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.
only if he or she acted unreasonably.
only if they are negligent
Thoughts?
Ordinarily, gun owners who injure innocent people, or whose guns are used by children accidentally or by criminals intentionally to inflict harm, are liable to the person injured only if they are negligent in a way that caused the injury.
If you use reasonable self defense and you accidentally kill someone else it is not murder. It may be manslaughter
What defines these statements? To me if you shoot a bystander you are negligent and also being unreasonable.
The existence of that article isn't indicative of the current laws, as it could be one of several things in addition to your conclusion:An article about a legal professor arguing, recently, that people SHOULD be held liable for unintended victims. If they already are, why would this article exist?
There's nothing wrong with shooting at someone you're legally allowed to shoot at. However, if you're not 100% sure that there is nobody around or behind your target, and you miss or have a shoot-through resulting in a bystander's injury, you have acted with somewhat poor judgement in that regard.Why would shooting someone who was trying to kill you be unreasonable in any remote sense of the word? It's highly regrettable if you hit an innocent that was hiding behind a bush behind the criminal, but it's not unreasonable that you defended yourself.
because you didnt kill your atacker you killed a bystander...........just guessing though.Why would shooting someone who was trying to kill you be unreasonable in any remote sense of the word?
1. Writer has a misconception of current laws (that wouldn't be a first).
LOS ANGELES, January 17, 2007 - Two men arrested in connection with a stray shot that killed a 9-year-old girl in Angelino Heights were released without being charged after authorities determined the bullet that killed the girl was fired in self-defense, it was reported Wednesday.1
If I had to guess, I'd say that situation (LEGALLY justified shooting) happens rarely, if at all. Could you provide a case where an innocent was injured in a legally justified shooting and the person was not charged? Probably not, for the same reason.Can anyone find a case to show as proof, in a gun friendly state, where a person WAS charged with criminal charges after accidentally shooting an innocent during the course of a legally justified self defense shooting? I sincerely doubt it.
If you shoot your neighbor instead of the bad guy you are negligent. Gonna have a hard time proving you weren't.
If I had to guess, I'd say that situation (LEGALLY justified shooting) happens rarely, if at all. Could you provide a case where an innocent was injured in a legally justified shooting and the person was not charged? Probably not, for the same reason.
I think that's quite prevalent here as well. I sincerely doubt the majority of the people arguing have legal firsthand knowledge as to how these laws work.
Can anyone find a case to show as proof, in a gun friendly state, where a person WAS charged with criminal charges after accidentally shooting an innocent during the course of a legally justified self defense shooting? Or sued by the family of the innocent person afterwards? I sincerely doubt it.
I can provide an article where two men were NOT charged, in california no less, after accidentally shooting a little girl during what they claimed weas a self defense shooting.. Bad situation all in all, but my point holds...no charges filed.
http://newsbusters.org/node/10972
Likely it will be ruled an accidental death. You may be charged with some crime but not felony murder.
So we have one instance, which in itself is pretty bizzare. They were released under the statement "no charges can be filed at this time, but the investigation will continue", and the investigation itself was further hindered:I just did. Check the post above yours.
Never said they were.By the by...legally justified self defense shootings happen every day. They're not rare.
So we have one instance, which in itself is pretty bizzare. They were released under the statement "no charges can be filed at this time, but the investigation will continue", and the investigation itself was further hindered:
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan...-selfdefense18
Not quite the clear-cut case to use as justification.
We're not talking about the shooter being charged with felony murder, that's for the bad guy.
The argument is being made that you are not responsible criminally or civilly if you shoot an innocent in a self defense situation.
If you hit someone else you have illegally used deadly force against that person and if they die, you murdered them.
Well that wasn't your claim a couple posts ago. Your exact words:
Arizona attorney indicates you may be charged as a result of negligence:
http://arizonacriminallaw.info/html/weapons-crime.html
No direct link, but McCraney v. State of Nevada deals with a charge sticking for hitting a bystander, as referenced here: http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCI...?citeid=407763
I would have fired at dixon as well
that would make you mentally and morally his equal