Cause and Effect...Who should really be in trouble?

[FMUStewart]

I recently debated with a buddy of mine on cause and effect. It was based on a story where an armed security guard, while filling his security car, witnessed an armed robbery in progress.

The guard proceeded to turn on his lights and warn the robber via his PA system....then the debate started...

Buddy was calling this guy a moron for stepping in, even though he had a revolver and the will to use it if needed. His arguement was based on "What if the robber had shot the clerk in response to the security guard's actions?" He was quite convinced that the SECURITY GUARD was the cause of the clerk's hypothetical death (after the robber shot the clerk in response to his lights and call to halt his actions).

My point was that the security gaurd (at this point, just an armed civilian, not on his own job sight) is NOT the cause of the clerk's death, as the criminal is the one that shot him - it doesn't matter WHAT it is in "response" to.

Why does opinion place so much blame on the samaritan that tried to intervene...its not THEIR fault the robber shot the clerk....so much for "YOU are responsible for pulling the tigger and where the round went and what it did"....unless you are the good guy.

Stew

 

[TheBluesMan]

Most states have "Good Samaritan" laws that protect people who try to help. In such a state the security guard wouldn't be brought up on criminal charges in the hypothetical death of the clerk, but depending on where this happened, he may not be protected from a civil suit.

-Dave

 

[FMUStewart]

So much for protection against double jeopardy...damn...(yes, civil follow up suits burn my ass too...)

Stew

 

[buzz_knox]

Double jeopardy isn't an issue. It only applies to the state punishing (or seeking to punish) someone for the same crime twice. The civil case is the plantiff's oppurtunity to seek redress. The state is not an actor, but only a mediator (via the court system). The Constitution only applies in so far as to guarantee a fair trial, and has no application to what is otherwise a matter between private individuals.

 

[atlctyslkr]

Two Points:

1) As similarly stated many states have laws that allow you to use deadly force to stop a forcible felony

2) I kind of wonder would this have turned out differently if it has been a police officer filling up. That situation still has the key element - an armed person attempting to stop a crime.