Is a stray round/casualty ever acceptable?

IMO this thread needs to be broken up into several or at least have some defined situations.
Situation 1: Aurora- Man is by himself with a CCW. He is in no danger, has no family to protect. He wants to play hero. He engages the BG and the result is he drew fire to his area which was not under fire resulting in the deaths of 1 or 2 folks. He shoots at the BG unloading his magazine and kills the BG but kills an innocent bystander (no richochette, just a miss)-I think the guy needs to be hauled off to jail becasue of his actions he was part of those people dying.

Situation 2: Aurora: You are fighting for your life, BG is laying down fire in your direction. You are honestly and rightfully in fear for your life. You shoot back, missing, killing 2 folks. You end up killing the BG. I can't speak for the law in all 50 states but I do not think this person should be at fault. He was under fire, he was being targeted by the BG. He did the only thing he could.

Situation 3: BG is holding a bank full of people hostages (or terrosists holding hostages, either way). They execute one hostage and say they will execute more. You do not know if or when a rescue plan will occur. These are pretty stupid terrorsts and did not check folks for weapons. Time is coming up for the next execution and it is not you. But you feel the need to act. You get up and lay down fire killing all the BG's and two hostages. (let us say 15 survive). I think you acted accordingly.

Situation 4: Let us use the old gentleman n the internet cafe for the second to last situation. He felt his life was in danger though some might say otherwise. He shoots at the BG's but in the process hits and kills a bystander. Toughie. I do not think their lives were in danger and statistically a robbery like that does not end up with folks getting killed unless there is resistance. But that is up to the mindset of the person there. But I would say he is not responsible.

Situation 5: Same as #4 except the old man did not feel his life was in danger and wanted to play hero. He shoots BG's and kills a bystander in the process. He is responsible. IMO

But what makes situation 1 any different than situation 4 besides for what is going through the GG's head? If they have any sense, they'd talk to a lawyer before talking to police and I'm sure their lawyer would advise them to say that he felt as if his life was in danger (most people don't need to be told this advice ha)... I'd feel more in danger with a guy actually shooting at randoms in a theater I was in than with some guys robbing an internet cafe I was at

Each and every SD moment is its own microcosm, This one is no different. Should stray shots be acceptable, Im not sure. I would think you would have to look at the greater good. Everyone in that theater was in fear for there life that night. There is no need to justify it, If you took him out, Its a good shoot.

@suntzu, your break down is good. However, If strays are ok if you are taking direct fire, shouldnt be ok, if someone else is? In a perfect world we would all make the shots necessary to end the BGs rage. There are just way to many what ifs in this scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolverine181

But what makes situation 1 any different than situation 4 besides for what is going through the GG's head? If they have any sense, they'd talk to a lawyer before talking to police and I'm sure their lawyer would advise them to say that he felt as if his life was in danger (most people don't need to be told this advice ha)... I'd feel more in danger with a guy actually shooting at randoms in a theater I was in than with some guys robbing an internet cafe I was at

---

Hey, I made up the situations....you can't add or suppose this or that LOL. That was the point. Just take the situations as is. I could have come up with 300 situations and they still would not have covered everything.

The gist of it is if you decide to play Rambo and there was no danger to you and your sole purpose to engage the BG was to stop him and becasue of your actions bystanders died then IMO you are wrong.
If you feel your life was in danger (percieved or not) then that is diffferent in my eyes (maybe not in the law) because you are fighting for what you think is your life or loved ones and if a bystander gets killed it is the same result..but you did not PURPOSELY put yourself in a situation which caused the death of bystanders.

ah, gotcha ha

suntzu,

how can you say in your situation #1 he is in no danger. The guy in Aurora was shooting all over the place. Are you suggesting that you have to wait till you are shot at before you can shoot someone? I certainly hope not, because if you do, you are way behind the curve of self defense.

If you are using Aurora as an example for 1 and 2 the results are the same. 70+ people killed or injured. Absolutely no difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigStick

This question was triggered by my thoughts on the CO incident in another thread. If you could have stopped the shooter in CO right after he started shooting, but there was an innocent person right next to him that you might hit, what is the right thing to do?

I am not 100% sure how I feel and am looking for honest evaluation, not platitudes about the basic firearm rules. What is the right thing to do, and what should you do legally?

We know he shot 70 people. If you could have stopped it at 1 or 2, would it be worth it? Could you shoot knowing that you might sacrifice 1 person to save 11 more, or 50 more. Could you emotionally handle the one death by your hand to prevent more deaths by his?

The family of the person you might hit would probably say don't do it, but how do you know that he won't just turn and gun her down next anyway? But they would ask who you are that you should play God and decide who lives or dies. Is it better for me to make that decision about 1 person, or let the madman continue to exercise that decision about many many more.

Could you handle being villanized by the anti's and the hindsight is 20-20 people who would then not know how many lives you had saved, because you did not allow the madman to continue. There would surely be jail time for you if they figured out that it was your gun that killed this person, especially if the media got wind of it.

I understand that as a random citizen we do not have the "responsibility" to intervene, we are not police, and many will say that my responsibility is to my family and myself, but even so, I feel at least some responsibility as a human to not let bad things happen if I am in a position to stop them. I guess this is part of my cost/benefit analysis on this type of sittuation. From the LEO or military in the crowd, how are you guys trained on this topic, and do they explain how that training might apply to average citizens?

What do you all think?

---

With every shot you take, there is a risk. YOU have to decide if you are willing to accept that risk. While I'm not advocating taking a shot you can't safely take, 1 injured is better than 12 dead. It's up to you to decide if you can risk one person's life to potentially save quite a few others. I'd imagine it would be a difficult decision.

I think this is a good reason to work on timed, precision shots at a distance. This would be a situation where you would need to carefully line up a clean shot, no matter how long it takes you to get it. To quote Larry Vickers, "Speed is fine, Accuracy is final."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farronwolf

suntzu,

how can you say in your situation #1 he is in no danger. The guy in Aurora was shooting all over the place. Are you suggesting that you have to wait till you are shot at before you can shoot someone? I certainly hope not, because if you do, you are way behind the curve of self defense.

If you are using Aurora as an example for 1 and 2 the results are the same. 70+ people killed or injured. Absolutely no difference.

---

Look dude, it is a hypothetical. The man in Sit 1 does not feel his life is in danger. He could be behind a pole next to an exit with no LOS between him and the shooter. As I said previously in post 98 I could have made up 300 situations and it still would not be enough. I don't know about you but I have been in firefights where some folks are in immediate danger while others by happenstance are in a place of cover and concealment. It happens.

As far as this comment :

Quote:

---

Are you suggesting that you have to wait till you are shot at before you can shoot someone? I certainly hope not, because if you do, you are way behind the curve of self defense.

---

Please read more carefully. That is not even close to what I am saying. The man in Sit 1 is not in a self defense situation. He can retreat safely. In the situation the guy knows he is safe. So don't even try to say "how do you know". I know becasue I made the situation up. If it makes it easier for you he is behind a 2 foot concrete column and 2 feet from him is an exit 100 feet from the BG with no LOS from his current position and if he were to try to leave.
Please don't try to lecture me on something I did not say.
As far as comparing Sit one and 2 read my post 98 again.

SunTzu - As to exactly what situation presents and the threshold for further endangering innocents for the cause of the greater good one thing in my mind is certain. Each and every round you send downrange you are responsible for. PERIOD. There is no condition that makes you immune to prosecution for unintentionally killing or wounding an innocent while protecting the greater good. This would be a decision that would have to take place at a moments notice and have ramifications that one would have to live with for the rest of their life, even if they are successful and are able to become the hero to the rest of the participants. I still think that it would have to play out in court, including the court of public opinion.

Whether the guy can retreat safely is not relevant in our state, surely your are aware of that. So that doesn't determine whether or not he is in a self defense situation or a situation where a third party is involved.

Please refer to PC 9.32

Quote:

---

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

---

Texas statutes directly contradict what your opinion is of a self defense situation. Based on the law, there is no difference in your situation 1 and 2, regardless of what you attempted to make it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by l1a1

SunTzu - As to exactly what situation presents and the threshold for further endangering innocents for the cause of the greater good one thing in my mind is certain. Each and every round you send downrange you are responsible for. PERIOD. There is no condition that makes you immune to prosecution for unintentionally killing or wounding an innocent while protecting the greater good. This would be a decision that would have to take place at a moments notice and have ramifications that one would have to live with for the rest of their life, even if they are successful and are able to become the hero to the rest of the participants. I still think that it would have to play out in court, including the court of public opinion.

---

I don't think that anyone is talking about killing or intentionally injuring a GG for the greater good. The situations were just possible situations where an innocent could get hurt or killed due to the actions of a GG with the best of intentions. I just tried to make four situations to show there is a difference between being forced into a situation to shoot and one where somebody decides to proactively play here (for lack of a better term). How it plays out in the courts is a different subject all together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farronwolf

Whether the guy can retreat safely is not relevant in our state, surely your are aware of that. So that doesn't determine whether or not he is in a self defense situation or a situation where a third party is involved.

Please refer to PC 9.32



Texas statutes directly contradict what your opinion is of a self defense situation. Based on the law, there is no difference in your situation 1 and 2, regardless of what you attempted to make it.

---

Look, I give up...you are obviously missing the point. I am not talking legal liability. And I am not speaking for every state including Texas which I just moved too so don;t try to make it look like I don't know the law.
The whole point is what can happen if one purposely puts themselves in a situation (for whatever reason) and innocents get hurt by their actions. Period. It is not a legal discussion. It is a moral discussion.
And again. I am not equating it to any law in any state. If it makes you feel better pretend my location says Antartica.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suntzu

The whole point is what can happen if one purposely puts themselves in a situation (for whatever reason) and innocents get hurt by their actions.

---

FWIW, I followed your original logic, there. Many have, I'm sure. :bier:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suntzu

I don't think that anyone is talking about killing or intentionally injuring a GG for the greater good. The situations were just possible situations where an innocent could get hurt or killed due to the actions of a GG with the best of intentions. I just tried to make four situations to show there is a difference between being forced into a situation to shoot and one where somebody decides to proactively play here (for lack of a better term). How it plays out in the courts is a different subject all together.

---

I follow you. I wasn't taking it as intentionally taking out an innocent either. Just the moral question as to whether risking the other innocents lives was an acceptable risk in order to save a greater number of people. One could absolutely cause harm to another while having nothing but the best intentions. I think one question is, could someone live with themselves if they failed to act to stop the threat when they had the oppportunity and a far greater number of people were killed and injured. Same question goes for the defensive shooter unintentionally killing or injuring an innocent.

Acceptable? No.
Excusable? Maybe?