Robbery suspect shot in self defense

[JoeinLA]

Eh, i was thinking, "hrm... I'm innocent and get shot. Thats BS" but this is an extremely valid point. As long as Jose (assuming he fired the shot) acted "reasonably" (taking into account the fact that its life/death gun fight), i seeing that your perspective is much better for the unlucky bystander and for all of us. See, these forums and posts DO help us learn!

Thanks for posting.

Perhaps I can only say this 'cause I don't have a GSW, but I'd like to think that if I was the bystander, once I got patched up, I'd be dropping by to shake Jose's hand. He may have saved me from an untimely demise. Having medical insurance, that would cover the patches and physical therapy. Why sue Jose? He didn't act with malice against me. I'd rather live in a world where armed robbers get capped, rather than the average hard-working liquor store employee. That's just me, again, without the GSW.

I hope many of us would act that way. Yes, it sucks that an innocent person got shot. But would you rather not be shot but have the store owner dead? That's like the sig lines I see about gun control being the notion that a woman laying dead in an alley, strangled with her own pantyhose and raped is morally superior than her attacker laying there dead because she shot him. Seriously? I also hope none of us would go the civil suit route, realizing it could be bad for gun rights in general.

That said, I realize we don't have all the facts. If the bystander was standing right next to, or right behind the robber, that may change things. The distance and the robber's exact behavior change things too. I don't think we're really in a position to judge without having all the facts.

[jason el magnifico]

I didn't make it through all the posts so I don't know if someone already offered this angle for consideration, but I've had similar thoughts during many similar home/self defense threads and have never bother posting it so here goes.

The cavalier nature some of you display towards "collateral damage" disturbs me, and here's why (all of this presumes a situation where Innocent Bystander is shot by Good Guy defending himself):

It seems to me that most here are considering the situation from the position of the armed party defending himself against the Bad Guy. Consider it from the perspective of the "innocent bystander" and then see if you feel the same way about it.

Suppose you get paralyzed by some Good Guy/Girl trying to defend himself/herself in the Moment of Truth. Suppose you take a round sideways through the face and are disgured for the rest of your life (after the agony of the injury and healing are finished, of course) or lose an eye, most of your stomach, colon, liver, etc. For you parents: uppose you get killed and your kids left without a parent because someone shot you during a legitimate self defense event. Suppose your child gets shot in front of you....

Yes it is different than being shot by someone intentionally trying to harm you, but how much difference does that really make? You're still in a wheelchair FOREVER. Your kids don't have their dad/mom anymore FOREVER. You look disfigured and people in public grimace and look away (except little kids of course who stare and say the things everyone is thinking) every day FOREVER.

Anyone negligently shooting me in the course of defending themselves better get prepared to have their life sued away (and I'm a person who loathes the hyper-litigious state of our society today). Sure, the bad guy initiated the event and is ultimately morally responsible but if Your muzzle was pointed at Me while Your FINGER PULLED THE TRIGGER then it was Your Fault that I got shot.

Innocent Bystanders are not just abstract financial liabilities. "My LTC instructor said that every bullet that comes out of my gun will cost me $50,000". I think a lot of you need to start working into your self-defense daydreams real consideration of the fact that at the moment the bad guy drops, if there's anyone else around with bullets from your weapon in them, then you seriously effed up.

Many of you seem to think the lives of others are not worth as much as your own; I suppose I feel the same way but in the converse. If you can't defend yourself without putting a round through me (in public, through your house/apartment wall and into mine, etc.), then YES I damn well expect you to not shoot. The moment you shoot me, then in my mind you're not enough different than the bad guy you were trying to stop.

[JoeinLA]

I didn't make it through all the posts so I don't know if someone already offered this angle for consideration, but I've had similar thoughts during many similar home/self defense threads and have never bother posting it so here goes.

This was discussed. I had the same thought as you. But read the thread. There are some very good points supporting the "defender".

No one is supporting anyone who doesnt act "reasonably". But accidents do happen, and one of the fallacies of our society is that money is the way to address the inhererent "unfairness" of life. If this happened to me, i'd want to know that the guy acted reasonably, and i hope that i'd be willing to leave it at that. Totally appreciate that things change when its your ***, so not really sure either way. But valid points were made for both sides.

[stacym]

Jason,

Your post did make me think. I thought about it a lot this afternoon, and have to say my reaction may vary depending on the circumstances. I agree with you I would probably be more upset if I was a bystander and my injuries were severe. However, as another poster suggested, how would you feel if the bad guy killed the store owner, then as he left the store, killed the bystander because the bystander could now identify him as the killer? None of us know what the good guy saw when he pulled his weapon, so it is very difficult for us to judge given the lack of info. Depending on the circumstances, he could be negligent, but he may not be. I do believe he has the right to defend himself.

Anyone negligently shooting me in the course of defending themselves better get prepared to have their life sued away (and I'm a person who loathes the hyper-litigious state of our society today).

I think you just contradicted yourself, and I am not sure what you feel you would gain by "suing their life away". How would taking their money and ruining their life (financially ruining their whole family) out of revenge possibly help or benefit anything? Is money going to take away your pain, suffering, or disfigurement? Should your medical bills be covered? Absolutely. Does financially ruining another human being, who made a mistake while defending himself, really benefit anyone?

I'm glad these articles get posted and discussed, as it's important for all of us to think about what can happen in a self-defense situation, the consequences of our actions, what we can and cannot accept, and how we will train and proceed accordingly.

[billybob_jcv]

I do not see this as a simple yes or no. It absolutely depends on the situation. If the bad guy was fleeing down the street, and the store owner came running out of the store firing wildly in the bad guys general direction, and one of those shots hit a bystander - then IMHO that's not responsible defense, and I think there's some negligence issues that need to be discussed. On the other hand, if the bad guy was still in the store, and the store owner took careful aim and hit his target - but the round went thru the target, ricocheted off a steel pole and struck a bystander - then IMHO that's an unfortunate accident, but it's not negligence. In between those 2 extremes is a huge chasm of gray area that most likely contains the truth.

[Ergo the Qualmed]

Anyone negligently shooting me in the course of defending themselves better get prepared to have their life sued away (and I'm a person who loathes the hyper-litigious state of our society today).

And yet, if the person about to engage in the defensive shooting is killed or injured because they held their fire, they cannot sue *your* life away, correct? If you were the impediment to their sound defense, I mean.

Not advocating anything, save for devilishly advocating things.

[lordres]

Sadly, the store owner lost $2300 when he was first robbed. He may have lost another $2300 if he was robbed that day, but now he'll lose everything. The family of the scumbag robber, and the bystander will take everything.

[stacym]

Sadly, the store owner lost $2300 when he was first robbed. He may have lost another $2300 if he was robbed that day, but now he'll lose everything. The family of the scumbag robber, and the bystander will take everything.

Seems a bit unfair, eh? I don't advocate that we just all roll over and play dead just to avoid collateral damage and lawsuits, but it seems like you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[HowardW56]

Sadly, the store owner lost $2300 when he was first robbed. He may have lost another $2300 if he was robbed that day, but now he'll lose everything. The family of the scumbag robber, and the bystander will take everything.

I wouldn't think that would be the case...


Business owners have insurance

[okglockman]

If someone is committing a crime like an armed robbery he who is the criminal is liable for the damages. Just recently in my home town in MI 2 robbery suspects were charged with murder after the store owner shot and killed the 3rd robber.

That is the way it should always be.

I'd of gotten all 3 of them... =)