19-Year-Old, Gun, Macho Puffing Up, "Self-Defense," Dead Bystander

[fletcher]

MAY. COULD. Supposition. No evidence.

When we're discussing non-existent situations, the fact that the law allows for it is all that we can go from. The fact of the matter is, all of this points to negligence. You CAN be charged if you were negligent, and most likely will not be if you weren't. However, who determines whether or not one was negligent? There probably aren't any set critera, so it's luck of the draw as to whether or not you would get charged.

Again, you have a lone incident where a civilian was involved in an iffy SD shooting that resulted in the death of a bystander, and as I said before, instances where your typical law-abiding citizen in a legitimate SD shooting accidentally shoots a bystander happens with almost no frequency.

 

[Shadowangel]

When we're discussing non-existent situations, the fact that the law allows for it is all that we can go from.

Saying that you could be charged if you're being negligent is no different than what I originally said. You're still not proving me wrong, here. If I opened fire on somebody that was standing in a crowd, then that's negligence and I would expect charges. If I shot a home invader and the bullet went through him, through my door, and into a neighbor down the street, that's an ENTIRELY different situation, and one that does NOT warrant charges of negligence.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Shadowangel, you may be right. I'm finding very little either way but most of the writing supports your position.

I'm kind of surprised actually because every CHL class and every defensive shooting class I've ever attended has warned of the civil and criminal danger of the errant shot.

How many threads do we have here in THR discussing ammo that doesn't overpenetrate so you wont' hit the neighbors etc?

It appears that it doesn't matter. If you're shooting in self defense and you take out half the neighborhood you're good.

Kinda shocking to me but it's appearing to look that way from what I kind find.

A case that's cited as precedent most often is Plander v State, 27 Florida

If the killing of a party intended to be killed would have been excusable or justifiable homicide then the unintentional killing of a bystander by a random shot, fired in the exercise of self defense. is also excusable and justified.

 

[Shadowangel]

Shadowangel, you may be right. I'm finding very little either way but most of the writing supports your position.

It takes a big man to admit he may be wrong. Thank you, you have my respect.

I'm kind of surprised actually because every CHL class and every defensive shooting class I've ever attended has warned of the civil and criminal danger of the errant shot.

That's because they want you to be careful and mindful, and i'm all for that. You SHOULD have to worry about hitting bystanders when you shoot. But if one is accidentally hit, your life shouldn't be over because of it, just because you were defending your own life.

How many threads do we have here in THR discussing ammo that doesn't overpenetrate so you wont' hit the neighbors etc.

That's good. You SHOULD strive not to endanger your neighbors. And you know, it very well COULD be seen as negligent if you open fire on a home invader with a tripod mounted .50 cal and kill ten of your neighbors. I'm pretty sure you'd get charged, there. But again. Big, big difference in the situation.

 

[fletcher]

Saying that you could be charged if you're being negligent is no different than what I originally said.

Alright, then I admit I may have misread and been arguing largely over nothing. To go back on topic:

You're still not proving me wrong, here. If I opened fire on somebody that was standing in a crowd, then that's negligence and I would expect charges

Which is similar to this situation, and charges should still apply. The bystander was standing in a fireworks tent in a parking lot, which is typically an open-sided tent, and all occupants inside should be visible. It's pretty clear that people were directly in the background when the shooting happened, and as such, should be liable.

 

[TexasRifleman]

It takes a big man to admit he may be wrong. Thank you, you have my respect.

Well I appreciate that. This certainly was worth the argument, it's a very different outcome than I expected.

The more I read on it the more wrong it appears I was.

Found this. Hard to read but pretty good....

http://books.google.com/books?id=nyM8AAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA667&lpg=RA2-PA667&dq=killing+bystander+in+self+defense+shooting&source=web&ots=WezaEYVZ8u&sig=qaScgMo65S9LOZ7Ob5CAafx3wVc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PRA2-PA667,M1

 

[Gottahaveone]

Please tell me what punishment you would like if, despite acting in good faith, your bullets were to cause property damage or harm to a bystander.

Better idea....You tell me what was "good faith" about this? Complete and total disregard for others health, welfare, and safety is almost a religion with these punks. You made a rather dumba** statement earlier and all you're doing now is digging the hole deeper.......If that were your son laying there dead, would you have the same "Oh well, stuff happens" attitude?

 

[TexasRifleman]

If that were your son laying there dead, would you have the same "Oh well, stuff happens" attitude?

That's the thing, and clearly the mistake I made, is assuming that the moral belief and feelings around this would have anything to do with the legal.

Clearly they do not intersect.

 

[csmkersh]

Shadowangel, there is no protection under Texas law if you inadvertently injure or kill a third party.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.05.00


§ 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.

Now we must remember that neither Texas law or your state's law matters; what matters is Tennessee's law.
​

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

I'm kind of surprised actually because every CHL class and every defensive shooting class I've ever attended has warned of the civil and criminal danger of the errant shot.

How many threads do we have here in THR discussing ammo that doesn't overpenetrate so you wont' hit the neighbors etc?

It appears that it doesn't matter. If you're shooting in self defense and you take out half the neighborhood you're good.

Kinda shocking to me but it's appearing to look that way from what I kind find.

Well most humans are well human beings.
Most would feel bad about accidentally killing someone.
Most would not want even the risk of prosecution.
Most wouldn't want to risk all their assets in civil trial (which generally have lower burdens of proof).
Most would chose to arm themselves with equipment, skills, and tactics that minimizes risk to others.

It is still a good idea for a variety of reasons to minimize risk to 3rd parties.

However given that accidents can happen I think most people would agree it is a good thing that an accidental shooting isn't murder. Someone who accidentally shoots someone shouldn't be punished the same (25-life) as someone who intentionally takes someones life with malice of forethought.

Accident < Negligence < Intentional Homicide

 

[TexasRifleman]

Shadowangel, there is no protection under Texas law if you inadvertently injure or kill a third party.

That one is reckless, not inadvertent.

That's the one that got me going in the first place.

Check the link I posted above, it cites a couple of Texas cases where this clearly was not the outcome.

So the question of when is it reckless is next.

If I shoot a home intruder with a .50BMG and it goes through the 2 houses next to me, killing 12 people, was that reckless or justified, if the only firearm I owned was a .50BMG?
Sure an extreme example but I guess that's where this leads......my head hurts

 

[fletcher]

I would argue that this is reckless, as people were clearly the backstop for his target, and he chose to shoot instead of run, change positions, etc.

 

[Shadowangel]

Which is similar to this situation, and charges should still apply. The bystander was standing in a fireworks tent in a parking lot, which is typically an open-sided tent, and all occupants inside should be visible. It's pretty clear that people were directly in the background when the shooting happened, and as such, should be liable.

Definitely. My argument wasn't for the shooter in this case, ever. I think he was very much in the wrong. My argument was in the hypothetical "shooting a guy invading your house and hitting an innocent down the street" scenario. I think this guy was negligent for firing into the tent.

 

[NG VI]

What a horribly sad convoluted story.

 

[bogie]

Guys, while y'all have been splitting hairs all over this poor thing, you've forgotten something else.

It could have been prevented. Defused. Stopped. Without shooting.

 

[romeo212000]

I think this scenario stresses the importance for training and situational awareness. If I were in that same scenario I have trained myself that if possible to take a knee so I can shoot up and not straight into a crowd, or step sideways and away so as to put distance between myself and the attacker and not have the crowd as a back stop.

 

[NG VI]

Maybe someone looking at your friends girlfriends ass isn't such a big deal after all...


I hope some form of justice will be applied.

 

[bdickens]

[insert standard this-is-how-we-do-it-inTexas disclaimer here. The laws in your state may vary.]

TexasRifleman: you are absolutely 100% wrong.

PC s9.05. 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.

emphasis mine.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf

If you are justified in shooting and your round goes astray it's going to be up to twelve people to determine what is "reckless." If the case gets past the Grand Jury.

There is almost no case law on this in Texas. Is that because no one shoots at anyone else in self defense down here? I think not

ClVlL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE
CPRC CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
CPRC g 83.001. ClVlL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or
deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune
from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the
defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

emphasis mine.

No comment needed.

 

[TexasRifleman]

TexasRifleman: you are absolutely 100% wrong.

Well, yeah... thought we were past that part by now

There is almost no case law on this in Texas.

The link I posted earlier has a pretty interesting one.

And I think that it doesn't come up often simply because it's rare for a third party to be killed in this manner, but when it's come up it's pretty clear from everything I find that the self defense shooter is not responsible, which I was truly surprised to see.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Which is similar to this situation, and charges should still apply. The bystander was standing in a fireworks tent in a parking lot, which is typically an open-sided tent, and all occupants inside should be visible. It's pretty clear that people were directly in the background when the shooting happened, and as such, should be liable.

Not similar to this situation at all.
Jarvis was charged with felony murder because the bystander died as a result of a felony (attempting to murder the other gangbanger).

Negligence alone would NOT meet the criteria for murder. Maybe manslaughter. Maybe Negligent Homicide. Maybe nothing.

This case is felony murder. It doesn't matter how "careful" or "negligent" Jarvis was. It could have been a perfect shot w/ no bystanders behind the target. If a one in a million ricochet killed the bystander it is felony murder. If a LEO accidentally killed a bystander it is felony murder. Felony murder doesn't require a burden of "negligence", the DA won't even waste time of if/how Jarvis was negligent.

Only two facts matter:
1) Jarvis was committing another felony (shooting the other gangbanger)
2) A 3rd party died.

For the record the other guy (the one Jarvis was trying to kill) is also equally guilty of felony murder. It doesn't matter who pulled the trigger.

The morale of the story:
If you decide to commit a felony make sure nobody dies.

 

[fletcher]

Definitely. My argument wasn't for the shooter in this case, ever. I think he was very much in the wrong. My argument was in the hypothetical "shooting a guy invading your house and hitting an innocent down the street" scenario. I think this guy was negligent for firing into the tent.

Based on TN law, they're probably going with the idea that the shooting was not actually in self-defense, and I'm sure we're missing a lot of facts, so Jarvis may have been the first one to really escalate it (who knows)

39-13-202. First degree murder. —

(a) First degree murder is:

(1) A premeditated and intentional killing of another;

(2) A killing of another committed in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any first degree murder, act of terrorism, arson, rape, robbery, burglary, theft, kidnapping, aggravated child abuse, aggravated child neglect, rape of a child, aggravated rape of a child or aircraft piracy; or

 

[MJRW]

The part of all of this that I find most interesting is that there are some people here arguing the point that shooting a bystander as a result of trying to shoot a bad guy is a-ok. I'm not talking about the ones discussing if there is legal protection if you do so. I'm talking about the ones that are saying whether or not it is legal, it is fine to do. I'm not going to go into a great deal discussion about why this is a moral abomination. However, if any of my friends held this view, they would instantly cease to be my friends because they would be morally repugnant.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

"http://rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080819/NEWS04/808190384/0/HELP

heres why shooting when its not needed is moronic


and heres the murder beef
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/May/28/man-facing-murder-charges-found-hangeA man facing two counts of second-degree murder in the shooting deaths of a woman and her unborn child apparently hanged himself this morning in the Morgan County Jail.

Morgan County Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy William Angel said a correctional officer found Robert Stoll hanged in his cell at 7 a.m. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is assisting in the probe, Angel said.

Angel said Stoll had been arraigned Tuesday in Morgan County Criminal Court on indictments charging two counts of second-degree murder in the Feb. 11 shooting.

Angel declined to say how Stoll hanged himself. He said an autopsy will be performed. Stoll was in a cell by himself and would not have been visible to other inmates in the jail that has a capacity of 46, Angel said.

Angel said he was unsure when correctional officers had last seen Stoll alive. Stoll wasn’t on any kind of suicide watch, Angel said, because the inmate “didn’t give any kind of indication” he was contemplating suicide.

Angel said Stoll didn’t leave a note “that we know of so far, but we’re going through all his papers in his cell.”

Stoll was accused of killing Jessica Hatmaker, 25, and her fetus during the theft of a radiator at Stoll’s mobel home in the Bitter Creek community. Stoll allegedly fired a single round from a .30-.30 rifle at the car Hatmaker was driving as it fled.

Authorities said the round struck Hatmaker in the back and fragments also struck passenger Audie Ellis, 27, in the leg. Hatmaker was able to drive for a short while after the 10:50 a.m. incident, but collapsed and a passenger drove the car to a medical clinic, where Hatmaker died.

Passengers in the car included Hatmaker’s 14-month-old son; Dennis Gunter, 26, who was Hatmaker’s boyfriend and the father of her children; and Ellis. All the car occupants are from Scott County.

More details as they develop online and in Thursday’s
d-morgan-coun/

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

If I shoot a home intruder with a .50BMG and it goes through the 2 houses next to me, killing 12 people, was that reckless or justified, if the only firearm I owned was a .50BMG?

Most judges would say that is a matter for the jury. Motion to dismiss likely would be denied. If jury finds it was a reckless risk then they could find you guilty.

DA likely wouldn't offer murder as charge. Manslaughter maybe, negligent homicide maybe, really depends on the exact statute which varies from state to state.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'm not going to go into a great deal discussion about why this is a moral abomination. However, if any of my friends held this view, they would instantly cease to be my friends because they would be morally repugnant.

Well here in the last half hour I've found quite a piece on that.

Google a document by a University of Manchester PhD named Quong.
ISSN 1749-9747
Killing in Self Defense

Interesting stuff from the morality side of this.