Sueing the good guy after getting shot by mistake...

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

That pretty much stands on its head every concept of personal responsibility I've ever heard.

Bart, I agree with you however, I thnk many subscribe to this:

Originally Posted by Edmund Burke

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.

However, fighting evil can involve a range of actions and some of those actions can cause more harm than good. Reponses to evil must be measured against the harm they might cause. I have used the above quote when teaching kids in our area about character when they are struggling with the "Don't Snitch" gang value they are often faced with. But that quote does not mean I think these kids ought to go out and engage in firefights with the gangs. Talking to the authorities is enough. Maybe, calling 911 and being a good witness may be a good idea in some of these scenarios.

[Vanya]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

The really absurd thing about the "reductio ad waffle house" argument is that it implies you are somehow guilty for the acts of another (the shooter) by not acting; but if you do act and kill some innocent, you are absolved of the guilt because of your intentions.

That pretty much stands on its head every concept of personal responsibility I've ever heard.

That is a concise and splendid summary, BR.

Originally Posted by Glenn Bartley

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.

As Fiddletown notes, Good Samaritan laws apply to cases in which it's the "helpee" who is injured by someone trying to render aid. If you run over a pedestrian while making a U-turn so you can help at the scene of an accident, you're not protected from being sued by the pedestrian.

And as to protection under Castle Doctrine from being sued for harm you do to third parties, that very thing is the subject of a current thread in Law and Civil Rights. So far, no one has been able to point to a state law that protects you from this; some, such as Texas, appear explicitly to exclude such protection.

From that thread:

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

[Protection from liability] is however limited to circumstances of "deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code." Looking through Chapter 9 of the Penal Code, we have 9.05 which says:

"Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person."

So... no. Neither Castle Doctrine nor Good Samaritan laws will get you off the hook for harm you do to third parties, no matter how good your intentions may have been.

Nor should they.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That's why I started the other thread to clear up those misconceptions. Thanks, Mr. Roberts!

To wax psychological, excuse me - lots of folks find responsibility to their fellow human beings when they act heroically in a gun fight. That fits in with theories of pro-social behavior where part of the calculation is being seen as heroic in the aftermath.

However, we find folks who want to pass off responsibility for injuries to insurance only. Avoiding personal financial loss. Few have said they would commit to supporting the family of a good guy who saved their family with loss to his or her famility (that of the samaritan).

If one feels a sense of personal responsibility to help others, charities and volunteer work abound. It's not just shooting someone and then trying to duck your bad behavior. Nor is it saying that someone has a different moral compass because they choose not to get involved in the physical fight.

One might ask to you deliberately downscale your life to give to charity?

I doubt many here do. They may give without a major impact to their life styles.

Pro-social behavior is complex. I continue to see part of the intervention threads as a projection of the results of helping with heroic results. Then there is perceived insult if you get don't get a pass from responsibility because you had the right motivation.

That's my take. We should be honest in understand explicit and implicit processing in such decision making. What you say isn't the whole story.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Glenn Bartley: 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.

Yes, when the situation involves giving immediate, necessary aid to someone who is sick or has been injured, or as fiddletown points out, must be extricated from a fire. If one fails to save the person, or happens o make maters worse while trying to do so, one is protected against civil suit. The idea, I think, is that the person was going to sustain serious injury anyway.

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.

Intent and trying to do the right thing have little to do with it. Communities indemnify police officers as a condition of employment. That indemnification does not absolve the communities of civil liability; it does not prevent an injured individual from seeking compensation for damages from the community. It simply protects the individual employee from liability that he or she could not bear.

Many other laws require criminal intent to have a person found guilty.

True for the criminal code, but be careful: "criminal intent" should not be equated with the existence of a mean and nasty streak. Think "knowing and willful." One may feel fully justified in committing an act, but if that act is unlawful, said feeling won't help at all.

Intentions, of course, may not prevent someone from suing you.

That's a fact!

The thing is though, they will sometimes get you off of the hook completely otherwise will often mitigate any penalties that you may face.

Are you referring to rendering first aid again?

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.

"Castle Doctrine laws" are a good thing and many states have them, though the antis often consider them immoral. Regarding laws to prohibit civil suits by an innocent person for damages resulting from injury from the use of force by someone else, no state has such a law, and I am very confident that none ever will.

Think about it: would you deprive a citizen of the right to be made whole when he or she has been injured, perhaps seriously, simply because the injury was committed by someone with "good intentions"? Well, you might, but you can rest assured that the public won't stand for it.

If such an injury person's injury is caused by a policeman acting in the line of duty, the injured party may seek compensation. The sate, county, or municipality will bear the liability, and you can bet that the LEO training and procedures have been designed with that liability in mind. You can also bet that no state, county, or municipality is going to indemnify untrained members of the public who might choose to act on their own.

[grubbylabs]

I think that some of you are missing the point of don't make the situation worse.
That is why professionals go through countless hours of training in how to handle a situation without making it worse. Thus; if you are not a trained professional you should only protect your self and family. If you are not trained or paid to handle the situation then you have major potential to make the situation worse and should stay back. Your good intentions do not absolve you of consequences for your actions.

If you are counting on the good Samaritan mentality to save you from legal actions you are setting yourself up for huge legal and financial problems.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Intentions, of course, may not prevent someone from suing you.

True, but the road to a very hot place is paved with 'em!

[Vanya]

True, and the road to a very hot place is paved with 'em!

Fixed it for you, TG...

And I've been waiting for someone to get that in, too. It's about time!

[PatAz]

If there is any kind of lack in compensation and medical care I most certainly would sue.

[ranburr]

I have never sued anyone in my life and there have been several cases that I would have been justified in doing so. But, if someone mistakingly shot me, I would take them to the cleaners.

[Big Tom]

Mind you this could be anybody, if a guy was shooting back at a BG to save his life or family but a bullet hit me I wouldnt once I had coverage. But since I dont I would feel bad but I may have to just to pay off the bill though I would talk to the person first so we could weight out our options together and maybe figure something out, out of court. It sux to say it but you are liable for every shot that goes off, if I was hit and paralyzed or unable to work again for months, years or ever, then what do you expect me to do? Now if I was fully covered then NO.

AS FOR BG's, YES, EVERY TIME. They shot me for drug money? Or for some grudge, etc? As far as I am concerned they deserve DEATH BY HANGING or worse! Life is too good for them, and they MUST PAY THE PRICE. All that they have is now belonging to me! As it should be, for attempted murder or murder,etc should mean life behind bars or death! So no doubts, or thoughts in my mind for sueing a BG, he is lucky I dont come back and end him!

[Wildalaska]

So no doubts, or thoughts in my mind for sueing a BG, he is lucky I dont come back and end him!

Spoken like a true....bad guy

WildthumpAlaska ™

[Glenn E. Meyer]

1. I am frustrated with folks repeatedly spouting blood lust and vengenance.

As Capt. Charlie says:

TFL Members are ambassadors to the world for firearm owners. What kind of ambassador does your post make you?

2. Sue the bad guy - OK, DC sniper - I'm suing your bar of soap from the lock-up or the 4 cents a day that you earn.

3. Since, we are starting to say the same thing and diverting into silliness, it's time to put the excellent discussion to rest.

Yes, we could let it go and then snip and edit and PM - but the points are all made.

If you want to announce motivations to kill, that may come back when the DA looks at your or you are sued, do that at the local bar.