Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Pics and Videos Buffet
AR-15 Home Invasion Stop
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MinGrey02Stg2" data-source="post: 16301669" data-attributes="member: 16543"><p>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.</p><p></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>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:</em></p><p><em>“… 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.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>“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.”</em></p><p><em>Commonwealth vs. Fowlin, 551 Pa. 414, 420 - 421 710 A.2d 1130, 1133-1134 (1998).</em></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MinGrey02Stg2, post: 16301669, member: 16543"] 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. [i] 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).[/i] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Pics and Videos Buffet
AR-15 Home Invasion Stop
Top