Here’s a scenario: you witness someone assaulting someone else. You tell them to stop The person doing the assaulting (the perp) turns and comes towards you. You have a hand gun. You also have a carry permit. You aim the gun at them and demand they lay on the ground. The perp doesn’t stop coming toward you. You fire several times. One shot misses the perp and hits someone else. The perp is shot and down and a bystander is shot and down. Meanwhile someone calls the cops. They show up. Do you end up going to prison for being a good albeit violent samaritan and coming to the defense of someone unknown?

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

We need more info -- namely, what's the guman's gross household income? Johnny Cochrane's aren't cheap.

Seriously, though, that's a good question.

__________________
1992 300D 2.5T
1980 Euro 300D (sadly, sold)
1998 Jetta TDI, 132K "Rudy"
1974 Triumph TR6
1999 Saab 9-5 wagon (wife's)

Cynical, but I'll second that.

The bystander who was shot may decide not to press charges in a case like that, particularly if some sort of financial settlement could be reached. If they did, though, the penalty would almost certainly involve a healthy dose of jail time due to minimum sentencing laws. That's if the shooter were found guilty, of course. I bet almost every state has minimums for 'gun crimes.'

__________________
Ralph

1985 300D Turbo, CA model
248,650 miles and counting...

that was passed i belive..

The first question I would ask you is this: was the "perp" assaulting the victim with a weapon of some sort? I would have to think that the reasonableness of response would play into this question. If the perp wasn't using a weapon of some sort, how reasonable is it to escalate to deadly force?

I think the best test would be what would happen if it was a police officer that discharged their gun in the exact same situation. Would they be liable if they struck an innocent third party? If they would be, then it is reasonable to assume the samaritan would be as well.

Well, around here the guy shooting would get charged with manslaughter, the assulter would be an accesory as well as like 4 other charges that go with the assault, the person shot and assaulted would be an accessory to both and charged with whatever they call it, escalating a crime or something? That is of course if the cops that gets there first, second and third dont get kill shots before emptying their entire belt of ammunition. Best plan in this case-kill all witnesses, watch for cameras, and dont leave any tire marks.

I know the answer, but am invisible on this thread.

Invisible? You should take off that ring...haven't you seen the movies?

Is that a function of the ignore feature? I've never used it.

__________________
Ralph

1985 300D Turbo, CA model
248,650 miles and counting...

Yeah. I used it once for a short while--mainly so I wouldn't retaliate. What happens, is you can see someone responded, but it is blank where the response is supposed to be. You really have to resist temptation to hit "view post anyway", and I bet most people can't resist

A lot of first year law students have a hard time with these concepts:

1) You have the right to use force when aiding a victim, provided that the force is what the victim would have been entitled to use themselves.

2) You are entitled to "self-defense" when you are not the instigator (or have clearly signaled retreat if you are the instigator); there is a threat of unlawful force; which is imminent and immediate. All three must exist otherwise, it's not "self defense" and if the aggressor is killed, the proper charge would be manslaughter. Aggravated manslaughter is usually tied to the use of a weapon.

3) Non-deadly force is justified where it appears necessary to avoid imminent injury or to retain property. It is the force which "reasonably appears necessary to protect oneself from the imminent use of unlawful force on yourself. There is no duty to retreat.

4) Deadly force is only justified to prevent death or serious bodily injury.

5) Criminal negligence, such as firing a weapon in a crowded area, removes the need to prove intent to kill/harm a bystander and would also be an element of manslaughter.

Yes, no, and it depends.

If you're going to carry a weapon, you only do so with the intent to actually use it should such a situation arise.

But before you even think about, it should be clear that you want to be extremely proficient with that weapon.

I know that I wouldn't miss a human at 21 feet, which is considered a dangerous distance for someone attacking you with a knife. At 21 feet under calm conditions, I can hit a quarter. But under tense conditions, you still follow the same pattern when firing. You ensure that you know exactly where the barrel is pointing before you let the sear release.

If it's a crowded area, the need to shoot an attacker is probably nil. Nobody attacks you with a weapon in a crowded area, with more witnesses than cartridges in their gun.

It should be noted that there is now no duty to retreat in Florida, due to their new law. This is not the case in all states. If you're going to carry a weapon, it is your responsibility to know and follow all applicable laws.

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!

__________________

M. G. Burg
'10 - Dakota SXT - Daily Ride / ≈ 172.5K
.'76 - 450SLC - 107.024.12 / < .89.20 K
..'77 - 280E - 123.033.12 / > 128.20 K
...'67 - El Camino - 283ci / > 207.00 K
....'75 - Yamaha - 650XS / < 21.00 K
.....'87 - G20 Sportvan / > 206.00 K
......'85 - 4WINNS 160 I.O. / 140hp
.......'74 - Honda CT70 / Real 125
.
“I didn’t really say everything I said.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ Yogi Berra ~

If you shoot, you shoot to kill. Never point a gun at anything that you're not willing (and legally entitled) to destroy, and make that your aim.

Problem solved.

Personal injury judgments do not survive personal bankruptcy . . . so they better be happy with insurance proceeds if the title to all other assets are protected by marital status, homestead laws, or other devices.

Limiting access to legal representation might haunt you or a loved one someday. The system we have isn't perfect, but what else have you got?