Pass through shots/ liability

[The Annoyed Man]

I don't buy into the pass through argument at all. I have read a number of articles over the years that cited gunfight data from LEO and ABC agencies that all gave a relatively low number of percentage of hits. So if statistically speaking more shots miss than hit, you can't worry about a hit that may pass through. And if you still do, you'd have to shoot a really anemic load or caliber to guarantee no exit... and to get there you would still have to be a supreme operator to guarantee no misses... oh wait, even our very best can miss under that kind of pressure with a moving target!

Bottom line is that you should not worry about a pass through, but since a miss won't stop an attacker and is a real liability, train to minimize that possibility instead.

Way more folks get struck by lightning each year than people that have to worry about preforming perfectly under pressure in a life/death situation and then have a round pass through the intended target into another person.

And lets say all that falls into line and you can see it develop in front of you... would you NOT shoot/stop an active shooter because you might catch someone else on the pass through??? (also realizing that a pass through would have exhausted much /most of it's energy going through the first person- so the chances of it doing major damage to the 2nd is diminished considerably)

I agree that misses are a greater concern than pass-throughs, and not missing is the best possible outcome. But I would hardly characterize the +P JHP "duty" loads that many of us carry as "anemic". I have quite a bit of experience treating gunshot patients, and most of the pass-throughs I saw were from "anemic" FMJ loads, while fairly devastating hollowpoint loads didn't pass through. In fact, the only hollowpoint load I ever saw pass through a torso was a .41 magnum which entered the anterior chest and existed through the left kidney. Most people would not carry a magnum caliber beginning in "4". It's just "too much gun" for most self-defense social work - not as a moral issue, but a practical one. But there are lots of people carrying .357 magnums, and .45/.40/9mm pistols stoked with modern ammo that is proven effective.

[parabelum]

Modern 9mm can be very zippy. Buffalo Bore has "+P+" 9mm that's advertised at 500 ft/lb & 1400 ft/sec, hardly "anemic", close to my favorite 357 Sig load, 125gr Speer gold dot.

There are other 9mm offerings that also approach and in some cases exceed .45 in ft/lb, traveling much faster.

Interesting ballistics data for handguns and rifles:

http://www.ballistics101.com/9mm.php

[flechero]

I think you boys missed my point... it was that you would need to change over to very anemic ammo or caliber to prevent a pass through... not that what any of us carry is anemic (quite the opposite, as you both pointed out)

[stroo]

One of the four safety rules that I was taught and which I teach to anyone I take shooting the first time is "know your target and what's behind your target." That covers both pass throughs and missed shots.

And yes you will be liable for any bullet you shoot that hits an innocent bystander whether it goes through the person you are shooting at or misses the person you are shooting. You are responsible for every bullet you shoot!

[srothstein]

Interestingly enough, I think the same doctrine would apply to both the criminal and the civil case against you. IANAL but I understand that one of the basic principles of liability is whether or not the result is foreseeable. If you do anything reckless while defending yourself, and hit an innocent third party, Section 9.05 of the Penal Code says you can be prosecuted. The act is reckless if there is a chance of the result that you were aware of or should have been aware of. That last part means the result was foreseeable.

In civil cases, I think you are only responsible for the actions that were foreseeable. So, a store is not responsible for a customer getting shot by a small kid who plays with a gun he found in the bathroom because this is not a reasonably foreseeable event. But since stores are robbed on a fairly regular basis, they could be held responsible for a customer getting shot by a robber if they did nothing to reduce the chance of robberies occurring.

To apply this to a shooting, if you were to shoot a criminal attempting to rob you, and it is in the middle of a crowd (say an audience at a concert in the park) that is packed front to back, and the bullet goes completely through the criminal and hits the person behind him, you might be both civilly and criminally liable for the third person. I would think that shooting in that crowded a situation could be called reckless.

I could be wrong on all this and you might be good to go, as said in the article referenced in the original post.

[Oldgringo]

If your bullet strikes another person, you can count on being being sued and possibly charged with a number of things; e.g., criminal endangerment/negligence, etc., etc. So, shoot wisely!

[Mike S]

Interestingly enough, I think the same doctrine would apply to both the criminal and the civil case against you. IANAL but I understand that one of the basic principles of liability is whether or not the result is foreseeable. If you do anything reckless while defending yourself, and hit an innocent third party, Section 9.05 of the Penal Code says you can be prosecuted. The act is reckless if there is a chance of the result that you were aware of or should have been aware of. That last part means the result was foreseeable.

I may be wrong, but I believe there's a Two-part Test for Recklessness; what you knew (or should have known as a reasonable person), AND what a reasonable person would have done in the same situation.

For example, if you duck & cover behind a counter & spray wildly towards your attacker you just might find yourself hemned up for Recklessness if someone else is injured. However, if the attacker is already on top of you & you put several shots into them at contact distance that pass thru & injured an innocent third party you may not have met the requirements of Recklessness. (However, anyone can still be sued for anything, so YMMV).

ETA: The 'reasonable person' standard may also be flavored by the local sentiment of the jursdiction. What's reasonable in Hays / Williamson Counties might not be reasonable in parts of Travis County .

[Medley86]

Sometimes I wonder about marketing ideas. Names shouldn't matter, but I still wonder.

A jury shouldn't care whether a manufacturer names a type of ammo "Humble Petition to Kindly RSVP Your Plans to Leave Me in Peace" or "Flesh Rending Zombie Death."

But what if Shannon Watts is the jury foreman, and what if your ammo of choice is RIP, with manufacturer's claims about flying hole saws and shrapnel peeling off into what we would call the threat, what Ms. Watts would probably call a victim?

That old joke, now probably considered religious bigotry, about the Amish farmer confronting a burglar with a fowling piece got it right. According to the joke, the dignified elder said to the burglar, "I would not hurt thee for all the world, but thee are standing where I am about to shoot."

The right idea. Respect life, stop threats.

I keep thinking I shouldn't care about labels. But RIP?

That was what got the Black Talons taken off the market. They advertised it's "lethality" showed expanded rounds, and bragged about the types of wounds it would cause. There are several defensive rounds out there that are just as "lethal" expand the same, and cause the exact type of wounds, but the marketing strategy killed it.

The more benign sounding name given to ammo, guns, or even knives, are better in my opinion, because I don't want a prosecutor holding up something with "flaming death" printed on it, at my trial.

As far as black talons go the PDX1 Winchester is loading now is essentially the same old black talon round without the black anodizing.

[flechero]

One of the four safety rules that I was taught and which I teach to anyone I take shooting the first time is "know your target and what's behind your target." That covers both pass throughs and missed shots.

I think we were all taught that but, you may or may not have luxury of the "what's behind" part in a defensive shoot. Hunting, yes; target shooting, yes; plinking, yes. In a slit second life/death decision- a slight MAYBE.

And yes you will be liable for any bullet you shoot that hits an innocent bystander whether it goes through the person you are shooting at or misses the person you are shooting. You are responsible for every bullet you shoot!

I'd take the chance of being sued over a pass through... over being dead, any day. What are you going to do if you are under fire in a crowded area? I'm not getting shot dead waiting and hoping for traffic to clear behind him. The reality (as ugly as it is) if you don't shoot and then get shot, you also allow lots of others to potentially get killed as well. If the situation permits an extra second, I suppose I may drop to a knee and shoot "up" at him. effectively clearing the are behind with height, although that presents another set of possibilities and potential problems.

It's not an easy scenario, nor is it completely black and white.

[WTR]

Seems like a license holder acting in good faith should be exempt from liability. The Police seem to be.