Legal and ethical question

There is a difference between morals and ethics.
1.) By my ethics, shooting is fine. The assailant forced the issue.
2.) Legally it would depend on both the state you live in an the DA/election timing.
While I lived in Georgia a man was at home when three armed men broke in, thinking he was a drug dealer they wanted to rob. The man's dog distracted them and he got to his Glock 17, killing one, shooting another who eventually died. The third buglar got away but was caught later. It was the surviving burglar that got charged with manslaughter of the dead, not the apartment dweller.
The point was that the criminals choose to break in, starting a chain of events that ended in death. They were charged appropriately (in my mind) for it.
 
My life is more important to me than anyone else's. Maybe that makes me a bad person, I dunno.
Click to expand...

Scenario: The boat you are on is going down. There is room for one more person on a lifeboat. A woman is about to step on the boat. It's either you or her. Do you shove her aside to die, while you live?

Many 'males' would say yes. I would not call them men, but animals. There are, sometimes, more important things than simply survival.

I would rather die than suffer disgrace. What did they call it? Oh yes, I remember. "Death before dishonor".

Maybe that makes me a good person. That, I happen to know for a fact.
 
I'm not sure where I stand on that issue, but I am sure that killing someone accidently while shooting someone else shouldn't go completely unpunished. Just as hunting accidents don't go unpunished.
Click to expand...

You are looking at the self defense shooting in the wrong context. It cannot be compared to a hunting accident because the hunter has a responsibilty to identify his target, know the terrain and backstop and not shoot a fellow hunter.

In the self defense shooting, the person is reacting under duress. The BG is forcing the person to take an action the person would not otherwise be taking. The average person isn't going to draw a handgun in public and shoot someone. By placing the person's life in danger, the BG is forcing the person to either defend himself or die. The BG is responsible for the initial crime. The BG is responsible for the person having to use deadly force in defense of himself. The BG is responsible for any injuries resulting from that use of deadly force.

As for civil liability, in Florida, if the shooting is ruled justified, you cannot be sued. The bystander and/or his family could sue the BG only.
 
OK, since this is a purely hypothetical question, lets throw something else in.

Lets say you were a third party, and carrying. You just walked out of a store, when your buddy standing next to you is hit in the head with that over penetrating round. All you see is the other CCW holder, not knowing he was a CCW holder, and two guys lying dead on the sidewalk. Now what do you do?

You are looking at the self defense shooting in the wrong context. It cannot be compared to a hunting accident because the hunter has a responsibilty to identify his target, know the terrain and backstop and not shoot a fellow hunter.
Click to expand...

But a CCW holder doesn't have to responsibility to do the same? What is the general response that comes on gun boards up when a cop misses the BG and hits a bystander? It is definitely not let them off free.

I don't think you can plan for any of these situtations, what happens is what is going to happen. And I still don't believe that shooting at someone in self-defense gives you a complete waiver from any other collateral damages that may arise from your rounds.

How about another hypothetical situtation. A BG has you and someone you don't know tied up. He asks you which of you gets to die. What is you answer?
 
If you know that a third party will die if you shoot, and the choice is either you or him, you have to allow the BG to kill you. You cannot ever trade someone else's life for your own if they are not an immediate threat to you, and if that's the extent of the trade.

In any real situation, a packing citizen confronting a robber, or a sick bastard who's kidnapped two people and offered one his freedom in exchange for the other's life, the person with the choice can sacrifice the other innocent person because the psychopath is not a machine that will do exactly what he promises and nothing else. He will very probably hurt others in the future, even if he keeps his word in not hurting the other innocent if you sacrifice yourself or if you don't shoot in the robbery scenario. You are acting to stop other evils in addition to what the BG has already threatened; you are not merely trading an innocent's life for yours. That would be unethical, IMO.
 
Pull the trigger.

This is silly. The only way "you'll definitely hit the innocent bystander" is if he/she is taped to his back.

What happened to hitting low, or even high? So the trajectory while in the direction of the innocent bystander, isn't on a direct path to the bystander.

This scenerio doesn't have a thing to do with ethics. It's about self-preservation, and how important it is to some, more than others (i.e. the price of an innocent life to preserve your own).

I'm not sure I could sacrifice my own life, so an innocent bystander (hey I'm innocent too damnit) and the bad-guy get to live.

So to simplify things:

---If you don't shoot, an innocent dies (you!) and BG gets away

---If you DO shoot, an innocent dies (stranger) and the BG dies as well.

It's better to have the BG go down in this scenerio, because at least the expense of an innocent life was ended with something relatively good as an outcome (i.e. bad guy pushing up daisies).

This is why my self-defense weapon is a .17hmr. :p
 
Last edited:
It's better to have the BG go down in this scenerio, because at least the expense of an innocent life was ended for with something relatively good as an outcome (i.e. bad guy pushing up daisies).
Click to expand...

I think that is the correct solution. If you allow the psycho to kill you he may well turn and kill the bystander which = two dead good guys and one live bad guy. If you shoot the bg and the good guy dies too = one dead good guy, one live good guy, and one dead bad guy; which is mathematically preferrable.

Additionally the pysho BG may kill more than you and the bystander, he may kill others and could even end up killing himself at the end of the killing rampage. So on the ethics front I vote for taking out the bad guy at the expense of the bystander and keeping myself alive. I certainly hope not to be a bystander in a situation like that.

Legally, if you survive I bet you have legal problems of some kind, but hey, you can't have legal problems is you are dead so that is not so bad either.
 
But a CCW holder doesn't have to responsibility to do the same? What is the general response that comes on gun boards up when a cop misses the BG and hits a bystander? It is definitely not let them off free.
Click to expand...

Not to the extent a hunter does. The CCW holder is being forced to make a decision and/or take a shot by the actions of someone else, the hunter isn't. As long as the CCW holder or LEO is not acting negligently, his actions are not criminal. If an LEO follows his training and department policy, he will not be held liable for simply missing the BG and hitting a bystander. No one is good enough with a firearm to know where each shot will end up.

It is like sitting at a traffic light and someone walks up to your window, shoots your passenger, points the gun at you and tells you he's going to kill you next. You step on the gas and run over a bystander in the crosswalk. Should you be charged with vehicular manslaughter? Your actions were forced on you by the actions of someone else, not your own freedom of choice. They are responsible, not you.
 
Heh

but that the bullet will, not may, but will go through the assailant
Click to expand...

And THIS is why I don't carry a Thompson Encore in .30-06.

To answer the moral question...yes. If he is willing to kill me, how many others might he go on to kill. To not stop this person when you have the chance is wrong.

greg
 
The original question was that you are the only one in danger, he wasn't going to hurt anyone else. So arguments that he may harm others after you is not valid.

Should you be charged with vehicular manslaughter?
Click to expand...

You should be charged with whatever a person who accidently runs over a pedestrian would be charged with.

I am in favor of self-preservation, but not at the expense of the death of an uninvolved third party.

Of course, the real solution here is to choose a better weapon that won't have enough energy left after it leaves the BG to kill others.
 
So arguments that he may harm others after you is not valid.
Click to expand...

Why not? If someone is being violent, is it reasonable to assume that he'll continue to be violent if allowed to proceed / go free? I think so. I'm pretty sure the courts would weigh your actions against those of a reasonable man.
 
jefnvk said:
Of course, the real solution here is to choose a better weapon that won't have enough energy left after it leaves the BG to kill others.
Click to expand...
The original question stated your bullet WILL kill an innocent bystander, therefore arguments that a better weapon is the sollution are invalid here.

jefnvk said:
The original question was that you are the only one in danger, he wasn't going to hurt anyone else. So arguments that he may harm others after you is not valid.
Click to expand...

By the way, the original post did not address what would happen after you so valiantly let yourself get executed so an "innocent bystander" would live... so it's very logical to assert that this BG is going to do more harm, after he's done slaughtering your ever so ethical behind.
 
you, and you alone, are being threatend with imminent death, you have a gun, you know positively that you can shoot and kill the assailaint, but that the bullet will, not may, but will go through the assailant and kill an innocent bystander behind the assailant. Since this is hypothetical just assume that the parameters are there.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine. Just playing by the rules :) , and the rules tell me that I am the only one in danger. To me, it seems the question was your life v. BG and some other uninvolved party's life. I think if the poster wanted us to take the future into consideration, he'd have said so, and if he does, I will gladly rethink my position.

I don't have it in me to kill some other uninvolved person so that I may live, unless I know that person is going to die anyways, or by the one person dying, many more would be saved. Since I am the only one in danger, according to the rules, I wouldn't do it.

Actually, I'd probably shoot him in the leg, so the bullet goes into the ground. Or, I'd wait until the uninvolved parties decided sticking around for a gunfight wasn't suuch a great idea, and cleared out. But that isn't playing by the rules.

But I don't think that in a life or death situtation, I would be able to calculate that the person behind him is definitely going to die, or even get hit. Again, though, that's not playing by the rules.

And yes, my argument about a different weapon was not playing by the rules, but it would be my choice if we wern't playing by the rules.
 
Let me explain that the parameters do not ask you to consider the future actions of the bad guy, but they don't ask you not to either - so you can choose in this case to work with known present conditions or to also bring in the possibile future actions of the bad guy - either one is correct.

How about this then - suppose the bad guy has a hostage, is hiding behind the hostage, you can not get a clear shot at the bad guy, the bad guy is about to kill you, has already shot at you once and slightly wounded you and is about to fire again so you know empirically that he is trying as hard as he can to kill you, and the only possible way you can stop him is to shoot through the hostage's com. You have a gun that you believe will pass through the hostage and at least incapaciate the bad guy; plus at a minimum by killing the hostage you remove the hostage from the equation so that you can finish the bad guy off. You can't run, you can't hide and you can't wait -you have to shoot through the hostage's com or die.

Maybe that will narrow it down some.
 
I think it's a very plausible scenario. If you have someone in your life...wife, kids, girlfriend, family, ..and are happy to continue to see these things...take the shot and save your life. Worst case, you kill a bystander...you owe them nothing, that's life. Worst case legally, I think with the right lawyer you can beat it, or at least mitigate it to acceptable consequences. I believe, don't know for sure, there have been such legal cases such as this, or similiar principles "liferaft situation", you are not required to sacrifice yourself. You took appropriate and reasonable action to save yourself. There was intent or gross neglible action on your part. Best case outcome, civil lawsuit, and this goes back to what I said....You don't OWE anyone anything, if it was up to them, you'd be the dead guy. Screw that...take the shot and go home to YOUR loved ones.
 
Tyme said, "If you know that a third party will die if you shoot, and the choice is either you or him, you have to allow the BG to kill you. You cannot ever trade someone else's life for your own if they are not an immediate threat to you, and if that's the extent of the trade."

Sorry but that's unmitigated horsecrap! Assuming I'm the bad guy am I'm about to shoot you, you mean to you're gonna stand there and take a bullet?
BWAAAAHHHHAAAAHHAAAHHAAA! Yeah, and pigs fly. :rolleyes:

My life is important to me and I don't have any particular form of death wish. Some that hasn't been mentioned yet, but say you shoot Mr. bad Guy and the Ms. Bystander, but Mr. Bad Guy gets off a round and you die too. Guess nobody wins that one. :(

Whether you have enough time to make a split second decision to try and shoot the guy low in the hip or center of mass is something you'll never know, but I'm willing to bet you'll go center of mass. The instinct to survive is one of the strongest in the human psyche.

About all I can say is if you have never been in a situation where you really might have to shoot someone in self defense, then you really haven't a clue about which you speak.
Paul B.
 
Playing by the new rules.

First, by now considering what he might do in the future, I'd probably shoot. This is under the understanding that I did not cause the situtation. In that case, I'm still not killing someone else to save my life.

Hostage scenario, that's a tuffy. If life worked like the movies, the hostage would kick him in the nuts, dropping him, while rolling away letting me have the shot.

Of course, I now have more considerations. Is the hostage another third party that I do not involve, or is it a loved one? If it is a loved one, I couldn't bring myself to shoot. In that scenario, they definitely die. If I don't shoot, they have the chance to live. They may or may not, but they have that chance. Obviously, either way, I could very well still wind up dead.

If it is not someone I know, my answer would be to do my best to make a shot NOW that hit the BG and didn't kill the hostage.

If everyone in the country is after this guy, the obvious answer is that the hostage probably will die, as I will be forced to take the shot. As much as I don't want to be the one to decide between the life of one person (that is not my own) and the lives of many others, that I know he will take, the answer is obvious.

Now, I do this fully expecting to at least be charged with something for the death of the hostage. Probably some sort of manslaughter, or endangering other's lives, or something of the sort. More preferably, no criminal charges, but a lawsuit from the hostage's family. Every action has a consequence. I do not expect to kill a third party to stop a BG or save my life, and not have consequences brought upon me.
 
you know positively that you can shoot and kill the assailaint, but that the bullet will, not may, but will go through the assailant and kill an innocent bystander behind the assailant.
Click to expand...
1. Even if the bullet passes through the assailant and the bystander is directly behind him, the odds of the bullet hitting the bystander are not 100%. People are full of bones and bones deflect bullets.

2. Even if you KNOW it's going to hit someone else, the odds of them dying are pretty low. I think the odds of surviving being shot by a handgun are 80% or better. So the death of the bystander could hardly be a sure thing.

3. After the bullet has gone through someone, it's likely to have spent a good bit of its "oomph". Making it even less likely to be lethal. The bystander now has a very good chance of living.

4. After killing you, he may decide to eliminate the witnesses by killing the person you tried to save by not shooting. This is a very real possibility and there is no way to eliminate it unless you can read the mind of your assailant. In this case your inaction will be contributing not only to your own death, but to the death of other innocents by allowing a person you know to be homicidal to continue in a murder (yours) without trying to stop him.

5. After leaving the scene he may kill or injure others.

6. In most cases, there will be other people (spouse, dependents) who depend on you. Giving up your life affects others.

Neutralize the threat (against you and the others at the scene) and get immediate medical attention for anyone who is wounded. There is no other logical course of action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top