Ethics and legality of headshots

Status
Not open for further replies.
TXAZ, iirc, martinez deputized a bystander. People popped up out of nowhere and went all alamo on the tower. Even without police presence, whitman would have eventually been taken down by civilians alone. IIRC, when the first armed cop arrived at the scene there were civilians at the tower itself, one civilian actually went onto the deck. Then he bungled it with an accidental discharge.

Everyone who reads that story will get something different out of it. Some people are going to see snuffy smith and the shootin' iron, others will see a bunch of camo wearing rednecks, only a few people are going to see a courageous group of citizens who stood in the path of sniper fire and tried to save lives.
 
Where I live currently (north Dakota) in a SD use of force you are immune civil liability from the former attacker or his family.
Click to expand...
True, "if the court finds that the defendant is immune from civil liability". That refers to a civil court. One will most likely want legal representation in the attendant process. And keep in mind that a plaintiff need only to dispute a claim of justification with a preponderance of the evidence--not beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, a defender may be acquitted, or perhaps not be charged, in the criminal justice system, and still end up fighting it out and possibly losing in the civil courts.

That's a fundamental principle of tort law.

I can think of no reason why the location of a wound would, by itself, enter into the question.
 
Skadoosh said:
How threads like this make it beyond one page is astonishing.
Click to expand...
Because it’s a holiday and too cold to go out in -16, so we’re all waiting for the next interesting opportunity to offer our expert opinions on gun related discussions.
In April or May, you’re probably right.
 
So, a defender may be acquitted, or perhaps not be charged, in the criminal justice system, and still end up fighting it out and possibly losing in the civil courts.

That's a fundamental principle of tort law.
Click to expand...

Needs serious reform, then ....

In my profession, I deal with practical applications of physics, chemistry and material properties and environmental conditions .... Lawyers deal with selected case law, a couple of colleges and 12 people that had squat better to do .... I think they are overpaid, and overused.
 
True, "if the court finds that the defendant is immune from civil liability". That refers to a civil court. One will most likely want legal representation in the attendant process. And keep in mind that a plaintiff need only to dispute a claim of justification with a preponderance of the evidence--not beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, a defender may be acquitted, or perhaps not be charged, in the criminal justice system, and still end up fighting it out and possibly losing in the civil courts.

That's a fundamental principle of tort law.
Click to expand...


12.1-05-07.2. Immunity from civil liability for justifiable use of force.

1. An individual who uses force as permitted under this chapter is immune from civil liability for the use of the force to the individual against whom force was used or to that individual's estate unless that individual is a law enforcement officer who was acting in the performance of official duties and the officer provided identification, if required, in accordance with any applicable law or warrant from a court, or if the individual using force knew or reasonably should have known that the individual was a law enforcement officer.
2. The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and court costs and disbursements incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from civil liability as provided in subsection 1.
Click to expand...

There is no "if the court finds". The intent of the law is so that the victim of a violent attack is not "victimized" again by the system or the attackers family. This part of the country is very friendly to non criminals who defend themselves from criminals. You know as well as I do that it is quite easy to differentiate in most cases. I never arrested a violent offender that did not have a rap sheet 3 miles long.
 
Because it’s a holiday and too cold to go out in -16, so we’re all waiting for the next interesting opportunity to offer our expert opinions on gun related discussions.
Click to expand...

It was -35 this morning when I went out to take care of our horses, thankfully just a light breeze.
 
Needs serious reform, then ....
Click to expand...

There are 39 states (last time I looked about a year ago) that had some sort of immunity to civil action for self defense, the laws vary from state to state. I am fortunate to live in a state that is very gun friendly. Many people think that because it is a nightmare on the east coast it is the same everywhere.
 
In a justified self defense situation you shoot until the threat is eliminated. So if you fire 5 rounds and 1 hits and the assailant in down crying and his weapon is a safe distance away "threat gone", job well done and if you fire 5 shots and they all hit including a headshot and the assailant is clearly dead "threat gone" job well done again. Basically if you are ever in a situation that justifies "deadly use of force" you continue to defend yourself until the threat is gone whether they are injured or dead I guess is up to shot placement and the good man upstairs. Lord forgive me for saying that a dead criminal is a good criminal but I guess if an assailant survives maybe just maybe there's a chance they can turn their lives around which I doubt but we're not here to judge. Stay safe and shoot often!
Godspeed
 
There is no "if the court finds".
Click to expand...
Oh yes there is. Just how do you imagine that it could ever otherwise be determined whether or not a person had used "force as permitted under this chapter"?

This part of the country is very friendly to non criminals who defend themselves from criminals.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you mean by that, but the first step is to decide just who is a criminal and who is not a criminal. When someone has been shot, who was the defender and who was the attacker must be decided based on evidence.

You know as well as I do that it is quite easy to differentiate in most cases.
Click to expand...
Might I respectfully suggest that you avail yourself of a good course in use of force law. After the fact, it is necessary to piece together incomplete and possibly contradictory evidence of what has happened. That is not always easy.

In "gun friendly" Arizona, Larry Hickey was the victim of an unprovoked attack by three people. He was charged and tried twice , and he spent a long time behind bars the state dropped its prosecution of Hickey. Was it easy to "differentiate" between the crimina s and the non criminals in that case?

And by the way, the plaintiffs did in fact succeed (out of court) in their suit regarding civil liability in that case--even though Hickey was never found guilty.

I never arrested a violent offender that did not have a rap sheet 3 miles long.
Click to expand...
Every single "rap sheet" has a first offense at the top.

That "rap sheet" is in no way relevant to any particular use of force incident--or to any other possible issue, except when it comes to sentencing.

There is no "good guy" and there is no "bad guy" going in.
 
Last edited:
There are no on size fits all answers to the use of lethal force in self-defense. I regularly practice two shots to center mass and one to the head in a variety of scenarios. That doesn't mean this is the only response available to me though. Just drawing a gun may stop the fight. Maybe a central nervous system hit or two will be needed on a moving target that is trying to kill me. Training and good judgement are both essential to surviving a gunfight, and the legal dangers that accompany one. Use the force necessary to stop the attack...it is as simple as that.:)
 
Nanuk said:
. . . .
12.1-05-07.2. Immunity from civil liability for justifiable use of force.

1. An individual who uses force as permitted under this chapter is immune from civil liability for the use of the force to the individual against whom force was used or to that individual's estate unless that individual is a law enforcement officer who was acting in the performance of official duties and the officer provided identification, if required, in accordance with any applicable law or warrant from a court, or if the individual using force knew or reasonably should have known that the individual was a law enforcement officer.
2. The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and court costs and disbursements incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from civil liability as provided in subsection 1.
Click to expand...
There is no "if the court finds". The intent of the law is so that the victim of a violent attack is not "victimized" again by the system or the attackers family. This part of the country is very friendly to non criminals who defend themselves from criminals. You know as well as I do that it is quite easy to differentiate in most cases. I never arrested a violent offender that did not have a rap sheet 3 miles long.
Click to expand...
The part that I have underlined is hogwash. Note that the first section reads: "An individual who uses force as permitted under this chapter is immune from civil liability for the use of the force to the individual against whom force was used or to that individual's estate unless . . . . " While it is possible that the prosecutor's office could determine that the SD shooter acted "as permitted by this chapter," or that it cannot prove otherwise, and decline to charge, if there's any dispute over whether the SD shooter acted "as permitted by this chapter," it will have to be a court that makes that finding.
 
The part that I have underlined is hogwash. Note that the first section reads: "An individual who uses force as permitted under this chapter is immune from civil liability for the use of the force to the individual against whom force was used or to that individual's estate unless . . . . " While it is possible that the prosecutor's office could determine that the SD shooter acted "as permitted by this chapter," or that it cannot prove otherwise, and decline to charge, if there's any dispute over whether the SD shooter acted "as permitted by this chapter," it will have to be a court that makes that finding.
Click to expand...

That is usually handled by the Grand Jury.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/30/top-25-defensive-gun-uses-of-2017/

These are typical. It is not rocket science.
 
Last edited:
Might I respectfully suggest that you avail yourself of a good course in use of force law. After the fact, it is necessary to piece together incomplete and possibly contradictory evidence of what has happened. That is not always easy.
Click to expand...

Retired LE. Been doing it for about 35 years with lots, and lots of training.
 
But it seems to me that really exposes you to prosecution, being labeled a sadistic fiend out to do harm instead of engaging in self defense.
Click to expand...

Then don't carry so you don't ever have to shoot anyone. Not saying this to be a D*. The truth is that if you really feel that way, you should not carry because if and when the time comes, there's a good chance your reaction time will be impaired by overthinking and second-guesing.
 
I wouldn't shoot for the head, from a simple practicality standpoint.
Why saddle yourself with a smaller target?
Ethics and legality also seem to point against it being reasonable.
Why borrow trouble?
 
That is usually handled by the Grand Jury.
Click to expand...
Grand Juries do not decide quilt or innocence, nor do they decide questions of civil liability. They decide whether to proceed with criminal prosecution. A decision to not proceed does not equate to a finding that someone did "act as permitted" under the law. It simply means that the evidence shown to the Grand Jury does not support an assessment that a criminal trial would most probably result in a finding of guilt behind a reasonable doubt.

In the civil question, the BARD standard does not apply. A plaintiff must only show that a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the user of force did not act "as permitted under" the law.


Retired LE. Been doing it for about 35 years with lots, and lots of training.
Click to expand...
But apparently unaware of what is required to invoke civil immunity ofter a use of force incident.

Perhaps this will prove helpful:

 
Nanuk said:
Spats McGee said:
The part that I have underlined is hogwash. Note that the first section reads: "An individual who uses force as permitted under this chapter is immune from civil liability for the use of the force to the individual against whom force was used or to that individual's estate unless . . . . " While it is possible that the prosecutor's office could determine that the SD shooter acted "as permitted by this chapter," or that it cannot prove otherwise, and decline to charge, if there's any dispute over whether the SD shooter acted "as permitted by this chapter," it will have to be a court that makes that finding.
Click to expand...
That is usually handled by the Grand Jury.
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if that were correct. Typically, grand juries simply decide if there's enough evidence to indict, based on a possibly one-sided presentation by the prosecutor. (Often one-sided because defendants are not advised to go talk about a potential crime with the prosecutor in the room.) Even then, a finding by a GJ that there's not enough evidence to support a criminal charge may or may not mean that the SD shooter acted in accordance with applicable law.

And I don't think the article that you linked supports the claim that anything is "usually handled by the Grand Jury." It's merely a listing of the "Top 25 Defensive Gun Uses of 2017." There's no mention whatsoever about how the states respectively connected to each DGU handles the charging process, much less their civil liability framework.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top