Are you responsible? [Part 1] - Page 2

AZAK · July 27, 2010, 02:45 AM

Quote:

What responsibility do you hold to the injured innocent party?

Given your parameters, and lack of, you are possibly going to see the full spectrum of answers from "coupe de grace" to "lifetime of servitude" to the "injured innocent".

I am going to go with WA on this one; there is no "lastest" resort, last means last.

DanThaMan1776 · July 27, 2010, 08:34 AM

i'm quite relieved that the overwhelming majority of us take full responsibility for every bullet that leaves our gun.

threegun · July 27, 2010, 08:41 AM

Let me ask a sub question

If someone standing in front of a crowd of innocents begins to open fire on you. You have no cover no escape. Will you return fire?

Mr. James · July 27, 2010, 09:01 AM

Unless I'm close enough that I can pretty near guarantee COM hits, under that kind of stress, then no, I will not fire. I'll scream like a girl and run like hell, and we'll see how good the bad guy is at hitting erratically moving targets. If there's no where to run (a corridor, a narrow alley), I'll run at the shooter and hope to choke the life out of him before I die.

Skans · July 27, 2010, 10:31 AM

Quote:

"let the guy steal your car, trash your house,"

Sorry Wild - I don't think so. I won't just run away if something like this takes place. If 4 guys approach me on a sidewalk and look like they are getting ready beat my brains in - I'll run if I can. Everyone has a limit to what they will run from and what they won't, I guess.

.22lr · July 27, 2010, 11:08 AM

All,

I promise that this is a multi-part thread. The other sections will deal with other topics, eventually leading to a conclusion thread. Some of the questions posed will be addressed, I just want to let this thread run a bit longer.

Thank you all for your inputs thus far. Please remember, this thread is for healthy discussion, and in no way should be taken as judgment nor should participants feel that there is a "right" response.

Once again, Thank you, i hope you all can participate in the next segment which I will get arround to posting soon if I can manage it in the lunch time I have left.

Very Respectfully,

~Matt

Wildalaska · July 27, 2010, 11:51 AM

Quote:

If someone standing in front of a crowd of innocents begins to open fire on you. You have no cover no escape. Will you return fire?

More reductio ad absurdum

WildkeepinmindthechoicefactorAlaska ™

Blue Steel · July 27, 2010, 12:03 PM

What moral and financial responsibility does the attacker have for parties injured as a result of violence used to stop his commission of a serious crime?

threegun · July 27, 2010, 12:14 PM

Quote:

More reductio ad absurdum

A question based on the potential reality of having to make the decision to return fire to save your skin when there is a high possibility of hitting an innocent is absurd? In a thread asking if you are responsible for the damage caused. Come on Wild if you don't want to answer the hard ones then don't. Just don't try to trivialize the question because you won't answer it.

threegun · July 27, 2010, 12:16 PM

Quote:

What moral and financial responsibility does the attacker have for parties injured as a result of violence used to stop his commission of a serious crime?

All of it IMO.

Wildalaska · July 27, 2010, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Just don't try to trivialize the question because you won't answer it.

Answering it would give it the credibility it doesnt deserve

But here, I'll do it anyway to give it the WA imprimatur of worthiness:

You answered your own question. See my Trademarked closing sig in my reply above and below.

WildchoicechoicechoiceAlaska ™

Brian Pfleuger · July 27, 2010, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildAlaska

Last clear chance......run away, no matter what the law says, unless you cant...let the guy steal your car, trash your house, call your kids names, sleep on your kitchen floor but dont pull that trigger unless you have NO other option....

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillCA

This it the part I disagree with. The criminal is the instigator of the event requiring the use of deadly force in self-defense. If there are two criminals and I kill one to defend my life, the State charges the survivor with a homicide -- holding him responsible for the injuries suffered by his criminal partner. He should be the first person named in the lawsuit.

I'm coming at this as a case where self-defense was not only morally and legally justified, but required in order to save a life. In that case, then, when defending one's self in extremis, you're still legally responsible for damages, but not morally. If the moral question is "do I not shoot for fear of even a very remote chance of hitting a 3rd party?" the answer is no-- your first moral imperative is survival. Your second moral imperative is continuation of the species/bloodline -- you can sacrifice your life to save another's (i.e. women & children).

If the shooting is reckless or the shooting was not an exercise in survival, then I think there is a moral obligation. This is not to excuse damnfools who wander onto a live fire range oblivious to the dangers or hear gunfire in the wilds and rush towards it, ignoring the dangers. Nor does it excuse Darwin awards candidates who fail to heed warnings to get down or flee just as the fighting begins.

These are your answers right here.

Clear and concise. You have the moral responsibility to:

1)Not shoot someone unless you are left with no other options.
2)Make every effort to not hurt anyone except the criminal(s) who make firing necessary.

If (1) and (2) then the person(s) who are responsible for any damage of any kind are the criminals.

**OldMarksman** · July 27, 2010, 01:39 PM

If one kills or injures someone other than an attacker during a self-defense shooting or another justified use of deadly force (say, to defend a third person, or to prevent a forcible felony), the original perpetrator will bear the responsibility for any criminal charges except to the extent that the shooter's intentional reckless disregard for known risks resulted in said harm; rapidly firing a magazine load of unaimed shots in the direction of a crowd, without regard for the safety of the crowd, for example, could conceivably result in charges of criminal negligence, or involuntary manslaughter. The burden of proof on the state is beyond reasonable doubt. So I have been responsibly advised. Do not rely on this as legal advice.

The burden regarding financial responsibility for civil damages is something else again. Failure to abide by "reasonable standards of caution" can result in liability. The burden of proof is "by a preponderance of the evidence." That's a much lower threshold.

Who bears the potential civil responsibility? Anyone involved, including the criminal, the justified shooter including LEOs and their departments, and maybe even the property owner, depending upon the circumstances..

What is considered reasonable enters into both questions. It is important to remember that those who will decide what is reasonable will do so under jury instructions applicable to the jurisdiction, and one can be virtually certain that few or none of them will be persons of the kind who have been posting here.

Sefner · July 27, 2010, 03:11 PM

There is a case in MI in which this very thing happened. A man was carjacked, the carjacker attempted to drive away and crashed the vehicle. The carjacker then exited the vehicle and attempted to flee and the victim fired two shots at him. One of those shots entered a home and struck a woman in the chest, killing her. The prosecution initially charged the carjacker with the death of the woman even though the guy who got carjacked admitted to firing the shots. A few weeks later the guy who fired the shots is now charged with manslaughter and firing his weapon at a building. The carjacker is still being charged with felony murder.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/23532106/detail.html

Evan Thomas · July 27, 2010, 03:33 PM

Sefner, thank you for posting this story. Actual examples are good.

I'd point out, though, that this wasn't actually a case of a justified self-defense shooting:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sefner

The carjacker then exited the vehicle and attempted to flee and the victim fired two shots at him. (Vanya's emphasis.)

If the carjacker was attempting to flee, the immediate threat to the victim was over. The "jackee" may well have been charged even if he had hit the suspect and not shot anyone else.

But the basic point is the same: If you make the decision to shoot, justified or not, you are responsible for the results of your shooting.

threegun · July 27, 2010, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Answering it would give it the credibility it doesnt deserve

Yeah ok

markj · July 27, 2010, 03:59 PM

What if, you are at band camp........

Some of this stuff is unrealistic in the scenarios presented.

In a SD incident you will have no time to think, you must react, this is why training is available. Trust me, when someone pulls a gun and starts shooting at you, the mind is mulling this action over, your body better move to cover or you may not be here it has happened to me just in this way. Had no time to think but I did react and was not shot that time. I can honestly say I slid under a truck and came out the other side he was empty by that time and ran off.

Get some training.

threegun · July 27, 2010, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Trust me, when someone pulls a gun and starts shooting at you, the mind is mulling this action over, your body better move to cover or you may not be here

I've been training to do so while returning fire. Shooting while running for cover. The question here is would you fire if behind the bad guy were good guys?

.22lr · July 27, 2010, 07:48 PM

All,
I'd like to continue this discussion while adding a new thread "Are you responsible [Part 2a]" which will explore a different aspect of responsibility as it relates to self defense.

Thank you,

~Matt

smith357 · July 27, 2010, 07:54 PM

I am fully responsible for every bullet that leaves the barrel of my firearm.

Retired15T · July 27, 2010, 08:24 PM

It's pretty obvious that there are those among the thread participants who will make excuses to try and cloud this very simple scenario and what their actions would or would not be. I am responsible for the bullet(s) that leave my weapon.

For me, it's so simple because:

1. It would have to be a clear cut situation of somebody is about to die at the hands of the BG and I am the ONLY one there who can help.
2. I've a lot of weapons training behind me.
3. I've been in this situation and know that the first 10-15 seconds of this playing out is going to be dictated by either your training or your belief in movies.
4. I would make the greatest effort to convince the BG I am harmless and "wowed" by his/her expression of violence. If there were innocents behind him and I knew the shot was risky, I wouldn't take the shot. Even if it cost me my life. However, if the BG were close enough and I was sure of my ability to hit him and only him, then I would take the shot. If my shot went through the BG and hit an innocent, I would do everything in my power to help that individual there on the scene and after wards.

I would trust in the common sense of the people from the community in which I live to exonerate me of any criminal or unreasonable financial obligations. If I were NOT in my home town, I wouldn't be so quick to act. I would still take the shot if the situation allowed a great chance of only the BG being injured.
Not only should a CCW person be cognizant of their surroundings, their abilities and familiar with the laws that govern your actions, the individual would be best served by understanding the "climate" in which they are doing so.

Wildalaska · July 27, 2010, 08:26 PM

Quote:

I've been training to do so while returning fire. Shooting while running for cover.

Shooting while running for cover?

WildpleasedontgotothesamemallasmeAlaska ™

TylerD45ACP · July 27, 2010, 08:58 PM

Regardless, you are responsible for every round that leaves the barrel of your firearm. That is the way I personally feel.

Sefner · July 27, 2010, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanya

I'd point out, though, that this wasn't actually a case of a justified self-defense shooting:

That is indeed true. I know it's not justified, and when the carjacker was indicted (the shooter wasn't charged until a few weeks after the carjacker) I thought that the shooter should also face charges because the criminal was fleeing. I just wanted to point out a story in which something close to this happened and what the result was.

TylerD45ACP · July 27, 2010, 09:19 PM

By all means I'm interested in everything. I can't say exactly what Id do for so many situations. If I knew I had to fire or I would be killed but someone might be hurt, I would still fire because my life comes first, self preservation is very powerful and instinctive. Even if I was in trouble I would take responsiblity for my bullets that caused harm because I fired them.

View Poll Results: You have seriously injured an innocent person:
I hold both moral and financial responsibility for the injuries caused by my bullet.	47	74.60%
I hold moral but no financial responsibility for the injuries caused by my bullet.	4	6.35%
I hold financial but no moral responsibility for the injuries caused by my bullet.	2	3.17%
I hold neither moral nor financial responsibility for the injuries caused by my bullet.	10	15.87%
Voters: 63. You may not vote on this poll

July 27, 2010, 08:34 AM	#27
DanThaMan1776 Senior Member Join Date: February 2, 2010 Location: Illinois Posts: 395	i'm quite relieved that the overwhelming majority of us take full responsibility for every bullet that leaves our gun. __________________ Amateurs think equipment, Students think techniques, Experts think tactics.

July 27, 2010, 09:01 AM	#29
Mr. James Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2001 Location: The Old Dominion Posts: 1,521	Unless I'm close enough that I can pretty near guarantee COM hits, under that kind of stress, then no, I will not fire. I'll scream like a girl and run like hell, and we'll see how good the bad guy is at hitting erratically moving targets. If there's no where to run (a corridor, a narrow alley), I'll run at the shooter and hope to choke the life out of him before I die. __________________ "...A humble and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ps. li "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." —Frederic Bastiat

July 27, 2010, 11:08 AM	#31
.22lr Senior Member Join Date: July 14, 2007 Posts: 245	More to come. All, I promise that this is a multi-part thread. The other sections will deal with other topics, eventually leading to a conclusion thread. Some of the questions posed will be addressed, I just want to let this thread run a bit longer. Thank you all for your inputs thus far. Please remember, this thread is for healthy discussion, and in no way should be taken as judgment nor should participants feel that there is a "right" response. Once again, Thank you, i hope you all can participate in the next segment which I will get arround to posting soon if I can manage it in the lunch time I have left. Very Respectfully, ~Matt

July 27, 2010, 12:03 PM	#33
Blue Steel Senior Member Join Date: May 10, 2009 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 185	What moral and financial responsibility does the attacker have for parties injured as a result of violence used to stop his commission of a serious crime? __________________ "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." -Will Rogers

July 27, 2010, 08:41 AM	#28
threegun Junior member Join Date: March 1, 2006 Location: Tampa,Fl Posts: 4,000	Let me ask a sub question If someone standing in front of a crowd of innocents begins to open fire on you. You have no cover no escape. Will you return fire?

July 27, 2010, 01:39 PM	#38
OldMarksman Staff Join Date: June 8, 2008 Posts: 4,022	If one kills or injures someone other than an attacker during a self-defense shooting or another justified use of deadly force (say, to defend a third person, or to prevent a forcible felony), the original perpetrator will bear the responsibility for any criminal charges except to the extent that the shooter's intentional reckless disregard for known risks resulted in said harm; rapidly firing a magazine load of unaimed shots in the direction of a crowd, without regard for the safety of the crowd, for example, could conceivably result in charges of criminal negligence, or involuntary manslaughter. The burden of proof on the state is beyond reasonable doubt. So I have been responsibly advised. Do not rely on this as legal advice. The burden regarding financial responsibility for civil damages is something else again. Failure to abide by "reasonable standards of caution" can result in liability. The burden of proof is "by a preponderance of the evidence." That's a much lower threshold. Who bears the potential civil responsibility? Anyone involved, including the criminal, the justified shooter including LEOs and their departments, and maybe even the property owner, depending upon the circumstances.. What is considered reasonable enters into both questions. It is important to remember that those who will decide what is reasonable will do so under jury instructions applicable to the jurisdiction, and one can be virtually certain that few or none of them will be persons of the kind who have been posting here.

July 27, 2010, 03:11 PM	#39
Sefner Senior Member Join Date: June 24, 2009 Location: Michigan Posts: 769	There is a case in MI in which this very thing happened. A man was carjacked, the carjacker attempted to drive away and crashed the vehicle. The carjacker then exited the vehicle and attempted to flee and the victim fired two shots at him. One of those shots entered a home and struck a woman in the chest, killing her. The prosecution initially charged the carjacker with the death of the woman even though the guy who got carjacked admitted to firing the shots. A few weeks later the guy who fired the shots is now charged with manslaughter and firing his weapon at a building. The carjacker is still being charged with felony murder. http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/23532106/detail.html __________________ gtalk:renfes steamID: Sefner

July 27, 2010, 03:59 PM	#42
markj Senior Member Join Date: October 27, 2005 Location: Crescent Iowa Posts: 2,971	What if, you are at band camp........ Some of this stuff is unrealistic in the scenarios presented. In a SD incident you will have no time to think, you must react, this is why training is available. Trust me, when someone pulls a gun and starts shooting at you, the mind is mulling this action over, your body better move to cover or you may not be here it has happened to me just in this way. Had no time to think but I did react and was not shot that time. I can honestly say I slid under a truck and came out the other side he was empty by that time and ran off. Get some training.

July 27, 2010, 07:48 PM	#44
.22lr Senior Member Join Date: July 14, 2007 Posts: 245	A continuation with a shift in focus All, I'd like to continue this discussion while adding a new thread "Are you responsible [Part 2a]" which will explore a different aspect of responsibility as it relates to self defense. Thank you, ~Matt

July 27, 2010, 07:54 PM	#45
smith357 Senior Member Join Date: February 19, 2005 Posts: 270	I am fully responsible for every bullet that leaves the barrel of my firearm.

July 27, 2010, 08:24 PM	#46
Retired15T Senior Member Join Date: May 20, 2010 Location: Alabama Posts: 175	It's pretty obvious that there are those among the thread participants who will make excuses to try and cloud this very simple scenario and what their actions would or would not be. I am responsible for the bullet(s) that leave my weapon. For me, it's so simple because: 1. It would have to be a clear cut situation of somebody is about to die at the hands of the BG and I am the ONLY one there who can help. 2. I've a lot of weapons training behind me. 3. I've been in this situation and know that the first 10-15 seconds of this playing out is going to be dictated by either your training or your belief in movies. 4. I would make the greatest effort to convince the BG I am harmless and "wowed" by his/her expression of violence. If there were innocents behind him and I knew the shot was risky, I wouldn't take the shot. Even if it cost me my life. However, if the BG were close enough and I was sure of my ability to hit him and only him, then I would take the shot. If my shot went through the BG and hit an innocent, I would do everything in my power to help that individual there on the scene and after wards. I would trust in the common sense of the people from the community in which I live to exonerate me of any criminal or unreasonable financial obligations. If I were NOT in my home town, I wouldn't be so quick to act. I would still take the shot if the situation allowed a great chance of only the BG being injured. Not only should a CCW person be cognizant of their surroundings, their abilities and familiar with the laws that govern your actions, the individual would be best served by understanding the "climate" in which they are doing so. __________________ Only a biker knows why a dog sticks his head out the window. -Unkown "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Thomas Jefferson Last edited by Capt. Charlie; July 28, 2010 at 02:30 PM. Reason: Statement with racial overtones removed.

July 27, 2010, 08:58 PM	#48
TylerD45ACP Senior Member Join Date: July 16, 2010 Posts: 1,654	Regardless, you are responsible for every round that leaves the barrel of your firearm. That is the way I personally feel.

July 27, 2010, 09:19 PM	#50
TylerD45ACP Senior Member Join Date: July 16, 2010 Posts: 1,654	By all means I'm interested in everything. I can't say exactly what Id do for so many situations. If I knew I had to fire or I would be killed but someone might be hurt, I would still fire because my life comes first, self preservation is very powerful and instinctive. Even if I was in trouble I would take responsiblity for my bullets that caused harm because I fired them.