I would really love to know where all these people are from who think that "good intentions" and "trying to do the right thing" are some kind of magical phrases that absolve you of all responsibility for your actions.
I'll tell you where I am from, I am from NY and while I do not believe in magic I do beleive that good intent and trying to do the right thing can legally (not magically) absolve you from legal and civil prosecution.
NY State has a number of laws that are called good Samaritan laws. The laws absolve a good Samaritan, or some one who with good intentions responds to a situation where they try to intervene and save a life, such as in a medical emergency but somehow may cause more good than bad. Of course, someone should not try to claim such status if they give CPR, without training in CPR, then cause an injury or death becaise it would be possible they would be guilty of gross negligence. These laws do not protect a responder who commits gross negligence. They do, however, protect you if you arrive at the scene of something like a serious accident and wade into the mess to render first aid or give CPR (if you have first aid or CPR training) and somehow your actions make someone worse and result in injury or death to that person.
You see the good fairy does exist even in as corrupt a place as NY. Intent, while not meaning everything, means an awful lot under NY's good Samaritan laws. Wading in with good intentions and trying to do the right thing, even if results in further harm, is exactly what is protected by such a law so long as the person trying is not guilty of gross negligence.
Now while NY state is just about anti-gun rights as a state can be, there are other states, I seem to remember, that have such provisions. I believe some states grant similar status to people who intervene as Good Samaritans in situations other than medical, such as taking action to defend the life or limb of an innocent third party including use of firearms to do so. If I am wrong in my recollection that such is correct, then I should not be wrong because states should legislate such laws.
Good intentions/trying to do the right thing mean a lot in the laws of this country and the states. This is why law enforcement officers are often (note I said often and did not say always) protected from law suits directed at them as individuals for something they did while on duty that was actually within the scope of their duties. The key is they must have done it with a reasonable belief that it was within the scope of their duties. Hmm, sounds an awful lot like good intention or trying to do the right thing. While this does not cover a non-law enforcement person, it is a law based upon good intentions and trying to do the right thing.
Many other laws require criminal intent to have a person found guilty. Therefore, if a person does the same thing, without criminal intent, there is no violation. Intent has always been an important part of the law whether it be good or bad intentions that come to play. Intentions, of course, may not prevent someone from suing you. The thing is though, they will sometimes get you off of the hook completely otherwise will often mitigate any penalties that you may face. If you don’t know that about the law, then you know even less about the law than do I.
I am not saying that good intentions will get you off of the hook if you injure or kill someone while trying to save an innocent third party. I am saying that you, all of you, as shooters, should push for passage of Castle Doctrine and Good Samaritan laws (relative to protecting others with force) in your states if your state does not already have such laws. What I am also saying is that you should try to determine if your state does have such a law already, if yes, then familiarize yourself with it and assess each situation with it already tucked snuggly somewhere in your memory.
As for me, even if a state did not have such a law and even if I was not an LEO - and my status as a federal LEO only covers me against law suits aimed at me individually if I act within the scope of my duties and those duties are not to protect little old ladies from rapists - chances are I would still try to help a little old lady that I saw who was being raped, or mugged, or beaten to death, or whatever. I have intervened before, and would do it again, because for me the consequences of not helping that little old lady, or someone else, in peril of serious bodily injury or death at the hands of an assailant, would be worse than those for having helped her. Now be careful to understand, I am not saying I would charge in guns blazing with no regard for others. What I am saying is that after assessing the situation if I believed my shot or other intervention would be very likely to badly harm another innocent or the old lady herself, I probably would not shoot or take other intervention that would result in such harm. If, on the other hand, I had determined that while it was merely possible for my intervention to harm someone else but had also determined in my estimation that such was very unlikely, then I would with good intent (based upon my assessment of the situation, my training, my experience and so forth) take action to intervene. I could not live with myself otherwise; damn me if I worry about the consequences of any law suit being brought against me and it overrides my doing the right thing.
If you do not feel likewise I suppose it is simply because your ethical or moral compass points in a different direction than does mine because my choice to intervene is based upon my morality in large part. And please note, I am not saying mine points in a better direction than yours, just a different direction, you have to decide, for yourself, if yours is better or not.
All the best,
Glenn B
