Tinted Window Scenario

We can even throw more ridiculous complication by setting the scenario that the guy has his own infant in the carrier, he's mad at his wife, and has the knife at the child's throat. There isn't even personal involvement. Who, other than god himself could definitively make a decision to fire at the knife wielding nut in question? makes my head hurt.

I minored in philosophy and writing and these things weren't ever discussed because the classes were 55 minutes long an there were only twelve weeks of three days to learn it. We talked more about lying on your taxes and shoplifting than we did on self defense.
 
a shooter should be sure 9.9% that he is aiming for his target if even 1% short, no shot should be fired. not risking to shoot any bystanders....
Click to expand...
a rather arbitrary figure about certainty. but the point is correct that there should be an enormous amount of care given to that decision.

It's going to be a very personal decision as to whether a person chooses to err on the side of personal safety for himself or for the safety of possible bystanders who may or may not be in places of risk. I know Some people who would choose to fire and some who would not. I would not want to be presented with this situation. I've spent years considering these things. I believe that I would choose to ignore my own safety for the safety of possible others. I don't know.
 
briandg,

I was responding to a specific comment you made (and subsequently deleted from your post after my response was posted) that asserted any passengers in the car were "passively complicit".

I provided real-world examples that explained why that assumption/assertion was not safe.

I don't see how we get from that very simple assertion and rebuttal to a 600 word response implying that this is too complex to figure out.

It's all very simple. The legal justification for self-defense is not a blanket justification to endanger the lives of anyone nearby a threat. Of course there's always some risk once the shooting starts, but society expects people to be "reasonable". Someone shooting from a car isn't justification for assuming that everyone in the car must be a threat and shooting back indiscriminately. We are required to be "reasonable" in our response. If we can't see a threat, we don't get to "nuke the area" just to be sure. The innocent people who would be endangered by that approach have lives that are no less valuable to society than our own.
 
I deleted it because you were right. it was badly said. that statement I made was not correct.

I'm not saying that it is too complex to figure it out, I'm saying that you can't have certainty, or even a reasonable degree of certainty, that whatever action is taken will be safe. there are legal and ethical questions to consider before the shot and they will be asked again after. With any shot fired there is a risk, right? it's impossible to prove, or even reach a high degree of certainty that something is safe.

]It's all very simple. The legal justification for self-defense is not a blanket justification to endanger the lives of anyone nearby a threat. Of course there's always some risk once the shooting starts, but society expects people to be "reasonable".
Click to expand...

I've said that. I never meant to say that one could just shoot and not worry about who else can get hurt. There are times that the carrier just has to stand down and hope for the best.

Someone shooting from a car isn't justification for assuming that everyone in the car must be a threat and shooting back indiscriminately. We are required to be "reasonable" in our response. If we can't see a threat, we don't get to "nuke the area" just to be sure. The innocent people who would be endangered by that approach have lives that are no less valuable to society than our own.
Click to expand...

You guys both seem to believe that I accept the idea of shooting at targets that may, or do have people in the background in order to save my own life. No, I'm not. I don't believe that my life is so valuable that I can risk the life of another. If you knew me you would understand that as a fact. I don't think that anyone should.

At amirayah we bombed a public building based on intelligence that identified it as a communications center. We knew at the time that it had been used in the past as a civilian bomb shelter. Yet we still sent bombers, knowing that saddam was using human shields, knowing that there were probably civilians. hundreds died.

It's the same discussion. I never touched on the legality because that's part and parcel about whether you can justify shooting at bystanders. quite often It's not possible to know beyond doubt that a background is safe.

Don't bomb the bunker. There will be times when a person will have to stand down because of risk to others.
 
You guys both seem to believe that I accept the idea of shooting at targets that may, or do have people in the background in order to save my own life. No, I'm not. I don't believe that my life is so valuable that I can risk the life of another. If you knew me you would understand that as a fact. I don't think that anyone should.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I got the wrong impression from your posts--sounds like we're on the same page.
At amirayah we bombed a public building based on intelligence that identified it as a communications center. We knew at the time that it had been used in the past as a civilian bomb shelter. Yet we still sent bombers, knowing that saddam was using human shields, knowing that there were probably civilians. hundreds died.
Click to expand...
Whether we agree or disagree with how the military conducts strike operations; it's pretty clear that it is unwise to base civilian self-defense tactics on military tactics and the concept of "acceptable collateral damage" in military operations. Even trying to draw any kind of parallels between the two is problematic. The military operates by rules which are completely different than the rules of justifiable self-defense that a civilian must adhere to.
 
Something else that people should consider. IF a person recklessly disregards the background, the fact that he is being fired at won't mean much if a bystander is shot. I've heard people talk about the need for using "suppressing fire" and needing three extra magazines just to keep the bad guy in his foxhole.

That condition brings another aspect to it. Even if you were completely legal when you shot at the bad guy and cleared of all charges regarding it, a shooter can and will be held accountable for reckless behavior that leads to injury. Randomly Dumping a magazine into the car, it doesn't matter who gets hurt, there is a strong probability that charges will be filed if a bystander gets hurt, whether in the car or out.

To put it simply, your actions against the guy with the gun are one thing. Accidentally hitting a bystander will be judged on its own merits, was it truly an accident that could have been avoided? will the DA, judge and jury decide that it was just a regrettable twist of fate, or was it something that should have been anticipated and prevented?

Someone who goes nuts and pulls out all the stops, believing that the only concern is stopping the bad guy is possibly going to cause some collateral damage. Every bullet that blasts through the window of the diner next door will merit another count of reckless endangerment, every person injured will be another count of some other charge, any death will be reckless or even maybe willful homicide or manslaughter.

Regardless of what the laws in your jurisdiction say about self defense shootings, regardless of any other considerations involved in defending yourself, injury to bystanders is not covered under those laws. The laws do not clear the use of deadly force against bystanders or give a person immunity for any unintended harm.

Now, there is a caveat that I want to say. If you happen to have a car full of gang bangers who catch you in a phone booth and misidentify you, and you cause "collateral damage" to the occupants/sidekicks, I guess that the DA would have a riddle on his hands. Are the people in the car accomplices to the attack or are they bystanders? maybe this is a better way of saying what I tried to say before.

I lay awake at night thinking about things like this. I constantly deconstruct events and consider how they fit into my personal life. It's almost 2 am and a lot of the last four hours has been devoted to thinking about this issue.
 
Last edited:
This brought another thing to mind of a similar bend. Many years ago a guy was getting his hair cut. The room on the other side of the cinder block wall was being renovated. A guy was using a blank fired concrete setting tool and fired one straight through the cinder block wall and into the back of the guy's head.

he was using the wrong blanks, shouldn't have been using it on cinder block, and knew very well that two people on the other side of the wall were conversing when he pulled the trigger, so to speak.

There were no criminal charges, but the lawsuit that the partially paralyzed guy filed was a slam dunk.

Talking about this thing as only a moral issue is short sighted. We also have discussed it as a legal one. for a moment ignore the right and wrong of it and the legality of it and contemplate what will happen to you if you accidentally do something absolutely horrible, something so terrible that even your grandmother would vote against you and set the judgment at twenty million.

without giving everything you have to doing it right, if something happens that wasn't planned, you may just go to hell. God help you. There are certainly times that taking a bullet is a far, far better thing than could be done.

To throw another thing in. You were given life, there is no guarantee attached. To kill another to save your own life isn't part of that philosophy.
 
Last edited:
Seems like most of we posters are retired? 2AM and 3AM are not sleeping, yes?

In Liverpool speak, legging it! Is most likely the way to go. As using the leave the scene controls on your vehicle. Accelerate, away from this weird situation.

Having 16 rounds of Ranger T 147g hollow points, sitting in my Glock 19 4th gen Glock. The one threat situation I envisage, is possibly not vehicle use at all, but rather being out and about, parking lot maybe?

As my Wife of 25 years is normally hand in hand, hi heels an all. My only worry, is she be kept safe.
If I have to place more than one hit on a couple of ill-informed criminals "Old guys with white beards are easy pickings"

The most concern of mine would be taking cover, and hoping my Cell phone call to 911, could be heard by me! 9mm is noisy.

Not talking to Police is a no-brainer, getting to a Hospital is a good idea, at 82 years of age, and 2 stents fitted in 2011, even though no further problems have surfaced. Parra Medics tend to take your blood pressure first thing after they have ascertained you have no extra holes in you! In the case of an armed encounter.

Which has happened to me already, almost head-on collision? Boxing day 2015. Blood pressure through the roof, off to local Hospital. I was on my own in the Jeep at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top