united-states murder self-defense firearms
Gun combat with mutual intent to hit/kill offers unimpeachable self-defense defense?
<p>I'm curious what explains a number of decisions to abandon all prosecutions in mass gunfights in the USA, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/709432311/texas-prosecutor-drops-all-charges-in-2015-biker-shootout-that-killed-9" rel="nofollow noreferrer">e.g. Waco 2015</a>.</p>
<p>While &quot;mutual combat&quot; has been <a href="https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/prosecutors-reject-charges-against-5-suspects-in-deadly-gang-related-gunfight/2628059/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">sometimes</a> used to describe these situations (including by the police), it seems like an abuse of the term given how it's actually defined in most state laws (although some <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/4093327" rel="nofollow noreferrer">state supreme courts</a> have used vaguer wording of combat on &quot;equal terms&quot;).</p>
<p>On the other hand, it seems to me that it's very hard to reject self-defense in a situation like:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>X and Y hate each other. (This hate can be documented. The mutual hate may be simply because of the groups they belong to.) They both bring guns to an encounter.</p>
</li>
<li><p>X shoots a Y but misses. Y shoots back at X but misses.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Although X intended to outright murder Y on his first shot, he now has a self-defense claim if he kills Y on his 2nd shot, because Y just shot at him.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Further, even the first shot of X becomes debatable, because what he was supposed to do if e.g. he (claims he) saw Y raise his gun at him? After all, Y did fire his gun so that makes it more likely he might have fired first anyway.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Basically, is something like that that explains most prosecutorial decisions to abandon charges in such mutual gun fights, e.g. between rival gangs?</p>

<p>In a situation with two suspects where one of them committed a crime, the prosecution has to prove which one is guilty. They can't just prosecute both. If they can't identify the guilty party then both have to go free.</p>
<p>In the case of a gunfight where both parties claim self defence, one of them is probably lying, but unless the prosecution can bring evidence to prove that one of them started the fight they can't prove that either is guilty.</p>
<p>And of course there might be situations under some legal frameworks, especially in &quot;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law" rel="nofollow noreferrer">stand your ground</a>&quot; states, where both of them <em>might</em> have acted in self defence.</p>
<p>Statement by Mr Bloggs:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Smith was walking towards me, shouting in an aggressive manner. I saw
he had a gun, and I was afraid he was going to shoot me, so I
drew my gun and fired at him in self defence.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Statement by Mr Smith:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I was angry with Bloggs, so I went to talk to him to demand [whatever]. However he drew his gun and started shooting at me. I was forced to return fire in self defence.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the specific case that you cite, the article contains the explanation:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>With the video evidence and the forensic evidence that's available, it's simply not possible to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt [of] who fired the shots that killed people.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
