Question for cops/lawyers

This is a scenario that happened to the husband of a coworker of my wife (Let's call him Dave):

He was stopped at an intersection waiting for the light to turn.

Somebody rams him from behind, pushing him into the intersection.

He quickly gets his vehicle out of the intersection, and gets out to survey the damage.

He sees the driver who rammed him running towards him with a gun. He doesn't recognise the gunman.

Dave has no weapon. Before the other guy could do anything else, apparently another driver told the gunman that the police had been called and were on the way, with a description of him and his vehicle.

The gunman gets into his truck and drives off, and is shortly thereafter apprehended by the police.

Now, here is my question:

If, hypothetically, Dave owned a handgun (assume legal permit to carry), and fatally shot the gunman in response, would that be a clear case of self-defence?

What if he accidentally shot somebody else in the process? Does one's right to self-defence protect one legally from unintentional destruction, death or injury done to bystanders?

(The police brought Dave to the station for questioning, and after talking to the gunman, came in and interrogated Dave as to his whereabouts the previous morning and weekend. When Dave asked why it was relevant, the police told him the other man had said that Dave was having an affair with his wife. As a followup question, why would the police be grilling Dave about that? Even if true, Dave would have committed no crime, and I think the only person who had any business questioning Dave about that would be the gunman's lawyer, trying to find mitigating evidence.)

If, hypothetically, Dave owned a handgun (assume legal permit to carry), and fatally shot the gunman in response, would that be a clear case of self-defence?

Probably

What if he accidentally shot somebody else in the process? Does one's right to self-defence protect one legally from unintentional destruction, death or injury done to bystanders?

No. Even a peace officer can be charged with a crime of reckless endangerment for shooting a bystander.


As a followup question, why would the police be grilling Dave about that?

They have a duty to examine all the facts of the case including motive so that the perp is charged with the correct crime or crimes. It also goes to whether the act was premeditated.

if a guy is running toward you with a gun and you have reason to believe he will shoot you, you can kill him and claim self-defense. (Though personally, I'd just draw it.)

If he shot someone else, though, that would be manslaughter. IOW, you're responsible for what you do, even mistakes made in self-defense.

As for the question about what he was doing earlier, I'd refuse to answer on the grounds that it's none of their f'n business.

On edit: of course, NSMA's answers are better. :)

These are informed opinions, so take with a grain of salt.

1. If Dave felt his life was in imminent danger, he can legally respond with force equal to repel the attack. So, if the gunman had his weapon drawn and pointed at Dave, Dave would have been within his rights to shoot the gunman.

2. I'm not sure, but I think you are responsible for where those bullets go. After all, you're allegedly trained to use the firearm.

3. I think the police wanted to get an accurate picture of the situation. The police wanted to ascertain the suspect's state of mind. Was this, in fact a love triangle, or a case of mistaken identity? Maybe the suspect was making it all up and was angry for some other reason. The DA will ask when the case is presented, and when the case goes to grand jury and trial.

that the weapon does not need to be pointed at Dave.

The gunman rammed Dave. The gunman was running at Dave, looking straight at him. There was no other obvious target for his drawn weapon.

It was a case of mistaken identity, or else the suspect was making up the story of an affair.

But, it would make a more convincing case if the weapon were pointed at Dave, and there were witnesses.

As long as a reasonable person could conclude that his life was in danger, using deadly force is a legal option.

would you wait for the gunman to raise his weapon, or would you drop him the moment you saw that he was approaching you with a gun?

...I'd drop him like a bad habit. I would figure he didn't have the gun out to show it off.

Question One: Of course! It is obvious! Are you slow or something?
Question Two: Sh*t Happens!
Question Three: The police are just looking for some juicy gossip. Be sure and tell them a good story.

:) :) :)

On a serious note, answers to your question will depend primarily on the jurisdiction you are in. You might want to state your location.

I figured Q1 was obvious...

As for Q2, I imagine that if you were to kill a bystander accidentally while defending yourself from an armed aggressor, you'd have to prove in court that you weren't behaving recklessly; I imagine you would be charged, even if you were clearly in the right. Unless they could charge the aggressor with that accidental death, since you wouldn't have been firing unless he had forced you to.

For Q3, NSMA's answer makes the most sense.

Inquiring minds want to know.

As for Q2: Even if you were not criminally liable because of self-defense, you could still be liable for wrongful death to the family of the person you killed. The intent of the killer is a lot "lower" in tort actions, I believe, because there, you are compensating the family for their loss.