|
The mall scenario brought up earlier would truly be a nightmare. I think in cases where a bad guy is threatening your life or that of one or two other persons then the "go/no go" decision on whether to shoot should be "no" if a strong possibility exists of hitting a bystander -- in other words, don't shoot. However, in a case where many people are in danger of being killed in a few moments' time if you don't shoot then it becomes a more difficult position to be in. Consider two of the possible outcomes: you shoot, killing the attacker and hit a bystander. You probably saved the lives of several people including the bystander if he/she survives your shot. Or, you manage the locational awareness to notice innocent bystanders beyond the attacker and decide to not take the shot and attempt to seek a better position behind cover or somewhere that might afford a shot that won't endanger anyone else. While you are doing this, five people are shot to death -- perhaps including one of the bystanders you noticed before.
Which decision makes you more responsible for the loss of life?
True, the attacker is guilty and responsible for anyone he/she shoots. But which decision is more justifiable on your part? I hope to God I'm never in that position.
By the way, I agree that you will most likely be held liable - at least in a civil suit - if you shoot a bystander in an attempt to stop the attacker regardless of your intentions.
|