Doug, It is not only negligence alone . . .
Doug,
First, the scenario you outline is not the most typical “defending yourself against a deadly felon” situation. As I am sure you will agree, it would be more usual for the incident to take place other than in a crowded public place; but, the principles to be discussed are universally applicable.
Second, the jury -- in a civil suit -- will be the final evaluator of reasonableness and especially of responsibility. That then suggests that community values will come into play, with the local standards in (for example) Dallas likely being somewhat different than in Boston.
However, third, juries are VERY likely to find tort accountability when an innocent individual is seriously hurt or killed by ANYONE firing a weapon. Please note this even applies to local/state governments, who are found liable when a police officer injures an innocent, notwithstanding the fact that the officer does everything within the law. Incidentally, this precept applies to far more than shooting, also including such tragedies as traffic accidents (by school bus drivers or garbage truck operators, not just law enforcement).
While I can appreciate your beliefs focusing on a “larger good” (my term, but I trust accurately summarizing your concept), without civil/tort liability how will that innocent (and/or his family) receive, for example:
a) Lifetime medical treatment, if he is totally paralyzed due to the bullet striking his spine?
b) Lifetime living expenses, when the family’s main source of income is killed and there are several infants in the home?
Lightning is clearly an act of God (and defined as such by the law). However, a bullet fired is a man’s act (also defined as such by the law), not an act of God. The shooter, after all, is not God; rather, he is a man who is capable of errors -- AND WHO MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THOSE ERRORS EVEN WHEN DONE WITH THE BEST MOTIVES.
The upshot is simple: when any individual fires a weapon -- regardless of how pure his motives -- he is responsible for the outcome. No one forces him to fire at that time, even if that might (you can never be truly certain) result in the criminal killing and/or seriously injuring other innocents. Those who are harmed by the shot may reasonably require compensation, and there is only one source for that recompense: the individual/institution (such as the police department/city government) that fired the round.
Doug,
First, the scenario you outline is not the most typical “defending yourself against a deadly felon” situation. As I am sure you will agree, it would be more usual for the incident to take place other than in a crowded public place; but, the principles to be discussed are universally applicable.
Second, the jury -- in a civil suit -- will be the final evaluator of reasonableness and especially of responsibility. That then suggests that community values will come into play, with the local standards in (for example) Dallas likely being somewhat different than in Boston.
However, third, juries are VERY likely to find tort accountability when an innocent individual is seriously hurt or killed by ANYONE firing a weapon. Please note this even applies to local/state governments, who are found liable when a police officer injures an innocent, notwithstanding the fact that the officer does everything within the law. Incidentally, this precept applies to far more than shooting, also including such tragedies as traffic accidents (by school bus drivers or garbage truck operators, not just law enforcement).
While I can appreciate your beliefs focusing on a “larger good” (my term, but I trust accurately summarizing your concept), without civil/tort liability how will that innocent (and/or his family) receive, for example:
a) Lifetime medical treatment, if he is totally paralyzed due to the bullet striking his spine?
b) Lifetime living expenses, when the family’s main source of income is killed and there are several infants in the home?
"If I become paralyzed, then in that situation I should trust in a sovereign Almight God that my situation has been permitted to happen and I have to live with it just the same as if I had been struck by lightning."
Lightning is clearly an act of God (and defined as such by the law). However, a bullet fired is a man’s act (also defined as such by the law), not an act of God. The shooter, after all, is not God; rather, he is a man who is capable of errors -- AND WHO MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THOSE ERRORS EVEN WHEN DONE WITH THE BEST MOTIVES.
The upshot is simple: when any individual fires a weapon -- regardless of how pure his motives -- he is responsible for the outcome. No one forces him to fire at that time, even if that might (you can never be truly certain) result in the criminal killing and/or seriously injuring other innocents. Those who are harmed by the shot may reasonably require compensation, and there is only one source for that recompense: the individual/institution (such as the police department/city government) that fired the round.
Last edited: