Who is responsible?

B

BlackFeather

New member
So, I don't want to put this in a specific situation, as it's irrelevant.

Main point of the question, if you are wrestling over a gun that someone planned on shooting you with, and it fires and hits someone. Who would be held responsible?

And

If you practice disarms, and are caught in the middle of one when the gun goes off, should it be your fault for attempting to do it?

This has been on my mind recently, and I just wanted someone elses thoughts on it.
 
Generally, someone in the commission of a felony takes responsibility and liability for crimes and torts committed in the act of that felony. So if someone attacks you, you defend yourself, and then someone is killed while you are defending yourself; the person who attacked you is generally responsible.

Specifically I do not know the specifics of the circumstances you are wondering about so I can't say.

I think this is more a question for legal than T&T.
 
Happened to a friend of mine. He got three years for manslaughter.

The guy that got shot was the one that was trying to shoot him.

He did learn a lot about animal husbandry working on the honor farm. Even got some ribbons for his pigs at the county fair.

Not a fair trade really, but it was something.
 
MTT TL said:
I think this is more a question for legal than T&T.
Click to expand...

I wasn't sure where to put it. I figure the aspect of self defense and wondering whether or not one should consider wrestling for a gun if one doesn't know how, or at all.
 
I'm afraid I agree with Farmerboy Buzzcook. There has to be more to that story.

But to answer the original question, my guess is whomever owns the gun.

If a guy tries to rob you with a gun and the two of you end up wrestling over it, the original robber is at fault.

But if instead you shoot the robber with your own gun and the bullet passes through him and hits someone else. I would think you would be responsible.
 
Last edited:
In criminal law:

In Florida, if you commit a felony, and in the commission of that felony, someone gets killed, it's felony murder. For example, you rob a liquor store and kill a bystander by accident, you're guilty of felony murder. You rob a liquor store and your accomplice gets shot by the clerk, you're guilty of felony murder.

So, if someone committed aggravated assault and the victim defended himself, the felon would be responsible for anyone who was shot. Of course, all the facts have to come out and a jury has to interpret the law and the situation.

In civil law:

Then you really open up a can of worms. You can sue just about anybody for just about anything. Who's responsible? Depends on the jury.
 
That is why it depends.

In civil law forget it. Common strategy today is to sue everyone even remotely involved in hopes of getting lucky in court.
 
Common strategy today is to sue everyone even remotely involved in hopes of getting lucky in court.
Click to expand...

A very frustrated +1 to that. These judges need to stop allowing these nonsense cases to move forward.
 
farmerboy: A burglar broke into my friends house. The burglar had a gun. My friend surprised the burglar. In the ensuing struggle the burglar got shot.

My friend died ten years ago so I can't ask him for more details, sorry.
 
One would hope that the aggressor of the initial attack would be held responsible. But one never knows what the outcome will be with the justice system these days.
 
The problem with judges allowing everybody remotely related to be sued is that when everybody is responsible, nobody is responsible.

Individuals never seem to be responsible for things that happen to themselves. Why should they feel any responsibility, when they may be able to get somebody else to pay?
 
WayneinFl is correct but have seen some cases that surely aint fair for whatever reason. Buzzcook sorry to hear of your friends loss
 
In a California CCW class I attend a case study is used. Essentially a guy carrying a handgun with one in the pipe goes into a bar. Some other guy takes issue with this guy and assaults him. The guy with the gun, in defending himself, draws it and wacks the assauter across the head. The gun dischages and kills a little old lady walking down the opposite side of the street from the bar. The guy with the gun was charged with murder.
 
Hook686, re: your case study -

He was charged. But, was he indicted? Convicted? What was the outcome?

And if convicted, was it appealed? Case law is determined at the appellate level, I believe, not at the trial court level; and definitely not at the charging level.
 
Hej Buzzcook! I see you are in WA. In WA if you shoot burgler you are fine. Home invasion is a felony that you can counter by any and whatever means are available. It has been my understanding that this has pretty much always been this way....and I have lived in WA since 1970. (and I was over 21 when I got here)

Was your firiend in WA? or BC? If he was in BC, I understand, WA I don't understand...elsewhere? well, depends on where elsewhere is, variations in state law being what they are.
 
BlackFeather said:
...I don't want to put this in a specific situation, as it's irrelevant....
Click to expand...
Actually, it's not irrelevant at all. In fact, it could make all the difference.

First, where something might happen is important because the outcome will depend on the applicable law where the event takes place. Second, exactly what happened and exactly how it happened, and how the law applies, will decide the outcome.

So in your case of an innocent bystander getting shot by accident as a result of the "good guy's" attempt to disarm a "bad guy", the bad guy could certainly be held responsible. But depending on exactly what happened and how it happened, and depending on the applicable law, it's not inconceivable that a jury would also find the good guy liable for civil damages if the jury concludes that he was unreasonable in attempting the disarm.

This is one of the kinds of questions where "the devil is in the details." Depending on exactly what those details are, the outcome can range from the injury to the bystander being considered a sad but unavoidable accident to it being considered the result of an act of extreme recklessness on the part of the good guy for which he could be held criminally and/or civilly responsible -- or something in between.
 
The general principle is (and should be) that the perpetrator of the crime is responsible for everything that happens as a result of the crime. This would include innocent bystanders getting shot and killed by you defending yourself.

However, as mentioned, this applies to criminal penalties, and civil penalties, are something else.

And, juries can, and sometimes do find fault where none should be found.

As to struggling with the gun, and it goes off....well, if the legal principle is followed, then the criminal is responsible, even if it is your gun. However, a jury might be more focused on who's finger was on the trigger, and why, when it went off. And it would be the criminal's defense teams responsibility to focus them that way, if it was your finger on the trigger.

As already mentioned, the devil is in the details, and it is those details, the specifics of the situation and the applicable law, and the jury's understanding of them that will determine the outcome in court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top