The Right to Shoot, The Duty to Help
Susan Kuo at PrawfsBlawg asks an interesting question. If someone harms another person in self-defense, do they then have a duty to save the person?
Instinct says, no, let the psychopath bleed out. Logic, however, says that I might need to hit ‘911’ on the dial pad. I would, after all, have had a hand in creating the peril that has befallen him. Even if he was the aggressor and I was justified in my use of force to save my own skin, this very same force has now put him in harm’s way.
This strikes me as a simpler question than it does Susan. Our right to use force in self-defense isn't because we're entitled to exact punishment on our attackers, but to save ourselves from harm. Once done, and we're no longer threatened, the situation is no different than anyone else in need of aid. In other words, we don't get to enjoy the fruits of our self-defense by leaving our attacker to suffer, perhaps die.
I went a-hunting and found that at least one court has ventured down this path. The Montana Supreme Court, in Montana v. Kuntz, 995 P.2d 951 (Mt. 2000), held that, while folks who put other folks in peril need not risk bodily injury or death to help the imperiled, imperilers do have a legal duty to help or summon help. A failure to so aid, if it causes the aggressor’s death, is criminal. In the Montana case, Ms. Kuntz apparently stabbed her significant other in the chest in self-defense. She did not call for medical help, and her boyfriend died. The State alleged that she caused his death by stabbing him and by failing to call for medical assistance. Kuntz argued that her justifiable use of force nullified any duty on her part to assist. The trial and supreme courts disagreed with her argument, finding that the justification did not render her duty-free.
The argument that the right to self-defense "nullifies" the duty to aid sounds like the kind of rule they would come up with in the Republic of Texas. There, they would probably insist that you put the poor mutt out of his misery. They can be very tough down there.
But the defender is not a wrong-doer, which is why the duty to aid continues to apply. Their entitlement is to protect themselves, not hurt someone else. Nor leave them lying in the street to die. As counterintuitive as that may seem to some.
Some, of course, would argue that the only problem is that the first bullet/stab/whatever didn't finish the perp off, thus creating a problem that is easily solved by better aim. This, of course, misses the point. Some will live no matter what, so you can't blame the shooter/stabber for missing a vital organ.
You can, however, blame them for forgetting that the person who engages in self-defense does so because they are the good guy, And good guys come to the aid of others, even when the others aren't so good.
Where I live, in the case of a shooting, the statute governing the duty to render aid to the person shot is https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.662 . Short form: if I shoot somebody, I'm required to at least call 911 for an ambulance, or I'm possibly a felon; if I witness a shooting of somebody, I'm required to at least call 911 or I'm a misdemeanant.
This may look strange to some people; it did to me when I was researching a book on a related subject. It's not a self-defense-injuring statute, but a shooting statute; it was originally written to deal with hunting accidents, and I'm told that it wouldn't apply to a self-defense knifing, here. (I can just see an episode of Law & Order: Brainerd. "Ya know, a guy coulda gotten in trouble if he'd shot the perp and just walked away, instead of knifing him." "Heckuva deal." "You bet.")
More seriously, seems to me that the right to self-defense is just that; it's not the right to retaliate to punish somebody, even for very real wrongdoings (although it can have that effect, in parallel).
Reply to this
Unlike SHG I find this area more complicated. To me, the right of self defense is not merely the right to simply mitigate harm to myself at the moment of attack. It is a fundamental right to personal physical integrity at all times. Situations that involve violence can evolve quickly, people who are attacked violently can go into shock, and so on. It's not always easy to tell when an attacker has been rendered harmless. Hindsight is always 20/20. I don't want to say that I can never see a failure to aid an attacker as a crime, I just don't think it's a gimme. It strikes me as a very fact bound inquiry where the burden of proof lies heavily on the people who are claiming there was a failure to aid. The person who defended themselves would have to act in a way that that would be unconscionable, with deliberate and purposeful indifference to the attackers fate.
Reply to this
The difference between having a philosophical view of the right to self-defense versus the legal view is that you can spend many years arguing the former from a prison cell, as you won't have much else to do. It's always a highly fact specific inquiry, which is why making a hyperbolic natural rights argument means little in the absence of specific circumstances.
Reply to this
SHG, you know your Texans.
If a crime is being committed, the police need to be notified. If it involves shooting a Very Bad Person, they need to be called if for no other reason than to collect the body and make a record of the kill.
Putting a legal requirement on someone who just defended himself against a violent attacker to provide aid to that attacker is foolhardy though. The goings-on in his mind are very likely not suitable to provide aid. Additionally, he then has to prove that he would have further endangered himself if there were multiple attackers who fled.
Shooting an attacker, baracading your family in a closet, then calling 911 is a perfectly acceptable course of action, even if it means that the attacker slowly bleeds to death in the living room.
Instead of making the failure to render aid an offense, reward those who manage to render aid or use only the minimal amount of force needed to stop an attack (the latter being exceptionally difficult to do).
And of course, make the Texas Exception, where killing Bad Men is considered a community service and failing to kill them is considered a dereliction of duty. Award extra points for not wasting ammunition and tight shot groups.
Reply to this
I'm learning. Texas has a lot of exceptions.
Reply to this
My friend Jim had had his house burgled a couple of times, so when he awoke one night to the sound of breaking glass, he grabbed his gun and went to investigate. As he approached a doorway, a strange man popped out, carrying a knife. Jim shot him once in the chest.
The bullet hit dead center, shattering the guy's breastbone, and he collapsed to the floor. Despite the guy's protestations that he would get Jim all his stuff back, Jim called the cops anyway and then administered first aid. He just felt obligated to try to help now that the danger was over. The guy lived.
Reply to this
I agree that a natural law argument really doesn't work. The reality is that you should have the right to simply walk away, but you probably don't have that right.
Reply to this