Question about seeking out a shooter at the other end of the mall

B

Big-Blue

New member
This question has probably already been discussed, but my search didn't turn up anything, so I hope you don't mind my asking the question again.

What is the legality of shooting someone who is not threatening yourself, your friends or family (people under your mantle of protection), and is not endangering your property; yet this person is actively shooting other people?

The Oregon mall shooting got me to thinking about this. I had heard there was an armed CCW holder at the mall who did not attempt to engage the shooter while the shooter shot into the crowd. The CCW holder said he was worried about hitting someone instead of the shooter.

I know that laws differ state by state, and I'm not looking for an explanation for my own state, only for a general read by the forum on what the position would be of the CCW holder if he engaged the shooter when he himself was not threatened.

My understanding is that outside my home I am only allowed to shoot someone who I believe has serious intent to kill me (or people accompanying me who are under my mantle of protection), who has the ability to kill me, and who has the opportunity to kill me. In the scenario above I believe I would be guilty of murder even though I was saving the lives of others.

Am I right, or are there other points of view?
 
Well, I hate to say it, but it does depend on your state (and sometimes local) laws. The difference could also come down to the whim of a prosecutor, a DA, or a grand jury.

Since we're not discussing a specific situation and statute, it's impossible to give a one-size-fits-all answer.
 
Well, I hate to say it, but it does depend on your state (and sometimes local) laws. The difference could also come down to the whim of a prosecutor, a DA, or a grand jury.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. If there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to an innocent third person (regardless of that person's relationship to you) then you are justified in using deadly force to terminate the threat. That is common-law based, and I am unaware of any place in the US where that would not be true.

The "yes" part is that, as Tom points out, it may depend on the local prosecutor or grand jury to interpret what is an imminent threat. If your interpretation on-scene differs significantly, you may wind up charged with a crime. :eek:
 
^^^^I agree. I have thought about this myself. If I was driving by a "store" and an active shooter was outside. I cant see myself not stopping to attempt to stop the threat.
 
Let's stick to the OP's question, which was about legal aspects of intervention. Ethics, tactics, and chest-thumping are off-topic.
 
I work with a retired sheriff. His words were basically, it wouldn't be illegal if you were stopping the injury or loss of life.
 
I agree that it would not be illegal to stop an imminent and obvious threat to the lives of others who are "strangers" to you.

My CCW instructor told us that we would be justified in shooting a person who was raping a woman. Regardless of who that woman is. But its first to evaluate the situation. For the record I live in Ohio.

In this story I don't blame the CCW holder for not engaging the threat if he was truly fearful of causing more harm to innocent bystanders. Because if he did harm them he would come under fire for it. Pun intended.

I would hope should this happen to me that I would be able to engage and stop the threat. However, every situation is different and until I'm actually in that position and reality I can only speculate and hope what my actions would be.
 
My understanding is that outside my home I am only allowed to shoot someone who I believe has serious intent to kill me (or people accompanying me who are under my mantle of protection), who has the ability to kill me, and who has the opportunity to kill me. In the scenario above I believe I would be guilty of murder even though I was saving the lives of others.
Click to expand...
My understanding, having read my state's law and the laws of a few other states, is that in those states I have studied I am legally allowed (but NOT required) to act in defense of any third party victim of assault just as if I were that person. The sticky wicket in many situations would be determining which of two people in a situation is the victim and which is the aggressor.

In the case of a shooter in a mall, there's not much question who the aggressor is. So I would say for many states it is legal to engage an active shooter in a mall, even if the shooter isn't directly targeting you or your family.

But your scenario places the shooter at the opposite end of the mall, which means you're asking about going hunting. IANAL, but I think then a question arises regarding duty to retreat, etc.

There are fifty states with fifty different sets of laws. There is no simple answer. In the case you cite, the good guy with the CCW didn't go running to the far end of the mall to seek out the shooter. He was in the vicinity, and IIRC his wife was with him, so he acted with the intent of defending himself and his wife. He did not withhold fire because he didn't think he had a legal right to fire, he held his fire because he (correctly, IMHO) remembered the basic rule, "Be aware of your target and what lies beyond it." He saw people beyond the shooter and he assessed that if he missed, he would likely hit an innocent person. His decision was not based on thinking he didn't have a right to shoot. It was based on an assessment of the safety of taking the shot.
 
Last edited:
In Ohio and my understanding of the law is you are legally allowed to defend a third party, but not required. The confusion generally comes from warnings that you should not unless you know EXACTLY what is going on in the situation. Like police officers who shoot off duty officers who are on scene and intervened or arrive to assist, when you approach a situation with deadly force without knowing all the details you run a the risk of making a very tragic mistake.

Now, if it is an active shooter engaging multiple seemingly random individual in a public setting, the situation seems pretty clear.
 
I wouldn't seek out a shooter at the other end of a mall.
It is realistic to realize your limitations and not endanger others. Having assisted in the conduct of many CHL classes I have seen only a very small percentage of people who have the mature judgment and SKILL to shoot in a crowded area.

Jerry
 
I wouldn't seek out a shooter at the other end of a mall.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Best to find a place of concealment/cover in a position of advantage (though this might be difficult in a multi-level mall), and provide as much protection to others in your vicinity as possible.
 
I wouldn't seek out a shooter at the other end of a mall.
Click to expand...

I agree, look for the exits and try to stay alive. Pulling a gun and searching for an active shooter may get you killed by Mall Cops, other CCW's, or the active shooter.
 
The tactical wisdom is a separate question.

Legally, I can't imagine any jurisdiction in the US wherein you'd be prosecuted. First, as has been said by several others, self defense is not limited to "self", the law allows any person to defend any other person. The problem in defending others is in understanding the situation, not in the act of actually defending someone. Second, if you accomplished the intervention successfully, every sane human being will see you as a hero. What prosecutor is going to go after the hero?
 
Well, I hate to say it, but it does depend on your state (and sometimes local) laws. The difference could also come down to the whim of a prosecutor, a DA, or a grand jury.
Click to expand...
This is very, very true. For example in MA, emplying deadly force in self-defense is legally an affirmative defense. One can be changed and would then have to assert and prove at trial that the conditions for self defense were met.

A fairly recent case in point illustrates this: No Charges in Fatal Staniford Street Shooting. An off-duty security guard, Mr. Langone, shot and killed a patient attacking a doctor. He did not know either individual. He pretty clearly saved the doctor's life. In reality his own life was not in immediate danger until he went to the rescue of the doctor. The attack took place in a closed treatment room that he was not in and could clearly have fled as (most) everyone else did.

Even though Mr. Langone's actions clearly fit within the MA legal definition of self-defense, which does allow for self-defense of a third party, the affirmative defense nature of that law, and the general anti-gun attitude of most public officials in MA and Boston, meant it took 5 months for the DA to decide not to charge him. Word on the street is that his status as a security guard, even off-duty, played into the no-charge decision, that someone just off-the street but legally carrying might have faced charges.

In MA it would be a very hard decision for me to act in the situation posed by the OP. Morally, I like to think I would act to protect the lives of others, but the legal ramifications and potential downsides here make such a decision non-automatic.
 
For example in MA, emplying deadly force in self-defense is legally an affirmative defense.
Click to expand...
In most states it is, and for good reason. As a society, we place a high value on human life, and homicide is never something to be taken lightly.

I might be involved in a shooting in which everything was cut and dry, and in which the investigating officials rule it justified. Or I could be in a situation in which witness accounts conflict, or in which the DA is less than sympathetic, and the burden will be on me to prove my actions were justified.
 
You would not be prosecuted UNLESS you happened to hit a bystander. You would then be seen as a Rambo type and be prosecuted as such.
 
That well might happen but it would depend on the circumstances of the accidental shooting. But you would be in for serious trouble to justify yourself and depending on laws might be looking at a civil trial even if you don't get criminal charges.

The idea of shooting an innocent, even in a 'good' shoot, is a major objection to concealed carry laws and campus carry.
 
In most states it is, and for good reason. As a society, we place a high value on human life, and homicide is never something to be taken lightly.
Click to expand...
True, but it is more "affirmative" in some states than others. For example, a few states still have an explicit "duty to retreat" that would easily make acting in the OP's hypothetical case problematic. Other states explicitly limit the duty to retreat, and often shield from civil liability, which make it less legally risky to act. And some fall somewhere in between (ex. MA has no explicit duty to retreat in or out of home, but also has no shield from civil litigation). Bottom line is to know your environment.
 
kevinjmiller said:
For example, a few states still have an explicit "duty to retreat"...
Click to expand...

I've never seen a "Duty to Retreat" law that didn't include exceptions for the reasonable assumption of complete safety for the defender and all other innocent parties. Maybe there's one out there, but I haven't seen it.

Specific to the OP, you do not have a Duty to Retreat if someone is shooting at you or others. There's no way there could be a reasonable assumption of being able to safely retreat from bullets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top