The woman was directly in the line of fire. Beck already missed at least 6 times and he missed 7 out of 10 when the woman was directly in the line of fire. Are you supposing Beck thought a robot was in that driver seat, or like some people(Beck) that bullets take a path according to where their own mind wishes them to go? Beck had an obligation to avoid shooting when anyone else is within the line of fire. He must withhold fire until he has a clear shot.
" She was operating a vehicle in public, on a public road. As such, she has an obligation to pay attention to her surroundings."
Again, just to make it clear: Mr. Beck's obligation is to withhold fire until others are not in the line of fire.
" 3 out of 17 puts him in "cop" territory."
Same principle applies there, withhold fire until no others are within the line of fire. Firing at and injuring innocent people is reckless and jail time is appropriate for doing so regardless.
"Also, he was wounded, so cut the guy some slack."
He fired at an innocent person. There was no justification for that.
"the passengers on Flight 93"
Irrelevant, they did not attack and endanger each other.
" The chances of a bystander getting hit in a gunfight are less than the chances of getting struck by lightning. "
Irrelevant. If you shoot at people in the line of fire, it is likely you will kill them. If anyone shoots at me, I will not care why they are shooting at me. I will just kill them.
"Whatever damages occur as a result of good guys fighting back are dwarfed by what would happen if the good guys were banned from fighting back."
Mr. Beck gave them a valid concern regarding this form of effective self defense. He displayed a notable level of incompetence, that he should have been aware of, and had no justification for firing at the woman.
So he should have waited until the bad guy had gotten away and killed the woman.
Again, just to make it clear: Mr. Beck's obligation is to withhold fire until others are not in the line of fire.
He would not have gotten another shot. So is it better that the murderer is dead and the other woman injured, or would it be better if the murderer got away and killed the woman and who knows who else?
"Whatever damages occur as a result of good guys fighting back are dwarfed by what would happen if the good guys were banned from fighting back."
Mr. Beck gave them a valid concern regarding this form of effective self defense. He displayed a notable level of incompetence, that he should have been aware of, and had no justification for firing at the woman.
He was just shot in the head. That probably affect his level of competance. Given that someone who was just shot in the head will probably not be in a good position to immediately judge how it has affected them, it would seem that one must either rule that imperfect judgement by someone who was just shot in the head is excusable, or that anyone shot in the head has a duty to avoid any efforts to attack the shooter. Frankly, I'd rather go with the former.
"He fired at an innocent person."
No, he fired at a *guilty* person. The innocent person happened to be in the line of fire. It's entirely possible that he thought she was driving the getaway vehicle. I assume that (her involvement) has been ruled out by the cops.