Scoutsout said:
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?
TexasRifleman said:
Self defense or not you are still responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun.
GEM said:
You are responsible for each shot.
Scoutsout said:
The reality is that you are responsible for every round that leaves your weapon.
FCFC said:
+1 +1 +1
Would could be more basic than this responsibility?
MBT said:
If someone breaks into my house, I shoot him in the doorway with a .44 mag and the bullet goes through him and down the street injuring or killing another party, to try me for anything is a miscarriage of justice.
TexasRifleman said:
NOT trying you would be a miscarriage of justice in that case.
YOU should have chosen something besides a .44 or been more careful where you shot. It's still your fault and letting you off the hook for it would be unacceptable.
You do not have the right to take an innocents life in defense of your own, plain and simple.
ShadowAngel said:
In my understanding, the criminal you shot in the doorway would actually be the one charged with the innocent person's death. Not you, even though you pulled the trigger.
TexasRifleman said:
Nope, it's all on you. He may also be charged with 'felony murder' or similar but your gun killed an innocent, it's your fault no matter what drove you to pull the trigger.
TexasRifleman said:
If you hit someone else you have illegally used deadly force against that person and if they die, you murdered them. The guy breaking into your house may be charged as well, and should be, but YOU shot an innocent. You don't get a free pass
Furthermore, suppose we don't have an ideal situation and the backstop isn't safe. Suppose you're in a crowded classroom and a gunman barges in and starts randomly shooting people. Given your position, and the high likelihood of hitting an innocent bystander, I suppose many here would crucify someone that chose to take the shot and hit a bystander, instead of letting the gunman shoot everyone else without resistance.
After all, he knew the backstop wasn't safe. He knew the odds of hitting a bystander were high. But then, as far as I'm concerned, he also knew that if he did nothing, the gunman would shoot a whole lot more people than he possibly could. I wouldn't prosecute, let alone convict. But seems like many here would.
I suppose you could argue it was negligent, and that running away or not doing anything at all can't be construed to be negligent (even though one has the power to stop the situation), but I'll be damned if I prosecute and hang a guy for attempting to stop a school shooting, even if an innocent bystander was hit in the process. The initial shooter should be held accountable for that, unless the other guy was reckless and negligent and began, for example, firing wildly in an attempt to stop the shooter and hit multiple bystanders.
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.
Who made that statement?
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.
But that is not what some people here proposed. What was proposed that is that should be held accountable for every round you fire. And while, as a general principle, this may be true, I'm not convinced that you should necessarily be punished if your round hits a bystander while you are attempting to stop the commission of a felony. Only if your actions are considered reckless and negligent should someone be prosecuted in such a case, IMO. The felon should be held accountable for his actions and actions that follow as a result of his. If he hadn't been committing a felony, that police cruiser probably wouldn't have slammed into that car killing an innocent child, for example. The felon should be held responsible for the deaths that occur as a result of his felony, directly or indirectly, unless again, there is a case of negligence and recklessness on part of the responders, police officer or not.
