-4

Suppose that a person (the shooter) fires a gun at a vehicle that they perceive to be imminently approaching and being used as a weapon by another person (the driver) whom the shooter kills. For the purposes of this question, assume that the shooter does not specifically suspect the driver to be armed (apart from the vehicle itself).

For this question, suppose that the shooter is prosecuted by the state of Minnesota and makes a self-defense case. This case would likely hinge on whether firing the gun was reasonable. For the purposes of this question, assume that:

  1. A bullet is unlikely to stop the vehicle in time to change the shooter's ability to dodge the vehicle, and
  2. Shooting at the vehicle is extremely likely to kill the driver, and endangers more lives.

Given these serious issues with firing the gun, for the purposes of a self-defense case, can shooting at the approaching vehicle be considered reasonable?

A good answer should present an example of an argument that the defendant (the shooter) could make that would have a chance to pass the reasonableness test.

This question is not the same as Can there be a legitimate purpose to shooting at an approaching vehicle if the driver is known to be unarmed apart from the vehicle itself? because "legitimate purpose" is only about the motives of the defendant while "reasonable" takes reality into account.

Improve this question
1

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

For a comparative perspective, I will present the law of Canada: the circumstances you describe do not preclude a finding of self-defence.

The elements of self-defence are codified at s. 34 of the Criminal Code:

(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

You ask about the reasonableness prong (34(1)(c)).

The section explains that:

In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors: [lists nine non-exhaustive factors].

The Supreme Court of Canada has explained that this is a "global assessment." No factor is determinative. See generally R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37, paras. 62-71.

Just because the chosen act might appear to be futile, or ineffectual, or might have unintended side-effects does not preclude a finding of self-defence. One has to consider all the circumstances and at minimum, the nine listed factors.

The argument about self-defence would proceed as follows:

  • the prosecution would have to introduce evidence of all the circumstances, including at minimum the nine-listed factors under s. 34(2);
  • the prosecution would have to convince the fact-finder beyond a reasonable doubt that all of that together means that the act could not have been reasonable;
  • the accused would have to introduce an air-of-reality to the defence of self-defence;
  • the accused would point to all the circumstances (including the nature of the threat; immenence; history between the two; the development of the interaction; etc.) to introduce a reasonable doubt.
Improve this answer
1
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Law Meta, or in Law Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. Commented Jan 10 at 19:06

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.