AR-15 Home Invasion Stop

_Snake_

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2014
Messages
3,663
Location
Flo-Rida
You don't need to agree with me, but just be informed of the law. There are several scenarios where the felony murder rule applies and a huge factor is that there is no intent element to felony murder. In a scenario where someone is burglarizing your home (which is an inherently dangerous felony), and a bullet you fire at the burglar misses and kills someone, you are not criminally responsible.

See below:

Solo Actor: The felony murder rule is applicable in situations where a person commits a felony alone. The common example is arson. The defendant sets fire to a building with no intention of harming anyone, yet an unintended person dies in the fire (which could include firefighters).

Two or More Actors: Another common situation is an armed robbery where only one of the participants shoots the victim. In these cases, all of the participants in the robbery can be charged with felony murder, even though they didn't kill the victim nor were even present at the time the killing took place.

Victim or Bystander Killing: It's also possible that felony murder applies in cases where none of the felony participants killed anyone, such as when the victim or a third-party bystander kills someone while trying to stop the robbery. Felony murder in these cases would apply if a victim, a third-party, or even one of the felony perpetrators gets killed by someone other than a felony participant.


To clarify, this isn't something applied to the victim or good samaritan / bystander. It's applied to the surviving perp or perps.
 

MinGrey02Stg2

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
2,445
Location
FL
In TX you are responsible for every round that leaves your gun. You are not criminally or civilly liable for the justified use of force, but hitting a bystander isn't justified.

This is the way I read the statue cited as well, but I'm no attorney/judge/lawmaker

Florida is the same.

Here is a good Pennsylvania case that's on point. Guy gets ambushed in a nightclub and maced. He pulls out a gun and fires in the direction of his attackers, hitting none of them. He instead hits other people. Court says he's justified.


The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that a person who unintentionally injures a third party bystander while using justifiable force in self-defense may not be criminally liable for his injury to the bystander.

The case involved a shooting in a crowded nightclub. The defense shooter was accosted by three armed individuals, one of whom blinded the defensive shooter with mace in apparent anticipation of his being shot by the others. In response, the shooter, blind, drew a pistol and fired multiple shots in the general direction of his attackers, hitting none of them, but injuring a number of bystanders. He was charged with reckless endangerment and aggravated assault, and convicted. On appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, it was held that one may not be held criminally liable for unintentional injury to third parties while using justifiable force in self defense. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Flaherty said:
“… the law of Pennsylvania does not require one to stand by helplessly while he is injured or killed by an assailant. And as [a lower court Judge] aptly points out, when one is the victim of an attack, the assailant, not the victim, picks the time, the place, the manner, and the circumstances of the attack. Leisurely assessment of the circumstances and the danger to others is almost never a feature of such an assault, and most often, the best the victim can do is to mount a defense which hopefully will preserve his life. In many cases, the victim has only seconds to act in order to avoid injury or death. In this case, [the Defendant] was accosted by three men who assaulted him with pepper spray and simultaneously drew a handgun. [The Defendant] assumed, with reason, that they intended to kill or seriously injure him. He acted instinctively and within our law in defending himself.

“Any victim of crime who justifiably exercises his right of self-preservation may inadvertently injure a bystander. Admittedly, this court could fashion a rule of law which holds the defender criminally liable, but in doing so, we would have furthered no policy of the criminal law. Instead, we would have punished a person who was acting within his instinct for self-preservation and, in an appropriate case, within the boundaries of our law.”
Commonwealth vs. Fowlin, 551 Pa. 414, 420 - 421 710 A.2d 1130, 1133-1134 (1998).


Where does it say anything about immunity from civil action from bystanders? That reads like immunity from civil action against the person you are shooting to me

You're 100% correct. If it's determined that your use of deadly force was justified, neither the victim (if alive) nor their family can sue you. However, you are liable if any of your rounds hit someone other than your intended target.

Please find me a case in the past 2 years showing a bystander as a victim of a justified use of force scenario successfully suing the shooter.
 

_Snake_

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2014
Messages
3,663
Location
Flo-Rida
Here is a good Pennsylvania case that's on point. Guy gets ambushed in a nightclub and maced. He pulls out a gun and fires in the direction of his attackers, hitting none of them. He instead hits other people. Court says he's justified.


The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that a person who unintentionally injures a third party bystander while using justifiable force in self-defense may not be criminally liable for his injury to the bystander.

The case involved a shooting in a crowded nightclub. The defense shooter was accosted by three armed individuals, one of whom blinded the defensive shooter with mace in apparent anticipation of his being shot by the others. In response, the shooter, blind, drew a pistol and fired multiple shots in the general direction of his attackers, hitting none of them, but injuring a number of bystanders. He was charged with reckless endangerment and aggravated assault, and convicted. On appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, it was held that one may not be held criminally liable for unintentional injury to third parties while using justifiable force in self defense. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Flaherty said:
“… the law of Pennsylvania does not require one to stand by helplessly while he is injured or killed by an assailant. And as [a lower court Judge] aptly points out, when one is the victim of an attack, the assailant, not the victim, picks the time, the place, the manner, and the circumstances of the attack. Leisurely assessment of the circumstances and the danger to others is almost never a feature of such an assault, and most often, the best the victim can do is to mount a defense which hopefully will preserve his life. In many cases, the victim has only seconds to act in order to avoid injury or death. In this case, [the Defendant] was accosted by three men who assaulted him with pepper spray and simultaneously drew a handgun. [The Defendant] assumed, with reason, that they intended to kill or seriously injure him. He acted instinctively and within our law in defending himself.

“Any victim of crime who justifiably exercises his right of self-preservation may inadvertently injure a bystander. Admittedly, this court could fashion a rule of law which holds the defender criminally liable, but in doing so, we would have furthered no policy of the criminal law. Instead, we would have punished a person who was acting within his instinct for self-preservation and, in an appropriate case, within the boundaries of our law.”
Commonwealth vs. Fowlin, 551 Pa. 414, 420 - 421 710 A.2d 1130, 1133-1134 (1998).






Please find me a case in the past 2 years showing a bystander as a victim of a justified use of force scenario successfully suing the shooter.

I’m just telling you what the laws say.

I’m actually a little concerned you have a concealed permit and don’t understand them.
 

gimmie11s

I Race Pontiacs
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
18,491
Location
la la land
Shouldn’t need any bullshit permits to carry your guns how you see fit.


Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com
 

Sinister04L

RIP Kane
Established Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
30,024
Location
Houston, TX
Here is a good Pennsylvania case that's on point. Guy gets ambushed in a nightclub and maced. He pulls out a gun and fires in the direction of his attackers, hitting none of them. He instead hits other people. Court says he's justified.


The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that a person who unintentionally injures a third party bystander while using justifiable force in self-defense may not be criminally liable for his injury to the bystander.

The case involved a shooting in a crowded nightclub. The defense shooter was accosted by three armed individuals, one of whom blinded the defensive shooter with mace in apparent anticipation of his being shot by the others. In response, the shooter, blind, drew a pistol and fired multiple shots in the general direction of his attackers, hitting none of them, but injuring a number of bystanders. He was charged with reckless endangerment and aggravated assault, and convicted. On appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, it was held that one may not be held criminally liable for unintentional injury to third parties while using justifiable force in self defense. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Flaherty said:
“… the law of Pennsylvania does not require one to stand by helplessly while he is injured or killed by an assailant. And as [a lower court Judge] aptly points out, when one is the victim of an attack, the assailant, not the victim, picks the time, the place, the manner, and the circumstances of the attack. Leisurely assessment of the circumstances and the danger to others is almost never a feature of such an assault, and most often, the best the victim can do is to mount a defense which hopefully will preserve his life. In many cases, the victim has only seconds to act in order to avoid injury or death. In this case, [the Defendant] was accosted by three men who assaulted him with pepper spray and simultaneously drew a handgun. [The Defendant] assumed, with reason, that they intended to kill or seriously injure him. He acted instinctively and within our law in defending himself.

“Any victim of crime who justifiably exercises his right of self-preservation may inadvertently injure a bystander. Admittedly, this court could fashion a rule of law which holds the defender criminally liable, but in doing so, we would have furthered no policy of the criminal law. Instead, we would have punished a person who was acting within his instinct for self-preservation and, in an appropriate case, within the boundaries of our law.”
Commonwealth vs. Fowlin, 551 Pa. 414, 420 - 421 710 A.2d 1130, 1133-1134 (1998).

Pennsylvania cases really have no bearing in TX. You can't even carry in a nightclub in TX.
 

BOOGIE MAN

Logic and Reason
Established Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
7,682
Location
Under the bed
Are You Liable for a Pass-through or Missed Shot?

"If the circumstances are such that they would excuse the killing of an assailant in self-defense, the emergency will be held to excuse the [victim] from culpability, if in attempting to defend himself he unintentionally kills or injures a third person… Although the assailant may have had no intention to harm the third person in the course of his or her defense, in order to escape culpability, the assailant must have been free from negligence and must have acted prudently and with due care.
40 Am. Jur. 2d Homicide § 143"

"A points a pistol at B, threatening to shoot him. B attempts to shoot A, but his bullet goes astray and strikes C, an innocent bystander. B is not liable to C unless, taking into account the exigency in which A’s act placed B, B fired his self-defensive shot in a manner unnecessarily dangerous to C.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 75 (1965)"

There is gray area there (and I'm remembering the conversation in the class more now). You are not 100% immune; lawyer v lawyer


Sent from my SM-N975U using the svtperformance.com mobile app
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top