TexasCHLforum.com

Just got this American Handgunner for this month, there's a store about a business owner who was shot execution style, but still managed to fight back. In the confusion, when his assailant tried to hijack a car to run away, he shot at the car driving towards him, whose driver, a lady, was shot and turned out to be a innocent bystander/victim too.

What I don't get is afterwards, the lady sued the business owner. *faint.

Maybe I am too stupid and I do understand the scumbag doesn't have money, but shouldn't the law be changed so that the provoker of the crime, the scumbag, must be the one whom anybody can sue? I do understand that it's the good guy's bullets hit the bystander, but the good guy was fighting for his life - why should he be responsible for the result of a crime?

Stupid wrote:Just got this American Handgunner for this month, there's a store about a business owner who was shot execution style, but still managed to fight back. In the confusion, when his assailant tried to hijack a car to run away, he shot at the car driving towards him, whose driver, a lady, was shot and turned out to be a innocent bystander/victim too.

What I don't get is afterwards, the lady sued the business owner. *faint.

Maybe I am too stupid and I do understand the scumbag doesn't have money, but shouldn't the law be changed so that the provoker of the crime, the scumbag, must be the one whom anybody can sue? I do understand that it's the good guy's bullets hit the bystander, but the good guy was fighting for his life - why should he be responsible for the result of a crime?

No, the law should not change. A court will decide if the business owner is responsible. Thats what courts do, determine who is the provoker, who contributed, and what if any damages are appropriate.

If this happened in Texas, the determination would hinge on whether the business owner's actions were negligent. There is something I don't understand. Was the car going to run over the business owner? If so, then he probably has a better chance at winning, but if he was shooting at fleeing felons, then he'd have a real problem in Texas.

As for changing the law, I don't think it can or should be changed. If an innocent person gets shot, they should be able to sue the person that shot them. It's then up to the jury whether the shooter was negligent. One innocent person should not have immunity to negligently injure or kill another innocent person, simply because he's shooting at a BG.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:As for changing the law, I don't think it can or should be changed. If an innocent person gets shot, they should be able to sue the person that shot them. It's then up to the jury whether the shooter was negligent. One innocent person should not have immunity to negligently injure or kill another innocent person, simply because he's shooting at a BG.

With apologies to Charles - - - "Every bullet comes with a lawyer attached." You are responsible for all damage done by your shots.