LogFAQs > #931880102

This won't be super in-depth, but I'll cover the major things (Third year law student/legal clerk).
UnfairRepresent posted...

Did he have the right to shoot at them? They were on his property and staring into his windows but they didnt break in and he didnt warn them before shooting.

Depends on the state, but the moment they fled would guaranteed be the end of any claim of self-defense. Most states don't look too kindly upon lethal force in defense of property, but it all depends on the facts. Here? I would say he'd certainly have an uphill climb to make in any negligence/battery claim. Would likely come out in the Simpsons' favor.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Would it make a difference legally speaking if he told police he was aiming for Bart, aiming for Homer, attempted a warning shot or couldn't see the figures he was aiming at?

In the cases of aiming for Bart or Homer, no. All states have adopted the doctrine of transferred intent with respect to intentional torts and criminal acts, and negligence covers for that as well. Attempting a warning shot would still likely subject him to battery due to the definition applied from the Restatement on Torts which the majority of jurisdictions have adopted for battery claims ("Intent to cause apprehension of any such harmful/unconsented contact" or there's abouts) and still subject him to criminal liability for (at minimum) criminal negligence and any similarly situated homicide statute. Likely the same story if he indeed simply shot into the brushes and didn't see who he shot at, but the case for battery is weaker while the case for negligence is still stronger.

UnfairRepresent posted...

What would the differences be if he hit Homer or Marge instead?

Major difference would be the damages awarded, since the "value" Marge and Homer provide to all parties differs due to their roles (Marge as homemaker, Homer as wageearner). Both can be qualified for the purpose of award amounts. Homer's health could also a play a factor in damage calculations, as statistically his high risk of injury (based on his history) and generally being overweight would reduce his likely lifespan. Damages related to his wages would be argued up or down and adjusted accordingly (or at least considered by the jury).

Tl;dr:

Anyone dies, the dad is getting hit with manslaughter minimum. If they were fleeing when shots fired, this is basically a prosecutor's wet dream in this circumstance.
If someone gets hit, the dad is getting hit with assault/battery/whatever the state calls it, as well as any particular statute concerning firearm discharges.
In either of these circumstances, the Simpsons have oodles, canoodles, and toaster strudels of civil claims to choose from, and will likely prevail.

---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!