"Fault" isn't necessarily on a single source or mutually exclusive. Bill is responsible for what he did to Joe (assuming that he didn't approve of his mother's relationship), but it's Joe's fault for starting a fight so big that it alerted the shop owner. Whether Roger was justified in shooting depends on how much danger Joe posed to the people in the shop.
I don't care, just so long as I don't have to put up with the consequences.
The fact that only 140 characters are allowed here is honestly so disappointing to me.
Spidophile
As to how much danger Joe and Bill's fight presented, assume that they only used their fists but they were fighting pretty rough - knocking over tables and throwing things and the like.
And also, how responsible is Bill for having sex with Joe's mother if she was the one who came on to him and he wasn't actively pursuing it before then?
edited 19th May '15 3:19:18 PM by FantasyLiver
"You're an enemy of art and I pity your ignorance" - Domingo Montoya Help save the rainforest for free simply by going to Ecosia.org.
State of Mind
Unless there's a part where she tied him down and forced herself on him that missed, it sounds like it was just as consensual on Bill's part. Who started the relationship is irrelevant.
That said, that doesn't excuse Joe for seeking him out in a public place and starting a fight that got so bad Roger felt lethal force was needed to protect his establishment and patrons.
"What a century this week has been." - Seung Min Kim
Ooh, fun~! *gets out the Criminal Law of Norway* ...what, I miss Criminal Law.
Okay, so Roger aims the gun at Bill and kills him. Don't know enough about the scenario to make the intent clear, but since the gun is a lethal weapon, he should have known that the outcome would be murder and he still did it. So, we're looking at murder.
Lessee, it's not Bill's fault, because provocation doesn't work for murder so not even gonna do that check.
Joe's fault? Nnnno, can't say that. Because while he did assault Bill with his bare fists, his actions or known intent do not point towards the intent to kill. Either which way, it was not he who committed the murder, so he's in the clear as well. You can get him for some bodily harm stuff, though, but that's not the issue here.
Which brings us to Roger. It was clear that he shot the gun that killed Joe, and we have to assume that he knew that shooting a person would most likely kill him (probability intent). So we got the criminal act and the intent.
But does he get off free because of necessity? Well now, that's a long and complicated examination. But the kicker is, could he have accomplished his goal (to break off the fight to save the other customers) through less dramatic means?
I am afraid that even with the little information we're given, the answer will be yes. Warning shots, trying to break them apart or restraining Joe physically, threatening to call the police...the threshold for straight up killing a guy is as one might expect pretty high. And it hadn't reached the point where killing the perpetrator was necessary. That's especially clear when you compare the consequences: a death versus some injuries. There was no reason to expect that Joe would actually kill anyone present, not even Bill, at the time of the shooting, meaning that shooting Joe was greatly more dramatic than it had to be.
Also some minor arguments like Roger himself being in an unpressed situation and thus one has to expect more clarity and carefulness in his judgement of the situation; also as a gun owner, he needs to show proper restraint and carefulness; and as the bar owner, while he has a responsibility towards his guests, that also covers Joe.
Conclusion: Roger is at fault for killing Joe, and can be punished for murder.
...according to Norwegian criminal law.
Join us in our quest to play all RPG video games! Moving on to disc 2 of Grandia!
Spidophile
Interesting! It's cool to hear from somebody with a legal background. But would Roger's shooting, under Norwegian law, constitute as murder or manslaughter or what? I'm assuming his sentencing would be lighter at least.
"You're an enemy of art and I pity your ignorance" - Domingo Montoya Help save the rainforest for free simply by going to Ecosia.org.
It's hard to tell. It will mostly be a matter of intent: did Roger just mean to cause serious bodily harm but happened to kill Joe, or did Roger in fact mean to kill him? This question would have to be examined closely through analyzing Roger's actions and his own explanation of the events.
As for his punishment...I'm afraid Roger hasn't got a lot going for him here. Use of lethal force, reckless use of a lethal weapon...of course, his underlying intentions would speak in his favour, but he's still looking at some years in prison, though he'll probably get a greater part as probation.
edited 19th May '15 5:30:33 PM by Lemurian
Join us in our quest to play all RPG video games! Moving on to disc 2 of Grandia!
doot
Obviously it's the mom's fault :P
I couldn't conceive a dream so wet; your bongos make me congo.
Until further notice
It's obviously your fault.
Not a substitute for a formal medical consultation.
Agreeing with Lemurian here. Bar tender should have called the po-po or something like that instead of shooting the schmuck. Doesn't really matter what the whole circumstances were regarding the two dudes fighting with each other.
Yeah, I would concur. Discharging a firearm in a public place like that without first resorting to non-lethal measures is legally iffy, at best. Of course, this assumes that firearm ownership is legal. If we assume firearm ownership is illegal or heavily restricted (like in the majority of the western world), then the barkeeper is exclusively at fault.
Spidophile
Remember though, the question isn't necessarily whether or not what the characters did was legal or even morally right. The question is whose responsibility is Joe's death?
"You're an enemy of art and I pity your ignorance" - Domingo Montoya Help save the rainforest for free simply by going to Ecosia.org.
Well, that depends on how you view the circumstances. If you look at the world through a legalistic-moralist perspective, like I do, then the responsibility lays completely on the barkeeper for firing the shot. Any other things are entirely irrelevant, because they did not directly contribute to his death. His death was due to a firearm being discharged at his person. Firearms are lethal - and only lethal - and therefore the fault lays entirely at whomever discharged it.
If you want to look at it as a fault of consequence, then we might as well claim that the MCRA of Homo sapiens is responsible.
Still just awesome like that
Really, the death could have been completely avoided if they just went to another bar without a gun-crazy bartender.
Insert witty 'n clever quip here.
Also, what kind of barkeeper keeps a loaded firearms in the bar? Like, do barkeepers have to regular discharge firearms while they're working? Who does the firearm licence belong do? Are firearms legal to own in this jurisdiction? What if the rounds hit an innocent patron? See, I think this whole premise is moot by the fact that a firearm was involved. In no jurisdiction is discharging a firearm in a crowded area remotely good thinking or legally right.
Uniocular
Yeah... uh, killing a person for starting a fistfight is definitely not something I'd consider rational or okay.
Not that it makes Joe any less of an asshole for obviously not respecting his mom and friend's rights as consenting adults, but he didn't need to die for it.
"It's so hard to be humble, knowing how great I am."
I mean, if we're explicitly talking about morality, then we could look at this way. According to the barkeeper, the right to property superseded someone else's right to life. Most moral systems and legal systems uphold that the right to life is the most important of all rights (except in certain US states, of course).
Uniocular
Exactly.
Like, even if the bartender was judged right by the law I'd still consider him a psychopath who definitely does not deserve any sort of firearm license. Ever.
"It's so hard to be humble, knowing how great I am."
I don't think even the law would side with him. I mean, he discharged his firearm in a public and crowded place. There was a high probability that he could have missed and hit another patron. That in itself is a pretty heavy point against the barkeeper.
Vigilante justice is frowned upon for that exact reason.
Still just awesome like that
Yeah that makes sense. This fictional encounter takes place in the lawless Wild West. It all makes better sense, than in like, a proper country with laws and a police service.
Joe, Bill, and Roger are the three characters in this scenario I have concocted. Joe and Bill have been childhood friends for years. Joe has a very attractive mother who has been single for quite some time. When Bill turns 20, Joe's mother comes onto him and they have sex. Joe finds out about this and, upset over the betrayal, comes to the local bar where Bill is having a drink. Joe picks a fight with Bill and they begin to engage in a violent fist fight.
Roger the bartender, panicking and wishing to avoid his customers getting hurt, gets his pistol from under the bar and shoots Joe and kills him.
My random morality question is - whose fault is Joe's death? Is it Joe for picking a fight with Bill in a public area? Is it Bill for sleeping with Joe's mother in the first place? Or is it Roger for panicking and immediately resorting to lethal force?
"You're an enemy of art and I pity your ignorance" - Domingo Montoya Help save the rainforest for free simply by going to Ecosia.org.