TexasCHLforum.com

When I took my CHL class, several of the other shooters sent rounds either off the target (but on the paper), or missed the target altogether. This caused the instructor to inform everyone that a shot like that may end up in sending you to jail. When we got back to the classroom, he told us about a guy that made a wild shot (while defending himself) and accidentally killed a 9-year-old boy that was sitting on his front porch, and is currently in jail for murder because of it (no other details were given).

A couple of weeks ago, a LEO in town accidentally shot/killed an innocent bystander (while defending himself, like the example above, and once again, I am not sure of any details beyond that), and yesterday, they announced that he was cleared of any wrong-doing. IMHO, that screams unequal protection under the law.

Several times, our instructor said CHL holders we're held to a higher standard than even police officers, but I don't think that's fair to the CHL holder.

It is unequal.

that's just part of the awesome responsibility that we subject ourselves to as CHL holders .

having a CHL is not to be taken lightly .
all i can say is be as proficient as possible with your firearms .
the greatest defense tool is our sound judgment and reasoning under stress .

Accidentally shooting an innocent 3rd person is not murder. It may constitute "reckless" injury or killing of an innocent 3rd person, but not every unintended injury/death is the result of recklessness. The Penal Code defines "reckless" narrowly. We should all take safety and prevention of collateral damage very seriously without overstating the codified standard.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Accidentally shooting an innocent 3rd person is not murder. It may constitute "reckless" injury or killing of an innocent 3rd person, but not every unintended injury/death is the result of recklessness.

Wouldn't it then be manslaughter?

Purplehood wrote:It is unequal.

karl wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Accidentally shooting an innocent 3rd person is not murder. It may constitute "reckless" injury or killing of an innocent 3rd person, but not every unintended injury/death is the result of recklessness.

Wouldn't it then be manslaughter?

That would depend on the circumstances. If you were not prosecuted or no billed on the original self defense shooting, it would be a difficult case to make that you committed manslaughter. Man slaughter usually has some degree of recklessness with it such as texting while driving and running over a pedestrian. But if you were driving, a deer jumped into your path, you wrecked and hit somebody that would be an unfortunate accident and not criminal.

BUT.... Accidentally shooting a bystander does allow you to be civilly sued. With a good shoot on a bad guy, you are protected.

All said, don't miss. You'll spend a lot less at the range and on classes than your first week of billable hours from your attorney.

Purplehood wrote:It is unequal.

I disagree. It is equal. You just have to remember that the cops are more equal than the rest of us.

TrueFlog wrote:

Purplehood wrote:It is unequal.

I disagree. It is equal. You just have to remember that the cops are more equal than the rest of us.

Bear in mind that two different juries can decide very differently on similar cases, especially in a country as broad as this great nation. What may be seen as reasonable or "accidental" by the general populace in one area may be seen as evil and intentional by a group in another area.

Do you think that any jury in the State of Texas would find a man guilty of animal cruelty for killing a rat with a stick in his garden as they did in New Jersey a couple of years ago?

And then there's always the left wing authoritarian mindset that believe nobody has any business carrying a gun if they aren't a LEO. It isn't the police officer's fault that they tend to be looked upon more favorably by the general public. We need to work harder to project a good image of CHL holders through the TSRA, NRA, and community involvement to show that we are exactly the opposite of gun-toting vigilantes on the edge looking for a fight.

And we need to work hard to eliminate the need for CHLs when we should have the ability to legally carry a firearm on our person without the state's "permission" and knowlege. It's like having to have a license to breathe air.

karl wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Accidentally shooting an innocent 3rd person is not murder. It may constitute "reckless" injury or killing of an innocent 3rd person, but not every unintended injury/death is the result of recklessness.

Wouldn't it then be manslaughter?

Manslaughter is "recklessly" killing someone. Criminally Negligent Homicide is a lesser crime with a lower standard of culpability, but only slightly so. "Recklessness" requires actual knowledge of a risk coupled with conscious disregard of that risk. "Criminal negligence" requires only that the risk be one that the person "ought to be aware of" but the remainder of the definition is the same.

Chas.

TPC §19.04 wrote:Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

TPC §19.05 wrote:Sec. 19.05. CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.
(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

TPC §6.03 wrote:(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor ’s standpoint.

(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor ’s standpoint.

jsimmons wrote:A couple of weeks ago, a LEO in town accidentally shot/killed an innocent bystander (while defending himself, like the example above, and once again, I am not sure of any details beyond that), and yesterday, they announced that he was cleared of any wrong-doing.

If this is the case I am thinking of, the officer shot at the robber and hit him several times. One shot also killed the victim. The last I heard in the media, they were unsure if the round that killed the victim had also hit the robber and passed through him. With four hits on the robber and the fifth hit either on both or on the bad guy the rober was struggling with, it would be very hard to argue reckless shooting.

As for the cases mentioned by the CHL Instructor, I am not sure if they are true for Texas or not. I have never heard of a real case in Texas where a good shoot that hit the wrong person was prosecuted. Civil suits, but no criminal prosecutions, most likely for the reasons Charles has already shown. I am not saying the cases do not exist, I just have never found a verifiable case in Texas for it.

But, given that, it is always better to hit the target. The trend in police qualifications is to move towards all rounds must be in the actual target (in the silhouette, not just on the paper) to qualify. It will take several years to get there, but I see it as the future for law enforcement. The logic is that your shooting under stress will deteriorate, so if you cannot hit the target on the range how will you hit on the street? This might be a good voluntary standard for your practice (I am trying to keep it myself - not quite there yet though).

I'm concerned about the assertion that CHL holders are or should be held to a higher standard. I believe you should hold yourself to a higher standard, but that's another debate, entirely.

I've heard this for years, as an instructor, but no one has ever presented any evidence to support this belief. Personally, I believe it's an old wives (or lawyers) tale. Knowing what goes on in many CHL classes, material and requirements mandated by the state of Texas, and the low percentage of CHL holders who, despite our pleading, actually pursue additional training, I don't see how any sane, knowledgeable, non-agenda-driven (is this the key?) DA or prosecutor could pursue, or successfully pursue, this vein.

Maybe Mr. Cotton has some insight.

jsimmons wrote: and accidentally killed a 9-year-old boy that was sitting on his front porch, and is currently in jail for murder because of it (no other details were given).

My guess is your instructor missed a detail. A lot of people think Homicide and Murder are synonims. They are not.

Murder: kill intentionally and with premeditation; "The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered"
Homicide: the killing of a human being by another human being.

All self defense killings are homicides, but most of them are not murder. I'm guessing the man was in jail for criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter (as Charles pointed out) and somewhere along the line, the story got mixed up.