shooting an innocent -- we've discused this before

[Jack Burton]

What happens when you shoot an innocent when you are trying to defend yourself from harm. A lot of participants had some very strong, and opposing, opinions over it.

Stand Your Ground | South Carolina | Immunity

 

[Denny347]

While you MAY be fine criminally, civilly, you're pretty screwed. As a person that has battled this 2 times, it sucks. It takes YEARS to resolve, depo's where the lawyer runs you through the mud, the stress of the unknown, and the possibility of losing all you have worked for...and for my cases, all for doing everything "by the book" and still ended up in litigation. Even though you are covered by criminal law, you still responsible for a innocent person's death and their family would almost always win the civil case.

 

[TheSpark]

Pretty sure that you are immune from any criminal or civil responsibility to your attacker or their family. I would think this would extend to an innocent people killed as well. In my opinion, the estate of the attacker (if any) should cover their claims. For example, if two guys rob a store and anyone is killed in any way during the commission of that felony they are responsible and can be charged with felony murder.

I would like to read any actual Indiana cases on this matter.

 

[HoughMade]

Civilly (I'll let other handle the crimes), the standard is "reasonable care" which sounds fine until you try to explain to a jury how you could have exercised reasonable care and still hit an unintended target. I have no doubt it happens, regularly, but it is exceedingly difficult to convey all of the circumstances which can lead to that when the easier story to tell is "he screwed up, plain and simple."

 

[cosermann]

If the shooting is otherwise justified, something like this (while a tragedy to be sure) should be hung 100% around the perps neck. He's the one who forced your hand. He's the one who made the decision to ruin everyone's day, not you.

I'm not saying that's the way it goes, or the way Indiana law is; just that's the way it should be imho.

 

[singlesix]

If the shooting is otherwise justified, something like this (while a tragedy to be sure) should be hung 100% around the perps neck. He's the one who forced your hand. He's the one who made the decision to ruin everyone's day, not you.

I'm not saying that's the way it goes, or the way Indiana law is; just that's the way it should be imho.

So I attempt to shoot the bad guy by "spread and pray" method and ending up killing your child instead, you'd go after the bad guy and not me?

 

[cosermann]

You would never have had to shoot at all had it not been for the bad guy. It's ultimately his fault.

 

[TheSpark]

You would never have had to shoot at all had it not been for the bad guy. It's ultimately his fault.

Here's something to think about. Two people are out in the water both drowning. The stronger of the two gets on top of the weaker one and uses him/her as a life flotation "device". Ultimately, this causes the weaker one to die. I know there has been cases like this where the courts have ruled that in a life and death situation you have the right to do whatever is necessary to save your life and your life alone. You would not be criminally or civilly responsible for such situation.

If your life is in danger and you must discharge your firm arm to protect your life you should be in the same way not legally or civilly responsible for whatever happens because of that.

Unfortunately though you are bound to wind up in at least civil court if this happened to you. I would hope the court would find only the aggressor (criminal) in the matter able to held financially responsible.

 

[jake blue]

If the shooting is otherwise justified, something like this (while a tragedy to be sure) should be hung 100% around the perps neck. He's the one who forced your hand. He's the one who made the decision to ruin everyone's day, not you.

I'm not saying that's the way it goes, or the way Indiana law is; just that's the way it should be imho.

Yeah, this is too common sense to possibly be the way it would really work in a court of law.

 

[HoughMade]

if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-3-2

Reasonable will always be the keystone to civil liability.

If you pull the trigger, you will have to answer for how reasonable your actions were no matter how bad the "perp" was. That a criminal is involved with likely not resolve the claims against you. You have a responsibility to act non-negligently when using deadly force. Most times, whether you are negligent or not is a jury question. You could name the perp as a nonparty and have fault allocated to him and if you're good and the jury is willing to listen, that may take you a long way.

However, a very real scenario could be that things go well for you in court and the perp is assessed 90% of the fault and you only 10%.....with total damages on $3 million. Yippee! I'm only liable for $300,000!

 

[wildhair]

You can get insurance.

 

[dontcha]

You can also render yourself "judgement proof" in any number of ways. That is, not enough profit for any lawyer to do all that work, for 30% of what they can get out of you.

 

[HoughMade]

33.333333333% for the reasonable ones up to trial, 40% thereafter.

Others charge 40% through trial and 50% thereafter.

....oh, and the only way to render yourself truly "judgment proof" (in Indiana) is to essentially have nothing...or next to nothing. Don't believe everything you read.

 

[dontcha]

that's RIGHT. :-) nothing IN YOUR NAME. Also no, attornies dont bother with all that work to get a mere 10k or so. Maybe 20k of property is "nothing" to you, but it's everything that most people have. By far the great majority of the US population is unable to save-invest more than 1-2k per year, to include ownership of valuables, not just cash, actual resale value of their goodies.

 

[Denny347]

Pretty sure that you are immune from any criminal or civil responsibility to your attacker or their family. I would think this would extend to an innocent people killed as well. In my opinion, the estate of the attacker (if any) should cover their claims. For example, if two guys rob a store and anyone is killed in any way during the commission of that felony they are responsible and can be charged with felony murder.

I would like to read any actual Indiana cases on this matter.

There is no such thing as "immunity from civil litigation". Criminal...yes, not civil.

 

[Denny347]

The answer is also detail specific. A ricochet strikes and kills an innocent...MAYBE you are ok but likely will wind up in civil court anyway. However, if you are ducked down behind something and fire over it without looking (like you see in TV) and you hit an innocent, your screwed. Hell, you can shoot a robber and STILL get sued by the robber's family. So what do you think the family of the innocent is going to do?
Kroger Sued By Mother Of Robber Shot By Store Manager | Indy's News Center - 93.1 WIBC Indianapolis - Live. Local. First.

 

[dontcha]

Which is why I say not to fire at cover using heads. If HE has cover, you'd BETTER GET cover. Once you have cover, all you really have to do is prevent the bad guy from outflanking your cover. he can't do that without exposing himself (unless using a vehicle or something as "rolling cover') All the noise is calling in help for you and making him panicked to flee the area. You are responsible for every shot you fire (and maybe HIS TOO, in some areas and situations) Shooting at heads, bobbing around cover, is almost certain to mean missing, beyond 5 ft or so of range. So why risk it? Also, if you have cover, you should be installing your ear plugs. Doing so will double your effective range.(to maybe 10 yds, on fully exposed torsos, not dodging, in decent light).

 

[Kurr]

How does installing ear plugs double your effective shot range again?

 

[singlesix]

How does installing ear plugs double your effective shot range again?

Don't feed the troll.

 

[TheSpark]

There is no such thing as "immunity from civil litigation". Criminal...yes, not civil.

Did not claim there is a such thing as "immunity from civil litigation". Said you should be immune from "civil responsibility". Meaning, if you are sued you should not end up with a monetary judgement against you. I'm fully aware that you can be sued by anyone for anything at anytime.