When am I NOT responsible for shooting a bystander?

[Gimli2]

Add this: what if, while you're shooting the 'active shooter', a policeman(uniformed, or plain-clothed, on, or off-duty), sees YOU firing a gun, and shoots YOU? (thinking you're the 'active shooter')

That's happened in real life not too long ago. Lemme see if I can find the story.

 

[Gimli2]

Can't think of the right search terms... need more coffee!

 

[fastfish66]

My son who is 21 and carries on a regular basis and I a man in my mid fifties who carries occasionally got into a philosophical conversation tonight after a very crowded fireworks show we attended. There were 3-5,000 people in attendance is a small park setting and we were discussing how quickly an active shooter situation could get out of hand there. My son was discussing the philosophy of "if there had been a shooter in the crowd shooting people, would he shoot at the shooter in the middle of the crowd knowing there was a likely chance he would hit an innocent bystander? We discussed the emotional side of watching him slaughter additional people versus shooting an innocent accidently while trying to stop him.

MY QUESTION is how would it be viewed legally if you returned fire and injured a bystander? How would it be viewed if you killed a bystander?

While opinions are welcome, I am really hoping to learn the legal answer to these two questions.

JUST HOPE THERE ARE 12 ODTERS ON THE JURY.LOL

 

[Kahrnut]

Good read: http://www.dailycaller.com/2015/03/19/concealed-carrier-active-shooter-considerations

 

[The Old Jaybird]

active shooter at a fireworks show would be crazy with the noise from the show vs. the gunshots.....literally a worst case scenario. Hope ISIS isn't reading this.

 

[GeauxLSU]

You are always 'responsible' if you shoot someone regardless of the circumstances. Your question is obviously will you be held liable. There is no clear answer to that question if it results in a trail by jury. As is often the case, people get the 'justice' they can afford.

 

[KBD431]

This continues to generate great information. Love the article, many more things to consider.

 

[spencer60]

That's happened in real life not too long ago. Lemme see if I can find the story.

I'm guessing that you are thinking of the Clackamas mall shooter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting). In this case a CC permit holder drew on the shooter but did not take a shot because of bystanders. The Wiki article barely mentions this fact, but if you Google enough you will get the full story.



As for the OPs question... as several others have said... every bullet has a lawyer attached (which I'm not).

The right to self defense comes with the responsibility to use it wisely. You are subject to a higher standard of care when you carry which means that you really have to follow at the doctor's oath of "first, do no harm". After all, if you harm innocent people, no matter what your intentions are, you are really no better than the person you are trying to stop.

Law enforcement has some mitigating circumstances, because they are required to attempt to stop the attacker, and that duty may sometimes put innocents in harms way. As a society we accept that so long as it's not abused. Mowing down a roomful of innocents just to get at a terrorist attacking them wouldn't fly for police either... at least here in the US.

You carry in 'self' defense... not 'other' defense. You have the right to protect yourself and those under your immediate care. As soon as you go beyond core principal that you are rolling the legal dice.

 

[BanjoJohn]

I'm guessing that you are thinking of the Clackamas mall shooter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting). In this case a CC permit holder drew on the shooter but did not take a shot because of bystanders. The Wiki article barely mentions this fact, but if you Google enough you will get the full story.



As for the OPs question... as several others have said... every bullet has a lawyer attached (which I'm not).

The right to self defense comes with the responsibility to use it wisely. You are subject to a higher standard of care when you carry which means that you really have to follow at the doctor's oath of "first, do no harm". After all, if you harm innocent people, no matter what your intentions are, you are really no better than the person you are trying to stop.

Law enforcement has some mitigating circumstances, because they are required to attempt to stop the attacker, and that duty may sometimes put innocents in harms way. As a society we accept that so long as it's not abused. Mowing down a roomful of innocents just to get at a terrorist attacking them wouldn't fly for police either... at least here in the US.

You carry in 'self' defense... not 'other' defense. You have the right to protect yourself and those under your immediate care. As soon as you go beyond core principal that you are rolling the legal dice.

So, if you see a cop getting a beatdown by a thug, you shouldn't draw your weapon and intervene?

 

[DirtySouth]

So, if you see a cop getting a beatdown by a thug, you shouldn't draw your weapon and intervene?

If the Leo is getting a "beatdown", why draw a weapon? Could you not intervene without drawing a weapon?