19-Year-Old, Gun, Macho Puffing Up, "Self-Defense," Dead Bystander

[Shadowangel]

It it was an accidental death during the course of self defense, which is questionable here, I don't think it should be tried as a murder. Murder, by legal definition, is intentional. This guy wasn't intentionally shooting at the bystander.

Problem #2 has many heads, not just criminal. You may escape criminal prosecution, but end up sued and bleeding money.

In states with Castle Doctrine or stand your ground, I think you're immune to civil liability if you're either found innocent or not charged with criminal charges. It's that way in Oklahoma, anyhow. But I get your point.

 

[El Tejon]

Shadow, you do know about "transferred intent", right?

 

[divemedic]

There is too little evidence here to say whether or not firing the weapon was self defense. Since he hit someone who was not a combatant, the call here would be manslaughter, or voluntary homicide- but certainly not murder.

I find it interesting that as soon as a picture of a black man was shown, it became all about the guys being "gang bangers." That clearly shows a racist undertone in this thread.

Incidentally, in many states it is completely legal for a 19 year old to own a gun.

 

[hotshotshoting]

el tejon in your quote "If someone breaks into my house, I shoot him in the doorway with a .44 mag and the bullet goes through him and down the street injuring or killing another party, to try me for anything is a miscarriage of justice.

That it might be a miscarriage of justice, but recognize that it could happen and be ready to pay.

Problem #2 has many heads, not just criminal. You may escape criminal prosecution, but end up sued and bleeding money."

in florida you cannot be sued as long as its a justifiable action...

 

[Shadowangel]

Shadow, you do know about "transferred intent", right?

Yes. But in my understanding then, the bystander's death should be charged to the guy that initiated the shooting, not the one firing back in "self defense".

It two guys are robbing a convenient store, you shoot one, and the other escapes, the one that got away is charged with the other guy's death.

 

[Eric F]

In states with Castle Doctrine or stand your ground, I think you're immune to civil liability if you're either found innocent or not charged with criminal charges. It's that way in Oklahoma, anyhow. But I get your point.

I am no huge study of law but in this case 1 he was 19 and not suposed to be in posession of a pistol and 2. this law aplies only to the asailent and their family from sueing you, doesnt it?

 

[inherentical]

I find it interesting that as soon as a picture of a black man was shown, it became all about the guys being "gang bangers." That clearly shows a racist undertone in this thread.

Because showing a white guy in a wife-beater wouldn't have had people calling them rednecks? Don't be silly.

 

[GEM]

One should check if the Castle doctrine in your state gives you immunity against suits by the person you were defending yourself against as compared to hitting an innocent who was not party of the action.

I wouldn't count on that.

 

[hotshotshoting]

eric f "I am no huge study of law but in this case 1 he was 19 and not suposed to be in posession of a pistol and 2. this law aplies only to the asailent and their family from sueing you, doesnt it?"


no it specifically says no civil litigation..

not to mention it is not illegal "depending on the state" to posses and even carry in some states a pistol at the age of 18...

 

[TexasRifleman]

If someone breaks into my house, I shoot him in the doorway with a .44 mag and the bullet goes through him and down the street injuring or killing another party, to try me for anything is a miscarriage of justice.

NOT trying you would be a miscarriage of justice in that case.

YOU should have chosen something besides a .44 or been more careful where you shot. It's still your fault and letting you off the hook for it would be unacceptable.

You do not have the right to take an innocents life in defense of your own, plain and simple.

 

[Shadowangel]

I just think the talk of civil and criminal liability is a little bit overplayed on these forums. Which is good, honestly. You SHOULD have to worry about your actions when you're making life and death decisions. There ARE consequences. But at the same time, I've witnessed many, many self defense shootings where the shooter spent no time in jail, was not tried, and was not sued. If your self defense shooting is pretty clear cut and you're not in an area with a horribly anti prosecutor, most people will probably come out of it okay.

Like I said... just my opinion.

 

[Shadowangel]

NOT trying you would be a miscarriage of justice in that case.

YOU should have chosen something besides a .44 or been more careful where you shot. It's still your fault and letting you off the hook for it would be unacceptable.

You do not have the right to take an innocents life in defense of your own, plain and simple.

In my understanding, the criminal you shot in the doorway would actually be the one charged with the innocent person's death. Not you, even though you pulled the trigger.

 

[Eric F]

no it specifically says no civil litigation..

I am willing to bet in a long drawn out trial this will get over turned on some level. I know if my loved one got shot as a result of 2 others shooting it out self defense or not I would take it all the way to SCOTUS if I could. Why should my family pay because of your shoot through and/or bad shot?

 

[TexasRifleman]

In my understanding, the criminal you shot in the doorway would actually be the one charged with the innocent person's death. Not you, even though you pulled the trigger.

Nope, it's all on you. He may also be charged with 'felony murder' or similar but your gun killed an innocent, it's your fault no matter what drove you to pull the trigger.

And Castle Doctrine does NOT protect you from civil liability if you shoot an innocent.

If your self defense shooting is pretty clear cut and you're not in an area with a horribly anti prosecutor, most people will probably come out of it okay.

Sure, that's probably true. But in the case where an innocent is killed you're toast.

Back to the Castle Doctrine:

Texas code says:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

So yes, you are immune from civil liability IF YOU SHOOT SOMEONE YOU CAN LEGALLY SHOOT. Since you can't legally shoot an innocent in a self defense situation the Castle Doctrine does NOT cover civil or criminal liability from that shoot.

 

[Shadowangel]

Nope, it's all on you. He may also be charged with 'felony murder' or similar but your gun killed an innocent, it's your fault no matter what drove you to pull the trigger.

And Castle Doctrine does NOT protect you from civil liability if you shoot an innocent.

Not saying you're wrong, but i'd like to see a link to the law that says what you imply. I've talked to my lawyer about similar circumstances, and i've read anecdotal evidence supporting the fact that the criminal would be charged for the death of the innocent in this fictional case, not the shooter.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Not saying you're wrong, but i'd like to see a link to the law that says what you imply. I've talked to my lawyer about similar circumstances, and i've read anecdotal evidence supporting the fact that the criminal would be charged for the death of the innocent in this fictional case, not the shooter.

Show me any state's penal code where it says you can shoot a bystander. If you are justified in shooting, you are still only justified in shooting THE BAD GUY.

If you hit someone else you have illegally used deadly force against that person and if they die, you murdered them. The guy breaking into your house may be charged as well, and should be, but YOU shot an innocent. You don't get a free pass because you are shooting in self defense and if you have a lawyer that told you you WOULD, get another lawyer.

Go read up on what El T mentioned; "Transferred Intent".... Bullets kill, you shoot a bullet you intended to kill, the intent follows the bullet no matter who it kills.

Toast.

 

[bigfoot311]

Not saying you're wrong, but i'd like to see a link to the law that says what you imply. I've talked to my lawyer about similar circumstances, and i've read anecdotal evidence supporting the fact that the criminal would be charged for the death of the innocent in this fictional case, not the shooter.

i think what you are referring to is "vicarious standing", but i dont think it would apply in this situation

 

[CountGlockula]

All because of a "look".

That's when words, mean looks and scoldings were exchanged, Clark said, involving Dixon, Jarvis and Jarvis' three companions.

:banghead:

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Jarvis, along with Jovan Preche Dixon, is charged with attempted first-degree murder, felony murder, first-degree murder, reckless endangerment and unlawful carrying and possession of a firearm.

1) He is charged w/ unlawful carrying & possession of a firearm. In TN it is legal for an 18 year old to possess a handgun so likely (I don't have a cite) both guys are felons. Something prohibited them from having firearms.

2) In another news article it was stated both are members of a gang.

3) The DA obviously didn't buy the SD argument since they are being tried. Once the shooting is NOT a SD then it becomes a felony "attempted 1st degree" murder.

4) In most states if you kill an innocent person in the commission of a felony it is 1st degree felony murder. It isn't homicide, or assault, or anything else. Rob a 7-11, get into shootout w/ police, hit random person that is 100% murder (in most states). The malice of forethought is transfered from the original crime to the killing.

5)Since both shooters meet the criteria of "attempted murder" (for trying to kill the other gang member) if the are found guilty on that charge they both can be found guilty of the "felony murder" charge (of the bystander). Both are guilty not just the one that pulled the trigger.

Morale of story. Make 100% sure you are justified in self-defense. If you actions are not justified you open yourself up to a bunch of additional crimes.

Second Morale of story: Don't be gangbanger, shoot because of something somebody said, or shoot at a fleeing vehicle because it is cool.

 

[Shadowangel]

Show me any state's penal code where it says you can shoot a bystander. If you are justified in shooting, you are still only justified in shooting THE BAD GUY.

If you hit someone else you have illegally used deadly force against that person and if they die, you murdered them.

Give me some time to look this up, and i'll prove you wrong or admit my own ignorance on the subject. You won't find a law saying it's OKAY to shoot a bystander, because that's ridiculous. What you probably can find, howeve,r is a law saying that if a bystander is injured during a legally justifiable shoot, that the charges are placed on the criminal. I'll get back with you shortly.

Let me make clear. I'm not talking about the case in question on the thread. I'm talking about the "guy breaks into your house, you shoot him and the bullet hits an innocent" scenario.

 

[bigfoot311]

4) In most states if you kill an innocent person in the commission of a felony it is 1st degree felony murder. It isn't homicide, or assault, or anything else. Rob a 7-11, get into shootout w/ police, hit random person that is 100% murder (in most states). The malice of forethought is transfered from the original crime to the killing.

+1

i forgot about that clause in the definition of murder

 

[fletcher]

I've talked to my lawyer about similar circumstances, and i've read anecdotal evidence supporting the fact that the criminal would be charged for the death of the innocent in this fictional case, not the shooter.

Is there an instance you can cite where that has occurred?

 

[TexasRifleman]

What you probably can find, howeve,r is a law saying that if a bystander is injured during a legally justifiable shoot, that the charges are placed on the criminal.

No no, you need to find one that says the charges will NOT be placed on the guy shooting in self defense.

I have no doubt the criminal will get a "felony murder" rap but the shooter will be charged as well.
Those laws are quite common, but not the same thing here.

You will not find a law saying it's OK to shoot a bystander or that somehow a shooter is relieved of responsibility for shooting a bystander because they were shooting in self defense.

Go read this idea of "transferred intent", seriously. It is very important here.

 

[Shadowangel]

Not using this as an end all source, but it's the first thing that came up during a search. An article about a legal professor arguing, recently, that people SHOULD be held liable for unintended victims. If they already are, why would this article exist?

http://www.northjersey.com/opinion/moreviews/26495099.html

And a few quotes out of it...

Ordinarily, gun owners who injure innocent people, or whose guns are used by children accidentally or by criminals intentionally to inflict harm, are liable to the person injured only if they are negligent in a way that caused the injury.

Similarly, if a gun owner shoots an innocent bystander in error, the gun owner has to pay for those injuries only if he or she acted unreasonably.

Thoughts?

 

[hotshotshoting]

either way texasrifle it doesnt matter because its going to come down to my laywer is better than your laywer thats how the us courts work....