Shooting victim's wife sues mall over lack of signage

[jmorris]

If there had been adequate signs, good guy wouldn't have been able to carry.

https://news4sanantonio.com/news/troubl ... News+Email

[flechero]

If there had been adequate signs, good guy wouldn't have been able to carry.

https://news4sanantonio.com/news/troubl ... News+Email

Sad that it happened but the logic for the suit is bad. The robbers could have executed all the witnesses, if no one intervened. OR The robbers may well have seen the signs and assumed no resistance. If the mall hadn't posed anything, the robbers might have picked a different place.

[MaduroBU]

Funny that there is no mention of the plaintiff's settlement with/judgment against the armed robbers. Or might it be that her ideas of fairness and just restitution were more influenced by assets than culpability?

[03Lightningrocks]

I have a different opinion on this. A LTC is not a batman license. If the armed robbers started shooting, OK then, I can understand trying to save lives. We are not cops. It is not our job to stop robbery. Maybe the robbers would have just taken the merchandise and left. We are not cops. We should not create a fire fight when one may not be called for. Especially in a mall with people all over the place. I think the good guy used bad judgement in getting involved.

[OneGun]

I never understand these blood-money lawsuits. The story said that the man killed was shot by one of the robbers. The People magazine piece said the man killed was trying to be a good samaritan as well. The widow told People Magazine:

“I know deep down he was trying to protect first off…Me, but also the other innocent bystanders in the mall as well as the several children and families that were in the play area 10 feet away from where the robbery occurred. That was just the kind of man he was.”

The KSAT story described the man killed as trying to stop the robbers as well:

John Murphy, 42, was killed Sunday when he attempted to stop two suspects from leaving the scene of a robbery.

Why didn't the widow sue the robbers? Why go after the other Good Samaritans? If the mall was posted 30.06 / 30.07, the robbers still would have brought guns into the mall, that would not have guaranteed her husband would still be alive.

Whether the two good samaritans with the LTCs should have interceded depends on whether they were also in the store when it was robbed or if they felt they was in danger or other people were in danger as well.

The fact that the widow went after the other Good Samaritan that was defending other people and the mall just tells me she is in these lawsuits for the money.

I have mixed feeling on this on whether I would draw my gun and intercede. If I saw other good samaritans trying to protect kids, I might very well assist by using my firearm. I'm not a cop and I don't walk around pretending to be one. But, if robbers are shooting and threatening other people within 10 or 20 feet of me, I can't say that I'd do nothing either if he is within my range of accuracy.

[BigGuy]

I have a different opinion on this. A LTC is not a batman license. If the armed robbers started shooting, OK then, I can understand trying to save lives. We are not cops. It is not our job to stop robbery. Maybe the robbers would have just taken the merchandise and left. We are not cops. We should not create a fire fight when one may not be called for. Especially in a mall with people all over the place. I think the good guy used bad judgement in getting involved.

Emphasis mine.
If the BGs start shooting, or somehow present a credible lethal threat, then I'm all about taking action. But until there is overwhelming threat to life, out in public, I'll just be a good witness. I think that is our ethical response.
Now, in my home? The fact that you've broken into my home is evidence of credible lethal threat in my humble opinion.

[madwildcat]

Honest question, does a bad guy with a gun out and pointed at someone else not equal a lethal and credible threat? Does he have to shoot the gun to upgrade to "lethal threat"? I agree that we aren't cops, and I definitely plan on making sure my family is safe first, but at some point, it feels like we some duty to intervene. Obviously this is on a case by case basis to some degree (likelihood of collateral damage, etc), and my view is skewed by growing up somewhere it would be likely that I knew or were friends with those being threatened.

[ELB]

Based on what I’ve read so far — appalling action on her part.

What’s more concerning is that she “reached a settlement” with Brockett. !!?

[Soccerdad1995]

Based on what I’ve read so far — appalling action on her part.

What’s more concerning is that she “reached a settlement” with Brockett. !!?

I'm guessing the settlement was for a very minor amount, if any, based on the last statement in the article.

“There's no way for the person walking into the mall to know they have the no-gun policy unless they actually stumble upon one of these signs that they've testified to that they don't really prominently display," said Stanley Bernstein, an attorney for Aimee Murphy.

It sounds more like they are trying to get the good Samaritan's cooperation in going after the mall (likely the only one with deep pockets).

[BigGuy]

Honest question, does a bad guy with a gun out and pointed at someone else not equal a lethal and credible threat? Does he have to shoot the gun to upgrade to "lethal threat"? I agree that we aren't cops, and I definitely plan on making sure my family is safe first, but at some point, it feels like we some duty to intervene. Obviously this is on a case by case basis to some degree (likelihood of collateral damage, etc), and my view is skewed by growing up somewhere it would be likely that I knew or were friends with those being threatened.

This will likely be a personal decision based on the GGs experiences and background. My thought is that in a Hollywood educated society, simply pointing a firearm at somebody (even with the booger hook on the bang button) is not a credible lethal threat. A Hollywood educated jury is going to want to see something they understand as credibly lethal. And the BGs are likely to be operating under the same mindset. Keeping cool might very well mean nobody loses red stuff.
Again, you've got to make your own decisions. I'm just saying, there will be consequences afterward.
I haven't watched this yet but, based on other reviews, offer it as a resource.

https://lawofselfdefense.com/mini-course-int/

[BigGuy]

It sounds more like they are trying to get the good Samaritan's cooperation in going after the mall (likely the only one with deep pockets).

[madwildcat]

Honest question, does a bad guy with a gun out and pointed at someone else not equal a lethal and credible threat? Does he have to shoot the gun to upgrade to "lethal threat"? I agree that we aren't cops, and I definitely plan on making sure my family is safe first, but at some point, it feels like we some duty to intervene. Obviously this is on a case by case basis to some degree (likelihood of collateral damage, etc), and my view is skewed by growing up somewhere it would be likely that I knew or were friends with those being threatened.

This will likely be a personal decision based on the GGs experiences and background. My thought is that in a Hollywood educated society, simply pointing a firearm at somebody (even with the booger hook on the bang button) is not a credible lethal threat. A Hollywood educated jury is going to want to see something they understand as credibly lethal. And the BGs are likely to be operating under the same mindset. Keeping cool might very well mean nobody loses red stuff.
Again, you've got to make your own decisions. I'm just saying, there will be consequences afterward.
I haven't watched this yet but, based on other reviews, offer it as a resource.

https://lawofselfdefense.com/mini-course-int/

A sad but good point about the Hollywood educated society and jury.

Thanks for the resource, looks like a good watch.

[flechero]

I have a different opinion on this. A LTC is not a batman license. If the armed robbers started shooting, OK then, I can understand trying to save lives. We are not cops.

While I agree with those words 100%, we don't know a number of things from the story. For instance the chl could have inadvertently walked right up to or next to the door where the robber was and had the gun pointed right at him and/or threat made. I can think of a few scenarios where the guy was not [initially] acting as batman.

My issue is the pursuit after the initial engagement and stop of the robbery. That was the point where he changed costumes. (and also before the customer got shot)

[ELB]

It sounds more like they are trying to get the good Samaritan's cooperation in going after the mall (likely the only one with deep pockets).

It’s still a bad precedent.

[03Lightningrocks]

I have a different opinion on this. A LTC is not a batman license. If the armed robbers started shooting, OK then, I can understand trying to save lives. We are not cops.

While I agree with those words 100%, we don't know a number of things from the story. For instance the chl could have inadvertently walked right up to or next to the door where the robber was and had the gun pointed right at him and/or threat made. I can think of a few scenarios where the guy was not [initially] acting as batman.

My issue is the pursuit after the initial engagement and stop of the robbery. That was the point where he changed costumes. (and also before the customer got shot)

In the video he looks to be charging in the door with gun drawn. I was just watching the video again. It is weird how it cuts out for a period just before the Good guy charges in. I would like to know what we didn't get to see. It might show they did confront him. If that is the case, then he is no longer a "good Samaritan" he is a guy defending himself. Info that would change the narrative from "guy interferes" and causes death to guy defending himself.