When am I NOT responsible for shooting a bystander?

[Zeake]

No good deed goes unpunished

 

[105thSoftail]

I've watched episodes of COPS where citizens ask the police if they need help and cops yelled "YES". Just ask

 

[spencer60]

The problem is in EVERY single scenario imaginable you can come up with a "what if" that it would make in a bad idea to intervene. So you either decide you will NEVER intervene no matter what, or you will let the circumstance dictate in that split second you generally will have to make a decision.

Yeah, but I think people are generally rational enough to weigh the odds.

You're right that you could way overthink this... I mean in the example above, if you saw the cop get out of a squad car and the bad guy pull a knife and attack him, you pretty much have all the information you need.

In the actual example, just getting 'beaten down' probably isn't lethal force 'worthy' unless the cop is on the ground or there's some other disparity of force. Without that even the cop wouldn't be justified in using lethal force, let alone a bystander who had none of the background information.

That all being said, this is a very different situation than the OP's question. In that it's very clear who the bad guy is.

The question is about whether you have the right to endanger other peoples' lives to stop someone who is a known threat...That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

 

[Redleg]

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.

No one is shot by accident in this scenario, there is responsibility with the decision making, you commit, either way, no one asked you to intervene. your action, your consequence, just because you can carry doesn't mean you can shoot accurately.

 

[BanjoJohn]

LEO's just ain't what they used to be. There are a lot a scared people walking around with badges and a firearm.
Being cautious and scared are two entirely different things.

 

[palmettomoon]

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

That's the risk you assume when helping. Waht are the odds you'll get an ezperienced, thinking responding unit vs. a roided up high school graduate looking to kick ass (your's too) and take names?

 

[Tony2X]

The scenario is very specific, you are in a crowded public place and you are watching someone shoot multiple victims (pick any recent active shooter situation of recent times). You choose to fire at him to stop him and you injure or kill a bystander. Have you committed a crime, ie are you liable for the bystander you shot during the act of stopping the active shooter?

I have found this works very well in crowds....nobody knows wtf is goin on...lol

 

[gh1950]

If you hit a bystander when you are otherwise authorized to use deadly force, you have not per se committed a crime. Just like all parts of a shooting scenario, every part of the incident is subject to review as to "what a reasonable person" would have done who had the same information. This is why it is so hard to convict an LEO of shooting someone where 20/20 hindsight shows that the shooting was unreasonable.

People always ask these type questions wanting a bright line answer. There isn't one. As GeauxLSU notes, for every armchair scenario, there will always be a "what if."

 

[Psilloh1]

"I'll take only if they shoot first for $500 Alex?

 

[tmoore912]

The OP's good guy shooter that hits an innocent can have immunity from criminal prosecution in GA if he was following the other Use of force Code sections.

O.C.G.A.§ 16-3-24.2
Immunity from prosecution; exception

A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, 16-3-23, 16-3-23.1, or 16-3-24 shall be immune from criminal prosecution therefor unless in the use of deadly force, such person utilizes a weapon the carrying or possession of which is unlawful by such person under Part 2 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of this title.