[Drizzt]

Boy, 15, sues over gun-store shooting
By Claire Booth
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

A teenager shot while passing by an El Cerrito gun shop during a robbery has sued the store owner he says put him in the hospital.

The 15-year-old Richmond resident was walking home from school along Carlson Boulevard on March 26 when he was shot in the arm.

The shots came from the Old West Gun Room, a business on the south side of the street. The owner and a customer opened fire at several men brandishing a shotgun.

They hit one of the alleged robbers, as well as Ryan Reynolds, who had the bad timing to be walking along the north side of the boulevard.

"We think the store owner and the customer just started shooting up the neighborhood, just like it's the Old West, and it's not," said the boy's attorney, Steven Plas.

Plas said his client had to have surgery, and it's too early to say if he will recover fully.

Gun Room owner Robert Weaver said he was not surprised by the lawsuit, but declined to comment further.

The suit, filed last month in Contra Costa Superior Court, alleges that everyone involved in the shootout had a conscious disregard for the teenager's safety. It seeks unspecified damages.

The suit also is against the store's customer and the robbers, although none of them is specifically named.

The only suspect now charged in connection with the attempted heist is 18-year-old Tomar Anthony Martin, who was wounded in the ankle. He is charged with attempted second-degree robbery, assault with a firearm and second-degree burglary.

Another suspect named by police, 18-year-old Keith Asbury, had escaped from a Santa Cruz County prison camp a month before the Old West Gun Room robbery attempt.

Deputy district attorney Gary Koeppel said charges have not been filed against Asbury and the case has been returned to police for further investigation.

Police say that the incident began about 3 p.m., when a man rang the Old West Gun Room's bell and was buzzed into the shop.

After a few minutes of small talk, Weaver became uneasy and asked the man to leave, according to police.

The suspect opened the door, but instead of leaving, let in two other men, one of whom had a shotgun.

Police say Weaver and the customer both drew handguns and fired.

Reynolds, who was walking outside, was hit. He stumbled into a nearby shoe store before collapsing.

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/6238814.htm

[Justin]

The four rules apply, even during a gun fight.

[braindead0]

who was wounded in the ankle

???? Sounds like some pretty bad shooting there....or maybe the guy was doing a chorus line.... and his ankle got in the way..

[TekChef]

SO let me get this straight..

A man who owns a legal, regulated store is attacked by armed thugs, and He is to blame for the kid getting shot?

MORONS

[gunsmith]

they start shooting as soon as the gun clears the holster.
a cop told me he shoots that way, explaining that the gun is
facing down and shooting "raises" the gun to chest level.
I must admit to never hearing that before.

Anyway I think the stores insurance should cover the medical bills.
I don't understand how this could happen though,CA has laws against holding up stores don't they? :rolleyes:

IIRC there is some law in CA that says you can't sue in cases like this.
the ankle shot,could that be a ricochet?

[Justin]

A man who owns a legal, regulated store is attacked by armed thugs, and He is to blame for the kid getting shot? If the bullet that hit the kid came out of his gun then yes, he is to blame for the kid getting shot. You are responsible for every single round that you send down range, whether it's plinking on a farm or defending yourself from an attacker.

[QuarterBoreGunner]

It’s a sad fact of this litigious society that we live in that if you have to use your firearm to defend your self or your loved ones, you’re going to get sued. Someone somewhere will decide that you are negligent and try to soak you.

Not having been there I can’t comment on the details of the shooting, but yeah if the storeowner or the customer shot the kid, then yes they’re responsible. Again I don’t know the extent of the boy’s injuries but it doesn’t sound like he’s permanently disabled. So maybe they settle out of court for coverage of medical expenses, that seems fair, but that probably won’t happen- incidents like this seem like chum in the water for civil liability lawyers.

[Boats]

While I disagree with what the kid's attorney had to say because it is inflammatory and stupid, were I accidently shot by someone demonstrating such remarkable skill in self-defense, I'd file a lawsuit too.

You expect the kid to just hang out in the hospital and say, "Aw shucks, just pay for my medical bills"?!? He wasn't a participant.

What if he has nerve damage and a lifetime of pain? What if his arm is entirely useless now? If he was scratched, he'll settle because a jury won't give him millions for it.

This incident, no matter how it turns out, should be an object lesson in why "spray and pray" is a bad tactic. As a civilian shooter, you are liable for every bullet you fire, and especially for ones that strike innocent bystanders. You don't have to be "negligent," because you are strictly liable when using deadly force and missing.

Doesn't look as if there was much COM shooting going on in this one. Time to take a class.

[rock jock]

Yup. You are responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun, both civilly and criminally. This was strongly emphasized during my CHL course. Same way for LEOs. BTW, this is a good argument for requiring that, at a minimum, CCW permit holders acknowledge their understanding of liability issues before receiving their permits.

[Ed Brunner]

Three guys are trying to kill you and you will not fire your gun to save your life because the bullet might pass through the bad guys and injure someone else?
And you chose death rather than to violate a rule?

The bad guys, while commiting a crime, put the shopkeeper in a position where he had to defend himself.
They are responsible, not the shopkeeper.
Now if you asked the bad guys, they would agree with you.

Why do you carry a gun?

[Standing Wolf]

The criminals are wholly responsible for the lad's injuries. That's probably not the way the so-called "law" works in the People's Republic of California, but that's the way it ought to work.

[Boats]

You guys have been brainwashed

Three guys are trying to kill you and you will not fire your gun to save your life because the bullet might pass through the bad guys and injure someone else?
And you chose death rather than to violate a rule?

The bad guys, while commiting a crime, put the shopkeeper in a position where he had to defend himself.
They are responsible, not the shopkeeper.
Now if you asked the bad guys, they would agree with you.

Why do you carry a gun?

Piecing together the facts as best I can from the internet, six or more shots were fired at three guys who had one shotgun among them. It is immaterial whether the passerby was struck by a missed round or by overpentration (the latter of which was apparently not the case here), the kid has been struck and damaged through no fault of his own. I would not hesitate to fire in this situation, and hopefully would have a bit more coolness under fire, (especially as it appears the BG shotgun never made it into action), but being the stand-up guy that I am, I would not complain about how unfair collateral damage is either. One has to deal with the aftermath as it presents itself, not as one wishes it to be. Not even the shop owner is surprised by the lawsuit, and he shouldn't be.

I carry a gun precisely because I know that it is a last resort, as it was for the good guys in this incident. Nothing mitigates the fact that they missed and the kid caught a bullet marked "to whom it may concern." The right to employ firearms does come with the inseperable responsibility to others to not harm them if they are not the target. As liability for shots fired is well-nigh the universal law of the land here in the States, as a concelaed carrier, I know that I am ultimately responsible for the bullets I fire. It matters not at whom or what I was firing. No one is going to pat me on the head and say, "Nice try, here's a cookie. Too bad about that high schooler in the ER."

The BGs are responsible to a point. The owner and the customer had unenviable choices to make. Either comply with the robbery or attempt to end it. They chose the latter. Hopefully they are of sufficient character to accept that some of their shots missed and hit someone who should not have to bear the brunt of having been their unfortunate backstop.

If that is brainwashing, so be it. Most people call it rational thought. Try it sometime. :D

[Ed Brunner]

???
What on earth do you mean?

[Pilgrim]

The criminals are wholly responsible for the lad's injuries. That's probably not the way the so-called "law" works in the People's Republic of California, but that's the way it ought to work.

Even in the PDRK, the criminals are responsible criminally and civilly for the lad's injuries. If the lad was killed, the criminals would be responsible. However, when it gets turned over to Johnnie Cochran to file the lawsuit, which defendants have the most ability to pay? The two bandits sitting in jail waiting for the trial that will send them to prison for a life sentence? Or the store owner whose misfortune and bad luck sent a bullet the lad's way?

Pilgrim

[Ed Brunner]

You have just explained the major flaw in our justice system. Lawyers

[jimpeel]

While not the prescribed tennets of the law, the subscribed tenets of the law are that this guy was supposed to throw up his hands and let himself and his customer be shot and robbed of deadly weapons. He would then, after the stolen weapons were used to kill innocent victims, be sued by the grieving survivors of the victims because he allowed the weapons to be stolen from him.

DIYD, DIYD (Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't)

[rock jock]

Boats is right on target. Defending yourself or others does not immunize you from liabilities for your actions. And this is not isolated to just firearms either. If I attempt to save the life a man suffering from a coronary by doing amateur open-heart surgery and I kill the guy, it doesn't matter how well-intentioned I was, I am still liable. And, if the guy's heart attack was caused by stress from a robbery, I am still responsible. A jury will find that I acted with reckless disregard, that I wasn't qualified to perform surgery. So, if there is a lesson to be learned here, it is to be well trained with your firearm.

[El Tejon]

But, but, rock, I possess the firearm. Why should I now need training?:rolleyes:

Anywho this Problem #2 stuff is just made up by that awful El Tejon who tells people that there will be problems if you use a firearm against another human being, even in Tejas. Problems that you do not foresee. However, I know he's lying because all the guys in the gun shoppe have never mentioned this.:D

[Sactown]

I know that store. Did a private party transfer there. Owner seemed pretty cool. Sorry to hear he's getting sued. I bet the lawyer drove by saw the commotion and brainwashed that kid on the stretcher into suing to make a quick buck.

[Boats]

By way of analogy, try this:

You have a nice 20 foot motorboat you are piloting outside of an unfamiliar harbor when a criminally reckless captain of another vessel strikes your vessel with his, punching a hole in your side and then runs off. Despite your friends' furious pumping, you realize that you are going to eventually sink in 58 degree water and had better make a run for a dock. Any port in a storm right? You eventually pull alongside a suitable dock in an attempt to tie up and get to safety but the stress of the situation makes you less than perfect. As you attempt to dock, your control is not precise and you strike and collapse the last third of the dock into the harbor, injuring a fisherman at its end as he is hit by falling debris when immersed. Your attempt to tie up is ultimately successful and you live to sail another day.

Do you have to pay for damages to the dock? To the fisherman?

I bet you would. Especially if you find the criminal captain and find out he is judgement-proof as he has no money and it turns out he was on a stolen boat. The criminal is responsible for putting you in a bad spot, but the course of action you chose in response is also your responsibility. Good captains know that they are not exempt from damages to others in an emergency situation, even ones not of their own making.

The owner of the dock, while sympathetic to your plight, is in no way going to have to bear the burden of the cost of your emergency action. Neither is the fisherman. You could have elected to beach your craft, which while more dangerous, was an alternate course available to you. One must live with their decisions and yes it is damned if you do, damned if you don't. However, true innocents never have to pay for damages caused by the actions of others, no matter how well intentioned or subjectively necessary.

[Preacherman]

Boats is right on this one. Courts all across the nation have found repeatedly that anyone who fires a bullet is ultimately responsible for the damage that bullet may cause. You may be perfectly justified in shooting in a self-defence situation, but if your bullet over-penetrates and hits an innocent person across the street, or in the house next door, you remain legally liable for that injury. This is one very good reason to have additional liability insurance - it covers you against precisely this risk.

[Wildalaska]

You have just explained the major flaw in our justice system. Lawyers

Yep the same lawyers that will be defending the gun shop, the same lawyers that will be in front of SCOTUS defending your RTKBA and tha same lawyer who may keep you out of jail in a similar scenario..

Naw since lawyers are the problem, I sugggest if you ever need one, decline and do it yourself. See ya on the rock.

Bottom feeding layers cannot exist without greedy bottom feeding clients who only see $$...

WildandtheyhavenofinacialriskAlaska

[Ed Brunner]

If I had meant ALL lawyers, I would have said ALL lawyers.
True there is abuse at all levels of just about anything. The legal system was not meant to be a white collar industry. I agree that when someone injures another deliberately or negligently he is obligated to make it right. In the incident being discussed, it apparently remains to be seen if the shooter(s) meet that definition.
I agree with Preacherman that insurance is a practical option, but the coverage should be high enough to cover the recent trends in liability lawsuits. It is wise to cover your butt as much as possible, even if you disagree with the factors that make it necessary.
I really am surprised to infer that apparently there are people who would die rather than endanger someone else.
LTC Anthony Herbert, a Vietnam era Battalion CO said he had no problem with troops who were pacifists. He took them where the fighting was and let them make up their own minds.
I hope you all will give it a rational thought.

[Chris Rhines]

If you pull the trigger, you and you alone are responsible, morally, ethically, legally, and financaly, for the final resting place of every projectile you let loose.

If you are uncomfortable with this, don't own a gun.

- Chris

[MacPelto]

I really am surprised to infer that apparently there are people who would die rather than endanger someone else.

Maybe I missed it on first reading, but I don't think that anybody implied this; all that I saw was people saying that even if you're righteous, if a stray tags a bystander, be prepared for the consequences.

[jimpeel]

If you pull the trigger, you and you alone are responsible, morally, ethically, legally, and financaly, for the final resting place of every projectile you let loose.Then why does this same principle not apply to law enforcement at any level?

[Tamara]

Interesting that any surviving perps would be criminally responsible if the kid was killed (felony murder), but the eeevil white capitalist guy with the deep pocke... er, "the gun store owner" is being held civilly liable.

Not a value statement, just a social note.

[Wildalaska]

Then why does this same principle not apply to law enforcement at any level?

It doesnt???Except for the financial part (master/servant) explain to me how....

WildenlightenmeAlaska

[Tamara]

Except for the financial part (master/servant) explain to me how....

Well, usually when they gun someone down by mistake, it's an "error made in good faith."

Sometimes they can be suspended for the duration of the investigation, however.

[Boats]

There have been plenty of lawsuits for wrongful death against police forces stemming from officer actions during shootings and pursuits. Some have even been held criminally liable. Officers tend to be indemnified by their employers for actions misperformed in the line of duty and so do not suffer personal financial misfortune.

The survivors of Amadou Diallo, Vicki Weaver, and a whole host of largely forgotten others, have all gotten quite relatively wealthy from the mistakes of officers misapplying deadly force, but they'd probably trade it all for their loved ones to have not died under color of authority. Two weekends ago in my SWAT/Paramilitarization post, I cited one family that was paid nine million dollars following a mistaken shoot and coverup in Dinuba, California. Don't kid yourself that officer/force accountability doesn't happen for the misapplication of deadly force. They're not exempt.

[Tamara]

From a legal standpoint, yes, you are indeed correct.

I am not, however, going to backtrack through the archives to see how many in the TFL/THR Court Of Public Opinion are calling the gun shop owner an untrained goober when they called some SWAT guy "unfortunate" for doing basically the same thing. ;)

[F4GIB]

Courts all across the nation have found repeatedly that anyone who fires a bullet is ultimately responsible for the damage that bullet may cause. You may be perfectly justified in shooting in a self-defence situation, but if your bullet over-penetrates and hits an innocent person across the street, or in the house next door, you remain legally liable for that injury.

Citations please.

If this is true, things have changed since I graduated from law school. I learned that if you were justified in shooting (elements of self-defense exist) and not negligent in doing so (such as shooting blindly through a door) , you had no criminal or civil liability.

[Boats]

You don't have much in the way of civil or criminal liability to the bad guy. We are talking about completely innocent third parties here.

[Tamara]

I pray that if I'm ever winged by a stray from a good guy, it's from a gun shop owner: "No, no, just take care of the medical bills and... well... I'm pretty sure we can work something out for the rest." ;) :D

[buzz_knox]

You don't have much in the way of civil or criminal liability to the bad guy. We are talking about completely innocent third parties here.

What you are ignoring is the fact that legally, the shooter can be innocent even as concerns the third party. If a person acts reasonably under the circumstances, then that person cannot properly be considered to have negligently breached the standard of care owed to other persons. In that circumstance, the person is not liable as they aren't negligent.

In this case, the legal cause of the bystanders injuries was the criminal action of the perps. They instigated the situation, and the owner acted as a reasonable person would under those circumstances. Everything flowed from their acts, and but for their actions, the boy would not have been harmed.

[El Tejon]

buzz, good point that I should have raised earlier. There is a distinction between negligence and accident. A jury (or judge or summary judgment) COULD determine that there was no breach of duty as to the 15 year old for a variety of reasons.