An interesting piece at Legal Heat on the issue of transferred intent in a defensive shooting entitled "Are You Liable for a Passthrough or Missed Shot?" (H/t Active Response Training). The author addresses the following question:
Imagine you are walking down the street late at night when suddenly a criminal violently attacks you with a knife. Fearing for your life you draw your weapon and fire 3 quick shots, stopping the threat and saving your life. Once the threat is neutralized, however, you realize one of your shots missed your intended target and struck an innocent bystander in the leg, causing him severe harm. Assuming you are otherwise justified in defending yourself, can the innocent bystander sue you? Will you lose that lawsuit?
The author's answer is "no" but "[t]he lawsuit against you will be dismissed and will need to be brought against the attacker with the knife. You are free from liability under the doctrine of transferred intent." He explains:
The simple reason is that the shooter (self-defense actor) was not the proximate cause of the harm to the innocent bystander. Although that may seem counter intuitive to say (given he was the one who actually fired the gun), it was in fact the attacker with the knife who caused the bystander harm.
He cites a case explaining the principle as well as quoting from a couple treatises so be sure to read the whole thing and, if you are able, check his sources.
This is a subject that I've mentioned a couple times in the context of why criminal charges or indictments might not have been brought in a couple of specific cases (see here and here). I would also remind you that a valid defense does not mean that you won't be charged with a crime or sued, or won't have to go to trial, racking up attorney's fees along the way. And, as always, I am not your attorney and this is not legal advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment