Me said:
In all likelihood, it would happen too quickly to respond with force.
If that's the case, fine. I did not say one should fire after the threat has ended.
Of course, and I didn't mean to imply that you would.
Me said:
Engaging the shooters who've taken cover in (or are just occupying) your front yard -- shooting the other way -- wouldn't be lawful
...
Sure, but is he shooting at you? Does he present a lethal threat to you
I'm not sure that matters. If it is necessary that I shoot to end an active, lethal force threat, then all those involved in creating that threat share the responsibility (and the consequences) for creating the reasonable fear of the defender, and his response.
Well, "If it is necessary..." covers a lot of things, right? How far does this go? Do you think you can shoot the guy firing toward your house but not at you? How about the guy firing
away from your house? How about the guy in the group and fighting, but armed with a knife? He's helping bring the fight to your door, but certainly poses no threat to you inside. What about the guy driving the getaway car? Etc. I see no justifiable ability to fire on those who are not actively and credibly
directly threatening you. Firing on someone who is
accidentally firing in your direction to get them to stop is legally tricky. Firing on someone who's firing in some other direction because you blame them for drawing fire in your direction seems WAAAAY over the line.
Not Me? said:
Against a group of attackers, each member of the group shares the same responsibility for the fear the group creates in the intended victim, and also shares the danger from the intended victim's lawful response.
I didn't say this and I don't know who did. It certainly doesn't stand up to the criteria of ability, opportunity, and jeopardy that we use as our standard for justifiable use of lethal force. If gang member A is threatening you with a knife and you shoot him, that may be fine. But you can't also shoot members B and C who do not present a credible, immediate threat. Now, if they are participants in an assault to one degree or another and are injured or killed, the felony murder rule may be applied depending on local laws and rather a lot else, but an individual has to present a clear, immediate, realistic threat to you, personally, or you cannot engage them.
Standing in front of a judge and jury saying that you shot a man who was firing away from you because you wanted to eliminate him as a target for his opponents who were firing your way is probably not going to go well. It would be an interesting case to observe, but I wouldn't want to be the defendant.
Look, this is understood: If it is not necessary that I shoot, then I should't--and I wouldn't. I thought I made that clear. You seem to be arguing that it wouldn't (ever, ever?) be necessary because there would be adequate cover, it would be over before I could respond ("in the brief seconds"), etc.
ME? No, I said:
Maybe if the situation was really prolonged, going on for several minutes with your home taking sustained fire, maybe, then picking off those shooting at the house might end the rounds hitting your house sooner, which would be good. ...
So that's not never, ever.
I'm saying, what do you do if it IS necessary to shoot in order to end an ongoing fusillade, with bullets continuing to fly through your walls.
See above... however unlikely, there it is.
If you're saying that such a situation would never amount to the reasonably perceived threat of lethal attack, or that attempting to crawl to safety (with bullets flying and my daughter screaming in her street-facing upstairs bedroom) is always my only option--well, we disagree.
Only? Best? Hard to say. Any suggestion of what the only option might be would be pure conjecture based on an incomplete understanding of each other's hypothetical scenarios.
Let's think about that clearly, though
Is it your implication that, absent your guidance, I haven't been thinking clearly, sir?
What's that line? "Don't "sir" me, I work for a living!"
No offense intended at all. Just trying to distill the question into component elements. Should have read "let's break this down into a set of facts and responses and then analyze them one by one," or words to that effect. Apologies.
Remember, please, this is a "what if." You're honestly proposing there is no "what if" where shooting in such a situation would a reasonable, necessary response?
No, again see above. I especially consider shooting to be a viable response if someone is attempting to bring the fight
into your home. Again, though, that supposes a drawn-out firefight that passes my preconceived notions of likelihood.
Personally, if I was convinced I or a family member was about to die, and I felt I had no other choice that would prevent that, I'd shoot.
And who wouldn't? Agree wholeheartedly! And yet, with bullets passing randomly through the structure of your home, how could you know that, or be in a position to respond to it? How would you move from a position of observing that shots were passing near to you or your loved ones to a firing position, determine who fired the shots, determine if they're still doing so or appear to be making ready to do so again, and then shoot that person?
Well, I might have just answered that question in my own words -- if you could do that, a shot may be a justifiable response. I do, however, reject any concept of exterminating the warring parties as presenting a threat in general.
