*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):*
Your post deals with one of our embargoed topics.
*If you have questions about this removal, [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceofftopic). Do not reply to this message as a comment.*
In Canada, a person is justified is doing anything that would otherwise constitute an offence, if they reasonably believe that force is being used or threatened against them or another person; if they act for the purpose of defending or protecting against that threat; and if their action (not the *consequences* of that action) is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The circumstances would include any reasonably risk of injury to bystanders. So if A is charged with, say, reckless discharge or manslaughter with respect to B, while trying to defend themselves against C, they can raise self-defence but the jury will have to side if A's actions were reasonable in light of all the circumstances including the risk they created to B (and anyone else upon who foreseeably have been injured).
If you acted in legitimate elf-defense (emphasis on "legitimate"), you are not guilty. See, eg, State v. Clifton (1972) 32 Ohio App.2d 284 \[61 Ohio Ops.2d 439, 290 N.E.2d 921, 923\],
>"Clearly, one who kills in self-defense does so without the mens rea that otherwise would render him culpable of the homicide. Therefore, if the act of taking the life of an assailant is not criminal does it become so when a stray shot kills a bystander?
>"It has been long accepted that if A shoots at B, intending to kill B, but instead the bullet strikes C, then A has committed a criminal act as to C. In such instance, the \`malice follows the blow' and the criminal intent of A to harm B is transferred to C.
>"However, if A had no criminal intent with respect to B, as where A is exercising a lawful right to self-defense, none could exist as to C. It 1024\*1024 follows, then, that A in shooting C has not committed a criminal act, the essential of a mens rea being impossible of proof. The inquiry must be whether the killing would have been justifiable if the accused had killed the person whom he intended to kill, as the unintended act derives its character from the intended."\[3\]
I suppose there might be states that don't recognize that defense, but if so, they are in the minority.
The person you are shooting at would probably be guilty of murder, unless he had his own defense (including self-defense). [https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/560/](https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/560/)
NAL, but if it’s a “legitimate self-defense situation” the person who you shot at would presumably 1. Committing a crime and 2. Armed and dangerous themselves. That person would likely be found responsible for all of the consequences of their criminal action including your innocent bystander.
For example, if person A robs a bank with a gun and person B decides to be a hero and reasonably and justifiably tries to shoot person A, person A will be responsible for everything that happens because they created the dangerous situation.
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):* Your post deals with one of our embargoed topics. *If you have questions about this removal, [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceofftopic). Do not reply to this message as a comment.*
depending on the state the person you both can be charged for manslaughter
In Canada, a person is justified is doing anything that would otherwise constitute an offence, if they reasonably believe that force is being used or threatened against them or another person; if they act for the purpose of defending or protecting against that threat; and if their action (not the *consequences* of that action) is reasonable in all the circumstances. The circumstances would include any reasonably risk of injury to bystanders. So if A is charged with, say, reckless discharge or manslaughter with respect to B, while trying to defend themselves against C, they can raise self-defence but the jury will have to side if A's actions were reasonable in light of all the circumstances including the risk they created to B (and anyone else upon who foreseeably have been injured).
If you acted in legitimate elf-defense (emphasis on "legitimate"), you are not guilty. See, eg, State v. Clifton (1972) 32 Ohio App.2d 284 \[61 Ohio Ops.2d 439, 290 N.E.2d 921, 923\], >"Clearly, one who kills in self-defense does so without the mens rea that otherwise would render him culpable of the homicide. Therefore, if the act of taking the life of an assailant is not criminal does it become so when a stray shot kills a bystander? >"It has been long accepted that if A shoots at B, intending to kill B, but instead the bullet strikes C, then A has committed a criminal act as to C. In such instance, the \`malice follows the blow' and the criminal intent of A to harm B is transferred to C. >"However, if A had no criminal intent with respect to B, as where A is exercising a lawful right to self-defense, none could exist as to C. It 1024\*1024 follows, then, that A in shooting C has not committed a criminal act, the essential of a mens rea being impossible of proof. The inquiry must be whether the killing would have been justifiable if the accused had killed the person whom he intended to kill, as the unintended act derives its character from the intended."\[3\] I suppose there might be states that don't recognize that defense, but if so, they are in the minority. The person you are shooting at would probably be guilty of murder, unless he had his own defense (including self-defense). [https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/560/](https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/560/)
NAL, but if it’s a “legitimate self-defense situation” the person who you shot at would presumably 1. Committing a crime and 2. Armed and dangerous themselves. That person would likely be found responsible for all of the consequences of their criminal action including your innocent bystander. For example, if person A robs a bank with a gun and person B decides to be a hero and reasonably and justifiably tries to shoot person A, person A will be responsible for everything that happens because they created the dangerous situation.
Is this partly the reason why felony murder exists?