Quote:
|
As a third person, I'm not willing to criticize someone else who had to defend himself, legally on his own property, where a shot went astray. I'm going to stand behind this person and give him/her 100% of my support. That means placing the blame where it belongs - on the bad guy.
|
Well, yeah,
if all of the blame is in fact
attributable to the "bad guy."
And it would most probably be,
unless the shooter's actions demonstrated reckless disregard of obvious or known risks. For example, if he fired numerous unaimed shots when a reasonable person could have and would have fired aimed shots at the assailant, or if he fired knowing that an innocent person was directly behind the assailant when and if a reasonable person could have and would have engaged in a different manner, his action might well be judged reckless or negligent.
In such a situation, the "bad guy" will bear the responsibility of having started the situation, and the actions of the reckless and negligent defender will have contributed to the injuries of innocent third parties.
I presume that when you say "as a third person", you are refering to yourself as someone other than an innocent third person who was injured by the shooter.
And that's the point--people who are injured by others also have rights under the law.
There are two aspects here. On the criminal side, any murder charges traditionally accrue to the criminal assailant, but depending upon the degree of negligence, charges of reckless endangerment or such, depending upon the jurisdiction, could be filed against the defender. On the civil side, the threshold of negligence may be a lot lower, and the burden of proof surely is a lot lower.
The fact that an assailant has attempted to harm another person does not absolve anyone of the consequences of negligent or reckless behavior, though it certainly can alter a judgement of what a reasonable person would be expected to do to mitigate the substantial risks inherent in shooting a weapon.
Is that wrong? Should thing be different? I certainly don't think so. Consider that the injured person may be your child. Not everyone who defends himself with a gun is a hero of the community. Would I see things differently myself, morally or otherwise? No! Personally, I would have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who killed or injured someone while engaging an attacker in a populated area with a high powered rifle with FMJ bullets without being sure of his backstop, unless he had absolutely no alternative at the time, and even then I would probably blame him anyway for having let himself be put in that position by choosing to rely on such a weapon. What would the law say? I do not know.
By the way, on whose property the action occurs has nothing to do with either justification or liability. If a shooting is justified on one's property, it would be justified in the town square, and if an act constitutes voluntary or involuntary manslaughter or reckless endangerment on the court house lawn, it would constitute the same thing if it were to occur in one's yard or driveway.