Shootout at the Fiesta Grocery - Innocent Bystander Killed in Crossfire

This is a discussion on Shootout at the Fiesta Grocery - Innocent Bystander Killed in Crossfire within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Digitalexplr, In Texas they have a "law of parties" that is similar. But you might want to double check yours. Yes the BG is criminally ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 28 of 28

Thread: Shootout at the Fiesta Grocery - Innocent Bystander Killed in Crossfire

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    Digitalexplr,
    In Texas they have a "law of parties" that is similar. But you might want to double check yours. Yes the BG is criminally responsible and will be charged with murder. That does not release the good guy from civil liability. If it is only of the bad guys that gets hit and it's a lawful shoot by the GG then the GG has no problems. The GG is still civilly liable for every round that goes out of their weapon. If you miss the BG and kill a bystander (at least in Texas) the BG gets the felony murder charge. You and the BG (assuming he is still alive) will then be the defendants in a wrongful death suit brought by the dead bystanders family.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Member Array pappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    148
    If I was a security guard at my place of employment, It would be a hard choice to draw or not. With hundreds of people around, I would be too afraid of hitting anyone else. If I had a real clear shot it wouldn't be so difficult, but in my case, there are people everywhere. Sadly if he shot someone, in this situation, I don't know if I would be able to return fire I sure would want to, but not with the risk of me hitting an innocent person. Again its all hypothetical, by the time he starts shooting, maybe everyone left the area and I do have a clear line of sight. Hard to know the right thing to do unless your in the shoes.

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Grady,

    I LOVE your avatar!!!!1

    That is all.

    Regards and Happy Holidays!,

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array grady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Near St. Louis, Missouri
    Posts
    2,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Janq View Post
    Grady,

    I LOVE your avatar!!!!1

    That is all.

    Regards and Happy Holidays!,

    - Janq
    Thanks!

    I always liked Grady, and it was a high school nickname.

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by bandit383 View Post
    Hummm...multiple thread creap...I wonder what would of been the liability for a CCW customer if in fact an innocent bystander was killed? Tuff call...

    Rick

    If you are in fear for your life because of an assailant, and your actions are subjectively and objectively reasonable, but because of stress, movement, fear or any other factor cause someone to be hit other than the assailant, it gets attributed to the assailent under the felony murder rule.

    If you start a violent crime in motion or are a participant, you are responsible for the outcome no matter who does what.

    Criminals have been charged with felony murder for the death of their partners at the hands of the police or guards.

    People miss under stress. Police hit rates are around 30%. In a gun fight things happen.

    If you didn't cause the fight, you should be alright.

    I see a court ruling that the defender, who was forced into the situation and was responding to save his own life is not responsible for the injuries caused to other people because the situation is not of his own making IF it could be shown that the defender's behavior was justified per the rules of deadly force in that area.

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    MitchellCT,
    I think we are talking about a fine line here. The guard at the store was forced into the situation by the BG shooting at him. He is clear as far as liability goes in so far as his only option was to play bullet catcher and die.

    I think what Bandit383 was refering to was a situation where a customer decided to insert him or herself into the situation. Joe CCW walking up to the register and sees BG has a gun on the cashier. No shots fired until Joe draws his weapon. They exchange fire and Joe takes out the bag boy.

    BG gets the felony murder (assuming he survives) but, what is Joes liability for inserting himself into the situation and it spiralling out of control? Some states have what is called "contributory negligence" that would allow a jury to award damages to the bag boy's family and decide how it will be split between Joe and the BG. If the jury awards a million and decides the bad guy was 99% at fault, that still leaves Joe CCW shelling out $10k plus paying his lawyer.
    Texas law on this:
    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.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
    Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
    1994.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,127
    I for one could care less what the security officer's uniform looked like. The issue may be important to the LEOs, so they don't get mistaken for each other for purposes of filing a complaint, or expectation of job duties related to citizen interaction, but when the bullets start flying it's a gun fight regardless of the wardrobe. What's important here is that he was in a uniform. Suppose it was a firefighter? Utility worker? Is the author of the article saying that if the security officer was in a pink polkadot uniform, he wouldn't have been shot? Is he saying that security was shot because the BG was intending to shoot an LEO? No, the BG made a snap decision to shoot a uniformed man who was (theoretically) an impediment to the robbery. Did the SO wander aimlessly into the situation? I think not. We may question his tactics, but he was obviously responding to the robbery. We don't know if he said anything, had his weapon drawn, or if the layout of the store precluded any other type of approach.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    MitchellCT,
    I think we are talking about a fine line here. The guard at the store was forced into the situation by the BG shooting at him. He is clear as far as liability goes in so far as his only option was to play bullet catcher and die.


    Texas law on this:
    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.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
    Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
    1994.

    I wonder how they determine reckless...didn't see a definition in the statute.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    ... but, what is Joes liability for inserting himself into the situation and it spiralling out of control?
    Quote Originally Posted by BerneyG View Post
    I wonder how they determine reckless...didn't see a definition in the statute.
    For both answers, it depends on the facts of the situation.

    Negligence and recklessness are a determination specific to the situation. What is reckless/negligent in one situation may not be in another.

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    Quote Originally Posted by BerneyG View Post
    I wonder how they determine reckless...didn't see a definition in the statute.
    That would be at the discretion of the prosecutors, a grand jury, or a trial jury. But if an innocent person was hit you can bet that they will look at things like the four simple rules (ie. Don't point your weapon at anything you don't intend to destroy.) and point out how the shooter had to have violated at least one of them. Either that or the shooter would must have intended to shoot the bag boy. Either way, not a good day to be a defendant.

    Actually, I just found the definition!
    6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (a) A
    person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the
    nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his
    conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the
    result.
    (b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect
    to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his
    conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the
    circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge,
    with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his
    conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
    (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.
    (d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally
    negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or
    the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of 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 the
    failure to perceive it 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.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
    Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
    1994.

    I can see lawyers on either side arguing to let the jury decide.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  12. #26
    Ex Member Array FN1910's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,235
    From the account I can't see where the guard did anything wrong in firing on the BG's. This always concerns me in a crowded place full of by-standers and someone wanting to be a hero. Every situation is different and you have to make immediate decisions based on your best knowlege at the time. You just have to remember that it is unlikely that the BG is rational and will react as you think he will. A very tragic situation and my heart goes out to the lady and her family. Just hope they catch the other two and fry them.

  13. #27
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    MCP, thanks for the info...Yeah, I can see where you are right...The argument could go both ways...Now if we could just find the definition of 'ordinary person'
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array tns0038's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Janq View Post
    Engagement was proper as the guards reaction goes.
    Thank goodness it did not turn out to be the guards bullet that struck the innocent.

    - Janq

    I wonder what would of happen to the poor security cop if it had been his bullet, that stuck and killed the lady?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. BAD... Officer killed in Phoenix drug shootout.
    By boscobeans in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: October 21st, 2010, 01:58 PM
  2. Innocent Child Killed in Police Raid - Merged
    By Trumpetchuck in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: May 21st, 2010, 08:47 AM
  3. Innocent woman killed by stray bullet
    By Landor in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 14th, 2010, 03:41 PM
  4. BAD: Security guard killed with own gun by shoplifter at grocery store
    By grady in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 21st, 2009, 10:07 AM
  5. 92 year old woman killed in shootout with police
    By General Geoff in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 180
    Last Post: November 20th, 2007, 12:12 PM

Search tags for this page

brian goetschius lawsuit

,
bystander killed concealed carry
,
bystanders killed in crossfire
,
ccw innocent killed
,
conceal carry innocent bystander killed charged
,
december 14, 2007 fiesta robbery gunman found dead
,

innocent bystander killed in front of convenience store

,

innocent bystander shot by ccw

,

innocent bystander wounded by concealed carry

,
janette dominguez lisbon wilkins
,
murder at fiesta grocery store 2007
,
picture of dead robber lisbon wilkins
Click on a term to search for related topics.