(CA) Boy, 15, sues over gun-store shooting

[jimpeel]

Chris Rhines

If you pull the trigger, you and you alone are responsible, morally, ethically, legally, and financaly, for the final resting place of every projectile you let loose.

Then why does this same principle not apply to law enforcement at any level?

 

[Tamara]

Interesting that any surviving perps would be criminally responsible if the kid was killed (felony murder), but the eeevil white capitalist guy with the deep pocke... er, "the gun store owner" is being held civilly liable.

Not a value statement, just a social note.

 

[Wildalaska]

Then why does this same principle not apply to law enforcement at any level?

It doesnt???Except for the financial part (master/servant) explain to me how....

WildenlightenmeAlaska

 

[Tamara]

WildAlaska,

Except for the financial part (master/servant) explain to me how....

Well, usually when they gun someone down by mistake, it's an "error made in good faith."

Sometimes they can be suspended for the duration of the investigation, however.

 

[Boats]

There have been plenty of lawsuits for wrongful death against police forces stemming from officer actions during shootings and pursuits. Some have even been held criminally liable. Officers tend to be indemnified by their employers for actions misperformed in the line of duty and so do not suffer personal financial misfortune.

The survivors of Amadou Diallo, Vicki Weaver, and a whole host of largely forgotten others, have all gotten quite relatively wealthy from the mistakes of officers misapplying deadly force, but they'd probably trade it all for their loved ones to have not died under color of authority. Two weekends ago in my SWAT/Paramilitarization post, I cited one family that was paid nine million dollars following a mistaken shoot and coverup in Dinuba, California. Don't kid yourself that officer/force accountability doesn't happen for the misapplication of deadly force. They're not exempt.

 

[Tamara]

Boats,

From a legal standpoint, yes, you are indeed correct.

I am not, however, going to backtrack through the archives to see how many in the TFL/THR Court Of Public Opinion are calling the gun shop owner an untrained goober when they called some SWAT guy "unfortunate" for doing basically the same thing.

 

[F4GIB]

Courts all across the nation have found repeatedly that anyone who fires a bullet is ultimately responsible for the damage that bullet may cause. You may be perfectly justified in shooting in a self-defence situation, but if your bullet over-penetrates and hits an innocent person across the street, or in the house next door, you remain legally liable for that injury.

Citations please.

If this is true, things have changed since I graduated from law school. I learned that if you were justified in shooting (elements of self-defense exist) and not negligent in doing so (such as shooting blindly through a door) , you had no criminal or civil liability.

 

[Boats]

You don't have much in the way of civil or criminal liability to the bad guy. We are talking about completely innocent third parties here.

 

[Tamara]

I pray that if I'm ever winged by a stray from a good guy, it's from a gun shop owner: "No, no, just take care of the medical bills and... well... I'm pretty sure we can work something out for the rest."

 

[buzz_knox]

You don't have much in the way of civil or criminal liability to the bad guy. We are talking about completely innocent third parties here.

What you are ignoring is the fact that legally, the shooter can be innocent even as concerns the third party. If a person acts reasonably under the circumstances, then that person cannot properly be considered to have negligently breached the standard of care owed to other persons. In that circumstance, the person is not liable as they aren't negligent.

In this case, the legal cause of the bystanders injuries was the criminal action of the perps. They instigated the situation, and the owner acted as a reasonable person would under those circumstances. Everything flowed from their acts, and but for their actions, the boy would not have been harmed.

 

[El Tejon]

buzz, good point that I should have raised earlier. There is a distinction between negligence and accident. A jury (or judge or summary judgment) COULD determine that there was no breach of duty as to the 15 year old for a variety of reasons.