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.
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.
IANAL, and others are so I will let them weigh in.
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.
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.
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.
IANAL, and others are so I will let them weigh in.
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.
We agree on the taking reasonable care to aim, I hope my words didn't lead folks to believe otherwise. There is a reason I'm a programmer and not a poet. I can express in code so much easier than with English.
And we don't know the whole story. Could have been bad aim. Could have been the clerk panicked and was moving and stepped in front at the wrong time. Either way, with the BGs locking the door, there wasn't a decent probability for anything other than a very sad ending. Let's hope the CHLer hasn't gone completely insane with grief by now and that the family of the clerk are comforted. But I'm sure there's more to this than what the news media are reporting.
“Public safety is always the first cry of the tyrant.” - Lord Gladstone
XinTX wrote:And we don't know the whole story. Could have been bad aim. Could have been the clerk panicked and was moving and stepped in front at the wrong time. Either way, with the BGs locking the door, there wasn't a decent probability for anything other than a very sad ending. Let's hope the CHLer hasn't gone completely insane with grief by now and that the family of the clerk are comforted. But I'm sure there's more to this than what the news media are reporting.
More times than not, that is usually the case.
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
NRA Life Member
I think the CHL will be held responsible for the clerk's death. To what extent, though, I have no idea. I also think that the two that were robbing the place will also be held responsible and maybe to a greater degree. Now, we'll just have to wait and see if I'm right or not.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016. NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
It will or should hinge on the question if the CHL was reckless.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.
Here is my simple opinion. The bad guy had a gun to the clerks head. The CHL tried to save the clerk (and maybe even themself) and failed. He killed the clerk that may have been killed anyway. Many robberies are going on right now in our state (especially of gas stations) where the bad guy comes in and shoots the clerk before the clerk can even open the drawer. It sucks. The clerk died. and it sucks. Would the CHL holder have shot the clerk if no bad guy had been there? I am pretty sure no one would think so.
The CHL holder may get charged with something, but I really doubt it. Felony murder is pretty straight forward. If you commit a felony and someone dies because of it you are responsible. end of story. Good luck charging the CHL holder and the bad guy for the same murder. They would have to be co-conspirators.
Even 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty will not think the CHL holder conspired with the bad guy to kill the clerk. Civil court may go bad and they may get sued, but I would bet money they are not criminally charged.
If the investigation determines the CHL was on aisle 10 and intentionally came upfront to engage, there could be trouble for the CHL. IF CHL was in direct line of fire involuntarily, there's a "better" defense.
This is a trzagic situation for everyone envolved. I don't know how I would react. However, several things do not sit well as this being a smash and grab. I can not get inside anyones head that was involved in this, but once the door was locked it would raise a major question as to the intentions of the roobers. I would guess they had no intentions of leaving any witness because they locked that door. I would fear for my life and the others in that store. I hope the grand jury will see this and charge who is truley responsible for this crime. There would have been no crime if the robbers never tried to rob the store.
bizarrenormality wrote:It will or should hinge on the question if the CHL was reckless.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.
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.
There is a reason I'm a programmer and not a poet. I can express in code so much easier than with English. 
