Agreed.That's far from taking the law into one's own hands.
I am uncomfortable with that idea.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.
The indemnification of "volunteers" who are not trained and who do not act under approved community procedures is most unlikely also.
I don't know about "usually"; but I do know about MA.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.
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.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.
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.Innocent persons injured by law enforcement officers do have the right to seek and collect damages
society in general is telling me to butt out--that's fine, I can read the message.
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.[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.
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.the victim aided by the good samaritan cannot receive compensation at all.
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.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.
No he means the choice of the Defender to try to stop an Attecker.Loosedhorse said: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.Kleanbore said: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.
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.A Bystander, who is not the focus of the Attacker's actions should not have to fear the actions of a Defender.
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.Loosedhorse said: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.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 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.It has been my experience that a less than proficient Defender engages in such acts because of a delusion of his ability
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 would not be appropriate to allow the defender to risk bystanders' lives to save his own.
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.you have a duty to demand surrender prior to becoming judge, jury, and executioner.
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.
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.
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.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.
That is my point, and we do not.It may be that your point is we don't indemnify folks who are defending themselves if they wound an innocent;....
There is a distinct difference between penalties and responsibility for damages.The question is whether we wish to "encourage" rescuers by at least removing easily anticipated penalties if they intervene.
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).Again, I'm not talking about indemnity for gross negligence; but for reasonable, competent misses in a dynamic situation.
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.we do give any innocent person who is injured by that miss the right to seek compensation. And that is as it should be.
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.here is a distinct difference between penalties and responsibility for 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.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).
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 meJust 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.
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.But if the rescuer injures someone through competent, good-faith effort, the responsibility should lie with the rampager.
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.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.