Quote:
Originally Posted by JDBoardman
As an armed citizen, we all need to be aware that every bullet we fire has a lawyer attached to it, In this case, the man's motives might have been as pure as the driven snow, but his judgement appears to have been seriously flawed. Had he hit and killed the dog, would anyone be less likely to pillory this poor schmoo, or would we still in our self-rigorousness hang him out to dry? I would hope I would respond to a cry for help as he did, and I would also hope my response was more tempered with judgement than his.
|
We naturally tend to judge events and people based on outcomes, taking a dimmer view when poor judgement and or deficient skills actually result in someone getting hurt. Unfortunately, many people are often overly concerned about confronting and offending someone who exhibits poor judgement, inadequate skills or dangerous habits. Consider how you respond to a fellow shooter (or even a fellow officer) who keeps sweeping people with his or her firearm. I'd like to think most of us would calla spade a spade and insist on resolving the shortcoming before someone does get hurt.
Personally, if I knew about it, I'd still be pointing out the guy's lack of judgment had he shot the dog rather than the victim, or missed both the victim and the dog. Managing to avoid an actual harm still doesn't make it a good practice or a demonstration of good judgment.
----
Consideration of intent will come into play in terms of the criminal charge (if any). In this case the intent is negligent intent, and that generally goes with involuntary manslaughter. It may also come into play in the sentencing phase (if convicted) where the court, assuming the judge has any latitude under any sentencing guidelines, may consider what this unfortunate individual was actually trying to accomplish. That would be also be based in large part on a pre-sentence investigation completed by a court service officer, who'll look at the guy in depth and make a sentencing recommendation accordingly.
It may also come into play short of a trial if the prosecutor decides to offer him a plea bargain for some lesser offense, in exchange for perhaps, giving up his concealed carry permit and firearms in order to prevent a repeat performance. Justice probably wont be served by put a 64 year old man of questionable judgement in jail. That however can also be a very politically driven decision, as if the prosecutor is elected, he or she may not want to be seen as being weak on crime and/or may want to set an example to prevent other idiots from making similar poor judgement calls.