Originally Posted by
LOL BRIELUS
Clyder, that just seems so extreme to prevent lawful use of deadly force in any building, since noone has the omnipotence to know or see behind walls, especially if making a split second decision. No self defense or defense of other law is written to require that.
I posit this- if there was an active shooter in a school, and you were the SRO rushing to help defenseless children, but behind the shooter was a wall, that you couldn't see behind, your logic requires you not to shoot until you can somehow manuever the shooter in front of a window where you could see behind, and then confirm,while under fire, and near instantaneously, that noone was behind the shooter all the way to the max range of your weapon. Do you agree that only then Would the law protect you under defense of others?
In your scenario, which does not match the facts of the Burlington shooting, the officer would be justified in taking the shot and gambling that no one was behind the wall. I would say the result would be the same regardless of whether the background was a wall, a dense fog, the dark of night, or even a busy freeway where the odds favor hitting empty space or an unimportant part of a vehicle. It is a risk worth taking when absolutely necessary. How is your scenario different from what happened in the Burlington store? In your scenario, the perpetrator was using a gun, but in the Burlington incident, the perpetrator was not using a gun and was not attacking someone at the moment encountered by the officers.
In any building, there is always a chance that a bullet will go through a wall and hit someone on the other side. The officer knew that. He incorrectly concluded that the benefit of shooting the perpetrator outweighed the risk of hitting someone on the other side of the wall. The incorrectness of his conclusion was knowable in advance without the benefit of hindsight.
There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.