Homeowner blows off fingers of home invader.

But, here's what I'm not willing to do. As a third person, I'm not willing to criticize someone else who had to defend himself, legally on his own property, where a shot went astray. I'm going to stand behind this person and give him/her 100% of my support. That means placing the blame where it belongs - on the bad guy. No "shoulda, coulda, woulda" good guy messed up too. No, good guy did what he had to do because of the horrific acctions of a bad guy - bad guy is 100% responsible, in my mind.
Click to expand...

+2
 
As a third person, I'm not willing to criticize someone else who had to defend himself, legally on his own property, where a shot went astray. I'm going to stand behind this person and give him/her 100% of my support. That means placing the blame where it belongs - on the bad guy.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, if all of the blame is in fact attributable to the "bad guy."

And it would most probably be, unless the shooter's actions demonstrated reckless disregard of obvious or known risks. For example, if he fired numerous unaimed shots when a reasonable person could have and would have fired aimed shots at the assailant, or if he fired knowing that an innocent person was directly behind the assailant when and if a reasonable person could have and would have engaged in a different manner, his action might well be judged reckless or negligent.

In such a situation, the "bad guy" will bear the responsibility of having started the situation, and the actions of the reckless and negligent defender will have contributed to the injuries of innocent third parties.

I presume that when you say "as a third person", you are refering to yourself as someone other than an innocent third person who was injured by the shooter.

And that's the point--people who are injured by others also have rights under the law.

There are two aspects here. On the criminal side, any murder charges traditionally accrue to the criminal assailant, but depending upon the degree of negligence, charges of reckless endangerment or such, depending upon the jurisdiction, could be filed against the defender. On the civil side, the threshold of negligence may be a lot lower, and the burden of proof surely is a lot lower.

The fact that an assailant has attempted to harm another person does not absolve anyone of the consequences of negligent or reckless behavior, though it certainly can alter a judgement of what a reasonable person would be expected to do to mitigate the substantial risks inherent in shooting a weapon.

Is that wrong? Should thing be different? I certainly don't think so. Consider that the injured person may be your child. Not everyone who defends himself with a gun is a hero of the community. Would I see things differently myself, morally or otherwise? No! Personally, I would have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who killed or injured someone while engaging an attacker in a populated area with a high powered rifle with FMJ bullets without being sure of his backstop, unless he had absolutely no alternative at the time, and even then I would probably blame him anyway for having let himself be put in that position by choosing to rely on such a weapon. What would the law say? I do not know.

By the way, on whose property the action occurs has nothing to do with either justification or liability. If a shooting is justified on one's property, it would be justified in the town square, and if an act constitutes voluntary or involuntary manslaughter or reckless endangerment on the court house lawn, it would constitute the same thing if it were to occur in one's yard or driveway.
 
Honestly... to prevent collateral problems like your defensive round striking the neighbor's house and possibly the occupants, why don't we own high quality and powerfull tasers for HD?
Someone makes them where you can multiple fire. You are in your home and don't need long distance.
I know ('cause I own one) handguns are the best way to protect but they also can get you in hot water.
I wouldn't mind taking down an intruder with the taser and then, if you got to do it, cap 'em in the head.
That might be the best way to defend your family. Just MHO.
 
marksman, you said you dont want to argue w/skansyet keeping making points on your side.part of his post was just his opinion, not legal. I will reitterate, if its not negligent the neighbor isn't getting a dime from the guy who shot the stray. obviously if he is reckless that changes things but w/regards to this story he is covered in my mind even if two bullets hit the neighbors house. and you know what, if someone gets something from him, a good lawyer plays tick for tack and files more on the BG because his client is being tacked for something in the crossfire. the make my day and castle law is a very good thing, so states without it are at a loss. the BG is fully cupable in this situation.period. the officers basically said they're not even gonna look into it because he is covered. is that a definate no, but this is one situation the good guy did what he had to do. I am not arguing w/you, so I hope it doesn't seem that way. this has been a fun thread. I am a big fan of 'umbrellas' too. I pay $160 per year for it. this makes the farm and the vehicles have a ton of extra insurance per incident
ps- the lawyer aint gettin nothin either- I'm fighting him to the bitter end
 
steiner not a bad idea but lets remember the gun that fired the shots was the felon's gun. homeowner grabbed it, shot off BG's fingers and then had to defend himself from getaway driver and/or 3rd suspect who hadnt gotten the hint yet. I think its safe to say the homeowner was caught up in the heat of the moment & was worried about the threat of immediate danger to himself+his family members
 
Exactly Bg should Bear all the burden ; )
Click to expand...
One of the things that plaintiffs' attorneys and juries consider is the question of who has how much money--the "deep pockets" question.

"Should bear all" just doesn't enter into it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top