Pet store owner accidentally shoots, kills woman

[G.C.Montgomery]

This sounds like a crowded room or something to me. "Stepped into the path of the bullet" How in the world does that happen? I'm with Seamus on this one... sounds like something else is up.

Illegal game room issues aside, the shooter might legitimately have seen a threat as reported. Having said that, I doubt the woman so much "stepped into the path of the bullet" as the shooter might have suffered a case of tunnel vision and not seen the woman in his line of fire. That's a pretty simple scenario off the top of my head. Any number of things might have happened at the moment this man decided to fire the shotgun. We don't know.

I know there are keyboard commandos who don't understand how quickly things happen and how badly compromised a person field of view might be at any given moment but, I'll cite another example as best I can. Several years back, a Harris County SO deputy Shane Bennett was killed by his own partner when the Bennett apparently stood up in front of his partner's muzzle. Can't remember all the details but the deputies were responding to a home invasion. At some point, a gunfight started between the deputies and suspects inside the home. During the fight, Bennett had a stoppage and went to the ground while a fellow deputy continued firing. When Bennett stood up again he was shot in the back of the head by a fellow deputy. Last I'd heard, it was believed Bennett stood up directly in front of his partner's muzzle. That may or may not be the case but there is no question Bennett was killed by friendly fire from fellow professionals and much like the case that inspired this thread, it could be said that Bennett simply stepped into the path of an oncoming bullet.

[Paladin]

I know there are keyboard commandos who don't understand how quickly things happen and how badly compromised a person field of view might be at any given moment but, I'll cite another example as best I can. Several years back, a Harris County SO deputy Shane Bennett was killed by his own partner when the Bennett apparently stood up in front of his partner's muzzle. Can't remember all the details but the deputies were responding to a home invasion. At some point, a gunfight started between the deputies and suspects inside the home. During the fight, Bennett had a stoppage and went to the ground while a fellow deputy continued firing. When the Bennett stood up again he was shot in the back of the head by a fellow deputy. Last I'd heard, it was believed Bennett stood up directly in front of his partner's muzzle. That may or may not be the case but there is no question Bennett was killed by friendly fire from fellow professionals and much like the case that inspired this thread, it could be said that Bennett simply stepped into the path of an oncoming bullet.

Bennett was wounded by the BGs, went down, and his partner didn't notice that he got back up in the dark.

Horrible incident. Bennett sounded like one of the best. Very brave officer who was trying to help some women and kids in a bad home invasion.

[Charles L. Cotton]

This sounds like a crowded room or something to me. "Stepped into the path of the bullet" How in the world does that happen? I'm with Seamus on this one... sounds like something else is up.

Illegal game room issues aside, the shooter might legitimately have seen a threat as reported. Having said that, I doubt the woman so much "stepped into the path of the bullet" as the shooter might have suffered a case of tunnel vision and not seen the woman in his line of fire. That's a pretty simple scenario off the top of my head. Any number of things might have happened at the moment this man decided to fire the shotgun. We don't know.

I know there are keyboard commandos who don't understand how quickly things happen and how badly compromised a person field of view might be at any given moment but, I'll cite another example as best I can. Several years back, a Harris County SO deputy Shane Bennett was killed by his own partner when the Bennett apparently stood up in front of his partner's muzzle. Can't remember all the details but the deputies were responding to a home invasion. At some point, a gunfight started between the deputies and suspects inside the home. During the fight, Bennett had a stoppage and went to the ground while a fellow deputy continued firing. When the Bennett stood up again he was shot in the back of the head by a fellow deputy. Last I'd heard, it was believed Bennett stood up directly in front of his partner's muzzle. That may or may not be the case but there is no question Bennett was killed by friendly fire from fellow professionals and much like the case that inspired this thread, it could be said that Bennett simply stepped into the path of an oncoming bullet.

This is a very important point we have to recognize. The fact that an "innocent" was injured or killed doesn't necessarily mean the person using force will face charges or be convicted. If their conduct was "reckless," then yes, that potential exists. However, this scenario can unfold without anyone being reckless.

As for stepping in front of a bullet, I suspect this is just a poorly worded explanation of what he thinks happened. As Gary pointed out, it could well be tunnel-vision at work. It could also be terribly bad luck/timing by the victim. When Israel's IDF troops rescued the hostages at Entebbe, two were killed by IDF troops when they suddenly stood up during the firefight. These guys were as well-trained and any troops and it still happened. Was it tunnel-vision, or just the unexpected -- i.e. two hostages standing up without warning and in spite of orders to say stay down?

I'm not saying we can spray rounds around without regard to the consequences, but "innocents" can be injured or killed absent negligence or recklessness of the defender. As we've seen so many times, the initial reports were apparently inaccurate about this shooting. I don't recall a mention of the suspect having a gun, but now it is being reported he was armed as he approached the building. We just don't know what happened, or what was going on at the time the man fired.

I think it's valuable to discuss tragic events like this one. Training to avoid such tragedies is also valuable and something I think we should all do if and when we can. But we have to recognize that tragic, gut-wrenching accidents do happen and we need to wait until all of the evidence is in before deciding whether this man was negligent or reckless.

Chas.

[Right2Carry]

This sounds like a crowded room or something to me. "Stepped into the path of the bullet" How in the world does that happen? I'm with Seamus on this one... sounds like something else is up.

Illegal game room issues aside, the shooter might legitimately have seen a threat as reported. Having said that, I doubt the woman so much "stepped into the path of the bullet" as the shooter might have suffered a case of tunnel vision and not seen the woman in his line of fire. That's a pretty simple scenario off the top of my head. Any number of things might have happened at the moment this man decided to fire the shotgun. We don't know.

I know there are keyboard commandos who don't understand how quickly things happen and how badly compromised a person field of view might be at any given moment but, I'll cite another example as best I can. Several years back, a Harris County SO deputy Shane Bennett was killed by his own partner when the Bennett apparently stood up in front of his partner's muzzle. Can't remember all the details but the deputies were responding to a home invasion. At some point, a gunfight started between the deputies and suspects inside the home. During the fight, Bennett had a stoppage and went to the ground while a fellow deputy continued firing. When the Bennett stood up again he was shot in the back of the head by a fellow deputy. Last I'd heard, it was believed Bennett stood up directly in front of his partner's muzzle. That may or may not be the case but there is no question Bennett was killed by friendly fire from fellow professionals and much like the case that inspired this thread, it could be said that Bennett simply stepped into the path of an oncoming bullet.

This is a very important point we have to recognize. The fact that an "innocent" was injured or killed doesn't necessarily mean the person using force will face charges or be convicted. If their conduct was "reckless," then yes, that potential exists. However, this scenario can unfold without anyone being reckless.

As for stepping in front of a bullet, I suspect this is just a poorly worded explanation of what he thinks happened. As Gary pointed out, it could well be tunnel-vision at work. It could also be terribly bad luck/timing by the victim. When Israel's IDF troops rescued the hostages at Entebbe, two were killed by IDF troops when they suddenly stood up during the firefight. These guys were as well-trained and any troops and it still happened. Was it tunnel-vision, or just the unexpected -- i.e. two hostages standing up without warning and in spite of orders to say stay down?

I'm not saying we can spray rounds around without regard to the consequences, but "innocents" can be injured or killed absent negligence or recklessness of the defender. As we've seen so many times, the initial reports were apparently inaccurate about this shooting. I don't recall a mention of the suspect having a gun, but now it is being reported he was armed as he approached the building. We just don't know what happened, or what was going on at the time the man fired.

I think it's valuable to discuss tragic events like this one. Training to avoid such tragedies is also valuable and something I think we should all do if and when we can. But we have to recognize that tragic, gut-wrenching accidents do happen and we need to wait until all of the evidence is in before deciding whether this man was negligent or reckless.

Chas.

I think as far as a wrongful death suit, he will be held responsible and be made to pay.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I think as far as a wrongful death suit, he will be held responsible and be made to pay.

It's easier to prove negligence than recklessness, so you may well be right.

Chas.

[Right2Carry]

I think as far as a wrongful death suit, he will be held responsible and be made to pay.

It's easier to prove negligence than recklessness, so you may well be right.

Chas.

I don't know if I am right or not its just an opinion. I don't see how he is going to be able to defend this when an innocent victim died due to his actions, justified or not.

[G.C.Montgomery]

Bennett was wounded by the BGs, went down, and his partner didn't notice that he got back up in the dark.

Horrible incident. Bennett sounded like one of the best. Very brave officer who was trying to help some women and kids in a bad home invasion.

Thanks for that correction. I got the info third hand and it was based on early reports from a mutual acquaintance of deputies on scene at the time. At the time, it was said Bennett reloaded while he was down.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I think as far as a wrongful death suit, he will be held responsible and be made to pay.

It's easier to prove negligence than recklessness, so you may well be right.

Chas.

I don't know if I am right or not its just an opinion. I don't see how he is going to be able to defend this when an innocent victim died due to his actions, justified or not.

I don't know either and civil trial work is my area of practice. Without knowing the evidence and the ultimate jury make-up, there is no way to predict what would happen.

A tragic outcome certainly factors into a jury's decision, as well as an attorney's evaluation of the merits of a case. However, a bad result doesn't doesn't necessarily mean someone was negligent. The jury will be given this definition of negligence:

Negligence means doing something a reasonable prudent person would not have done under the same or similar circumstances, or failing to do that which a reasonable person would have done under the same or similar circumstances.

The jury will have to answer that question based upon the evidence and we don't know what that will be. If, for example, the suspect was raising a gun to fire on the owner or others, then the owner's actions may well have been something that a reasonable prudent person would have done under those circumstances. But it's also important to understand that what is reasonable and prudent will be determined by 10 of the 12 jurors, not what any of us may believe. That's the scary part. If ten jurors don't like guns, gun-owners, or self-defense shootings, then the most favorable evidence in the world may not be enough for a defendant to prevail.

Don't interpret my comments as indicating this man's situation is defensible, either from a criminal law or civil law perspective. I'm just noting that a bad result doesn't automatically result in liability.

Chas.

[Right2Carry]

I think as far as a wrongful death suit, he will be held responsible and be made to pay.

It's easier to prove negligence than recklessness, so you may well be right.

Chas.

I don't know if I am right or not its just an opinion. I don't see how he is going to be able to defend this when an innocent victim died due to his actions, justified or not.

I don't know either and civil trial work is my area of practice. Without knowing the evidence and the ultimate jury make-up, there is no way to predict what would happen.

A tragic outcome certainly factors into a jury's decision, as well as an attorney's evaluation of the merits of a case. However, a bad result doesn't doesn't necessarily mean someone was negligent. The jury will be given this definition of negligence:

Negligence means doing something a reasonable prudent person would not have done under the same or similar circumstances, or failing to do that which a reasonable person would have done under the same or similar circumstances.

The jury will have to answer that question based upon the evidence and we don't know what that will be. If, for example, the suspect was raising a gun to fire on the owner or others, then the owner's actions may well have been something that a reasonable prudent person would have done under those circumstances. But it's also important to understand that what is reasonable and prudent will be determined by 10 of the 12 jurors, not what any of us may believe. That's the scary part. If ten jurors don't like guns, gun-owners, or self-defense shootings, then the most favorable evidence in the world may not be enough for a defendant to prevail.

Don't interpret my comments as indicating this man's situation is defensible, either from a criminal law or civil law perspective. I'm just noting that a bad result doesn't automatically result in liability.

Chas.

I respect your opinion since it is your area of expertise. I do find it odd that the guy wouldn't just lock his doors and call 911. Letting other customers in while this is going on doesn't appear to be good judgement on his part. He probably didn't want to call 911 because of the legal gambling, but what did he expect to happen when he opened fire?

Bad Karma all the way around.

[seamusTX]

Many times, gambling in not the only illegal activity in those places. I'm not very familiar with the area, but it's generally a rough neighborhood.

He must have panicked, because once he pulled the trigger, the police were definitely coming and wouldn't need a warrant.

- Jim

[ELB]

This sounds like a crowded room or something to me. "Stepped into the path of the bullet" How in the world does that happen? I'm with Seamus on this one... sounds like something else is up.

I do not think this is as unlikely as govnor and seamus makes it sound. The time between mentally making the decision to pull the trigger and and getting the trigger actually pulled and bullet (or pellets) on the way is not zero; I can easily see somone close to the line of fire moving into the path during the decision/action process, especially if they are already moving. My firearms instructors spent considerable time trying to teach me to keep an eye on the whole situation, because it is so easy to become focused exclusively on the target. Heck, fighter pilots have flown their airplanes into the ground because they became target fixated never saw the ground rushing up at them.

Just occurred to me -- Maas Ayoob wrote about testifying in a trial to defend (successfully, I think) a guy who shot at his assailant, who turned in the process and took a couple rounds in the back before the defender could process what had changed.

However, I do think this guy is in a world of hurt. Even if he faces "only" a civil trial, I doubt a jury is going to be as sympathetic to a guy who shot someone accidently while standing in the doorway of an illegal gambling operation (even if there was an imminent threat to his life) as they would to a guy standing in the door of his home. I'll bet his civil attorneys come up with all kinds of motions to suppress the facts about the illegal gambling operation.

elb