Shooting victim's wife sues mall over lack of signage

[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)

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.

I noticed the video "glitch" as well but didn't go back and watch again.... it just seemed out of order or altered. Either way, he may have been completely out of line but he could have been [as you said] just defending himself... at least initially.

Either way, I'd bet the missing video is material to both of our perceptions.

[MaduroBU]

With regard to the "don't try to be batman" argument, I think that hinges heavily on your estimation of the probable outcome if you do nothing. By that I mean that we would all agree that drawing a weapon and turning an otherwise "peaceful" robbery violent is bad, and that killing someone, even if it is only the thief, is not justified by some savings on an insurer's bottom line.

The serious question that I would pose is: how could one of us decide if a robber pointing a gun at one or several people intends to flee with the goods having never fired a shot (and might be unable to do so, as many crime guns are fake/nonfunctional/unloaded et c) or to kill one of several of those people. The risk of escalating the former situation is on clear display here, but the risk of an innocent person being killed in the latter situation is real. Do you roll the dice that the robbers are relatively rational and don't want to unnecessarily add to their list of crimes in exchange for little profit (i.e. killing the proprietor on the way out the door does them no tangible good)? Do you go in gun blazing like this guy on the theory that you might neutralize them before they harm someone else?

An unwavering commitment to either extreme seems suboptimal, though over a large sample size doing nothing almost certainly wins out. I would hate to wake up every day knowing that I had started a gunfight that killed someone, even were that the only repercussion. In that vein, I think that a default of "stay out of the way and be a good witness" should be our default, but I am not sure that I could live with myself if I pursued that option even as people were being killed. That of course begs the question: when do you abandon the default "uninvolved witness" mode of operation? What is your trigger? A robber firing their weapon? A robber actually shooting someone? In that case, what if the robbers only intended to kill one person, and you've just started a gunfight that doesn't help that person AND wounds or kills someone else? If they shoot a second person does that lead you to assume that they will likely kill more? If not two, then how many?

The core issues, to me, are that you are 1) trying to predict the behavior of people who are acting anti-socially AND irrationally and 2) your opportunities to practice that predictive skill are hopefully rare-to-nonexistent. A highly intelligent thief would take precautions to avoid detection or unnecessary violence, but then again, a highly intelligent thief is more likely arbitrage trading order flow or commodities rather than strong arming jewellery store clerks.

[03Lightningrocks]

With regard to the "don't try to be batman" argument, I think that hinges heavily on your estimation of the probable outcome if you do nothing. By that I mean that we would all agree that drawing a weapon and turning an otherwise "peaceful" robbery violent is bad, and that killing someone, even if it is only the thief, is not justified by some savings on an insurer's bottom line.

The serious question that I would pose is: how could one of us decide if a robber pointing a gun at one or several people intends to flee with the goods having never fired a shot (and might be unable to do so, as many crime guns are fake/nonfunctional/unloaded et c) or to kill one of several of those people. The risk of escalating the former situation is on clear display here, but the risk of an innocent person being killed in the latter situation is real. Do you roll the dice that the robbers are relatively rational and don't want to unnecessarily add to their list of crimes in exchange for little profit (i.e. killing the proprietor on the way out the door does them no tangible good)? Do you go in gun blazing like this guy on the theory that you might neutralize them before they harm someone else?

An unwavering commitment to either extreme seems suboptimal, though over a large sample size doing nothing almost certainly wins out. I would hate to wake up every day knowing that I had started a gunfight that killed someone, even were that the only repercussion. In that vein, I think that a default of "stay out of the way and be a good witness" should be our default, but I am not sure that I could live with myself if I pursued that option even as people were being killed. That of course begs the question: when do you abandon the default "uninvolved witness" mode of operation? What is your trigger? A robber firing their weapon? A robber actually shooting someone? In that case, what if the robbers only intended to kill one person, and you've just started a gunfight that doesn't help that person AND wounds or kills someone else? If they shoot a second person does that lead you to assume that they will likely kill more? If not two, then how many?

The core issues, to me, are that you are 1) trying to predict the behavior of people who are acting anti-socially AND irrationally and 2) your opportunities to practice that predictive skill are hopefully rare-to-nonexistent. A highly intelligent thief would take precautions to avoid detection or unnecessary violence, but then again, a highly intelligent thief is more likely arbitrage trading order flow or commodities rather than strong arming jewellery store clerks.

For me the decision of whether or not to draw a weapon is dependent on the situation. If I am walking through the mall and spot an armed robbery going on in a store I am not in, I feel it is best to stay at ready and make a good witness. If the bg starts shooting, I then get involved. But not being a police officer, it is not my place to use deadly force in anticipation of what might happen. I can't read minds. I also know that starting a fire fight in a mall can easily bring on innocent casualties. For me anyway, the best option of all the bad options, is to only fire if the bg starts shooting first.

[OneGun]

As a follow-up to my previous post, I found the widow's lawsuit and her naming of the LTC as a responsible party. It appears she is after $$$. Her allegations against the LTC holder, Ryan Brockett are:

Plaintiff’s claims against Ryan Brockett are for his actions in negligently carrying a concealed handgun inside a Mall where carrying a weapon was prohibited and negligently engaging Rojas and Prieto without provocation or in self-defense to him or his family. There are multiple insurance organizations which provide insurance coverage to concealed handgun licensees for negligent acts such as those alleged in the Third Amended Complaint, or coverage may be obtained through Ryan Brockett’s homeowner’s policy.

However, the mall at the time was not posted 30.06 and 30.07. It had a code of conduct instead:

KENS 5 obtained a copy of the mall’s conduct policy posted inside the shopping center. The fourth item on the list of prohibited actions stated “carrying or possessing any weapons of any kind.”

She dismissed the lawsuit last year without prejudice. She kept trying to amend the lawsuit to add more defendants and the judge kept denying her request.

Whether Ryan Brockett engaged the robbers without provocation is a matter of opinion. There are people waving guns around threatening violence during a robbery.