Social Question

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Theoretical question: about self defence, rest in the details?

Asked by SQUEEKY2 (23124points) May 16th, 2023

Say you are defending yourself and you use a rifle, and one of your bullets fired kill a child four doors down the street.
It is found that the bullet came from your gun, are you, or should you be held responsible for that child’s death?
What is your opinion of this?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

35 Answers

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

This question is unanswerable. It’s the same kind of question as the proverbial train with 2 tracks, and one track would kill 5 people and the other only 1. It’s unanswerable. It’s the kind of question elementary school children ponder.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@Hawaii_Jake So adults will just ignore it?
If you own a rifle for self defense should you not be aware of where the bullets could go if not on target?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Involuntary manslaughter in my opinion, I’m not a lawyer.

This guy is =====> https://criminal.attorneywdkickham.com/involuntary-manslaughter.html

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

Sued for wrongful death.

Zaku's avatar

I think the person is . . . responsible, to a degree. Justifiable accidental manslaughter. There might likely not be any appropriate penalty, if they behaved “reasonably”.

Now, if the self-defense wasn’t reasonable, and/or the actions taken were excessively reckless (e.g. they fired 30 rounds even though it was clear the first few had done the job thoroughly), then that might seem worthy of a penalty, to me.

Responsibility from being at cause, is always there in everything we do. Liability and/or penalties are another thing.

It seems to me comparable to any other accidental consequence for an exceptional action taken to avoid danger, than ends up causing great harm. e.g. Someone jumps out of the way of a falling piano, but bumps into someone they didn’t know was there, who falls into a pit.

filmfann's avatar

If you are protecting yourself, from what? Let’s say it’s an armed break in. The invaders are committing a crime, and a death occurred because of that illegal act. There is an argument to be made that the invader is responsible, even though you shot the gun.

flutherother's avatar

You are responsible for the bullets you fire and so you are responsible for the child’s death.

kritiper's avatar

Yes you are and should be responsible. One of the unspoken rules of proper gunplay, and one of the rules of shooting safety is to be certain of your backstop. (You should have used a shotgun.)

KNOWITALL's avatar

I’m with @filmfann. If I’m defending my life, I may not have time to do a triple check of my firing line.
That’s why buck shot is a good choice, good spread, low velocity.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Totally agree a 12gauge pump with a riot barrel is the best home defence and most times wont go thru the wall and kill some one in the next room,or a house down the street.
and yet when used you have the entire room covered.

MrGrimm888's avatar

You are responsible.
To what degree may be determined by investigators. At least as far as the charges. If you killed/injured the person you were defending yourself from, that would weigh into what immediate law enforcement acts would be necessary also.

You would likely be detained. Charges would be levied. You would be arrested for those charges, and then see a judge about bond eligibility.
There are a variety of charges in many variations of such an incident.
Things like if you fired in your house, or on the lawn would be relevant. If the intended victim was shot in the back. All kinds of variables.
I never had a role in such an incident…

gorillapaws's avatar

Absolutely. People should be held responsible for their actions. If you killed a kid because you’re using the wrong weapon to defend yourself, then that’s on you.

LadyMarissa's avatar

When I was considering getting a hand gun & a concealed weapons permit, I was discussing with a CWP Instructor about the law. I made the comment that I didn’t want to kill anyone…I just wanted to wound them just enough for the cops to have time to get there. He told me that I better shoot to kill because I would go to jail for attempted murder if I didn’t finish them off. However, if I shot them dead, it would be considered self defense. I decided I wasn’t willing to take my chances, so I determined that I’m better off without a gun. If I don’t own a gun, I can’t do something totally stupid in the heat of the moment!!!

As for your Q, I’m of the opinion that if you CHOOSE to buy a weapon, you then CHOOSE to use that weapon, then you’re CHOOSING to take responsibility for whatever action goes with OWNING that weapon!!!

Blackberry's avatar

Probably depends on city, state, finances, race and gender of parties involved.
I’m going with manslaughter as well.

ragingloli's avatar

Legally, there is a good chance that the one you are defending yourself against might be held responsible for that death under “felony murder”, which would for example hold a getaway driver responsible for murder committed by their accomplices.
But really, morally, ethically, you are responsible. You pulled the trigger.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@ragingloli If I killed a kid, I’d never make it to a courtroom. I don’t know anyone who could live with that, outside of war.

Acrylic's avatar

Any death that occurs during the act of committing a felony is first degree murder of the perpetrator. Therefore, in your scenario, bad guy committing crime is not only charged with crime he’s committing on you, but first degree murder of said child.

janbb's avatar

@Acrylic Wouldn’t your God hold you responsible if in the act of holding off a burglar, you murdered a child? If I believed in a God, they surely would.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@LadyMarissa I believe that your ideas about self protection should be shared by more people. Especially the responsibility factor that many firearms salespeople neglect to drive home when trying to sell someone a firearm. The strategy that killing someone should be the priority, is a common thing I hear in gun circles. The pure stupidity of such a stance is beyond my ability to articulate. “Overkill” is one of the biggest variables in many shootings involving law enforcement, and/or defensive scenarios. Close your eyes and shoot until you feel safe, is what most people interpret when they get such advice.

Most women, and many men do not desire to kill another human being. That’s a good thing.
I encountered many such individuals when I sold firearms. In these cases I usually tried to steer the customer towards mace, or getting a dog.
Desire to feel safe, or simply not defenseless, is understandable. Carry mace on your person at all times when out and about, and have some in your dwelling. In fact, as far as in your dwelling goes have some wasp spray. It’s usually just as unpleasant to an attacker, and has a much longer range. If you get to a courtroom, you claim you just grabbed it out of panic, and it was never intended to be used against a person.
As far as mace. You wouldn’t want to use ot indoors, but if you do do it. Just expect to suffer some of it’s effects.
When using mace in a defensive situation, aim for the attacker’s eyes, nose, and mouth. Spray in a figure 8 configuration, as the attacker will likely try to deflect the spray with their arms. When the contents of the mace container are used, run (even if the attacker seems nullified,) and scream “fire.” (Studies show that people will try not to get involved with someone in danger, but will want to assist in putting out a fire.)

Proper training in close/public use of firearms requires different aiming and firing stances, taking into account surroundings. For instance you wouldn’t shoot the same at a person on a bus, as you would in a parking lot… On the bus, you would fire from one knee, aiming up at the intended target, to hopefully avoid hitting surrounding unintended targets. Or not shoot at all…
In the parking lot, you would fire from a standing position, but you would ideally rotate your line of fire to where there are minimum unintended targets beyond your target…
And so on…..

Most “concealed cowboys,” don’t have any training, other than maybe target shooting.

I can NEVER say it enough. The first rule in using a firearm should always be BE AWARE OF YOUR TARGET, AND WHAT’S BEYOND IT…

If you point a firearm at something/someone, you are assuming a very large amount of responsibility. And accountability.

For those claiming that “criminal” is responsible for unintended casualties, you are mistaken.
A great, and common, example is when a LEO/civilian fires their firearm at a hazardous animal (like a dog) while it’s running around. If they hit three houses, resulting in property damage or injuries/deaths, the person shooting is responsible. Not the intended target.
I was in the same department with an officer who fired 9 times at a “dangerous” pitbull. He hit two house, and the dog. I wasn’t there, or involved with his punishment. But. He was disciplined. Rightly so…
It was all over the news, and the dog was just a playful dog chasing kids at play. A neighbor mistook the dog playing with the children as trying to hurt them. When the officer arrived on scene, he opened fire on the animal. He reported that he hit it while it was lunging at him. Ballistics told another story. The dog was hit in the shoulder with the exit wound in the other shoulder, at an angle that could only have been achieved if the shot was taken at the side of the dog, not the front, which would have been the case if it was lunging.
As witnesses reported, and ballistics attested, the officer had falsified his report, and acted in a way unbecoming of his position.
The person who shoots in public places, has a lot of explaining to do.

I was involved with one domestic dispute where a woman fired a pistol into the floor of her kitchen during a dispute with her husband. Her claim was that she was just trying to keep her husband from attacking her. Well. She went to jail, for unlawful use of a firearm, or discharging a firearm in a place of residence. I don’t recall the charge…

It’s best to just not have a gun. If you do, use it as an absolute last resort…..

Acrylic's avatar

@janbb. Thank you for the question, sincerely. I’m no theological expert, but would seem Scriptures as we believe would hold the one committing the crime that caused the bloodshed accountable.

(Excerpt frkm Luke 22) And He said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

If Jesus allows self-defense with a lethal weapon in the face of persecution, then would Jesus prohibit protecting the home day or night? Would He restrict self-defense day or night in the face of a criminal coming to steal or kill or destroy? Given what Jesus says in Luke 22:36, part of the above quoted passage, given the fact that a sword is a lethal weapon, Jesus affirms lethal force in self-defense. And in this New Testament passage, Jesus doesn’t limit the time of day. Certainly, lethal force should be avoided if possible. However, those who break in and steal face the possibility that their actions will cost them their lives as they choose to endanger themselves and others by entering a home violently or by stealth.

Murder, as defined in Scripture, is the intentional taking of a life.
American law defines that as first degree murder. In this scenario, the unfortunate loss of life wouldn’t be murder nor a transgression of the 6th Commandment. Faith isn’t easy at times, and like many other things in life there isn’t always a simple answer. I live to serve our Lord, will fail most of the time. God forgives, Jesus saves.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^“Look, Lord, here are two swords.’ And he said to them. ‘It is enough.” OK. Let’s say that your interpretation that this is evidence that your God affirms that lethal weapons can be used in self defense, is correct.
How do you make the leap to “any casualties in the pursuit of self defense are acceptable?”
Isn’t this kind of just using vague words to justify reckless/careless action?
What is said of responsibility?

What did you say about forgiveness, in the forgiving person thread?

It seems a person can’t follow the recommendations of religious texts, without contradiction.

How do you balance being forgiving, with being someone who would blame any worldly damage on the person you should have forgiven, not attempted to kill? Or is that killing of the innocent girl supposed to be punishment, for not being forgiving?
Forgive me. But…
If that’s true, then the lord isn’t very forgiving about people who should be forgave, for not forgiving to not forgive.
Does the man with the dead innocent girl get to kill the guy who killed her?
At what point in a long line of killing will the lord say to them, ”it is enough.”?

I’m trying really hard to be respectful. And @Acrylic , you’ve claimed you’re not a theologian. I get it. And you shouldn’t be held accountable for an entire religious group. I appreciate your contribution to this matter…

Acrylic's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Thank you for your input. I’m not sure where you’re going with the forgiveness aspect, but it seems you’re mistaking killing for murder. Jesus forgave the men who killed Him as He was dying on the cross. Forgiveness, though, doesn’t translate into not bringing a person to justice or saying they shouldn’t pay for our crimes. In John 8, Jesus saved the lady who was caught committing adultery from being stoned to death. He forgave her. He didn’t say she acted right, nor said that adultery is acceptable. He basically told her to stop committing adultery and He won’t be able to save her a second time. Yes, many Bible heroes done bad things, like adultery, murder, theft, etc. That just shows God can use anybody for His glory, not just the presently pious. Before his conversion, Paul killed Christians and destroyed their houses. He repented, then changed his ways.

It’s not easy, sir. The Bible has well over 750,000 words, and is difficult to understand. However, please allow me to simplify it into a 4 word sentence; “Love God, love people.”

canidmajor's avatar

@Acrylic interesting that you use scripture to justify the slaughter of an innocent child because you insist on owning a stupidly over-powered military long gun for “self-defense”.
As long as you can interpret the Bible to suit your own purposes, it’s OK? And FYI, an AK-47 bears little to no resemblance to a sword. Which is what was meant by “lethal weapon.”

But I’m sure you have a slick biblical comeback for that.

And unlike @MrGrimm888, I mean plenty of disrespect, as the personal ownership of a military assault weapon for self defense is just gross and egregious.

Acrylic's avatar

@canidmajor Nope, no comeback. I’m not going to engage in arguments here. Hope to see you on another thread. God bless, and have a wonderful day!

JLoon's avatar

There’s actually nothing theoretical or speculative about this question.
It’s happened many times, in the past and recently:
May 12, 2023 -
“Authorities said Bethany Mefford’s boyfriend found her unresponsive in their bed at around 6 a.m. Wednesday. Investigators allege that Mefford, 29, had been shot in the head by a bullet that had been fired hours earlier by Darius Lewis. He lived in a nearby building in the same apartment complex in the Houston suburb, said Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez.”
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/criminal-justice/2023/05/12/451586/humble-womans-death-by-stray-bullet-allegedly-fired-by-neighbor-called-senseless-crime/

And as a matter of law it can be prosected as a felony crime, or litigated as a civil claim for damages :

Criminal
18 U.S. Code § 1112 – Manslaughter

“Whoever is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.”

Civil
“In a wrongful death lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove certain things in order to recover compensation. Plaintiffs must prove:

• A person or entity behaved negligently or committed an intentional wrongful act.

• Their actions were the direct cause of a death.

• There are damages associated with the death.

If these elements are proved, surviving family members or the estate of the deceased could be awarded compensation by a court or could be offered a settlement by the party who caused the death to occur or their insurer.”

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/wrongful-death-lawsuit/

Acrylic's avatar

Not sure why the fixation on the tool used. What if, in the exact same scene, I picked up a bow and arrow instead of a gun, shot the arrow, missed, and it hit, killed, an innocent bystander. Do we blame the criminal as he’s committing a crime, the homeowner protecting his family, or the tool? What if i went to slash bad guy with sword, missed, and cut bystander? Is the tool to blame, or is the tool to blame only when it’s a firearm? In any case, the perpetrator of the felony is 100% at fault and should be brought to justice.

gorillapaws's avatar

@Acrylic “Not sure why the fixation on the tool used.” Because it’s relevant. You’re responsible for the weapon you choose to use to defend yourself.

If you want to fire a rifle with high muzzle energy loaded with ammunition that penetrates walls and armor, then it’s on you when the bullets you fire do an entirely foreseeable thing and travel through the walls into the neighbor’s kid’s bedroom. Can the perpetrator be found guilty? Absolutely! Can you also be found guilty of reckless homicide or manslaughter? Also yes.

As others have said, buckshot is much safer (for neighbors) in a home invasion scenario. AR style weapons are terrible choices unless you’re defending a trench

canidmajor's avatar

@gorillapaws, I figure that @Acrylic simply doesn’t understand the concept of false equivalence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

janbb's avatar

I also don’t think that when Jesus said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” he meant by shooting them “accidentally.”

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Acrylic Do you even own an AK or assault style weapon? Just curious.

I’m not sure I agree that Jesus is okay with an unintentional murder, as thou shall not kill is a commandment. For me, it would be the last option, of course.

Acrylic's avatar

@KNOWITALL I do own various weapons, yes. All legal, registered what’s needed, licensed, trained, all that.

I never said that Jesus would be OK with unintentional murder. This whole thread I’ve either been misunderstood or misspoken or something. My whole point is it would be the perpetrator who is at fault with the unintentional taken of life by a weapon fired, not the one protecting his family, which was the posted question. It wouldn’t matter if the tool used is an AK 47, shotgun, .22, crossbow, slingshot, etc. that was fired in defense of a bad man illegally entering my property in the intent of theft, doing harm to family, etc. and striking innocent bystander, regardless of age.

The 6th Commandment is Thou Shalt Not Murder, nor kill. There is a difference. One is allowed to kill in self-defense, justified war, and the like.

gorillapaws's avatar

@Acrylic Would it matter if he used a tank to protect his family? Why or why not?

You seem to misunderstand the idea of “shared fault.” Multiple people can be held accountable.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Acrylic Fair enough. I certainly won’t speak for God.
Sorry you feel misunderstood but it’s to be expected on a primarily liberal site like this, in regards to guns.
Like I said, I couldn’t live with myself if I killed a kid for any reason, car, lawnmower, anything.

Acrylic's avatar

@KNOWITALL Thank you. I’m apolitical, endorse neither party.

Yes, if I ever have to fire a weapon at a bad guy, and tragedy results in the death of a minor, I’d also be beside myself in grief. I’m a Girl Scouts leader and Children’s Ministry Director for a Methodist Church, so I live kids and devote my life to them. If that ever happened I’d be in eternal repentance mode, doing whatever I can to bring comfort to the obviously grieving family. I’m no “gun nut ” who looks for any reason to squeeze that trigger. No, that would be an absolute last resort when 100%+ of all other options being exhausted. Of course I wouldn’t want a tank in my yard, That’s absurd, of course. However, I also shouldn’t be vilified for owning legal weapons. If the bad guy never came after me in a threatening way then the kid would remain alive and well. The fault still lies 100% of the attacker, not defender.

gorillapaws's avatar

@Acrylic “Of course I wouldn’t want a tank in my yard,”

You’re dodging the real question though. If “Ernie” does have a tank in his backyard and tries to defend his family with it but ends up also blowing up an orphanage in the process, don’t you think we can hold Ernie responsible in addition to the home invader?

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther