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

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by fiddletown

I will need to make some evaluation myself, together with my lawyer, when deciding, based on consideration of the factors I outlined in post 37, whether to sue.

Agreed, and you've made some good points in that and other posts in this thread.

But the thrust of the OP's question, it seems to me, is how much difference the (perceived) "good guy" status of the person by whom you're shot will make in that evaluation: would you be more likely to decide to overlook (possibly) negligent conduct by someone whose heart was in the right place, and/or who was acting to stop a serious crime?

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

So I get a sense that those with a hero orientation feel insult that their noble action isn't seen as worthy and in fact punishable by a law suit. Is that part of this discussion. How dare you insult the hero - suck it up for the hero?

Yes... thanks, Glenn, for articulating this. The "hero" mentality is a big part of what I was trying to address in saying that "good guy" status isn't cast in stone.

[Nnobby45]

Remember that the shooter must be negligent to be held liable. And negligence is "failure to act with the prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances." So in determining whether or not the shooter was negligent (and therefore liable for injury to an innocent), circumstances must, of necessity, be taken into account.

There are thousands of members of the legal profession who went to law school to get rich by filing law suits. The system is set up so law suits can be filed for anything. While the jury ultimately decides, the lawyer can make a case for virtually anything with making money is the issue far more than determining what was reasonable and prudent.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Vanya, post 95

...Your [usaign's] general argument is that the circumstances ought to make a difference to whether or not the shooter should be sued. In this case, I think that you're saying that John should be willing to let the shooter off the hook because what he did was worthwhile: that John's foot injury was outweighed by saving the life of a little girl.

By this argument, it matters whether or not the shooter's intervention is effective.

What if the "Good Guy" shoots a bad guy who has a gun to the child's head and he pulls the trigger reflexively, killing the child?

What if the bad guy is is just nicked, and shoots the child because now he's really mad?

In each of these cases, the "Good Guy's" intervention has made things worse, even though his intentions were good.

So how much do the shooter's intentions matter?

Should John still choose not to sue him, just because his intentions were good? Even though John's foot injury is now just one among several bad outcomes of the shooter's intervention?...

An important perspective.

Originally Posted by Vanya

...the thrust of the OP's question, it seems to me, is how much difference the (perceived) "good guy" status of the person by whom you're shot will make in that evaluation: would you be more likely to decide to overlook (possibly) negligent conduct by someone whose heart was in the right place, and/or who was acting to stop a serious crime?...

I guess there's really an ancillary question: "Can I afford to overlook the shooter's negligence?"

Let's make a couple of assumptions to focus things. Let's assume that the shooter, although having the best possible intentions, made a royal hash of things; so his liability is clear. And let's suppose also that he has sufficient insurance/personal assets to cover his liability.

If my injuries are relatively minor, my medical expenses are substantially covered by my insurance, and I have no significant other losses that I can't reasonably bear, why would I sue the shooter? Being the plaintiff in a law suit is no great fun, and, by hypothesis, it will all be a memory in a short time (except to the extent that I now have a good story for the cocktail party circuit).

On the other hand, let's say I was seriously hurt. I'll be off work for an extended period, and my injuries will leave me with a reduced future earning capacity. I have suffered significant economic loss, including various medical and rehabilitation expenses not covered by my medical insurance. And I have a family to support. So if I forgo seeking compensation from the negligent shooter, I am subjecing myself and my family to great financial (and emotional) deprivation and hardship. Is it proper for me to shirk my responsibilities to my family by giving the negligent shooter a free pass?

I guess that in the above described calculus, the nobility of the shooter's intentions really isn't a factor.

Originally Posted by Nnobby45

...The system is set up so law suits can be filed for anything....

If you think that's wrong, how would you change things?

Originally Posted by Nnobby45

...While the jury ultimately decides, the lawyer can make a case for virtually anything with making money is the issue far more than determining what was reasonable and prudent.

[1] Yes, it's finally up to the judge and jury. That's how our system has worked for something like 500+ years.

[2] As for lawyers being able to make a case for anything, I've known a lot of lawyer who wound up starving because they were doing a lousy job of picking cases and picking clients.

[3] And yes, for the lawyer it is about making money. The practice of law is his business and how he supports himself and his family. And like any business person, he's not going to stay in business if he doesn't conduct it in a reasonable and prudent way. For a trial lawyer, conducting his business in a reasonable and prudent way means, among other things, avoiding wasting time, effort and expense pursuing losing cases.

[grubbylabs]

The only way the "good guy" would get a pass from me is if he/she was a cop. Just because we carry does not mean we should intervene. Defending yourself and trying to stop a robbery are two different things. If it is obvious that some one is about to get shot and the "good guy" steps up to help that is another thing, while I don't necessarily agree depending on the situation I understand to a point. My main thought and concern is that we pay taxes for cops and they get paid to make life changing choices the average person does not.

[usaign]

Thanks guys for participating in this poll and in this thread.

I see the poll now has about 100 votes and 1/3 of the people out there say they would just go ahead and sue no matter what happened. We even saw the psychology play out as some folks automatically assumed their medical bills would not be paid for and used that as a justification. Others thought the insurance company would not take action unless a lawsuit was filed. I know that not to be the case as I worked as an adjuster many moons ago.

So I guess when things happen then everyone's thoughts go all over the place with what might or might not happen so they run out to hire an attorney. While others may just want to strike it rich hoping the attorney will get something out of it.

I was pleased to see that 2/3 of the people in the poll would at least consider the circumstances involved. However, the other 1/3 proves to me that being a Hero might be expensive. The best thing to do is carry an umbrella insurance policy on your homeowners policy that might help you get out of this.

As for avoiding the situation all together, you have to come to that decision yourself. For example, a man armed with a gun at a waffle house is shooting people. You have a weapon, but if you shoot you might hit someone else....so do you just run for cover while that man is in the process of killing people because you are afraid of lawsuits? I cant give you any guidance there...come to your own conclusion...

[Nnobby45]

In the scenario given by the OP, it's clearly stated that the "good guy" is the one that shot the innocent bystander, so the last part is irrelevant.

This thread isn't just about one scenario. It's also about laws that would protect those acting in good faith after defending the lives of innocent people--which would include his/her own. Perhaps you also advocate suing the good samaritan who attempts to administer first aid in an auto accident only to have a slime ball lawyer claim negligence---same as they do in firearm related incidents for the purpose of making money, buying a mansion, affording 600 dollar haircuts, and running for President on a family values platform while having an affair.

Sorry, John Edwards keeps popping into my head every time a gas bag lawyer wants to sue decent people just for profit. I'll ease up on the Red Bull.

TIP: There's no law that can be passed that's fair to both parties in real life scenarios under discussion. Not fair to the shooter who acted as responsibly as can reasonably be expected. Not fair to the innocent who was shot and had their life altered for ever. Too bad you can't sue the parole board or the judge to turned the criminal loose.

OK, rant over.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Nnobby45

...It's also about laws that would protect those acting in good faith after defending the lives of innocent people--which would include his/her own. Perhaps you also advocate suing the good samaritan who attempts to administer first aid in an auto accident...

This is a completely inapposite comparison.

Good Samaritan laws protect someone who comes to the aid of another person in distress against claims of the person who was in distress.

In the situations under discussion here, the shooter isn't necessarily helping the innocent person he has just shot by mistake. So the shooter gets to play the hero, and an innocent person, who didn't ask for, or need, help pays the price? Phooey.

[raimius]

Depends...

If it was a "mostly good shoot" (i.e. good except for me), I would likely not want to sue. However, if they guy threw lead downrange in a negligent way, I might sue for medical bills/time spent looking for a new job type stuff.

[Wildalaska]

However, if they guy threw lead downrange in a negligent way, I might sue for medical bills/time spent looking for a new job type stuff.

If an innocent person gets shot you can be pretty much assured that its negligence.

WildagoodargumentforthemousegunoohifeelathreadcomingAlaska TM

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by usaign

I see the poll now has about 100 votes and 1/3 of the people out there say they would just go ahead and sue no matter what happened.

One key point to remember about your "poll" uasign. You are asking VERY gun friendly folk on this forum. Imagine what the general public would say or do? I think your numbers would reverse or worse. Lesson to be learned? Better not pull the trigger unless there truly is no other choice and if you choose to try and "protect" third parties then be ready for a possible nasty aftermath even though your intent was to be the hero.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

MARTY9,

Play it safe. Assume any innocent bystander you negligently shoot will sue you. Then you will be more thougthful before your pull your piece and start slinging lead. The idea is to protect YOURSELF and your family not society. If you want to do that, join the Police and the FOP will pay for your lawyer. If the idea is to protect yourself and you end up bankrupt then you haven't done what you set out to do. Observe a bank being robbed? Call 911 and stay low. It will probably turn out better for you!

[ScottRiqui]

I would really love to know where all these people are from who think that "good intentions" and "trying to do the right thing" are some kind of magical phrases that absolve you of all responsibility for your actions.

Sometimes when you try to do the right thing, you end up making things worse instead. And sometimes the best choice is still a bad choice, but your intentions don't lessen your responsibility.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Marty9: I shur would hate for my family to be face economic ruin because there father & husband tried to do the right thing & help someone.

But you wouldn't mind their facing economic ruin if their father and husband were shot by someone?

Posted by Tennessee Gentleman: Play it safe. Assume any innocent bystander you negligently shoot will sue you. Then you will be more thougthful before your pull your piece and start slinging lead. The idea is to protect YOURSELF and your family not society. If you want to do that, join the Police and the FOP will pay for your lawyer. If the idea is to protect yourself and you end up bankrupt then you haven't done what you set out to do. Observe a bank being robbed? Call 911 and stay low. It will probably turn out better for you!

Excellent advice.

Posted by ScottRiqui: I would really love to know where all these people are from who think that "good intentions" and "trying to do the right thing" are some kind of magical phrases that absolve you of all responsibility for your actions.

Fantasyland?

Sometimes when you try to do the right thing, you end up making things worse instead.

Yep!

And sometimes the best choice is still a bad choice, but your intentions don't lessen your responsibility.

Well put. Put another way, someone else's intentions do not lessen their responsibility to me and to my family.

Same thing goes for LEOs, but the community will foot the bill for any civil liability. Further, their training and procedures are designed to minimize the risk of unintended injury to innocents. How many civilians understand how to minimize that risk, starting with opting to not start gunfire?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Be rude folks and you are history.

As an indicator of jury opinion, this is useless as a sample of the general population. That was an excellent point.


I know from the literature that in a pseudo jury situation of this type that the over 80 to 90 percent of a reasonable sample will award compensatory and punitive damages. About 50% would convict you of a criminal charge when you shoot an innocent.

Before you make conclusions - sometimes have a background in research - social science, law, stat, etc. is a good foundation.

Also, during voir dire - gun choir folks may not make it on the jury. Recall the percent of CCW/CHL types rarely gets over 4%. So what's the chance that Rambo Robbie gets called and gets on the jury?

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by usaign

As for avoiding the situation all together, you have to come to that decision yourself. For example, a man armed with a gun at a waffle house is shooting people. You have a weapon, but if you shoot you might hit someone else....so do you just run for cover while that man is in the process of killing people because you are afraid of lawsuits? I cant give you any guidance there...come to your own conclusion...

I've been wondering how long it would take for someone to make the "reductio ad waffle house" argument.

You don't run for cover because you're afraid of lawsuits, you run for cover, if you can, because it's the best way of protecting yourself.

The "waffle house argument" comes up a lot, and the gist of it is that if you choose not to defend the lives of strangers, you are somehow responsible for their deaths.

Not so. The responsibility rests with the person who does the shooting, not with you. Your responsibility in this situation is to defend yourself and your family, not to be a hero. If you can't run for cover, or otherwise retreat -- if the only way to defend yourself actively is by shooting back -- then you will have to take into account that doing so may make the situation worse by increasing the risk to other innocents, and you will be responsible for that.

You're a civilian who carries a gun for self-defense, not "Joe Hero."

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

As an indicator of jury opinion, this is useless as a sample of the general population.

I think a lot of these "polls" are about useless regarding anything concerning John Q's attitudes about guns. Now 9mm vs. .45? Kydex or Leather? That's a REAL poll!

[Nnobby45]

In the situations under discussion here, the shooter isn't necessarily helping the innocent person he has just shot by mistake. So the shooter gets to play the hero, and an innocent person, who didn't ask for, or need, help pays the price? Phooey.

Phooey? Ahh, Jeez. Why do you look at a man who's defending his life and the lives of others in a situation not of his choosing, as someone who's "playing hero"?


Part of this discussion is about laws that would protect a citizen acting in good faith where a reasonable person would have no choice but to shoot.

Not an expert, just a former Viet Nam vet, but when the shooting starts, the most experienced among us tend to get caught up in the pure chaos of the event. Being present at such an event is inherently dangerous for all present.

[grubbylabs]

I think that many forget that the idea behind CCW is for personal protection for the carrier and family. Unless we are trained law enforcement we should do what we can to protect ourselves and our family, other wise you run a very high risk of creating more victims. I have worked in the EMS field for many years and of all the training that has evolved over the years the one thing that stays the same is teaching that you protect yourself first, your partner second and the public third and the victim last. If you are not trained to handle the situation maintain safety in the mentioned order as possible and wait for those who have the training and tools to respond and handle the situation.

I would apply that training to mean that I since I am not trained as a law enforcement I should go no farther than maintaining my safety and my families safety.

[Retired15T]

I couldn't just outright sue because of what happened. Too many variables. I would get the advice of a lawyer and see how the situation developed.

And you can what-if this to death.

A man has a woman with a baby in her front carried sling. The BG has an arm around her throat, .45 held to her head. The baby is screaming and the woman is crying. They are standing out front of a restaurant. A customer from the side patio of this place has a 9mm on him. The BG isn't looking in that direction at all, concerned with the cops in front of him. The BG moves his weapon in an expression of anger, waving it slightly away from the woman's head. The good guy from the patio takes the shot, dropping the BG with a shot to the face that continues to travel and hits you in the chest in an adjacent parking lot. You've got months of rehab and medicines. You are out of work for three months recovering.

If my insurance pays for all of my lost wages, rehab and doctor's bills, I'm not going to sue. If my insurance pays for everything except my lost wages, I've no choice but to sue. I can't live on good intentions.

But now, since this GG is a national hero, the media reports that after the incident, the guy was discovered to of been a convicted child molester and rapist. He wasn't supposed to be in possession of the gun in the first place.

I'd sue to snot out of him. I'd take everything he owns that I could get in court.

The good guy is a pastor, previously in the Army where he earned the Bronze Star for his actions in combat and he is well known as an outstanding friend, husband and father.

I would do everything I could to NOT sue him. Ask for donations, ask him if he can help me out, whatever it takes to keep from suing him. If I DID have to sue, I would focus on the bad guy and his family/the city. When I say the city, I mean the city for not having trained the police to scream at the guy to not shoot/get involved.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Nnobby45

...Why do you look at a man who's defending his life and the lives of others in a situation not of his choosing, as someone who's "playing hero"? ...

And why do you care so little about the collateral damage you've caused?

That innocent schlimazel you perforated didn't choose the situation. But you did choose to shoot.

Originally Posted by Nnobby45

...Part of this discussion is about laws that would protect a citizen acting in good faith where a reasonable person would have no choice but to shoot...

And that is the law right now. If you acted in justified self defense, you'll escape criminal liability. And you will only have civil liability if you were found to have been negligent.

So if the jury finds that you acted, "...with the prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances." (emphasis added), you're off the hook. But if the jury finds that your conduct fell short of the standard of care, you pay for the damage you caused thereby. If you are sued, you will have the opportunity to try to make your case. And if you're concerned about the cost of your legal defense, and the risk to your assets, carry liability insurance.

As for your not having a choice, you made the decision that you needed to fire your gun. Once having made that decision, you have a duty to execute exercising appropriate skill and judgment under the circumstances.

You may have acted in good faith, but if you failed to meet the appropriate standard of care, the innocent you may have caused a devastating injury, and his family, can't pay the bills with your good faith.

Originally Posted by Nnobby45

...but when the shooting starts, the most experienced among us tend to get caught up in the pure chaos of the event. Being present at such an event is inherently dangerous for all present.

[1] But if you're shooting, you still are responsible for how you conduct yourself.

[2] If you are shooting, you are contributing to the chaos.

[3] The innocent bystander you popped was waiting for a bus. A contributing factor to that innocuous act somehow becoming a dangerous event was you firing your gun.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by grubbylabs

I have worked in the EMS field for many years and of all the training that has evolved over the years the one thing that stays the same is teaching that you protect yourself first, your partner second and the public third and the victim last. If you are not trained to handle the situation maintain safety in the mentioned order as possible and wait for those who have the training and tools to respond and handle the situation.

Grubbylabs, thank you for this post.

I'm not a professional, but I've taken CPR... first aid... first responder classes -- and in every single one of them, the first thing taught has been, "Protect yourself first. Don't become another victim, and don't make the situation worse."

Professionals know this. That's why, for example, police officers don't rush into a house where someone is holding a family at gunpoint. They set up a perimeter and try to open communication with the hostage taker, rather than "heroically" storming the house. There are many excellent reasons for this: not endangering their own lives, and not making the situation worse by increasing the risk to innocents, are at the top of the list.

I don't know what it is about carrying a gun that makes so many people think they're automatically qualified to intervene with violence in any situation in which they think a crime is being committed... and that this is always the "moral" thing to do, regardless of the risk to themselves or to anyone else.

Originally Posted by Retired15T

But now, since this GG is a national hero, the media reports that after the incident, the guy was discovered to of been a convicted child molester and rapist. He wasn't supposed to be in possession of the gun in the first place.

I'd sue to snot out of him. I'd take everything he owns that I could get in court.

The good guy is a pastor, previously in the Army where he earned the Bronze Star for his actions in combat and he is well known as an outstanding friend, husband and father.

I would do everything I could to NOT sue him.

So it turns out that the question isn't really one of the ethical status of the "Good Guy's" actions at all. It's not about whether his good intentions, or the effectiveness of his intervention, outweigh his negligence -- it really comes down to whether you like or approve of him as a person, and has little to do with his conduct in that situation.

"Heroes" should get a free pass for negligence. Others need not apply.

Well, that's honest, at least.

[ScottRiqui]

If some one from your family was in that waffle house that got shot by the perp while someone was selfishly taking care of their self the had a loaded gun and had a clean shot you'd be ******.

If you can safely leave the situation instead, simply "having a clean shot" may not be adequate legal justification for the use of deadly force, especially if something goes wrong and the shot isn't as "clean" as you thought. Different states have different laws regarding how far you can intercede into a situation in defense of a third party.

Quite simply, the rights and responsibilities of a CHL holder are completely different from those of a law enforcement official.

[Glenn Bartley]

I would really love to know where all these people are from who think that "good intentions" and "trying to do the right thing" are some kind of magical phrases that absolve you of all responsibility for your actions.

I'll tell you where I am from, I am from NY and while I do not believe in magic I do beleive that good intent and trying to do the right thing can legally (not magically) absolve you from legal and civil prosecution.

NY State has a number of laws that are called good Samaritan laws. The laws absolve a good Samaritan, or some one who with good intentions responds to a situation where they try to intervene and save a life, such as in a medical emergency but somehow may cause more good than bad. Of course, someone should not try to claim such status if they give CPR, without training in CPR, then cause an injury or death becaise it would be possible they would be guilty of gross negligence. These laws do not protect a responder who commits gross negligence. They do, however, protect you if you arrive at the scene of something like a serious accident and wade into the mess to render first aid or give CPR (if you have first aid or CPR training) and somehow your actions make someone worse and result in injury or death to that person.

You see the good fairy does exist even in as corrupt a place as NY. 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.

Now while NY state is just about anti-gun rights as a state can be, there are other states, I seem to remember, that have such provisions. I believe some states grant similar status to people who intervene as Good Samaritans in situations other than medical, such as taking action to defend the life or limb of an innocent third party including use of firearms to do so. If I am wrong in my recollection that such is correct, then I should not be wrong because states should legislate such laws.

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.

Many other laws require criminal intent to have a person found guilty. Therefore, if a person does the same thing, without criminal intent, there is no violation. Intent has always been an important part of the law whether it be good or bad intentions that come to play. Intentions, of course, may not prevent someone from suing you. The thing is though, they will sometimes get you off of the hook completely otherwise will often mitigate any penalties that you may face. If you don’t know that about the law, then you know even less about the law than do I.

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. 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.

As for me, even if a state did not have such a law and even if I was not an LEO - and my status as a federal LEO only covers me against law suits aimed at me individually if I act within the scope of my duties and those duties are not to protect little old ladies from rapists - chances are I would still try to help a little old lady that I saw who was being raped, or mugged, or beaten to death, or whatever. I have intervened before, and would do it again, because for me the consequences of not helping that little old lady, or someone else, in peril of serious bodily injury or death at the hands of an assailant, would be worse than those for having helped her. Now be careful to understand, I am not saying I would charge in guns blazing with no regard for others. What I am saying is that after assessing the situation if I believed my shot or other intervention would be very likely to badly harm another innocent or the old lady herself, I probably would not shoot or take other intervention that would result in such harm. If, on the other hand, I had determined that while it was merely possible for my intervention to harm someone else but had also determined in my estimation that such was very unlikely, then I would with good intent (based upon my assessment of the situation, my training, my experience and so forth) take action to intervene. I could not live with myself otherwise; damn me if I worry about the consequences of any law suit being brought against me and it overrides my doing the right thing.

If you do not feel likewise I suppose it is simply because your ethical or moral compass points in a different direction than does mine because my choice to intervene is based upon my morality in large part. And please note, I am not saying mine points in a better direction than yours, just a different direction, you have to decide, for yourself, if yours is better or not.

All the best,
Glenn B

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by Vanya

Originally Posted by usaign
As for avoiding the situation all together, you have to come to that decision yourself. For example, a man armed with a gun at a waffle house is shooting people. You have a weapon, but if you shoot you might hit someone else....so do you just run for cover while that man is in the process of killing people because you are afraid of lawsuits? I cant give you any guidance there...come to your own conclusion...

I've been wondering how long it would take for someone to make the "reductio ad waffle house" argument.

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.

[Frank Ettin]

If you injure some poor wretch dragging him unconscious from a burning car, you will be protected by any Good Samaritan law. He would otherwise probably have died in the fire.

But it's another thing entirely if you choose to intervene in a robbery at a convenience store, and one of your stray bullets hits some guy standing outside minding his own business at the bus stop.