legal responsibility

[Bezoar]

traditionally when a crime is commited, the criminals are treated as being guilty in all other misfortunes that derive from their criminal actions.

examples would be arsonist goign to jail for murdering 6 hoboes they did not know were hiding in the warehouse they torch on sunday morning.
-the person who robs a bank and during the getaway, causes a responding police car to run over a dozen little kids in the road is guilty of 12 ****s of murder.
-two people rob a bar, one stays in the car but is also guilty of killing the bartender because the other theif killed the bartender.

But on self defense forums, its like the minute someone is forced to use a gun to defend themselves, those laws and traditions are suddenly gone. Technically speaking, someone pulls a knife on you, you shoot to save yourself, and the bullet bounces around and hit someone down the block, why is the mugger no longer responsible for the crimes that result from their commision of a felony?

 

[ridata]

I don't know how much it directly applies to this, but a little while back somebody made a fake 911 call, spoofing a resident's number. The police sent out a SWAT team, IIRC, to the house. The person who made the 911 call was charged with assault by proxy: he had the SWAT team 'assault' them without reason.

Had they shot the team, or had the team killed the homeowner, I think he would have been charged with murder by proxy.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Criminals are responsible for any directly collateral damage for their criminal attack, legally in most states, and morally in all.

Trouble is, surviving attackers tend not to have a lot of assets, especially if they're on their way to the prison's hospital for lots of rehab. (And dead attackers typically have ever less in the bank).

So, if someone is looking for a pay-day because they got injured when you were attacked and defended your life: your new name is Mr. Deep-Pocket.

The civil jury only has to decide to a preponderance of the evidence (and sometimes just a majority of the jury, not all of them) that you were 1% at fault, and you get 100% of the damage judgment. Joint and several liability.

But look at the bright side: you can always find a BIGGER pocket, so sue the gun manufacturer for making a gun that's so easy to wound people with. Don't forget the ammo manufacturer, too. And if the sun got in your eyes, find a g----mn meteorologist, and sue him, too.

Too bad there's such a shortage of injury lawyers--it will make it tough for us to sue all the people who need suing.

 

[jpruitt]

But on self defense forums, its like the minute someone is forced to use a gun to defend themselves, those laws and traditions are suddenly gone. Technically speaking, someone pulls a knife on you, you shoot to save yourself, and the bullet bounces around and hit someone down the block, why is the mugger no longer responsible for the crimes that result from their commision of a felony?

The mugger is responsible, at least in the US. It's called the felony murder rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule#Description

 

[NonConformist]

Its one of those laws when used properly is a good idea, but leaves WAY to much chance to be abused

IE if a cop ran over 12 kids it shouldnt be anyone fault but his own, regardless of the call. He is responsible to proceed as quickly and safely as possible to the call, same as pilots are responsible for their aircraft

Good idea, but Im waiting for it to be used wrong

 

[hvengel]

There was a case here about 10 years ago where there was a home invasion robbery. They confronted a maid at the door and forced their way in. She screamed and the home owner responded with a .38 revolver. There was a shoot out near the front door and one of the robbers and the home owner were killed. One of the robbers was wounded as was the maid. He and the get away driver were arrested trying to flee the scene. They were both charged and convicted of two counts of first degree murder and some other charges (armed robbery and attempted murder I think). Both are now locked up and will remain in prison for a long time. I think they got 50 to life.

It was clear that the home owner had killed the robber who died but it was the other robbers who were charged with his homicide because it was their illegal actions that started the chain of events that led to his death. Also my memory is that the robber who had died fired the shoots that killed the home owner.

In most cases that I know of this is how the law was applied. I do know of one case where a robber shot one of this accomplices in the back of the head and he was not charged with any crime. But in that instance they were robbing a pot farmer so perhaps the DA didn't think he could win the case.

 

[Blackbeard]

In some states they are. I heard of one case where two thugs tried to rob a lady at an ATM. Their intended victim shot one of the robbers, who later died. The surviving robber was convicted of murdering his late partner, even though the victim is the one who shot him.

 

[Bezoar]

but why cant we make the "murder by proxy" clause protect people from being sued by lawyers of bystanders who get inujured in some way. and is there a way to prevent the wannabe mugger from sueing the gunowning citizen they tried to rob while only taking a pocket knife to a gun fight?

 

[chipperi]

I realize you are talking more about criminal court. But we have a great law here in TN that if a victim shoots an attacker in self defense and is not charged i.e. justifiable homicide, the shooter cannot be sued in civil court. The judge will automatically rule against the plaintiff and make them pay the defendants court and legal costs. As long as it was a clean shot, you can still be sued if you do property damage or injure a 3rd party.

 

[HIcarry]

I know that criminals have been prosecuted as noted in the other posts, but what I think is being asked, is:

Has a criminal ever been prosecuted for the injuries to the third party when the victim (who used the firearm to protect him/herself) shot an innocent or third party? Or is the frequency of third party injuries from citizens with a CCW so infrequent that we have few, if any cases, to analyze?

My question is whether or not an injured innocent/third party could still sue the shooter (original victim) in civil court (I'm guessing yes) and whether the fact that the criminal was criminally charged for the third party's injuries would have any bearing on the civil suit or any criminal charges (filed on the original victim) that may arise from the shooting?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Technically speaking, someone pulls a knife on you, you shoot to save yourself, and the bullet bounces around and hit someone down the block, why is the mugger no longer responsible for the crimes that result from their commision of a felony?

I have no right while defending myself to shoot anybody other than the person(s) threatening me harm. The guy down the street that I accidently shoot has every right to not be shot by me if he isn't threatening me.

Now, there are some laws that are changing in regard to how blame/responsibility is assigned in such collateral damage, but there are often lengthy and painful investigations involved. Was the gun down the street accidently shot or was he shot because the opportunity was there to shoot him during a conflict with somebody else?

 

[Hypnogator]

I have no right while defending myself to shoot anybody other than the person(s) threatening me harm. The guy down the street that I accidently shoot has every right to not be shot by me if he isn't threatening me.

OK, here's a point I bring up when training law enforcement and security professionals. Suppose you are being shot at by a criminal, who is in front of a crowd of people. Do you shoot back?

Before you answer this, think -- there may be people behind you, too. Aside from the issue of your own personal safety, the criminal isn't going to stop shooting at you and endangering bystanders behind you, even if you don't return fire.

In my opinion, The faster you stop the criminal's life-endangering actions, the safer everyone in the community is. If it were me, I would return fire. The only limit that bystanders in the vicinity of the attacker would impose on me would be to curtail my use of suppressing fire.

Just my $.02 worth (after inflation).

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The faster you stop the criminal's life-endangering actions, the safer everyone in the community is.

Okay. So what does this have to do with legal responsibility of hitting a bystander? That bystander behind the criminal that you shoot still has the right to NOT be shot by you. Fratricide is not made okay if you happen to get the bad guy in the process.

 

[Loosedhorse]

That bystander behind the criminal that you shoot still has the right to NOT be shot by you.

True--but if I did ONLY what a reasonable person acting prudently would have done in my position (shoot an attacker if I was given no choice), then I didn't violate the bystander's rights. THE ATTACKER violated the bystander's rights with his illegal attack, causing a predictable, dangerous situation.

That takes care of any criminal charges toward the defender.

On the civil damages side, the bystander's lawyer--again (see post #3)--knows he's not getting squat from the attacker. So, he will try to convince a civil jury (lower burden of proof) that your selection of gun and ammo--if bystander was injured by a pass-through shot--or your poor marksmanship--if he was injured by a stray shot--constitutes negligence. Again, if you're judged 1% guilty, you can get stuck with the entire claim award.

Expect the bystander to push for your criminal prosecution, too--not against him but against the attacker. IF someone can prove that you did something criminal by defending yourself, well, their civil case has just been made for them, so you can just bend over and get out your checkbook.

But frankly, it may be very easy (emotionally) for the jury to find a just defender 1% guilty, especially if the bystander's injury is grievous. So, you might need that check book anyway. An instructor told me, "You get out that gun in self-defense, figure on it costing you $100k per bullet." And that's back when $100k was $100k!

Was the gun [I'll presume you meant "guy"]down the street accidently shot or was he shot because the opportunity was there to shoot him during a conflict with somebody else?

Huh?

The contention behind your question is that some of us go around planning, "Gee, I sure hope someone attacks me today, 'cause that'll give me an excuse to shoot down everyone in sight!"?

That's nuts. Get in the game here.

 

[hvengel]

There was a situation in my area about 7 years ago where some perps decided to rob a gun store (not smart). One of them got buzzed through the door and then held it open while two of his buddies came in armed. The store owner, an employee and a customer were armed and there was a gun battle. One perp was wounded bad enough that he did not leave the scene but survived. The other two got away from the scene but were arrested later. During the shoot out a stray round did hit a bystander in the street outside the store and I think the conclusion was that that bullet had been fired by one of the defenders. The bystanders wound was minor (treated and released). I know that none of the defenders faced criminal charges but I don't know about civil actions in this case. But the point is that this sort of thing does happen although it is rare.

On the criminal side I know the federal case law apples the following standard with regards to the death of a bystander:

The result is that the slayer may be held guilty of murder, manslaughter, or excusable or justifiable homicide, according to the attendant circumstances. If the killing of the intended victim can be reduced by the circumstances to murder in the second degree, or to manslaughter in any of the degrees, then the unintended and accidental killing of the bystander resulting from any act designed to take effect upon the intended victim would likewise be reduced to the same grade of offense as would have followed the death of the victim intended to be killed.

The above is from jury instructions for:

United States of America, Appellee, v. Walter James Weddell, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. - 567 F.2d 767
Submitted Nov. 14, 1977.Decided Dec. 8, 1977

I am familiar with this case because I know the (intended not accidental) victim having gone to high school with him.

 

[Art Eatman]

Bezoar, all this will vary from state to state. In Texas, if you use a firearm in self-defense and (for example) your bullet kills the bad guy but continues on and kills an innocent person, you are then subject to homicide charges. "Involuntary Homicide", most likely, but you're legally responsible for what's behind the targeted person.

Art

 

[Loosedhorse]

Mr. Eatman--

Not wishing to be contrary, but the Texas law that you refer to seems to violate the common law principle of "necessity" or "competing evils:" if I have no choice but to shoot (that is, I'll be dead in the next moment if I don't) then I am legally allowed to shoot. If the bullet passes through and kills someone else, there is still no crime: I had to shoot.

This has been discussed (maybe not at THR--I haven't checked) regarding NJ mandating FMJs for non-police civilian carry (not that they issue that many carry permits). With FMJs there's a REALLY high risk of pass-through injury. It has been advised that any person who finds themselves defending themselves legally because of a pass-through injury utilize the "necessity" defense: I didn't carry FMJs (as opposed to HPs) because I wanted to--I carried them because the state MADE me do so.

I am pretty sure the NJ thing is a legal hypo, and there are no cases. Are there any cases in TX where a person legally defending himself was convicted of involuntary manslaughter (or involuntary assault with a deadly..?) of a third party?

As I've always understood involutary manslaughter, the "involuntary" means that you didn't intend for someone to die, not that you didn't intend a bad act: there has to be underlying criminal behavior (e.g., assault) or gross negligence (amounting to indifference to human life) to allow conviction--you can't be convicted if you were doing something both legal AND necessary.

Or, in TX, can you? (Just askin'--IANAL.) Subject to charges, maybe--but convicted?

 

[Art Eatman]

Loosedhorse, you're mostly making a moral argument, not a legal argument.

Aside from what's written in the law, in Texas you'll hear the Instructor repeat that you better by golly not shoot anybody but the intended bad-guy target. IOW, I'm not the only guy who reads that meaning in the law.

That you are legitimately in fear for your life or of serious bodily harm does not relieve you of ALL consequences of your actions--intended or not.

In Texas, the writing for an Oops! homicide is quite specific: In Involuntary Homicide, you didn't mean to kill the guy, but you did. The penalty can range from some judicial minimum of time served or probabion, on up to a maximum of ten years.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Bear with me, please, for my education:

So, I've just had my brakes done, and a guy walks in front of my car (his right of way). I hit the brakes--they don't work. I kill him.

Turns out that the mechanic wanted to kill me--he admits it freely--and because of his evil act (sabotaging the brakes) I killed someone.

you didn't mean to kill the guy, but you did.

So off to jail I go, even if I was doing under the limit, and my brake-lights all work?
Sorry if the above is convoluted, but I wanted to get the elements of a wrong-doer, a victim whom the wrong-doer attacks, and an innocent third-party who is killed by the attacked. And I would think dead pedestrian goes on the mechanic's account, not on mine.

I wouldn't think the involuntary manslaughter statute is instrument-dependent, so I do go to jail with the car scenario? Or not with the car, but yes with the gun?

you're mostly making a moral argument, not a legal argument.

I think I'm making a common-law argument, not a statutory one. But, sure, I would have hoped that there was at least some attempt to make legal guilt reflect moral (or ethical) fault. Sure is an imperfect world.

I don't mean to appear dense, but this is the first time I've encountered a law seemingly designed to hold an innocent defender criminally responsible for defending himself (outside of Britain, of course). Everyone in TX happy with the fairness of that provision of their self-defense law?