Breaking News: Over 20 shot at Colorado movie theater

[Mexican_Hippie]

Question:

Say somebody did shoot back & kill him, but in doing so also killed an innocent....what happens then?

A "thank you" from the survivors? Oh yeah, and you'd be bankrupted from the lawsuits as well. But...and this is of at least minimal importance...you'd be alive.

 

[Tejano Scott]

Been wondering the same....IIRC, *Texas* law says that any injury/damage/death that occurs in the commission of a crime is "owned" by the perp - #1, we're talking about a different state, and #2, not sure just how it would be handled in Texas, but would hope it would "fall" onto the criminal.

I wanna say there is a "reckless" element to it. I remember this being brought up from that dollar store shooting thread. If the CHL holder's use of force is reckless in wounding the 3rd party, then its on them. If they were not reckless in killing the 3rd party, then I think standard felony murder rule should apply. Again, please do not quote me on this, I am just going from (foggy)memory of discussion from the other thread.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Actually, I think it's a timely and appropriate question. NEVER want something like that to happen, but this is a *learning moment* for all of us, IMO. I'd hate to "hold fire" out of fear of prosecution, only to find out later that I'd have been cleared, and as a result of my hold fire, others died that might have otherwise lived.

 

[Tejano Scott]

I'll look it up. The law got quoted in that thread.

 

[Tejano Scott]

Here is the thread and TXI's post in it... See TXI, I really do listen to you(and learn).

http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/news-articles/34138-shoot-out-family-dollar.html

Chapter 9 of the penal code tells us that even if you are justified in using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so you "recklessly" kill or injure an innocent third person the justifications in chapter 9 are not available for the reckless killing or injury of that innocent third peron.

The penal code defines reckless in chapter 6.

Several thoughts come to mind here;

1) tactically, taking on multiple armed offenders by yourself is difficult even for WELL trained pesons.

2) Know your skill level. I see about 60 CHL students a month. Very few shoot well enough even under ideal conditions..... As a matter of fact, your pattern under ideal conditions will deterioriate under stress conditions. You will shoot WORSE when under stress.

3) the above said, I will not stand there and be assaulted if the bad guys start shooting or it realistically appears that is imminent.


Bad situation to be in.

 

[Tejano Scott]

TR, your point about what state you are in is still very salient. What's considered "reckless" in Colorado, might not be "reckless" in the eyes of a Texas DA/Jury.

 

[#1gunner]

I have a feeling if it went to court prosecution would state something to the effect that "Isnt it wreckless if your bullet hits someone and kills or injures them". I hate to think that way but I have lost a lot of good will faith in much of the courts these days. All ways of it would be very unfortunate because ultimatley you are trying to do what is best in the situation you have been placed in.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Well....I've taken the liberty of going a step further - the following has been sent both to Senator Wentworth and Dr. Donna Campbell to get their take/input on it.....

**********
I have a question that is being asked in all sincerity, and NOT out of "morbid curiosity" or a sense of "Rambo".....
Looking at the scenario that unfolded in Colorado - or even the infamous Luby's tragedy in Waco, if a CHL holder (or even a citizen who happened to be legally carrying a firearm in his/her vehicle) is faced with a situation in which an active shooter is attacking citizens, and decides to act, if a bystander is hit by one of the citizen's rounds - what happens? Are they going to be facing criminal charges themselves, or will the person doing the shooting be considered "liable" for the consequences?
I know this is a potential "hot potato", but it's one that comes to mind in the wake of this most recent incident. I am a CHL holder, and honestly, I would be hard-pressed to hold fire against an active shooter - but the potential consequences could be life-altering for such action.
If the law currently would place a citizen attempting to stop such an action in jeopardy, are you willing to put legislation in place to protect such actions, similar to our "good samaritan" laws?
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration!
*******

Will let ya'll know what (if any) response I get...

 

[#1gunner]

Thank you for the due diligence

Edit: I just googled that word to confirm spelling and then looked up definition so I hope I used it appropriately.

Edit x2. Had to google appropriatley to confirm spelling after this. What is wrong with me today.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Just a random thought. This might be one of those types of situations where carrying a full size with one of the red dot sights milled into the slide would significantly increase your chance of success. I already appendix carry a G22 - adding that sight would not take up much more room. The red dot would make sighting much easier if your eyes were having trouble and the room had a haze in it. Could make the difference.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Thanks TR!

 

[Tejano Scott]

Just a random thought. This might be one of those types of situations where carrying a full size with one of the red dot sights milled into the slide would significantly increase your chance of success. I already appendix carry a G22 - adding that sight would not take up much more room. The red dot would make sighting much easier if your eyes were having trouble and the room had a haze in it. Could make the difference.

That's what the Suarez training people like(and sell). I look forward to hearing Gabe's opinion on this one since he felt the BBQ guy should have used his handgun to fire 100 yards on the Carson City guy who shot up the IHOP or Dennys with an AK. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable making a shot greater than 10 yards in a situation like this(crowded theater, people running everywhere, smoke/tear gas, against a person who has obvious body armor).

 

[tango5seven]

My first thought, like many of you, was too bad he didn't try that shit in Texas. Then I hear Colorado has similar laws.

Next I felt that I would have to have tried to stop the shooter....whether I could have or not who knows, but would have to try.

As I continued playing it out on the sand table in my mind, it occurs to me what if there had been more than one chl feeling the same as me? We train to shoot till the threat is no more (goes down or leaves the area). I am now dealing with multiple shooters and no way of knowing if it is two bad guys or a bad guy and another good guy helping me. I think i would probably try to return fire to both sources. I expect the other chl to do the same.

Add some more chls to the mix and very soon you are going to have "shootout at the OK corral" with lots of innocents in the crossfire.

What if it is a chick flick and I am asleep for the first shots and only see the good guy firing back? Chances are I start engaging the good guy first.

No good answers, just more food for thought....I stil think I would try to engage what I percieve to be the bad guy and hope the situation clarifies enough to not spiral out of control.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk when i should have been doing something useful

 

[Tejano Scott]

Serious question. If the shooter was scouting the venue out ahead of time and saw a few folks Open Carrying, do you think that would have changed his mind(in terms of venue)?

 

[tango5seven]

No way to answer without knowing shooters state of mind. I would have but I wouldn't have been scouting for that purpose.

I find it curious that the "authorities" aren't talking the "why". Usually by now they are telling us about the manifesto they found. Or the suicide note. Or the ramblings on the internet boards. Or.....

I am glad I have never rambled on an internet board.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk when i should have been doing something useful

 

[Tejano Scott]

I find it curious that the "authorities" aren't talking the "why".

Because the "why" seems pretty obvious. He wants attention, and that's what he's got.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Because the "why" seems pretty obvious. He wants attention, and that's what he's got.

And he's getting to revel in it right now.....shame he did not have an "accident" on the way to the station & save us millions of dollars!

 

[kusai]

and the pos is getting top notch
defense attorney too. what the **** is wrong with this system ?
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Rum Runner]

1) Tragic situation.
2) Nut jobs who want to kill people will kill people. Take away firearms and they will either illegally obtain them or resort to pipe bombs, etc.
3) Movie theater had a "No Firearms" sign although I think it could legally be ignored by a permit holder.
4) Even if concealed carry was legal, the midnight opening release is probably a bad demographic to find a lot of permit holders.

 

[Vaquero]

Top notch defence for undefendable. Less chance of successful appeal. I'm good with it.

on the phone