The case presents I think a difficult issue on where is the line in putting liability on the victim of a violent act. What is the wider implications of this case, outside of the individuals involved.
You have what you describe as an unlikeable victim of a shooting. Let us suspend arguments here and say there was no self-defense argument to be made, so the shooting was not in self-defense. The perpetrator/shooter (again let us suspend argument and allow the jury finding be used on who did the shooting) was insane, allegedly driven so by victim. Where is the line to be drawn. If a person’s acts cause someone to become insane and the insane person commits a violent act against them. will that person always be liable–is it just malicious acts or any act that can be considered “negligent.” If you are negligent and that causes someone to go insane and shoot you -are you possibly liable for your own harm? What if I owned a horse that knocked down a person and caused brain trauma/insanity and they shoot me in anger-am I responsible for my own harm because of my negligence caused the brain trauma and insanity? What about toxic domestic abuse situations? Or to be liable, do you always have to be an unlikeable victim? What if it there was no negligent acts but it could be shown the victim knew the person was on the edge and anything could be a trigger?
(I know now everyone is rooting for MB, but how many people have borderline people in our life that could be capable of violence and a possible claim of insanity-how much responsibility do the rest of us have to take for their actions?)
I suspect this case, no matter who “wins”, may prove the old saying that bad facts make bad law.
