This is similar to a hypothetical I have run through in my head a few times.
I'm in a store with my kids and someone comes in to rob the place. My first option would be to find cover / concealment, get my kids behind / under / around it, and then hold in place ready to shoot if the BG(s) approach, but otherwise to just remain in place until LEOs arrive. I have already decided that I am not leaving my kids side to help the clerk or anyone else.
Now if I don't have my kids with me, that opens up other possibilities.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Houston Family Dollar Robbery”
- Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:38 pm
- Forum: The Crime Blotter
- Topic: Houston Family Dollar Robbery
- Replies: 57
- Views: 8655
- Thu May 31, 2012 3:37 pm
- Forum: The Crime Blotter
- Topic: Houston Family Dollar Robbery
- Replies: 57
- Views: 8655
Re: Houston Family Dollar Robbery
IANAL, and others are so I will let them weigh in.nakedbike wrote:I don't think it works that way. The shooter, CHL or otherwise is responsible for every bullet that leaves the barrel. If the shooter wasn't sure of his target he shouldn't have pulled the trigger. I agree it was the robber's actions that caused the CHL to draw their weapon so they should share the blame but ultimately it was the CHL who fired the firearm. I don't wish ill for our CHL/CCW brother though, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, He probably saved every one else's lives in the building.JeepGuy79 wrote:oh man I hate that. Like said above though. Even though the CHL shot the clerk the robber should be charged with felony murder. The CHL holder should not be charged with anything if they were acting responsibly and missed their target hitting the wrong person. I hate to use the term collateral damage but this happens in military and law enforcement situations all the time. The CHL was trying to save lives and made a mistake. I am sure that is hard to live with. I really hope there are no financial or legal repercussions for them. That death is the robbers fault.
My understanding is that the criminal is the responsible party in this case, just as they would have been if the shooter had been a LEO who missed the robber and hit the clerk instead. I HIGHLY doubt that any LEO would be held criminally liable in that situation, and I believe the same applies for a CHL holder as long as the CHL holder was not being reckless (e.g. randomly spraying bullets over cover without looking, etc), but was instead taking reasonable care to aim, etc.