Posted by agtman: And despite some of the errant info and nonsensical claims made on this thread, many here would benefit from a careful reading of Patrick's book "In Defense of Self," which examines the law, policies and practices involving the use of deadly force by LEOs. It is extremely well-written & well-researched. The newer, 2nd edition has been updated and includes a large number of actual court cases (edited down and/or summarized to make the relevant points apparent), so that the reader can understand how courts & lay juries will treat police deadly-force cases.
The book also addresses use of force law as it pertains to persons other than sworn officers. Everyone should read it.
I presume that you are again discussing civil liability And again, that's just part of the concern that a defender should consider.
The underlying legal principle is that a defender who harms another out of necessity in a defensive use of force situation will not be held liable for the injury. That necessity is a defense in a civil suit. The same thing applies equally to sworn officers performing their duties.
That, of course, presumes that the defender exercises reasonable care, which will be determined by others.
I believe that, if someone is carrying a .460 Magnum, a 44 Magnum, a .41, or a 10MM, particularly in bear country or while hunting, and is forced to defend himself, and harms an innocent third party in a manner that did not result from negligence, most juries will probably not assess civil damages. That, or course, is not a certainty.
I would not want to face a civil jury with a preponderance of the evidence standard if I had chosen to carry a .460 Magnum in the inner city and had harmed an innocent bystander in a building some distance away. What reasonable person would have strapped on
that firearm for self defense downtown?
It would be interesting to see a trial in which a home defender had opened a push-button safe and, having a choice of either a 10MM or a .38 Special, chooses the former, fires, and injures someone in another house. I would not want to be the defendant.
I am a lot less concerned about bullets passing through an intended target than I am about bullets that miss and happen to hit someone else. The issues of reasonable care and immediate reasonable necessity may be less clear, and the defendant must do more than establish reasonable doubt in the minds of the entire jury.
And a tort trial is but one concern. Would anyone really relish the idea of being shielded from liability, perhaps after having been impoverished by the costs of defense, after having killed or injured an innocent child?
I am more concerned about being accosted somehwere else than in my home. A couple of years ago, I stumbled into an obvious robbery attempt that was about to occur. My actions caused the robber to run, but I was ready to intervene with deadly force to save the lives of the proprietors and employees, all friends of mine.
The very first thing I did, after looking for a clear shot, was to think "backstop!". I did not know at the time that Kathy Jackson had already written about the same thing. Fortunately, the robber high-tailed it from the store before gunfire erupted.
At home? Well, the Google map shows me all of the houses around mine in which some innocent might be endangered by bullets passing out from my windows and walls. I keep that in the back of my mind all the time.
I will say this: I would no more choose a firearm that penetrates significantly more than I think I am likely to need because of Attorney Patrick's explanation of the law than I would look for a basis for justifying the use of deadly force if there were any way whatsoever to avoid it, in advance or in the event.