CHLer Arrested

[Superman]

You are the only one to make the criteria broad with the last statement you made, "any time you discharge you gun in self defense there is likelihood of the bullet striking something unintended, even if you hit your target". You said this... Not me.

What I said was "....snip...... The question here is, can one do so in a manner likely to risk injury or death to a third party or damage to others property. The answer is ... Absolutely not". I never said, nor do I believe that, "any time a person discharges a gun in self defense there is a likelihood of the bullet striking something unintended".

I'm just having a broader definition of "likely." I think there is a sliding scale of likelihood of unintended injury with any round fired, we all just do it in a way that vastly minimizes that likelihood (via the 4 rules). Someone can get injured unintentionally even if I simply shoot a round into the ground. That's where my "any time you discharge" statement came from.

Read this. It is important for us all to remember!

PC §9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

I don't think this applies to this guys situation for two reasons.
1 - This doesn't say anything about property damage.
2 - No one was actually injured or killed, so this doesn't come into play.

There's not a whole lot of detail in the article, but at least the police should have video of the whole event (walmart cameras inside and out), so hopefully there's a high likelihood that the truth will prevail (whichever way that falls).

[WildBill]

I think that people are getting too wrapped up about whether it is right or legal to shoot at the escaping robber.

The CHLer was charged with Deadly Conduct.

Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.

(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:

(1) one or more individuals; or

(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.

(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.

(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.

(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.

IANAL, but it seems to me that the only issue is whether his conduct was reckless when he fired his gun.

[Superman]

I think that people are getting too wrapped up about whether it is right or legal to shoot at the escaping robber.

The CHLer was charged with Deadly Conduct.

Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.

(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:

(1) one or more individuals; or

(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.

(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.

(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.

(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.

IANAL, but it seems to me that the only issue is whether his conduct was reckless when he fired his gun.

I would agree with that charge if there were not a robbery in progress, but from the limited info in the article I don't think he should have been charged with that. This whole section should not apply to a self defense situation...or else every self defense situation (using a gun) fits into it. Anyway, that's my last thought.

[03Lightningrocks]

I think that people are getting too wrapped up about whether it is right or legal to shoot at the escaping robber.

The CHLer was charged with Deadly Conduct.

Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.

(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:

(1) one or more individuals; or

(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.

(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.

(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.

(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.

IANAL, but it seems to me that the only issue is whether his conduct was reckless when he fired his gun.

I keep trying to get it back on topic. I thought I was pretty clear in my post that my only issue was that Kwan used deadly force in a reckless fashion. Maybe the way you just put it will help it sink in.

[03Lightningrocks]

Then again... Maybe not.

[WildBill]

Then again... Maybe not.

"We shall see what we shall see." - The Maha Aha

[Texas_Blaze]

I've sold two cars on CL. met at the bank. In days past, we used to use thrifty nickle. Don't see the difference.

on the shooting, I'd rather not have the trouble, so I'd let him run. It's just money. To me, not worth risking someone's life, for an iPhone. Learn your lesson, move on.

[jmra]

Lesson that should be learned from this thread:
If you are going to shoot, "aim small, miss small" (Mark Baker).

[03Lightningrocks]

Lesson that should be learned from this thread:
If you are going to shoot, "aim small, miss small" (Mark Baker).

Another lesson would be, if you can't use your weapon with absolute certainty you won't accidentally shoot an innocent bystander, DONT USE YOUR WEAPON.

Your firearm is suppose to be your last resort, not your go to solution. I read far too many posts in this forum where people make comments that give me the impression they think their firearm is the only solution. Hopefully, it just seems like it and they don't really think it is OK to risk innocent lives to save a wallet or cell phone.

Now watch the guilty dogs bark first.

[WildBill]

Now watch the guilty dogs bark first.

One barking dog thread at a time please!

[03Lightningrocks]

[tbrown]

I think that people are getting too wrapped up about whether it is right or legal to shoot at the escaping robber.

The CHLer was charged with Deadly Conduct.

Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.

(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:

(1) one or more individuals; or

(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.

(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.

(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.

(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.

IANAL, but it seems to me that the only issue is whether his conduct was reckless when he fired his gun.

The deadly conduct charge seems like it could apply to wild shots whether the robber was running away or threatening him with a knife. It could also apply to shooting snakes in suburban areas.

At least Texas doesn't call it throwing missiles.

[philip964]

This event brings back an event in my old neighborhood. A wife was followed home at night and before the garage door came down two men came into the garage. The wife did not lock the door from the garage to the kitchen. She left her purse in the kitchen on the counter. The two men entered the home from the garage and grabbed the purse. Around this time someone noticed the two men were in the house. The husband ran for his hand gun (he was not a CHL) the two men left the house and ran. He did not have continuous sight of the robbers, since he went to find his gun. The husband exited the house with his gun drawn and fired several shots in the neighborhood at two shadowy figures he saw running down the street at some distance.

When the police arrived they asked him what happened. They said to not repeat that he had discharged his weapon. From what I heard it did not go down in their written records. He was not arrested or ever charged. Certainly this guy was reckless in firing.

No neighbor asked for charges to be made but, the neighbors were not amused as they assumed that the bullets went somewhere and could have hit a child or a jogger in the neighborhood.

Is the difference here that Walmart was even less amused, since it was their property and the two people were really not their customers? Could they have asked for charges to be brought against the victim in this case?

It will be interesting to see how it finally plays out.

[WildBill]

No neighbor asked for charges to be made but, the neighbors were not amused as they assumed that the bullets went somewhere and could have hit a child or a jogger in the neighborhood.

Is the difference here that Walmart was even less amused, since it was their property and the two people were really not their customers? Could they have asked for charges to be brought against the victim in this case?

Good point. Any one can ask for charges to be filed, but the ultimate decision is made by the DA. Does Walmart have anymore influence than a random residential neighbor?

[Jumping Frog]

I think that people are getting too wrapped up about whether it is right or legal to shoot at the escaping robber.

I agree that it is important to maintain the distinction between whether his conduct was legal versus whether his conduct acceptable.

The CHLer was charged with Deadly Conduct.

Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
. . .

IANAL, but it seems to me that the only issue is whether his conduct was reckless when he fired his gun.

There is definitely more than one issue. In addition to whether his acts were legally reckless (which has a higher standard of culpability than negligence), if he has competent defense they will also raise the issue of whether his alleged deadly conduct was justified under PC §9.22. NECESSITY.