Are you responsible? [Part 1]

[.22lr]

You have been an incident that included the use of deadly force. Your use of force was deemed justified by the state. During the deadly force event, one of your bullets struck and seriously injured a non involved innocent party. What responsibility do you hold to the injured innocent party?

Just to clarify:
There are three parties involved
1) you (the shooter)
2) the criminal (who really isn't involved in this discussion)
3) The INNOCENT NON-INVOLVED third party who was struck by your bullets.

 

[.22lr]

DELETED

 

[scottaschultz]

It depends.

If I shoot someone by accident, then it would be the first choice.

If I shoot someone who means to cause someone bodily harm, then it would be the last choice.

 

[booker_t]

This sounds like a legal/moral question. Doesn't really fit "Tactics & Training."

 

[TylerD45ACP]

True, maybe it doesn't belong in T&T but I'm still interested. From my point of view any round that I discharge, I am totally and 100% responsible for where that bullet goes and who it hits. I would take full responsiblilty if I accidently seriously injured a 3rd party not involved in the shooting. I would do whatever was in my power to make sure that person was ok and got proper treatment,etc. Even if I just accidently hit the side of someone's house lets say in a SD situation. I would offer to pay for the hassle. That's another reason to watch you background even more so, however this is something I imagine very difficult in adrenaline fueled SD situation. Still would take full responsiblity no matter what, I discharged the weapon. I am responsible for where my rounds go.

 

[Skans]

The answer in most places is going to be: 1) you are morally responsible; and 2) you are financially responsible for the damage.

Cops have immunity from injuring a bystander when trying to stop a crime, YOU DO NOT! That's why it makes no sense at all to consider "long range" shots when it comes to self defense. Anything beyond a few yards is too long range IMHO to be self-defense.

 

[Evan Thomas]

What Skans said...

And that's why this topic does belong in Tactics and Training: you are responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun, the tactics you employ in a given situation had better reflect that responsibility, and you need to train accordingly.

It's a good reminder. The real topic for T&T, especially given that we all seem to agree on the principle, is this: what are the best ways, when training, to take this into account? (Hint: marksmanship alone isn't sufficient, IMHO.)

 

[booker_t]

Vanya, by that reasoning (predicate logic), anything can be extended to be a Training/Tactics discussion. To wit:

Discussion of how to polish a fire control group to create a smoother, tighter trigger pull. Well, that's changing how you manipulate the trigger as you fire, and how it feels when you break. Probably something that should be trained with if you're going to carry it that way. Hence training topic, not gunsmithing.

Discussion of various holster materials for IWB concealed carry. If you're going to carry IWB concealed, that's something you'd better train with. Hence training topic, not gear & accessories.

Discussion on how you like to load your practice vs. self defence rounds, what projectiles you favor for each and how much of what type of propellant. If you're going to load your own defense rounds, then you'd probably be smart to train with them, and employ tactics that take into account your loading's accuracy, penetration, and incapacitation potential. Hence training & tactics, not reloading.

 

[OldMarksman]

Many of the T&T questions are "should you shoot" or "would you shoot" or "should I shoot." One's decision may well hinge on his knowledge about the civil liability involved.

Regarding Skans' point--long range shooting may well also bring into question the issue of immediate necessity and color the determination of justification under criminal law. Nothing to do with the third party, but important.

 

[CWPinSC]

I am, legally and morally, 100% responsible for each round I shoot. Always make sure of your target, and make sure of your background if possible.

 

[Wildalaska]

it all gets back to the issue of when you shoot/dont shoot. Last clear chance......run away, no matter what the law says, unless you cant...let the guy steal your car, trash your house, call your kids names, sleep on your kitchen floor but dont pull that trigger unless you have NO other option....

WildbecausewhathappensafterthatisallonyouandthatisurelytrainingAlaska ™

 

[markj]

I am with wild on this one, do everything possible to get away. I have talked my way out of a few incidents that sure could have ended up bad. Sure would hate myself if I killed someone trying to be the hero.....

 

[BillCA]

2) the criminal (who really isn't involved in this discussion)

This it the part I disagree with. The criminal is the instigator of the event requiring the use of deadly force in self-defense. If there are two criminals and I kill one to defend my life, the State charges the survivor with a homicide -- holding him responsible for the injuries suffered by his criminal partner. He should be the first person named in the lawsuit.

I'm coming at this as a case where self-defense was not only morally and legally justified, but required in order to save a life. In that case, then, when defending one's self in extremis, you're still legally responsible for damages, but not morally. If the moral question is "do I not shoot for fear of even a very remote chance of hitting a 3rd party?" the answer is no-- your first moral imperative is survival. Your second moral imperative is continuation of the species/bloodline -- you can sacrifice your life to save another's (i.e. women & children).

If the shooting is reckless or the shooting was not an exercise in survival, then I think there is a moral obligation. This is not to excuse damnfools who wander onto a live fire range oblivious to the dangers or hear gunfire in the wilds and rush towards it, ignoring the dangers. Nor does it excuse Darwin awards candidates who fail to heed warnings to get down or flee just as the fighting begins.

 

[threegun]

If I am firing to defend myself from an immediate eminent threat I feel that I have a Moral obligation. The Moral obligation I have has an order. My first and foremost obligation is to survive or to insure the survival of my family. After that if it is possible to do the above without endangering innocents thats what should be done. If it is not possible to do so without endangering innocents survival of me and mine comes first.

<snip> - not relevant - GEM

 

[Sefner]

I kinda agree with BillCA on this one. If I used deadly force it was because I had no other choice. Read again: no other choice. My use of deadly force would be a choice that was made by my attacker, not by me. His choice was to attempt to cause great bodily harm to me, my friends, or my family, in the act of a crime. His actions alone brought about the injury of an innocent third party.

I would probably grieve for what I did. It would probably haunt me for the rest of my life. But would I be held morally responsible? No. I would be held morally responsible if I would let the criminal harm me or my family. The alternative is much worse.

 

[ScottRiqui]

I kinda agree with BillCA on this one. If I used deadly force it was because I had no other choice. Read again: no other choice. My use of deadly force would be a choice that was made by my attacker, not by me. His choice was to attempt to cause great bodily harm to me, my friends, or my family, in the act of a crime. His actions alone brought about the injury of an innocent third party.

I disagree. You can say "He made me do it", but that's never literally true. It always boils down to a conscious decision on your part to act, and as such you bear the responsibility for your actions.

Take the malevolent actor out of the equation for a second. Suppose you're driving down a road at highway speeds and see a tree falling in your path. You can't stop before reaching it, and you can't speed up fast enough to get under it. You have two choices - swerve out of your lane to avoid it, or let it hit your car. Either path is a conscious decision on your part, and if you mow down a cyclist in your attempt to avoid the tree, you own that decision. You can't say "The tree made me do it."

 

[skidmark]

First, my vote was for "I hold neither moral nor financial responsibility for the injuries caused by my bullet." The situation was brought to me by the instigation of others. No matter how you parse the scenario, I had a legal right to be where I was, and I had no part in instigating the action that resulted on the discharge of the bullet in question. Had I not responded by discharging a bullet I would have suffered serious bodily injury or death - and may have in spite of my defensive response/reaction.

@ ScottRiqui - Sorry, but I cannot take the malevolent actor out of the equation. Were it not for the malevolent actor I would not have responded by discharging a bullet. Yes, in this case it really is a case of claiming "He started it!"

Please recall that common law and case law place the blame and responsibility on the "malevolent actor." The felony murder rule extends also to non-fatal injuries suffered as either a direct or proximate cause of the illegal act.

Now - for me the more important question is - am I going to "feel bad" about having shot an innocent?

stay safe.

 

[ScottRiqui]

Had I not responded by discharging a bullet I would have suffered serious bodily injury or death - and may have in spite of my defensive response/reaction.

The fact that you acted to avoid injury or death does not absolve you of the responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Much like swerving to avoid the falling tree does not absolve you of liability for damage/injury you cause in the process. Ask your insurance agent who's going to pay to repair the damage to someone else's car when you hit them while swerving to avoid an idiot that pulls into your path. That's right - you're responsible, even though your actions were necessary to avoid injury or death.

And if you have any case law or statutes that hold a criminal responsible for what what one innocent civilian does to another during a crime, I'd love to see it. I suspect that such actions would not be "proximate" enough to trigger the laws you mentioned. Those laws are used more to hold one criminal responsible for the actions of his partner(s) in crime, or for when the criminal takes a direct action that has unforeseen consequences beyond what he intended.

 

[Sefner]

A tree has no choice, it either falls or does not falls. Malevolent actors do have choices, they chose to commit crimes or to lead productive, crime-free lifestyles.

Maybe I need to rephrase myself when I say that I have no choice. The choice the malevolent actor forces me into is either the death or harm to me or my family (innocents) or the death or harm to him (the guilty). That choice is an extremely easy one, to the degree that it is almost not a choice at all. The innocent bystander is not something that can be predicted (at least in this scenario) and thus must be left out of the choice that the criminal forces me into.

So yeah, Scott is right, there is a choice, but it is so clear and obvious as to the right path that it almost is not a choice.

 

[ScottRiqui]

The innocent bystander is not something that can be predicted (at least in this scenario) and thus must be left out of the choice that the criminal forces me into.

Where do you get this? The scenario doesn't say one way or the other, but I don't think we're talking about an innocent bystander six blocks away that gets hit by one of your stray bullets. I'm understanding the scenario to be that the innocent bystander is in the same room with the shooter and the "bad guy".

How is missing the bad guy and hitting the innocent bystander not "something that can be predicted"? Missed shots in self-defense scenarios are so common as to almost be cliché.

One innocent shooting another during a crime is admittedly rare - that's why I mentioned the similar case of a car pulling out in front of you, "forcing" you to swerve to miss it. That happens frequently, and it's well-established that you're responsible for any damage or injury you cause while avoiding the idiot that pulled out in front of you. He may have forced the choice upon you (hitting him or swerving to avoid him), but the choice itself and its consequences are still yours.