Liability for Shooting Robbers

[gh1950]

So consider this. Would you have gotten involved? (There's a really interesting backstory to this)

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/us/arizona-good-samaritan-kills-man-beating-trooper/

These discussions are highly fact specific, but when you look at the outcome of police involved shootings, it appears that there is not much risk.

You would have to find a jury that thinks it's more reasonable to let an armed robber go free, than for a properly licensed gun owner to use a specific legal right granted to him by law.

Along these lines, consider the McIver case in Atlanta, where the lawyer is being charged with the equivalent of negligent homicide for "accidentally" shooting his wife in the back while she was in the front seat of the SUV. It will be interesting to see how this plays out as far as negligent use of a firearm, if for no other reason than that McIver is being defended by some high powered legal talent, and not an overworked public defender.

 

[republican]

That's why all first offenders, probationees,parolees,inmates and high school tough guys need to be sent to Georgia firearms law training. Criminals are far less deterred by being shot during the commission of a crime than by the fear of being shot while committing a future crime. That's why criminals prefer to rob citizens as opposed to other armed criminals. Let them see how easily their potential victims can arm themselves and they might just move to California.

 

[TapcoFan]

So consider this. Would you have gotten involved? (There's a really interesting backstory to this)

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/us/arizona-good-samaritan-kills-man-beating-trooper/

These discussions are highly fact specific, but when you look at the outcome of police involved shootings, it appears that there is not much risk.

The common law rule is that no man owes a duty to a third party. There is no legal duty to intervene in this instance. That being said, there are "Good Samaritan" laws on this books which shield a reasonable rescuer from liability as a way to encourage rescue in a reasonable manner - IIRC, AZ is one of those states. In the absence of the statute shielding the rescuer from liability, killing of another to rescue a third party whom the rescuer reasonably believes is in immediate mortal danger is a valid affirmative defense not just criminally, but in tort law as well. This is a pretty clear cut set of facts where killing in the defense of another, although not excusing the act, justifies the act.

You would have to find a jury that thinks it's more reasonable to let an armed robber go free, than for a properly licensed gun owner to use a specific legal right granted to him by law.

This would be a fact driven situation and what course of action would be reasonable under the circumstances. For example, if said armed robber was assaulting a store clerk, it may not be objectively reasonable to draw and fire. The judgement is more likely to go the other way if the armed robber had struck the store clerk, especially with a weapon. Obviously going through an analysis of what is reasonable and what is not in realtime isn't a practical situation, but establishing a bright line rule for yourself that drawing and shooting is an absolute last resort because you know someone is certainly going to die if you don't, it's a stronger case for getting involved.

Along these lines, consider the McIver case in Atlanta, where the lawyer is being charged with the equivalent of negligent homicide for "accidentally" shooting his wife in the back while she was in the front seat of the SUV. It will be interesting to see how this plays out as far as negligent use of a firearm, if for no other reason than that McIver is being defended by some high powered legal talent, and not an overworked public defender.

This case is less salient to the discussion because I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that the defendant could justify negligent homicide with self-defense or defense of another. It's certainly interesting to follow. If I had to guess, if there is a finding of guilt, the penalty will not be severe. He may get probation - this is a call from a sociological perspective and not really factoring legal formalism.

I'm not a lawyer though - these are just my subjective feelings on the issue.

 

[El Jefe 2.0]

If you shoot and you miss equal the lack of training. Try to fight until the last resort to use a firearm