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
DrTodd said:
Yes, it is an affirmative defense.
Not disagreeing with you on the liability part, but please cite a source.
Click to expand...

CARELESS, RECKLESS, OR NEGLIGENT USE OF FIREARMS (EXCERPT)
Act 45 of 1952

752.862 Careless, reckless or negligent use of firearms; injury of property; penalty.

Sec. 2.

Any person who, because of carelessness, recklessness or negligence, but not wilfully or wantonly, shall cause or allow any firearm under his control to be discharged so as to destroy or injure the property of another, real or personal, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 90 days or by a fine of not more than $100.00, if the injury to such property shall not exceed the sum of $50.00, but in the event that such injury shall exceed the sum of $50.00, then said offense shall be punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 1 year or by a fine not exceeding $500.00.

History: 1952, Act 45, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952
Click to expand...

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-752-862

Looks like this law could use some "updates" also...

CARELESS, RECKLESS, OR NEGLIGENT USE OF FIREARMS (EXCERPT)
Act 45 of 1952

752.863a Reckless, wanton use or negligent discharge of firearm; penalty.

Sec. 3.

Any person who shall recklessly or heedlessly or wilfully or wantonly use, carry, handle or discharge any firearm without due caution and circumspection for the rights, safety or property of others shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

History: Add. 1955, Act 14, Eff. Oct. 14, 1955
Compiler's Notes: Section 3, as added by Act 14 of 1955, was compiled as MCL 752.863[a] to distinguish it from another section 3, deriving from Act 45 of 1952 and pertaining to the repeal of MCL 750.235a. The compilation number formerly assigned to this section was MCL 752.a863.
Click to expand...

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-752-863a
 
Last edited:
1245A Defender

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Well,,,

kyleplusitunes said:
Remember the north Hollywood shooting in the 1990's?

The police let those guys bleed out and their families sued the dept and won because of their duty to render aid.
Click to expand...

stainless1911 said:
There is no excuse for that, or for a medic to sit on thier duff while someone needs help.
Click to expand...

Just in the last two years;

A cop in Seattle shot a drunken wood carver, John T Williams, for no reason...

Cops in Nevada shot a Costco shopper, Eric Scott, for no reason...

A SWAT raid shot a Marine during a no knock raid, hitting him with twenty? rounds, for no reason...

in each of these three incidents, the Cops REFUSED to allow paramedics to administer first aid!!
 
HKcarrier

HKcarrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
816
Location
michigan
Render improper first aid, then get sued by the fam. for 'killing' the person because of your medical incompetence... LoL!!!


I"m not gonna do anything but call 911.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I think this language pretty much explains that self-defense shootings are not within the scope of the statute. Emphasis mine:

...Reports required to be filed under the provisions of this act shall not be available for use in any way in any court action, civil or criminal, and shall not be open to general public inspection, but shall be for the purpose of furnishing statistical information as to the number and cause of such accidents.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top