Even a justified self-defense shooter remains legally responsible for each and every round fired, no matter in whatever or whoever each bullet may eventually stop.
This is just plainly in error. One must demonstrate negligence to be deemed civilly liable, which is a disregard for a duty towards specific persons. Being pressed by circumstances to shoot in self defense does not constitute negligence, thus a good shoot (absent recklessness) does not trigger civil liability according to the laws of most states.
I don't think this guy's actions constitute recklessness, since his gun was pointing at the perps (and no one else) when he said he sometimes had his eyes closed upon pulling the trigger. Furthermore, there were no third parties amongst the perps at the time to which a duty of care was owed by the defensive shooter.
I must stand by my statement about a justified self-defense shooter remaining legally responsible for each and every bullet he lets fly, no matter what. Here’s why:
If negligence theory were the only consideration, you would have been absolutely correct, right up until you chose to use the word “recklessness.” Proof of simple negligence (an oops) and resulting damages are all that are required in order to recover under a negligence cause of action. Gross negligence is not required, but it can certainly up the ante to maybe include punitive damages too.
However, negligence isn’t the only available cause of action; there is also strict liability in tort. Strict liability attaches to activities recognized as being inherently dangerous, such as blasting to take down buildings, located very close to other buildings, for new construction. Shooting is also recognized as an inherently dangerous activity, such that anyone who gets shot, who was not supposed to get shot, is entitled to recover damages from the shooter, whether or not actual negligence can be proved. This applies to stuff as well as to people.
There is yet another legal theory of liability which is founded in the law of equity. Where damage occurs and neither person is in any way legally negligent, the person is responsible for causing it pays for it. If both persons played a role in causing it, one had better have been even a little bit negligent or neither pays. It’s fundamental fairness in action. I had hinted at this briefly in response to an earlier comment of yours, though I didn’t i ske any mention of the legal theory.
All of that is why I said shooting in self-defense carries with it huge, almost crippling responsibility. The shooter must absolutely do it right, or be extremely lucky. Sounds like our Tennessee guy had been pretty lucky, maybe just owing for patching a few holes, until he shot off his big mouth to the cops - a pretty dumb move which cost him.
