Transferred intent in association with self defence.

[Aray]

I recently saw someone bring up "transferred intent" in response to the standard wisdom of "A lawyer attached to every bullet". I have NO knowledge of the law that is useful to this discussion. The position that I recently was exposed to was this:

If you shoot in self-defense, and you act reasonably, but you miss and shoot an innocent 3rd person, you lack the criminal intent necessary to be charged.

This goes against everything I have been taught by multiple reputable intructors and several lawyers. I'm not calling BS, but I have never even heard of this position before.

[Wes Peart]

There is no intent and thus no crime IF you are found to have not acted negligently... IE in a way that you knew or should have knew would hurt someone. That last part is pretty much up to a jury.

Transferred intent is more in manslaughter or homicide, IE you are trying to kill someone you don't like with a gun but miss and kill someone else- you didn't intend to shoot the person you did but you shot them while intending to kill someone else. Your intent to kill will be transferred (for purposes of conviction) to the other person you shot. This only applies in an unlawful homicide.

[joshs]

In some states, "transferred self-defense" is a complete defense, if you are found to have acted in self-defense towards the bad guy and in the process you injure others, your successful defense towards the bad guy is preclusive to any claims by third parties. In other states, the defense will only help you for a crime that requires "intent." So, crimes will lower mental states (recklessness, criminal negligence, knowledge) can still be charged.

[_JD_]

Also, while there may be protection from criminal charges, a civil suit from the injured party could still be an option. This all will vary from state to state depending on their respective laws on the matter.