Your most anticipated time of need?

[ChicagoTex]

2.5#? Hah! Mine's only 1.38# ... does that mean I'm having roughly 45% more fun than you?

[ghalleen]

I've been robbed three times at gunpoint.

You have terrible luck. Have you considered moving elsewhere? Like maybe the mountains of Wyoming?

[Erik]

I train for dealing with a variety of situations, but close, sudden violence aimed at myself or another is my most anticipated; it happens to also be the most likely.

[TargetTerror]

As an aside, that raises an interesting question - who's legally liable for the damage to vehicles from me and the bg shooting at each other? Are we each responsible for our own bullets, or is the initial criminal actor responsible for all damages caused as a byproduct of his criminal act? I realize were this circumstance to come up that would be the least of my worries, but I'm still curious.

chicagotex, afaik, in most jurisdictions, the shooter is liable for their own bullets. There was a case, Hall v McBryde, where this essentially came up. Teenager (nongangbanger) went to his parents house to get some items, and some gangbangers do a driveby. Teenager gets parents' gun and returns fire, striking a neighbor. (The neighbor actually went after the parents, claiming negligent supervision, but the parents prevailed b/c there son was not known to be violent.) I don't believe they ever went after the teenager, but the issue of culpability did arise.

The Restatement of Torts (basically a treatise by judges/law professors on what the law should be - state may or may not choose to adopt it) deals with this issue in section 16:

(1) If an act is done with the intention of inflicting upon another an offensive but not a harmful bodily contact, or of putting another in apprehension of either a harmful or offensive bodily contact, and such act causes a bodily contact to the other, the actor is liable to the other for a battery although the act was not done with the intention of bringing about the resulting bodily harm.

(2) If an act is done with the intention of affecting a third person in the manner stated in subsection (1), but causes a harmful bodily contact to another, the actor is liable to such other as fully as though he intended so to affect him.

It is basically the Transferred Intent Doctrine - if you intended to cuase harm to A, but cause harm to B, your intent will carry through to your actions against B and you will be liable for an intentional tort (I'm just talking about civil liability here - criminal liability can be a little different).

I think the analysis would work out like this: BG threatens you, you fire upon BG, striking him, and also strike innocent bystander C. You have committed an assault and battery against both BG and C. You would have a true defense of self defense against BG, and should prevail provided you meet the criteria for self defense (true defense means you admit that you did it but...) However, self defense will not work as a defense for your battery against C b/c C was not an imminent threat to you. Moreover, because you intended to shoot BG, this intent will transfer to your shooting of C, making it a battery.

C would also have causes of action against you for negligence, as you have a duty when firing any gun to fire it in a safe manner. This could be used to recover for any property damage, or for personal/physical damages should a battery claim against you fail.

You could try a Justification defense, but this will likely fail. Your argument would be "I was justified in accidently/negligently shooting C because I was being threatened by BG." I can't imagine any court or jury that would allow you to hurt an innocent 3rd party to prevent injury to yourself. Justification is typically used where the damages are not so physical.

I think this makes sense too from a public policy perspective. If you absolve the defender of any responsibility, what is to stop them from going spray and pray style in a crowded area when threatened? This is certainly a touchy issue, and I am on the fence about it. Obviously, I think if you defend yourself and you shoot, a bystander, you did so only because of the actions of the BG. But I think you need to look at the bystander's perspective too. They shouldn't have to endure being shot by you by virtue of you being in danger from BG. Holding you accountable would make you more careful, and thus less likely to hurt an innocent bystander.

Can you tell I have my Torts final tomorrow?

[MLeake]

In your example, if Party A was within his rights to fire on Party B, then there wouldn't be intent to commit an unlawful assault and battery on B. It should follow that there would be no transfer of unlawful intent with regard to Party C, since no unlawful intent existed in the first place. It is not a given that assault and battery charges would be filed, and definitely not a given that a conviction would ensue, based on injury to Party C.

However, if it were determined that a reasonable person would have foreseen the likely injury to bystanders due to crowded environment, etc, that might result in criminal charges that would stick.

Civil liability is a whole 'nother matter, and could attach more easily.

Please bear in mind that I am not a lawyer, and am just trying to analyze the logic of this example.

Cheers,

M

[TargetTerror]

MLeake, I was analyzing things strictly from the perspective of torts/civil liability, as that is what chicagotex was originally asking about. You can be held liable for the tort of Assault and the tort of Battery, irrespective of any criminal liability for those acts.

One key thing that many people don't realize is that a self defense argument is an excuse or justification argument. You are admitting to everything that the prosecution/plaintiff is alleging, but saying you should not be held liable/convicted because of excuse X. So in the example I gave in post 29, there was intent to commit the torts of Battery and Assault against BG, regardless of whether the goodguy (Party A) has a valid self defense claim. This intent can then be transferred to bystander C.

In many ways though, none of the above matters, because that is just for intentional torts. Bystander C will have a valid claim for negligence against shooter A. Anyone, shooter A included, has a duty to everyone to handle and shoot a firearm such that people are not accidentally shot. This duty was breached when A negligently shot C, and C suffered damages as a result.

I don't envision this basic scheme changing significantly anytime soon to remove the burden of liability from shooter A. At best, a state may pass a law forcing a BG to indemnify any acts that arise from a valid self defense action against them. But, shooter A would still be liable to bystander C, all that changes is shooter A could then sue BG to recover what A owes C. And good luck getting a dime out of your typical bg...

Criminal Law was last semester, so obviously I've drained the bathtub on all of that knowledge by now But, IIRC, transferred intent and defenses should work in a similar fashion to what I've described for torts.

[AirForceShooter]

my most likely need would be post hurricane.
After that travel or shopping malls.

I've been in the post hurricane senario.
You know, the signs that say "you loot, we shoot"
We weren't kidding.

AFS

[Harry Callahan]

I have thought about having to deal with all the above scenarios. Of course, living in Illinois, I will be at the mercy of the 911 response time. But that aside I think the convention in Denver could be interesting. Has all the makings of something that could get very ugly, very fast. I'm not sure that Denver property owners realize that damage caused by riots and insurrections are NOT covered by most homeowners insurance policies.

[PT111]

1. Robbery while filling up the gas take. (Panhandlers are rampant around here).
2. Attacked or robbed while walking from car to mall/wal-mart/restaurant etc.
3. Road Rage incident
4. While taking my evening walk through the neighborhood.
5. Anytime I am out of town and staying at a motel.
.
.
.
x. Odds of something happening while in a crowded mall are about the same as winning lottery to me.

The standard fears that seem to bother some people so much such as the VT, Ludys, mall shootings etc. just do not bother me at all. I figure my college student daughters are 1,000 time more likely to be attacked while walking to class than they will be in class. In fact I figure that in class is one of the safest places they can be.

[Ruthless4christ]

down here in guatemala, most alert moments are,

1 coming out of the bank, most people know my car and expect a gringo to come out of the bank with lots of goodies.

2 Driving: either on the highway or in the mountains. its jsut like the wild west where there are bandits who carjack people to kidnap, rob or steal loads.

3 as FER mentioned on a thread before leaving and entering my own front door.

[Mannlicher]

The most likely thing I face is a robbery attempt away from the house. I feel that keeping your awareness at high level, knowing your surroundings, and watching for those things that are 'just not right', are the first line of defense.
I will walk away from trouble before I confront it, but if push comes to shove, I feel I am prepared mentally and so far as equipment goes.

[chilie23]

To quote an earlier poster

banks in Ohio are off limits to guns

that is FALSE. Unless the bank manager decides to post a no guns allowed sing, which does not carry criminal penalties unless you are asked to leave and refuse. Basically it comes down to if the entity is governemnt funded, like a police station, a court house, a school or university than you cannot carry. This does not apply to libraries. IANAL

[DieHard06]

Being in eastern PA near Phili, NYC, and New Jersey, I am most worried about having to defend myself on the road in my car.

Second would be walking down the street or in a parking lot.

[2cooltoolz]

You have terrible luck. Have you considered moving elsewhere? Like maybe the mountains of Wyoming?

No, I've had great luck. I've lost an automobile (insured) and a wallet (a few bucks and some cancellable credit cards), but I'm still here. And I did move, from "inside the loop" Houston to the great metropolis of Willis, TX on Lake Conroe to raise my daughter.

[dabigguns357]

Here is my worst fear that came true,and why i am going today to pick up my new sg239.I usually work nights so i was wide awake playing with my infant son,my wife had just gone to bed.I here knocking on the door,so i go and get my only home defense weapon i have right now[12 g slug gun],and set it by the door to my left.I open the door and this guy was standing there wanting to know where so an so is.I very nicely told him that he had the wrong house and that no one live here by that name.Thats when he became persistant and kept coming closer to me and trying to look over my shoulder to see further in the house.He acually got close enough to me that i could smell the alcohal on his breath.Thats when i got real peaved and stepped back to close the door. Thats when it all kinda went down hill.He stuck his foot in the door to keep me from closing it.I knew i had to do something and fast.I let go of the door as i grabbed my 12g and stuck it in his face.Well he just stood there frozen for a moment,then turned and backed down the steps.I did call 911 but there was nothing they could really do because there was no theft or vandalism .Never in my life have i ever been that scared.Since then i had started working day shift and installed night vision cameras all around. Yes we are also looking for another place to live as well.


As for malls,crazy drivers,and parking lots we don't frequent them enough to worry about yet,but my family and my home i now know i will always have to worry about.

[DeathRodent]

I sort of agree with PBP - I'n not to concerned about a mall shooting but being in the wrong part of town when or if a riot breaks out.

I still remember the trucker (Reginald Denny?) getting pulled out of his truck during the Rodney King riots back in 92 in LA. I don't (won't) let that happen to me. It could be road rage, riot, or whatever but I think I'd have time to open a messenger bag.

[vox rationis]

I still remember the trucker (Reginald Denny?) getting pulled out of his truck during the Rodney King riots back in 92 in LA. I don't (won't) let that happen to me. It could be road rage, riot, or whatever but I think I'd have time to open a messenger bag.

I was in LA at that time and actually saw that live on a local station..It is too bad Denny stopped his forward progress in that intersection and allowed himself to be pulled out of his cab.

Many people just stopped and allowed those disgusting thugs to pull them out and beat them close to their deaths. The best defense in that situation would be to make sure one's doors were locked plus a strategic use of the accelerator.