[Edward429451]

Didnt want to highjack the would you Intervene thread with this question. A long time ago in a galaxy far far away (Ohio) I went through 'Private Security' skul that was taught by a couple Columbus police officers. The gist of it regarding my question is this:

In a "sudden emergency", (such as two guys walking out of a store with drawn guns dragging a girl), an officer can act without regard to his enviroment. Meaning even if there are innocents in the line of fire or beyond, they can still take the shot with impunity. Is this correct?

I'm not suggesting that one should take the shot in those circumstances, I'm just wondering if it still holds true or not. If it does hold true for officers, could it be a valid precept for citizens in the same situation? I seriously doubt that I would ever do such a thing, but since were playing what if, I wondered about it.

[El Tejon]

Ed, do not know Ohio law, but at that time, in that state there may have been heightened immunity for public officials acting within the scope of their duties in such emergencies or they could be specifically excluded from Criminal Recklessness with a Deadly Weapon (or Ohio's equivalent). It depends on how the law is written whether it would apply to private citizens (or a court of appeals decision perhaps).

[Edward429451]

I'm pretty sure Coronach is in Ohio, maybe he'll stop in later and bring me/us up to date on this. This was after all, back in the mid 80's so could be totally different now.

[anchored]

Generally, LEOs have a qualified immunity when doing their jobs that regular folks don't enjoy, even when doing the same act. Here in W.Va., if you are defending another person, you can only act within the limits of the rights and liabilities that person has at the time. If he has the right to use deadly force, you have the right to use it to defend him. If innocent bystander could sue him for missing his target, bystander can sue you for doing the same.