Self-Defensive Shooting Injures Bystander
An example of how NOT to make the case for defensive firearm use. From the Palm Beach Post:
RIVIERA BEACH — After two men shoved guns in an auto shop owner’s face, taking $1,300 from his business, the owner grabbed his own gun, followed them outside and fired, police said.
Police don’t know if any of the shots hit either robber, but one did hit a bystander in the ankle.
The bystander, who police would not identify Wednesday, was taken to an area hospital with an injury said to be not life-threatening.
According to police, investigations into both the robbery and the shooting, which happened shortly after 1 p.m., are continuing.
Richard Hydro, 54, owner of Motor Werkes, in the 4600 block of Dyer Avenue, was not held by police. A man answering the telephone at his home said the business owner had been advised not to discuss the shooting.
Riviera Beach spokeswoman Rose Anne Brown, however, said, “The (robbery) victim, in fear of his life, followed the subjects and shot at them.”
Yes, but the robbery had already happened and if I’m reading this story correctly, the thugs had already left the shop. The business owner “followed the subjects and shot at them.”
No. Wrong way to go. If the immediate threat is past, you don’t go “following them” out of doors and start shooting wildly so that an innocent bystander is hit — fortunately not critically this time. Instead, this is when you should call the cops and let them handle the pursuit.
10 Responses to “Self-Defensive Shooting Injures Bystander”
on 28 Jun 2007 at 7:50 am # John Earl
This sort of thing always scares me. Without a doubt there are people out here carrying with a cw license who dont have the mental responsibilty to do the right thing such as what happened yesterday. A similar incident occurred in the same area when a gentlman was walking into the front door of a fast food shop at the same time to armed robbers were running out. This gentleman, who was armed, took control of the situation by drawing his pistol and firing into the air….yeah, right. As to the first situation, there are many a policeman who have done worse.
on 28 Jun 2007 at 9:13 am # tkdkerry
Now this is what the GFWs can point to and scream “vigilante”. Damn. You’re absolutely right, if the danger has passed, then it’s time to let the police handle things.
on 28 Jun 2007 at 9:50 am # Keith
Good job for him that he didn’t kill someone, guess he’d be on a murder charge now if he had.
If the guy is so hot headed that he tries to shoot them when they’re running away, he’s too hot headed to have a ccw
even worse that he hit someone.
I could almost half see the point of letting them know that you would defend yourself if necessary,
but;
the over half way side of that argument is that they are better off not knowing you were armed, so that if you ever really need it, it will be a complete surprise to your attacker, and it might buy you enough fractions of a second to save your life.
Keith
on 28 Jun 2007 at 11:00 am # John Earl
And always remember….when fractions of seconds count, the police are only minutes away
on 28 Jun 2007 at 12:10 pm # GeorgeH
Legal?
That depends on the state, and on the time of day or night. If you live where it is legal to follow an intruder into the street and shoot them out of fear that they will return (Texas), then I consider it a moral duty to do so.
In that case you better know how to shoot accurately.
on 28 Jun 2007 at 2:00 pm # KCSteve
Been going over this sort of thing with the ever-indulgent wife lately. Her car was broken into and some small items stolen (fortunately they jimmied the lock rather than smash a window).
She’s incensed that she’s not allowed to shoot someone if she catches them in the act, but understands. She knows that she’s not even allowed to point the gun at them when she’s yelling at them to drop everything and get out of the car.
Of course, she also understands that she can (and should) have her gun out at low ready in case they respond by coming toward her. She’s petite enough that just about any male has enough of a disparity of force on her to justify her actions after that.
And it’s good to know that if she ever does run into a situation it won’t be a bystander she shoots (barring pass through)
on 29 Jun 2007 at 1:53 pm # Jerry in Detroit
Our training officer said that the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes three situations where deadly force may be used.
1. You may use deadly force to defend your life against a credible threat of death or serious injury.
2. You may use deadly force to defend the life of another human being against a credible threat of death or serious injury. Sorry, Rover.
3. You may use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon.
Although it appears that the third situation applies here, our training officer noted that this one is the most likely to get you prosecuted, sued or both.
on 02 Jul 2007 at 1:03 am # Saladman
“No. Wrong way to go. If the immediate threat is past, you don’t go “following them” out of doors and start shooting wildly so that an innocent bystander is hit — fortunately not critically this time. Instead, this is when you should call the cops and let them handle the pursuit.”
I follow what you’re saying, but I disagree in principle. If the bad guys are armed (and these were) you don’t know if they will come back, you don’t know if they’ll hurt someone else in their escape, you don’t know if they’ll get away before the police arrive. I don’t believe the police posess any moral authority not delegated to them by the public, so I think it is proper for a citizen to take steps to stop armed criminals.
In this particular case, the citizen simply lacked the skill to responsibly act the way he did. I do take that very seriously and I hold him responsible, I just don’t draw the line right where you do. It’s critically important to have an accurate view of your own skills, and to be aware that accuracy tends to go down in real life crises, so you should train to a high standard.
I actually don’t meet that standard yet myself in some respects, but I stand by the principle.
I am also aware that many state laws don’t share my opinion. I don’t believe that statutory laws limiting the right of self-defense create any moral obligation, but they do create a legal obligation that I have every intention of living up to.
on 02 Jul 2007 at 8:23 am # Tom Line
The shop owner was a victim. Get over it. When a bad guy sticks a gun in your face, any distorted views of the world seem to straighten themselves out very fast.
on 03 Jul 2007 at 8:38 am # windage
“a man’s got to know his limitations” and as far as range, I think it was Jeff Cooper, known pistol legend that said that “the handgun is used to fight your way to your rifle”.
Here is KY we wing em with the rifle if they’re out of handgun range. Makes the Sheriff’s job easier to pick ‘em up later at the hospital.