Does a claim of self-defense indemnify you if you hit innocent bystanders?

[Sav .250]

So guy ....says. I rest my case.

 

[Kleanbore]

Anyone with a lick of sense knows they should clear the area behind their target before firing. If a group of people are obviously standing behind your target, and you shoot anyways, hitting them as well as your target, I have a hard time fathoming you are not liable.

That is most certainly true if one is shooting game, vermin, or targets.

Introduce the element of immediate necessity us of force force self defense and the picture changes. As Frank Ettin stated, "A recovery based on negligence of a shooter justifiably using lethal force to protect himself or someone else requires establishing that the shooter failed to exercise the appropriate level of care. Deciding that question can lead to a fairly complicated calculus considering the exigency of the situation, the risk to the shooter, and the reasonableness of his decisions and actions in light of the emergency nature of the event, his reasonably perceived need to act quickly and decisively, stress levels and other factors. So while a defender could be justified in responding to a threat using lethal force, he could still have liability to injured, innocent bystanders if he goes about thing in a sloppy way."

In self defense situation, it is unlikely that one would reasonably be able to "clear the area behind their target before firing".

It will be situation dependent. On one occasion, I happened into a developing robbery situation. Under the circumstances, the use of deadly force on my part might well have become necessary. I was able before drawing to move to gain a backstop without persons behind the robber and to greatly reduce any risk of persons stepping between the robber and me.

Fortunately, the robber decided to abort his plans and flee.

 

[Torian]

That is most certainly true if one is shooting game, vermin, or targets.

Introduce the element of immediate necessity us of force force self defense and the picture changes. As Frank Ettin stated, "A recovery based on negligence of a shooter justifiably using lethal force to protect himself or someone else requires establishing that the shooter failed to exercise the appropriate level of care. Deciding that question can lead to a fairly complicated calculus considering the exigency of the situation, the risk to the shooter, and the reasonableness of his decisions and actions in light of the emergency nature of the event, his reasonably perceived need to act quickly and decisively, stress levels and other factors. So while a defender could be justified in responding to a threat using lethal force, he could still have liability to injured, innocent bystanders if he goes about thing in a sloppy way."

In self defense situation, it is unlikely that one would reasonably be able to "clear the area behind their target before firing".

It will be situation dependent. On one occasion, I happened into a developing robbery situation. Under the circumstances, the use of deadly force on my part might well have become necessary. I was able before drawing to move to gain a backstop without persons behind the robber and to greatly reduce any risk of persons stepping between the robber and me.

Fortunately, the robber decided to abort his plans and flee.

I do not disagree. There are situations where you couldn't clear the area behind your target, such as your bullet going through a wall and hitting someone on the other side. I spoke in exaggerated terms to create the point. One can only hope that a judge/jury would see the logic in this argument.

 

[Deanimator]

However, if you initiate a gunfight that didn't absolutely have to happen then I think you're liable for everything that follows.

What are the criteria for whether it "absolutely has to happen"?

Black Lies Matter, et al will cheerfully tell you that you only have to passively allow yourself to be robbed, raped or murdered without fighting back to avoid a "gunfight".

Does deadly force "absolutely have to happen" to avoid a robbery?
A rape?
A savage beating?

Do you have to trust in the "good intentions" of a violent assailant?

Or are his actions, in and of themselves, prime facie evidence of an immediate and credible threat to your life and limb?

 

[Dexter Winslett]

As a police officer we were held accountable for all of our actions regardless, I would expect a court to hold any and all all citizens accountable for acts of reckless behaviour , whether in defense or not. That said, it is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six.

 

[Kleanbore]

What are the criteria for whether it "absolutely has to happen"?

That, of course, is the key question, as "immediate necessity" is a key element of justification.

It will hinge on what reasonable persons would have done in like circumstances knowing what the amor knew at the time.

 

[grampajack]

What are the criteria for whether it "absolutely has to happen"?

Black Lies Matter, et al will cheerfully tell you that you only have to passively allow yourself to be robbed, raped or murdered without fighting back to avoid a "gunfight".

Does deadly force "absolutely have to happen" to avoid a robbery?
A rape?
A savage beating?

Do you have to trust in the "good intentions" of a violent assailant?

Or are his actions, in and of themselves, prime facie evidence of an immediate and credible threat to your life and limb?

Well, first of all you don't have to initiate a gunfight to save property. If you're in a crowded place being held up and the robber isn't showing any proclivity towards shooting anyone then it might be best to just wait and hope he leaves peacefully. That's a judgement call you would just have to make for yourself.

If someone is doing you bodily harm then you don't really have a choice do you? But, if someone is raping or beating you then your chances of taking them out without hitting a bystander are pretty good. Those are certainly different circumstances than initiating a gunfight in a crowded place. My statements pertained to YOU being the aggressor, as in you were the one to escalate the situation. Under these circumstances, you would not be the one to initiate the fight. The fight came to you, and you were forced to defend your own life.

Like I said already, a mass shooting is a good example of a situation where you can't just sit idly by. Even if you don't care about saving others, your self preservation alone dictates that you have to initiate a gunfight regardless of the circumstances. Let's say for example that someone in that Miami gay bar had had a gun. Given how crowded it was, it's a fair bet that people would have gotten caught in the crossfire (on both sides), but it's undeniable that lives would have been saved by such action.

I think my original statement pretty much sums this all up. I think it's pretty self explanatory:

"However, if you initiate a gunfight that didn't absolutely have to happen then I think you're liable for everything that follows. Just my personal opinion. I think the best policy is to never shoot unless you believe with all your heart that you or some innocent person is going to die unless you do."

 

[shafter]

Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

So that is that... I am pretty sure most other states have similar wording. If you injure or kill a third party, yep you are in deep doo-doo.

Deaf

It would be interesting to find out how the law interprets "recklessly". If a bad guy is shooting at you, and having no cover you return fire, and that bullet goes through his chest and hits grandma whom you couldn't see because she was directly behind the bad guy and kills her, does that constitute recklessly? Maybe not.

I'm inclined to think that "recklessly" might better fit the individual with no training, returns fire with a flurry of poorly aimed shots and strikes grandma who is standing several feet off to the left or right of the bad guy. The individual is justified to shoot but acted recklessly nonetheless.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to have the answer. I'm just throwing this out there for the sake of discussion.

 

[shafter]

Duplicate post

 

[Frank Ettin]

It would be interesting to find out how the law interprets "recklessly". .....

There is an answer. It just takes some research. For example:

...Recklessness is a state of mind that is determined both subjectively and objectively. There are two types of reckless behavior. The first looks at what the actor knew or is believed to have been thinking when the act occurred (subjective test). The second considers what a reasonable person would have thought in the defendant's position (objective test). In both situations, the issue turns on conscious awareness, or whether the person knew (or should have known) his actions may cause harm to another.....

Whether a particular act was reckless will be a question of fact for the jury to be decided based on the totality of the circumstances.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Each state has it's own definitions. Be careful cause your laws in one state may not at all be like other states.

Black's Law Dictionary defines recklessness in American law as "Conduct whereby the actor does not desire harmful consequence but...foresees the possibility and consciously takes the risk," or alternatively as "a state of mind in which a person does not care about the consequences of his or her actions." Black's Law dictionary 1053 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 8th ed. abr. 2005). In American courts, like English courts, a wrongdoer is found guilty of recklessness based upon the subjective test rule, where the accused must have had the same reasonable knowledge or ability to know the circumstances surrounding the incident in order to be found guilty of recklessness.

Deaf

 

[Deaf Smith]

It would be interesting to find out how the law interprets "recklessly".

Texas:

Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.

(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.6.htm#6.03

Deaf

 

[Deanimator]

Well, first of all you don't have to initiate a gunfight to save property.

1. Somebody stealing a toaster out of an unoccupied dwelling is a property crime.
2. Somebody robbing another person either through violence or the threat thereof is a crime against a person.

I'm not going to shoot you if I see you climbing out my livingroom window with my 25 year old VCR.

If you pull a knife or a gun on me and try to forcibly rob me, I'm going to shoot you. Don't like that? Get a job.

If you're in a crowded place being held up and the robber isn't showing any proclivity towards shooting anyone then it might be best to just wait and hope he leaves peacefully. That's a judgement call you would just have to make for yourself.

No plan I will ever have involves trusting in the good judgement and basic human decency of an armed robber.

If someone is doing you bodily harm then you don't really have a choice do you?

Of course you have a choice. You can choose to be a victim, to run away or to defend yourself.

I've talked to, listened to, and read about any number of people who said that they'd rather die than harm (nevermind kill) somebody in self-defense.

"However, if you initiate a gunfight that didn't absolutely have to happen then I think you're liable for everything that follows.

I've seen plenty of people who said that a gunfight NEVER has to happen, and that you should be willing to DIE to avoid one.

 

[grampajack]

1. Somebody stealing a toaster out of an unoccupied dwelling is a property crime.
2. Somebody robbing another person either through violence or the threat thereof is a crime against a person.

I'm not going to shoot you if I see you climbing out my livingroom window with my 25 year old VCR.

If you pull a knife or a gun on me and try to forcibly rob me, I'm going to shoot you. Don't like that? Get a job.

You're totally missing the point. There are situations where you would be legally justified to shoot someone, but doing so would be reckless, and if a bystander gets killed during a gunfight you forced then you will probably be held liable, or just get yourself killed. For example, someone is mugging you and they have the drop on you. They may shoot you or just take your wallet and run off, but if you try to draw on a drawn gun you're almost certain to get shot, so it makes sense to play the odds and hope they just take your wallet. Or you're in a busy convenience store and a bad guy comes in waving a gun demanding cash. Odds are he will take the money and run without hurting anyone. While you would be legally justified to shoot him, is it really the smart thing to do in a store full of people? Maybe, maybe not. That's a decision you would have to make on the spot based on the lines of fire and how dangerous you think the guy is.

No plan I will ever have involves trusting in the good judgement and basic human decency of an armed robber.

No one is suggesting that at all.

Of course you have a choice. You can choose to be a victim, to run away or to defend yourself.

If making the smart choice is being a victim then I would rather be a live victim than a dead or incarcerated hero. Just because you're legally justified in shooting someone doesn't mean it's always a good idea.

I've talked to, listened to, and read about any number of people who said that they'd rather die than harm (nevermind kill) somebody in self-defense.

Those people are severely mentally ill, and probably delusional or lying to boot. You can't worry about them. All you can do is make the best decisions in the moment you have to make them and hope for the best. I'm really not sure what your point is.

I've seen plenty of people who said that a gunfight NEVER has to happen, and that you should be willing to DIE to avoid one.

Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[Deanimator]

If making the smart choice is being a victim then I would rather be a live victim than a dead or incarcerated hero. Just because you're legally justified in shooting someone doesn't mean it's always a good idea.

You're putting that choice into somebody ELSE'S hands, somebody who's already proved that he has bad judgment, bad morals, and quite possibly bad brain chemistry.

Do so if you like.

I won't.

 

[grampajack]

You're putting that choice into somebody ELSE'S hands, somebody who's already proved that he has bad judgment, bad morals, and quite possibly bad brain chemistry.

Do so if you like.

I won't.

Again, that's not what I'm saying at all. Not even close.

You're not putting your life in the criminal's hands, you're putting your life in the hands of statistical probability. Or rather you're playing the odds that give you and everyone around you the best chance of survival.

This study (http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2383&context=facpubs) is dated but I think it's still relevant and I'm not going to spend hours researching this because I already know the general picture. If I'm reading the graph correctly there were 20k robberies in Detroit in 1974, and only 155 deaths were reported out of all of them. That means you and everyone around you has a really, really good chance of coming out of any given stickup completely unscathed. If you pull a gun and start shooting the odds of you and all the bystanders getting hurt or killed go up dramatically.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be allowed to meet deadly force with the same, or that anyone who uses deadly force to rob innocent people doesn't deserve to get shot. Not at all. And I'm certainly not saying we have any kind of moral obligation to "turn the other cheek" like so many liberals would require us by law to do.

But if you're drawing on a drawn gun or don't have a clear line of fire in both directions, good grief man, play the odds and live, and let those around you live, rather than proving a point or trying to be a hero.

ETA: I think we're really getting off topic here, though. The original question was whether your good intentions would protect you from legal trouble if one of your bullets hits a bystander. Or as I understand the OP, an otherwise good shoot where you accidentally hit a bystander in the process.

What I'm trying to say is I think it all depends on a myriad of different circumstances, but primarily I think what the jury will be swayed by is how necessary it was for you to shoot in the first place, and use that as the largest assessment of how reckless you were. Because that's really what it boils down to is if the jury thinks your actions were reckless or not.

 

[Deanimator]

You're not putting your life in the criminal's hands, you're putting your life in the hands of statistical probability.

Which two things are EXACTLY the same. You want me to put my life in the hands of "statistical probability" that the meth addicted sociopath WON'T suddenly decide to kill me for... some reason (or none at all).

It's the equivalent of saying, "He wasn't killed by being pushed off the roof. It was the sudden stop that did him in."

That's what they call "a distinction without a difference".

I may very well get shot... but it won't be in the back of the head, while on my knees, begging pathetically for my life.

But hey, if you can't trust the Steven J. Hayeses and Joshua A. Komisarjevskys of this world, whom CAN you trust?

 

[grampajack]

Which two things are EXACTLY the same. You want me to put my life in the hands of "statistical probability" that the meth addicted sociopath WON'T suddenly decide to kill me for... some reason (or none at all).

It's the equivalent of saying, "He wasn't killed by being pushed off the roof. It was the sudden stop that did him in."

That's what they call "a distinction without a difference".

I may very well get shot... but it won't be in the back of the head, while on my knees, begging pathetically for my life.

But hey, if you can't trust the Steven J. Hayeses and Joshua A. Komisarjevskys of this world, whom CAN you trust?

Absolutely not. That's like saying you trust the sharks not to bite you when you go swimming in the ocean, or you trust lightning not to strike your tent when you get caught camping in a thunderstorm. Rather, you simply trust the fact that luck is on your side in such circumstances.

But what exactly are you saying? Are you saying you would take a shot when you didn't absolutely have to even if you didn't have a clear line of fire, or if there were bystanders behind the target? Are you saying you would draw on a drawn gun? I can't figure out what exactly you're arguing.

 

[Deanimator]

Absolutely not. That's like saying you trust the sharks not to bite you when you go swimming in the ocean, or you trust lightning not to strike your tent when you get caught camping in a thunderstorm. Rather, you simply trust the fact that luck is on your side in such circumstances.

I don't go swimming in the pond at the Australian golf course that has a population of bull sharks, nor do I wave golf clubs over my head during electrical storms.

But what exactly are you saying?

I'm saying that I'm not going to submit to unlawful deadly force, and I'm certainly not going to trust some tweaker to do the "right thing".

I may get shot, but it'll be because I actively tried to defend myself, not because I meekly submitted to drooling, atavistic beasts and passively LET myself get killed. If you put me in reasonable and immediate fear of life and limb, I'm going to act. I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm going to take you at your word and hold you to that choice. Your choice is probably going to be irrevocable and not to your benefit.

 

[Big7]

Short answer is ............. NO.

 

[grampajack]

I don't go swimming in the pond at the Australian golf course that has a population of bull sharks, nor do I wave golf clubs over my head during electrical storms.


I'm saying that I'm not going to submit to unlawful deadly force, and I'm certainly not going to trust some tweaker to do the "right thing".

I may get shot, but it'll be because I actively tried to defend myself, not because I meekly submitted to drooling, atavistic beasts and passively LET myself get killed. If you put me in reasonable and immediate fear of life and limb, I'm going to act. I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm going to take you at your word and hold you to that choice. Your choice is probably going to be irrevocable and not to your benefit.

So someone comes into a crowded little gas station waving a gun around and you're going to open fire even though there are bystanders directly behind both of you? Even though there's well over a 99% chance that everyone would walk out unscathed if you did absolutely nothing? All I can say is you wouldn't want me on your jury if you got someone shot under those circumstances.

 

[Frank Ettin]

That's [more than] enough.