Shooting in Hollywood - What would you do?

[ACP]

I would drive away quickly to a safe location at least several blocks away and then call the police on my cell phone.

 

[Loosedhorse]

That's far from taking the law into one's own hands.

Agreed.

But it could be putting yourself at real legal risk (as well as physical risk: if you can shoot him, he can shoot you).

Years ago, many states felt it was ridicuous that a "good Samaritan" would decline to give first aid or CPR to a stranger because of justified fear that he would be targeted by a subsequent lawsuit. So they passed Good Samaritan laws.

No such Good Samaritan laws currently exist for CCWers who "volunteer" to end a rampage. If such volunteering is truly valued in our society, perhaps we should protect the volunteers from lawsuits (and criminal charges) so long as they act without gross negligence or bad intent, just as we have protected first aid volunteers. And that would also approximate some of the protections that responding LEOs have.

Until then, society is telling many of us to just butt out if such a rampage occurs. I will listen.

 

[Kleanbore]

If such volunteering is truly valued in our society, perhaps we should protect the volunteers from lawsuits (and criminal charges) so long as they act without gross negligence or bad intent, just as we have protected first aid volunteers. And that would also approximate some of the protections that responding LEOs have.

I am uncomfortable with that idea.

The good samaritan laws generally serve to protect someone who has rescued someone from imminent death or injury from being liable for injures caused by his or her actions. A person aided by a "good samaritan" generally does have the right to sue and collect damages in most jurisdictions unless that person had been in imminent peril and would have been seriously injured anyway. Intent usually has little to do with it.

Innocent persons injured by law enforcement officers do have the right to seek and collect damages; the community indemnifies the officers and assumes the liability. In many communities, that results in very substantial costs.

Taking away from a citizen the right to be compensated for damages caused by the actions of others when such actions had not been immediately necessary to protect that citizen would be a serious change to long standing provisions of the legal system and is unlikely to happen. The indemnification of "volunteers" who are not trained and who do not act under approved community procedures is most unlikely also.

 

[mljdeckard]

Bobson, it's not your opinion that concerns me. You aren't the one I will have to convince if it ever happens.

I carry to protect me and mine, not you and yours. If I can get away, I am looking for the back door and covering my retreat.

 

[dayhiker]

The indemnification of "volunteers" who are not trained and who do not act under approved community procedures is most unlikely also.

True.

As a Volunteer Firefighter I am not protected if I cause injury due to going beyond my training.

"Good Samaritan" does not apply. Good faith of my actions does not matter.

 

[Loosedhorse]

A person aided by a "good samaritan" generally does have the right to sue and collect damages in most jurisdictions unless that person had been in imminent peril and would have been seriously injured anyway. Intent usually has little to do with it.

I don't know about "usually"; but I do know about MA.

Here, under Mass. Gen. L. ch. 112, § 12V:

Any person, whose usual and regular duties do not include the provision of emergency medical care, and who, in good faith, attempts to render emergency care including, but not limited to, cardiopulmonary resuscitation or defibrillation, and does so without compensation, shall not be liable for acts or omissions, other than gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct, resulting from the attempt to render such emergency care.

So, absent willful misconduct (intent), or gross negligence (which is considered equivalent to intent), there is no liability to the (non-professional) volunteer. Intent matters.

The retained ability to sue a volunteer coming to a person's aid in an emergency (absent gross negligence or willful misconduct) defeats the whole purpose of a GSL--if I can still get sued anyway, why pass a misleading law that offers no real protection?

Innocent persons injured by law enforcement officers do have the right to seek and collect damages

But not from the personal savings account of the officer (unless he, too, has committed gross negligence or wanton misconduct). In the same way, GSLs are meant to protect the personal finances of those who volunteer to render aid.

Hey, like I said: society in general is telling me to butt out--that's fine, I can read the message. What I'd prefer is that (if a rampager creates a public danger, and I take a "reasonable" shot at him--maybe I nick him--and the deflected bullet goes on to injure an innocent) I should not be held liable either for the injury to the rampager or to the innocent (unless my shot was grossly negligent). Any liability should attach to the rampager ONLY, as he created the emergency.

I understand if you disagree, and I hope you understand why I'll keep just out of it.

 

[JustinJ]

society in general is telling me to butt out--that's fine, I can read the message.

Assuming laws do actually reflect what society wants, which is certainly not an always true assumption, it takes the legislation time to catch up. Given that concealed carry is a relatively new thing for the vast majority of america i think it somewhat presumptious to claim to know societies view on this.

But its really a moot point as "Society" is an abstract notion that can't be shot and killed. Innocent people in the street, people's loved ones, can. So what ever some hypothetical "society wants means little to some poor guy just driving down the street mnding his own business when a bullet tears through his chest.

So if people are able to stop a mass murderer by whatever means available to them, be it gun, car or sling shot, i would applaud them for acting. And just because one does or would choose to act in such a situation in no way means they are not aware of the potential legal and civil risks. I'm glad i live in a world where people are not only willing to stop others from comitting evil acts when there is no risk present.

 

[Kleanbore]

[Innocent persons injured by law enforcement officers do have the right to seek and collect damages] but not from the personal savings account of the officer (unless he, too, has committed gross negligence or wanton misconduct). In the same way, GSLs are meant to protect the personal finances of those who volunteer to render aid.

The difference is that the community compensates the plaintiff in the case of LEO liability, while the victim aided by the good samaritan cannot receive compensation at all.

The principle of the good samaritan law is that a citizen who requires immediate aid would be denied such necessary aid, and possibly perish, unless the good samaritan were protected from lawsuits.

That principle would not reasonably apply to an innocent bystander going about his own affairs who is injured by the stray bullets of a citizen firing a gun to save someone else and who would not have been injured but for the actions of the shooter.

Denying that innocent victim compensation would be wrong--and I think it most unlikely that the community will ever assume the liability.

I would support the indemnification of citizens acting at the specific request of a sworn officer, but I doubt we will ever see it.

So, in most states, while society does not specifically tell someone to "butt out", society offers no financial protection to anyone for intervening, either.

 

[Averageman]

The will to survive is not as important as the will to prevail... the answer to criminal aggression is retaliation.
Jeff Cooper

This guy is right.

 

[Loosedhorse]

the victim aided by the good samaritan cannot receive compensation at all.

Nothing to prevent the legislature, when it passes the GSL, to create a fund to compensate those harmed by the "simple negligence" of the volunteer.

And nothing prevents them from telling the receiver of aid to pound sand: if society wants a ready-and-willing population of first aid and CPR volunteers, it should be ready to pay for the service.

Or, if not, expect that far fewer people will volunteer to be targets of lawsuits. A society gets to decide what it will favor, and what it will be.

That principle would not reasonably apply to an innocent bystander going about his own affairs who is injured by the stray bullets of a citizen firing a gun to save someone else and who would not have been injured but for the actions of the shooter.

You mean, perhaps, who would not have been injured except for the initial actions of the rampager. But yes: if we are not willing to indemnify a "hero" for a possible errant (not grossly negligent) shot, we should not expect a reasonable man to try to stop a rampager, IMHO.

 

[9mmepiphany]

That principle would not reasonably apply to an innocent bystander going about his own affairs who is injured by the stray bullets of a citizen firing a gun to save someone else and who would not have been injured but for the actions of the shooter.

You mean, perhaps, who would not have been injured except for the initial actions of the rampager. But yes: if we are not willing to indemnify a "hero" for a possible errant (not grossly negligent) shot, we should not expect a reasonable man to try to stop a rampager, IMHO.

No he means the choice of the Defender to try to stop an Attecker.

While the Defender may have been endangered and might have even been acting to stop the Attacker from harming the focus of his action. A Bystander, who is not the focus of the Attacker's actions should not have to fear the actions of a Defender. That Bystander could very well have been waiting for a chance, when the Attacker's attention was diverted from his location to take that opportunity to herd his family to safety...only to watch his youngest child mortally struck down by the Defender's ill aimed bullet.

Even a LEO, who is indemnified by his agency, gives this factor a lot of thought before acting...it is part of their training.

Having seen the reluctance of most folks to even engage in fundamental marksmanship training much less advanced training against a moving/aggressive target, I can see a high hurdle to overcome...unless you are advocating a higher amount of training for folks who would like to actively defend others

 

[Loosedhorse]

A Bystander, who is not the focus of the Attacker's actions should not have to fear the actions of a Defender.

Sure. And a victim "should" not have to be harmed by a rampager. And another victim "should" not have to be harmed by a rampager if a "defender"* could have taken the rampager out...but decided not to because he realized he might miss, and be sued.

We're far past the perfect world of shoulds in this scenario. We're into what we want to risk--further harm by the rampager, or further harm by a defender's missed shot. No right answer--just a question of which risk we wish to choose.

If we choose not to protect the defender, we choose to let the rampager shoot. And, again, that's fine. We should just realize that that's who we've, in essence, chosen to protect.



*I would maintain that "defender" is the wrong term for a "bystander" (someone who would not have suffered harm) who chooses to try to protect others he doesn't have a formal obligation to protect--at his own personal and legal risk. To me, "hero" is closer. But I'll use defender if it avoids contention.

 

[9mmepiphany]

If we choose not to protect the defender, we choose to let the rampager shoot. And, again, that's fine. We should just realize that that's who we've, in essence, chosen to protect.

I would suggest that the person being protected is the Bystander trying to protect his family and escape the scene. What we are asking the Defender (I mean the term broadly, meaning self and others) to do is obtain enough training to be proficient enough to effectively place his shots to stop the attack. It has been my experience that a less than proficient Defender engages in such acts because of a delusion of his ability...these are the exact people I don't want to see act with deadly force. That same experience has shown me that folks who go to the expense of getting training to improve their skills have a more realistic view of what is required to prevail in these circumstances and would be likely to make a rational decision of when to intervene...not something based on video game performance.

I would also avoid any confrontation over the use of the term hero. It has been my experience that the term is applied after the results of an action are evaluated. I have seen really stupid actions lauded as heroic and truly heroic actions brushed aside "part of the job"

 

[Neverwinter]

If we choose not to protect the defender, we choose to let the rampager shoot. And, again, that's fine. We should just realize that that's who we've, in essence, chosen to protect.

It is unfortunate that the protection of the bystander who would be shot comes at the expense of the protection of the attacker. It would not be appropriate to allow the defender to risk bystanders' lives to save his own.

 

[Trent]

The main reason I posted this thread up was to see if a discussion about "intervention when you aren't a target" would develop.

The man shooting video from the 4th floor engaged the shooter in dialog and even encouraged the man on the street to shoot AT HIM - without it resulting in the man threatening him - let alone firing on him. In the footage it appears as though the man stand still, puts his arms out and yells at the man - presumably something like "go ahead and kill me". (The original footage which I cannot locate has SOME audio from the aggressor, but I can't find that version to verify what he said.)

The question here multitudinous - maybe the guy is already out of ammunition? Maybe he's saving the last few rounds for the police, who will provide the end game he wants? Maybe he's saving the last round for himself if the cops don't do the job for him? Who knows.. the point is, the person in the window wasn't made a target..

Now, had the person in the window aimed a firearm at the aggressor, you'd expect the man to force the issue - just as he ended up doing with the cops. At that point he'd be pointing a weapon at the person in the window and now there's justification for the window shooter to take the shot.

It seems silly, and dangerously reckless, to engage a person who is on a suicide-by-cop rampage in dialog. It seems ridiculous to wait until you are under direct threat before taking action to end it with lethal force.

But that's exactly what police do.

They engage the suspect in dialog, demand the weapon be dropped, and only when the weapon is pointed AT THEM and they feel they are in immediate danger (or another human being is being fired on), will they use lethal force.

My opinion is even though engaging a hostile in dialog is very dangerous, if you already HAVE the drop on them (you are on target, but they haven't targeted YOU yet), it is a requisite before shooting them. Only after they make a hostile move towards you - then, you have every right to drop them.

Shooting them in the back of the head from 20+ yards away just isn't polite. Hell, if they've run out of ammo and are just walking back and forth waiting to be arrested, you just assassinated someone who is no longer a threat to anyone.

I feel that if you have the drop on someone, unless that person is actively firing or aiming a weapon at another human being, you have a duty to demand surrender prior to becoming judge, jury, and executioner.

Yes, it puts you at much higher risk, and you lose the element of surprise - but it would help provide a legal foundation to CYA when self-defense is considered if you "volunteer" yourself as a target to bring the shooter's attention off of other (defenseless) bystanders.

Just my .02.

 

[.338-06]

In my state (AK) you are allowed to kill (doesn't have to be a gun) someone to stop them from killing someone else, or to keep someone from committing arson on an occupied building. This has happened only once that I can remember. Man saw one guy stabbing another guy, got out of his car and shot the kinfeman.

Oh, I just remembered, you can kill someone to keep them from sabotaging the Pipeline.

 

[Loosedhorse]

It has been my experience that a less than proficient Defender engages in such acts because of a delusion of his ability

I think at this point we are not disagreeing at all, just describing the two different sides of the same coin. By not indemnifying a "rescuer" (bystander who chooses to engage the rampager), we are discouraging reckless or delusional rescuers, but also competent, reasonable ones. Maybe discouraging the reasonable ones more, because those are the folks that would have thought this all out ahead of time.

Recall that even a rescuer's errant bullet might stop a rampage. Many of these killers stop as soon as they meet armed resistance. But by discouraging all rescuers, we protect the rampager in order (as Neverwinter points out) to protect bystanders...and allow the killing to continue.

Many of us have hunted; some with handguns. Think about the type of shot you'd want to place on a deer with a .40 S&W: how close you'd want to be, how still you'd want the deer. And then think about that shot on a rampager. It seems to me that any rescuer with a SD handgun is going to have to be close enough to be easily killed (in order to be dead-sure of his shot); or is going to have to take a shot that any reasonable person knows might miss.

If we want to, as a society, therefore tell him "if you shoot and miss--and you have a good chance of missing--we will punish you, even if you end the rampage", well, we've made our bargain.

It would not be appropriate to allow the defender to risk bystanders' lives to save his own.

Actually, if the attack is upon the defender (he's not a bystander/rescuer who hasn't been engaged by the rampager), he will shoot to save his life first, and worry about any collateral damage later. I am not being cavalier about wounding others, but just realizing that that will likely be a secondary concern if someone is shooting at you.

It may be that your point is we don't indemnify folks who are defending themselves if they wound an innocent; why would we indemnify a rescuer? A person defending himself, with his life on the line, needs no encouragement to protect himself. The question is whether we wish to "encourage" rescuers by at least removing easily anticipated penalties if they intervene.

Again, I'm not talking about indemnity for gross negligence; but for reasonable, competent misses in a dynamic situation.

As if it matters to this story: just about impossible for anyone in the LA area to carry legally.

you have a duty to demand surrender prior to becoming judge, jury, and executioner.

No. If the rampager is still armed, he is still a threat. If I challenge, I become his next target. Shooting him before he notices you is not a "fair fight", but it is sound tactics. I have no interest in engaging a murderer in a fair fight.

 

[JustinJ]

It seems silly, and dangerously reckless, to engage a person who is on a suicide-by-cop rampage in dialog. It seems ridiculous to wait until you are under direct threat before taking action to end it with lethal force.

But that's exactly what police do.

Maybe somebody more knowledgeable on current police training protocol can provide input but an article i read recently for LE advised to not give warning to a shooter who appears to still be a threat.

My opinion is even though engaging a hostile in dialog is very dangerous, if you already HAVE the drop on them (you are on target, but they haven't targeted YOU yet), it is a requisite before shooting them. Only after they make a hostile move towards you - then, you have every right to drop them.

Shooting them in the back of the head from 20+ yards away just isn't polite. Hell, if they've run out of ammo and are just walking back and forth waiting to be arrested, you just assassinated someone who is no longer a threat to anyone.

I feel that if you have the drop on someone, unless that person is actively firing or aiming a weapon at another human being, you have a duty to demand surrender prior to becoming judge, jury, and executioner.

Assassinated? Judge, jury and executioner? Sorry, but no. If you have solid reason to believe the guy is still a threat, such as gun in hand, that is absurd. Maybe you should also wait until bullets hit you because he may just be firing blanks in which case you've just "assassinated" him.

 

[Jbabbler]

My response depends on what I was carrying at the time. If I happened to be out jogging with my LCP or TCP, I'm bugging out. If I were driving and had something more substantial I would take action if the option presented itself.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Loosedhorse: If we want to, as a society, therefore tell him "if you shoot and miss--and you have a good chance of missing--we will punish you, even if you end the rampage", well, we've made our bargain.

As a society, we do not tell anyone that. However, as a matter of centuries old law, we do give any innocent person who is injured by that miss the right to seek compensation. And that is as it should be.

It may be that your point is we don't indemnify folks who are defending themselves if they wound an innocent;....

That is my point, and we do not.

We do indemnify sworn officers; it is the only way to get them them to carry badges. But it is an expensive proposition. We also establish policies and procedures to minimize the risk of liability. It is extremely unlikely that city and county governments will ever consider assuming the liability incurred by untrained, unsworn citizens who are not expressly given the duty to enforce the law. Many communities care close enough to bankrupt as it is.

The question is whether we wish to "encourage" rescuers by at least removing easily anticipated penalties if they intervene.

There is a distinct difference between penalties and responsibility for damages.

Again, I'm not talking about indemnity for gross negligence; but for reasonable, competent misses in a dynamic situation.

It is likely that a shooter who has exhibited gross negligence and has killed or injured one or more bystanders will end up facing criminal charges in addition to incurring civil liability (the latter of which could indeed include the award of punitive damages).

 

[JustinJ]

While protectors of third parties may not be indemnified the "society" in my state has a law specifically saying it is justifiable to defend others.

 

[Loosedhorse]

we do give any innocent person who is injured by that miss the right to seek compensation. And that is as it should be.

Just as we used to give innocent persons who receive emergency medical aid by a good Samaritan the right to sue for injury resulting from the rescuer's good faith effort. But in those states that have GSLs, that right has been stripped away.

here is a distinct difference between penalties and responsibility for damages.

In theory, yes. In practice, no. Again, lawsuits against good Sams "only" sought responsibility for damages, but they had the effect of penalizing those who stopped to give aid. So GSLs removed the right of the injured to sue their rescuers for damages.

It is likely that a shooter who has exhibited gross negligence and has killed or injured one or more bystanders will end up facing criminal charges in addition to incurring civil liability (the latter of which could indeed include the award of punitive damages).

And that's fine. But if the rescuer injures someone through competent, good-faith effort, the responsibility should lie with the rampager. Not that that will happen. I agree that it is very unlikely that the law will change to encourage rescue shooters.

 

[Kleanbore]

Just as we used to give innocent persons who receive emergency medical aid by a good Samaritan the right to sue for injury resulting from the rescuer's good faith effort. But in those states that have GSLs, that right has been stripped away.

Yes, the theory being that in the presence of dire need, the victim would die absent immediate treatment, and it made no sense at all to make him or her more likely to die by dissuading people to rescue him or her. Makes sense to me

But if the rescuer injures someone through competent, good-faith effort, the responsibility should lie with the rampager.

Actually, the responsibility for the criminal act does lie entirely with the rampager, if the shooter's use of deadly force is justified by the commission of a crime. The rampager (who likely has no money) can also be allocated some of the civil liability, but it would make no sense to prevent the injured bystander from seeking damages from someone whose bullets injured him or her. He or she will also do so if the injury is caused by a sworn officer, but the community that hires the sworn officer will assume the liability.

From the standpoint of public safety, it does make perfect sense to dissuade untrained shooters who do not act under approved procedures and who are not under instruction from superior officers from opening fire in public places under most circumstances.

 

[9mmepiphany]

By not indemnifying a "rescuer" (bystander who chooses to engage the rampager), we are discouraging reckless or delusional rescuers, but also competent, reasonable ones. Maybe discouraging the reasonable ones more, because those are the folks that would have thought this all out ahead of time.

Having spent a career thinking this kind of thing through and "running toward the gunfire"...I would not encourage anyone to do it. There is a price to be paid for all actions, but for the untrained, there are unseen/unknown cost.

Having retired, I still tend to be prepared to act to defend others from deadly harm. But I feel that I have a better sense of when and where and how to act. I don't think civil exposure discourages the competent and the reasonable, they act because it is the ethical thing to do. They seek neither protections nor thanks before deciding on a course of action.

 

[Deaf Smith]

While back in Oklahoma a Trooper had stop and started to arrest a felon. They had a big fight going and about 100 yards away at a rest stop an father and his son were there. Being a hunter he had a .243 rifle in his truck.

He got it out just as the felon was shooting at the prone officer. The hunter blew the killer away but unfortunately not before he had killed the officer.

And then here in Texas, in Tyler, at the court house a man with a MAK-90 (AK clone) killed his ex-wife, wounded his own son, and killed Mark Wilson, who came to their aid with a .45 Auto (Mark's apartment overlooked the courthouse square and from there he saw the shooting unfold.) Now what would have happened if Mark had, say a 30/30, and instead just opened the window and shot the killer?

So, now you ask what would I do? Hmm I'd unlimber the rifle kept in my car, keep my distance, and stop the nutjob. And you don't need a fancy gun. Even a cheep .22 magnum bolt action with scope will do.

Just keep your distance, watch for a good opportunity (like make sure what is behind them, any bystanders, any armor, etc..), and when it's safe, plug 'em.

Deaf