Can a person who shoots in self-defense be held criminally or civilly liable for injuries to an innocent third person, in spite of being justified in the use of deadly force against the attacker?
From the outset, it is important to note that the person who justifiably shoots an attacker in self-defense could still possibly be charged with a criminal offense for injuries to an innocent third party–depending upon the facts of the situation. It is always difficult to say one would never be prosecuted when a prosecutor applies his or her judgment to what could be an infinite number of factual scenarios. However, the chances are probably slim assuming the actions where deemed reasonable under the circumstances, and you were justified in the use of deadly force against the attacker. The more likely scenario is where the person is sued civilly for injuries to an innocent third party. It is important to emphasize that even if the prosecution or civil suit for damages is ultimately unsuccessful, the armed citizen will still suffer the consequences of having to mount a successful defense, which involves significant time and cost.
This question could be answered differently, depending on the exact factual circumstances of the deadly force encounter. For instance, a purported negligent or reckless discharge in the course of an extended self-defense encounter could occur where the armed citizen does not hit the attacker and hits an innocent third-party. Under this circumstance, the armed citizen could conceivably be liable to the third-party for civil damages or even charged criminally with something like criminal recklessness–while at the same time being justified in his use of self-defense against the attacker.
Discussion of potential civil liability might be the most useful analysis. Even if there is no criminal prosecution of a citizen for a self-defense shooting, that would not preclude a civil action against the citizen by an innocent bystander. In a civil case, the party bringing the suit (the plaintiff) will focus on attempting to recover monetary damages from the citizen who used deadly force in self-defense. Although there are few cases, analyzing our Indiana statute from the perspective of civil liability, it would seem safe to conclude that for a plaintiff to prevail in a civil case, he would have to prove that the person acting in self-defense did not act reasonably. Unlike a criminal case requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the plaintiff would simply have to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the armed citizen did not act reasonably.
Ultimately, the armed citizen should be able to articulate why he acted as he did under the circumstances to assist a potential jury in concluding that his actions were reasonable and proportional to the threat presented to him and that he acted as a reasonably prudent person would act in a similar situation.
A MAG 40 class taught by Massad Ayoob, a Network membership and the DVDs as well as monthly newsletters provided to Network members furnish a wealth of educational information that may help one articulate why your actions were reasonable and prudent.
Originally published at https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/en/april-2018-attorney-question
