|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 11, 2013, 08:13 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Suing if shot as a bystander
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/ny...egion&_r=0
After bystanders were hit in NYC, several sued. The city decided not to settle but vigorously defend itself if it was felt that the shoot at the BG was justified. The article reviews past actions and those of other cities and when they did settle. Let's avoid the typical claim that police can't shoot but you can and other bashing. It is an interesting issue - I wonder if the precedent would be useful for a civilian in a 'good' shoot. Of course, that's another definitional problem. GEM
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
November 11, 2013, 08:41 PM | #2 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Not a police basher, but I do think that police culture puts police safety ahead of public safety. What sort of potential crime of this fugitive makes shooting innocents worthwhile?
Police are equipped and paid to take risks and go in harm's way. The officers should have held their fire until they could put themselves close enough to insure hits or a decent backstop. That would be my argument in the civil suit. I don't think we need this sort of "protection". |
November 11, 2013, 08:45 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
I seem to recall being told as a young lad, that if a LEO had to use his weapon, rounds fired from it become the legal responsibility of the BG that forced the situation. Now this came from a LEO neighbor in California in the 60's. But that has always stuck in my mind.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
November 11, 2013, 08:58 PM | #4 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
An interesting subject.
Remember that a bystander might not, under established legal principles, be automatically entitled to compensation. A threshold question is whether or not any liability, whether the shooter is an LEO or private citizen, will be based on negligence or strict liability. Thus far it seems that the standard is negligence, so compensation won't be automatic. A decent, broad definition of negligence is: A recovery based on negligence of a shooter justifiably using lethal force to protect himself or someone else requires establishing that the shooter failed to exercise the appropriate level of care. Deciding that question can lead to a fairly complicated calculus considering the exigency of the situation, the risk to the shooter, and the reasonableness of his decisions and actions in light of the emergency nature of the event, his reasonably perceived need to act quickly and decisively, stress levels and other factors.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
November 11, 2013, 09:00 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,577
|
Cowtowner-- You know as lame as that sounds,,I got to believe it. I can just see that being law.
I think it has it's place if by not taking the shot someone is in immediate danger of being killed at that moment. I heard that police in hot pursuit will abandon the chase if it enters a populated place to avoid innocent people from being hit. That should be the case in a situation like this too. Now Glen I know you said to keep ( can't shoot for ??? ) out of it, But it comes into the picture. Consideration that one can shoot good enough to make the shot must play a part. When hunting you can take a chance,when it comes to human life- Never. I do not envy the police for that aspect of their job. One also has to know-They have to live with it afterwards. Shot placement should be theirs as well as our first and most important responsibility. It's a hard call.Shoot and hit a bystander,your in trouble,Don't shoot and BG kills someone else-Your in trouble.
__________________
NRA Certified RSO NwCP- Performance Isn't Optional Last edited by 4runnerman; November 11, 2013 at 09:17 PM. |
November 11, 2013, 09:05 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
If its good for the goose, it's good for the gander.
We have a system that works well without special classes. Same for federal tort exemption: Let the chips fall where they may.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
November 11, 2013, 11:14 PM | #7 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
In any case, the FTCA doesn't guarantee recovery. You must still first file an administrative claim. If that's denied, you may pursue a tort action against the federal government. But you still need to establish the factual and legal bases for recovery, and you can still lose. It looks like the process is very similar in New York State.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
November 11, 2013, 11:54 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
I've trained law enforcement officers in the judgmental use of force for more than 18 years. Often the question comes up about shooting at a gunman (on a simulator) with citizens in the background.
I have always taught that the officer should fire if there is an imminent threat, regardless of whether the background is clear. If possible, of course, (s)he should maneuver to clear the background, but my precept has always been, "What's behind you? If there's a schoolbus full of kids behind you, do you think the perpetrator is going to hold his fire for fear of hitting them?" The perpetrator may shoot anyone he perceives as being in the way, or even shoot into the crowd to cause confusion and aid in his escape. The officer is trained in marksmanship, and trained to shoot only when absolutely necessary. From the big picture, from the Public Safety Standpoint, the quicker the officer stops the threat, the safer everyone in the community is, even if the officer's actions endanger others. FWIW.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
November 12, 2013, 12:16 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
In my state I think a private citizen would be sued if we shoot an innocent bystander, even if the shoot on the BG was justified. At least that is what I was told by three different CCW instructors I have trained with said.
Now, Frank is right, I could try to defend it but in my case I think I would let my homeowner's and umbrella take over and defend me which would mean it would be up to the insurance company and I suspect they would settle. So, unless I had a LOT of money (which I don't) I think I would be sued and the insurance company would settle.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
November 12, 2013, 12:50 AM | #10 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
November 12, 2013, 11:39 AM | #11 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,803
|
How, in the legal sense, is it measured when police fire 37 shots in 3 seconds (or less) and hit the suspect 6 times, how it that not negligent?
We all recognize that misses are going to happen. But I have to ask, where does one set the level between the acceptable cost of doing business, and officer safety?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
November 12, 2013, 12:10 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Keep in mind that in this particular case, none of the bystanders were hit directly. They were all hit with ricochets or fragments.
pax |
November 12, 2013, 12:21 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Quote:
|
|
November 12, 2013, 12:27 PM | #14 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
November 12, 2013, 01:31 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
|
Thanks Gary L Griffiths. That's what I was taught as well.
|
November 12, 2013, 03:00 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
If I were the bystander I'd sue the bejebus out of everyone involved. Here I am eating my ice cream and blamo! Talk about rude.
|
November 12, 2013, 04:42 PM | #17 |
Junior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 6
|
I think the limit should be anything more than 7 rounds being shot by the police at a BG in NY state is excessive and 5 rounds in NYC since that is the limit politicans think is appropriate for citizens to deal with a threat.
|
November 12, 2013, 05:46 PM | #18 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Washington DC has a similar policy.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
November 12, 2013, 06:47 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,577
|
In a situation like what? Do you really know enough about the situation to make that call?
Frank- What I meant is that Unless they know they can make the shot with out someone else possably getting shot-Don't take the shot. Now if BG is shooting up a storm,thay have to make the call. But a lot of times.If police let the guy run and he thinks he is getting away,He will stop shooting and police can grab him in a safer situation. You don't need to know about the situation-You are in it. If any one knows at that time the police involved know. The situation is A- He is shooting wild B- He is not shooting and just trying to flee.
__________________
NRA Certified RSO NwCP- Performance Isn't Optional Last edited by 4runnerman; November 12, 2013 at 06:53 PM. |
November 12, 2013, 06:54 PM | #20 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,820
|
Interesting subject x2.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
If you ever have to use a firearm, you don't get to pick the scenario! |
|||
November 12, 2013, 07:11 PM | #21 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
It's all about the judgment call under the exact circumstances of the incident. Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
November 12, 2013, 07:22 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,577
|
Frank- I am not assuming anything. If they can make the shot,take it,If not dont. The exact situation is know by Police officers there. Don't twist my meaning ito something you are interpeting wrong . I don't think that because BG is Bg that it gives Police or anyone else the green light to shoot and if I hit a bystander Oh well. I am covered under some law that say's it's not my fault.
That's BS.
__________________
NRA Certified RSO NwCP- Performance Isn't Optional |
November 12, 2013, 07:30 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 917
|
I cannot take away from good officers or what they do, and let me make it known that I know nothing of police procedures and it is not and should not be up to me what they should be, but if one thing has become clear to me all of my life its that governmet (yes police work for the local government) hold themselves to be more equal. I don't know how this one will work out for the bystanders but where I live I don't know of anyone who has sued the city for anything and fared well.
|
November 12, 2013, 07:36 PM | #24 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Your apparent notions about how the police should conduct themselves is really not terrible relevant to the issue of the negligence standard.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
November 12, 2013, 07:43 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,577
|
That you are very correct on Frank- I do not know the law for squat. I only know what I feel.
__________________
NRA Certified RSO NwCP- Performance Isn't Optional |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|