Ah! A question for a bunch of lawyers...
Here's the problem.
Assuming that the perp survives - lawsuits galore. You have money? Your a** is theirs (and his) in perpetuity.
Whether the victim (original) (OV) lives or dies, the emphasis will be on you. You're the reason the whole thing came to a conclusion. Pretty warped thinking, eh?
Whatever happened to the "...he hit me first..." scenario? And why do judges allow attorneys to even venture past that line of logic? If the guy that's assaulting the OV was confronted by an officer, and he did exactly the same thing that you're forced to do, why would it be allowed to procede further in the prosecution. I say, "Stop the BS about what might have happened. Fact #1: Perp was beating OV. Fact #2. Good Samaritan (GS) came to aid and even though he's somewhat of a poor shot, did manage to put an end to the perp's rampage. Case dismissed. As for the OV, direct him to sue the a** off the perp and his entourage."
And for good measure - any attorney that's assinine to defend the perp, or sue someone else on the perp's behalf, should be forced, by the courts, to share in the repatriation to any and all victims of the perp's actions. Maybe a few attorneys having to "buck-up" for halfa**ed lawsuits and countersuits will thin out some of these frivoulous court actions that currently clogging courts around the country.
Thanks for letting me vent! Me spleen is now clean! 