Sav .250
Member
So guy ....says. I rest my case.
That is most certainly true if one is shooting game, vermin, or targets.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.
What are the criteria for whether it "absolutely has to happen"?However, if you initiate a gunfight that didn't absolutely have to happen then I think you're liable for everything that follows.
That, of course, is the key question, as "immediate necessity" is a key element of justification.What are the criteria for whether it "absolutely has to happen"?
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?
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
There is an answer. It just takes some research. For example:It would be interesting to find out how the law interprets "recklessly". .....
...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.....
It would be interesting to find out how the law interprets "recklessly".
Well, first of all you don't have to initiate a gunfight to save property.
No plan I will ever have involves trusting in the good judgement and basic human decency of an armed robber.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.
Of course you have a choice. You can choose to be a victim, to run away or to defend yourself.If someone is doing you bodily harm then you don't really have a choice do you?
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."However, if you initiate a gunfight that didn't absolutely have to happen then I think you're liable for everything that follows.
I'm not going to shoot you if I see you climbing out my livingroom window with my 25 year old VCR.
- Somebody stealing a toaster out of an unoccupied dwelling is a property crime.
- Somebody robbing another person either through violence or the threat thereof is a crime against a person.
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.
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.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.
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).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?
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.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'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".But what exactly are you saying?
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.