19-Year-Old, Gun, Macho Puffing Up, "Self-Defense," Dead Bystander

My apologies there, TexasRifleman. It looks like a lot of stuff went on while I was busy getting my facts straight. I posted my reply and then found almost a whole page of discussion had gone on in the meantime!

My apologies there, TexasRifleman. It looks like a lot of stuff went on while I was busy getting my facts straight. I posted my reply and then found almost a whole page of discussion had gone on in the meantime!

Click to expand...

Dude I'm more confused than you I'll tell you that

Yeah, maybe I should just blow smoke out of my fourth point of contact instead of researching!

and then the civil suits light you up like a candle

another

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0104200..._were_after_me_regionalnews_alex_ginsberg.htm

By ALEX GINSBERG
January 4, 2007 -- A man charged with opening fire in a crowded Brooklyn subway station, killing an innocent bystander, told detectives he was sorry - but insisted he had no choice but to defend himself, according to court papers made public yesterday.

"I really didn't mean to hurt anyone," wrote the alleged shooter, Dwayne Holmes, in a statement penned last Nov. 15, the night of his arrest.

"I had to get out of there 'cause I thought I was going to get shot."

The tragedy happened at 4 p.m. at the Rockaway Parkway L train station, where Toolsie Sukhu, 56, a security guard, was fatally shot in the back.

Holmes pleaded self-defense, saying he was surrounded by a group of men who were talking about killing him.

"I tried to leave but they wouldn't let me," he wrote.

Holmes said he drew a gun and pulled the trigger - but claims it didn't work. He said he blacked out and the next thing he remembers is fleeing the scene.

Well here in the last half hour I've found quite a piece on that.

Google a document by a University of Manchester PhD named Quong.
ISSN 1749-9747
Killing in Self Defense

Interesting stuff from the morality side of this.

Click to expand...

I only had time to read a few pages, but I find his reasoning lacking. He has yet to address a difference of an innocent aggressor and innocent bystander that the innocent aggressor is acting on you whereas the innocent bystander is not. The mere act of being a threatening force - intentional or not - changes their definitions substantially enough. The innocent aggressor, though through means not intended, is going to be a killer if you do not act. The innocent bystander is not.

In a violent crime, victims were innocent bystanders prior to become victims. When our actions turn innocent bystanders into victims, are we substantially different in moral responsibility from the initial criminal?

In a violent crime, victims were innocent bystanders prior to become victims. When our actions turn innocent bystanders into victims, are we substantially different in moral responsibility from the initial criminal?

Click to expand...

Well, I suppose that depends on intent, on a moral level. If you INTENDED to shoot the bystander, or knew they were there and fired anyway, then you're morally no different than the initial criminal. If it was a complete accident, I don't think it suddenly makes you a bad person. You'd FEEL horrible, definitely..but it's not the same.

Personally..if I ever shot a bystander in the course of a self defense shooting, it'd crush me. I have little problem, morally, with shooting someone that is trying to kill me..but if I killed an innocent person, it'd feel far worse than anything else in my life.

texas i think the major issue that i can see is that you are about the morals however... people are not born with morals so they are different based on learned experiances, and what you were taught growing up...

for example in some countries it is just fine to have multiple wives just fine by their morals... but if you throw that into the mix here... you perhaps would say that it is imoral...

i know this is offtopic but i just wanted to attempt to clarify this...

I only had time to read a few pages, but I find his reasoning lacking. He has yet to address a difference of an innocent aggressor and innocent bystander that the innocent aggressor is acting on you whereas the innocent bystander is not. The mere act of being a threatening force - intentional or not - changes their definitions substantially enough. The innocent aggressor, though through means not intended, is going to be a killer if you do not act. The innocent bystander is not.

Click to expand...

Eh, it's a PhD thesis so it's 30 pages longer than it needs to be. It gets into that around page 12 or so when the idea of the "villain" appears

csmkersh i cant help but notice in your signature it doesnt say
member of the B.A.R. ASSOCIATION.

i do agree with you on the wife thing though.... but i would counter with girlfriends are different than wives....

you said the magic word.... m14 my mouth just watered... and perhaps need a new pair of shorts

Everything could ve been avoided...... and yes it was self defense if you are shooting at someone shooting at you.

Someone probably mentioned this, but if you kill a person accidentally while you are in the commission of a felony, isn't the killing 2nd-degree murder?

Someone probably mentioned this, but if you kill a person accidentally while you are in the commission of a felony, isn't the killing 2nd-degree murder?

Click to expand...

its 1st degree murder

I can't believe some people here would have hung me, morally and legally, if I was in a justifiable shoot and my round went through the BG, hit the brick wall behind him, hit the floor, and ricocheted into an innocent bystander's femoral artery and killed the bystander.

Yes, I fired the round. Yes, that round ended up killing an innocent bystander. Yes, I'll feel lousy about it. But do I think I deserve to be hung for being reckless, unreasonable, negligent, or any other word you can think of? I think not. Circumstances SHOULD dictate whether someone gets punished or not, and I'm in the camp that says if a felony is being committed and people die during the commission of or because of that felony, the person committing that felony should be held responsible. Because if that person hadn't been committing a felony to begin with, no one would have died at all.

Of course, if a person recklessly and negligently kills an innocent person in an attempt to stop that felony, I think they should also be held responsible. But just because someone kills an innocent person doesn't mean he was behaving recklessly or negligently. What if the circumstances had been that of the, IIRC, Utah shooting a while back? What if you reasonably believed a person threatening you was going after a weapon and you shot and killed him, and it turned out he DIDN'T have a weapon? Should you be punished for that shoot? I don't think so.

That doesn't mean you can never be punished for such a shoot, for if your actions are deemed reckless and negligent, you may be punished, but I'm just awed by the fact that some people here would hang a person for shooting an innocent bystander regardless of the circumstances.

manslaughter at the very least in this case...

TwitchALot - I don't think anyone here is saying "regardless of the circumstances" (although most ARE saying "in this circumstance"). The discussion seems to revolve around the minimal threshold for liability - negligence, or acting in a way that a reasonable person could foresee causing harm to another.
Freak accidents, like the shot you describe, happen. What you describe also would not constitute negligence--you know that your round may penetrate the BG but won't penetrate a brick wall, therefore a reasonable person would assume this was a safe shot. If the "backstop" is now a church picnic instead of that brick wall, a reasonable person could foresee that an innocent person could get hurt by your shot.
This is the bone of contention here: are you criminally/civilly liable in a negligent shooting?
And as far as the civil liability goes, an example is the OJ case--a jury found him criminally NOT GUILTY, legally he did not commit a crime, yet he was still sued civilly for wrongful death (a death that, according to the law, he did not cause). Your state may have different civil standards than CA, but a blanket statement that you can't be sued by an innocent 3rd party is not entirely true. PDs/municipalities routinely are sued by (and settle with) bystanders who get shot by police, even if the shoot is found to be justified by a Grand Jury.

The weapon/no weapon question also boils down to a subjective, reasonable person standard--the NYC Amadou Diallo case is notable: the officers could articulate that, as events unfolded, they reasonably believed Diallo had a weapon and was shooting at them (even though he didn't). The officers were indicted, but acquitted in a jury trial. Had the jury felt their actions were NOT reasonable in that circumstance, they would have faced 2nd Deg. murder charges.

The bottom line in negligence is that it has to be determined in a case-by-case basis. Depending on the total circumstances of the shoot you may or may not be charged, a Grand Jury may or may not indict, a Jury may or may not acquit. Making your response to a threat as appropriate and safe as is reasonably possible is your greatest protection.

not sure about that, a 19 year old with a pistol=criminal offense in most places I know of. Where did this happen? Is there anywhere that a 19 year old can legaly carry a pistol?

Click to expand...

Well, for one, Virginia...anyone who is old enough to own a handgun (18 in VA) is old enough to OC. CC however is still 21+. But many states allow CCW for 18+.

Well, for one, Virginia...anyone who is old enough to own a handgun (18 in VA) is old enough to OC. CC however is still 21+. But many states allow CCW for 18+.

Click to expand...

yeah but there are a couple of catches to that too. But easy enough to get by.

its the fact that he kept shooting after the imediate threat was over thats beyond the pale no matter who did it

csmkersh, is there another Texas I don't know about?

You also forgot to note the "reckless" bit I quoted.

In Ohio (and possibly some other states), this guy would not be able to escape culpability using self-defense. Even IF he was legally carrying a gun with a CCW permit, and even IF his actions after the first shot fired by Dixon were purely defensive in every way, he's culpable. Why? He participated in the escalation of words, posturing, and macho puffery that led to the final confrontation. It doesn't matter that Dixon started it by looking at Harris's butt. If fact, it could be argued that Jarvis started the confrontation by being the first to call Dixon on the butt looking.

If you're going to carry a gun, you better know the law, you better know how to deescalate a confrontation, and you better understand the meaning of, "Discretion is the better part of valor."

K