TexasCHLforum.com

Saw this article and thought it was interesting. It does raise some questions.

https://mylegalheat.com/blog/are-you-li ... ssed-shot/

One of the answers to, is if a shot passes through a person violating your rights and strikes another person, who is liable.
Needs some opinions on this.

MeMelYup wrote:Saw this article and thought it was interesting. It does raise some questions.

https://mylegalheat.com/blog/are-you-li ... ssed-shot/

One of the answers to, is if a shot passes through a person violating your rights and strikes another person, who is liable.
Needs some opinions on this.

The short answer, is of course you can be held liable. The only difference would be whether it is civilly, or criminally. I would think that criminally you would have a defense to prosecution, that would prevent most if not all criminal liability. Civilly, is a different story, you are responsible for every round you fire, whether they first pass through a bad guy or not. You can be sued for anything, and I would imagine, that there are several lawyers who would be more than willing to help someone file a lawsuit, in that case.

For the record, one of the reasons, I carry the type of ammo that I do, is that it has a track record, of expending most, if not all of it;'s energy inside a body cavity. That doesn't mean much, if the shot only penetrates soft tissue in an area not likely to present much resistance. However, my life, and the life of those I love, is much more important to me, than worrying about a potential lawsuit, if, in the course of defending either, one shot somehow, struck an unintended victim. If I spend too much time, worried about avoiding any lawsuit, in any part of my daily life, I would never drive, walk too close to other people, or speak in public. But, I go on about my daily life, in the same way I carry a gun. I am polite, friendly, and as safe as I can possibly be. JMHO

What Jusme said, which is one half of why packing FMJs is such a high risk proposition - the other half being that they won't stop someone as effectively. Sure, the person will eventually bleed out.........eventually.......but if pain is worth anything at all, a nicely mushroomed hollow point is likely to be more effective and cause a slightly bigger temporary stretch cavity, without the inherent risk of a pass-through.

It has been a long time since I took the LTC course but I thought on pass through you could be held liable both criminally and civilly and the act of stopping a crime could not be used as a defense to prosecution.

The Annoyed Man wrote:What Jusme said, which is one half of why packing FMJs is such a high risk proposition - the other half being that they won't stop someone as effectively. Sure, the person will eventually bleed out.........eventually.......but if pain is worth anything at all, a nicely mushroomed hollow point is likely to be more effective and cause a slightly bigger temporary stretch cavity, without the inherent risk of a pass-through.

Mozambique.

IANAL, but I believe that you could almost always be held liable if you are negligent. That said, if you choose ammo that is designed to minimize pass-through risk, and you do everything possible to avoid a shot where there is a non-threat beyond your target, you should have a pretty strong defense.

If I am ever forced to fire my weapon at a threat, I fully expect negative outcomes, including lost time and money on my part. That's why it is a last resort after all other options have failed. Any negative result will be better than the alternative of death or serious injury to myself or my family members.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:IANAL, but I believe that you could almost always be held liable if you are negligent. That said, if you choose ammo that is designed to minimize pass-through risk, and you do everything possible to avoid a shot where there is a non-threat beyond your target, you should have a pretty strong defense.

If I am ever forced to fire my weapon at a threat, I fully expect negative outcomes, including lost time and money on my part. That's why it is a last resort after all other options have failed. Any negative result will be better than the alternative of death or serious injury to myself or my family members.

If I have to shoot thru cover to defend my life or the life of my loved one, say a car door or a gypsum wall, then I want maximum penetration. Shoot to eliminate the threat and get the best lawyer available.

I would be interested to read a survey of civil court judgements in Texas related to injury to bystanders and property damage from otherwise "good shoots".

Bitter Clinger wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:IANAL, but I believe that you could almost always be held liable if you are negligent. That said, if you choose ammo that is designed to minimize pass-through risk, and you do everything possible to avoid a shot where there is a non-threat beyond your target, you should have a pretty strong defense.

If I am ever forced to fire my weapon at a threat, I fully expect negative outcomes, including lost time and money on my part. That's why it is a last resort after all other options have failed. Any negative result will be better than the alternative of death or serious injury to myself or my family members.

If I have to shoot thru cover to defend my life or the life of my loved one, say a car door or a gypsum wall, then I want maximum penetration. Shoot to eliminate the threat and get the best lawyer available.

But HST, Gold Dot, and Critical Duty all perform fairly well against barriers, and will still mushroom in the target's body. No bullet design is going to be absolutely prefect in that regard, but those three have performed fairly well in tests.

For me, FMJ is a "I've run out of ammo, and this what I've got left" choice. I keep my 33 round Glock mags charged with FMJ, but I don't typically carry those around with me.

My first CHL instructor explained it to me this way - "Every round in your magazine has a lawyer attached to it. If you send a round out into the real world, the lawyer goes with it and he or she may not have your best interests at heart if your actions were less than 100% justified and legal."

The moral of the story was, in part, to always be sure of your target and your surroundings, including anything or anyone who could be between your target and the bullet's ultimate stopping point. If you fire the round, you are responsible for whatever it hits.

Pass through shots by an LTC or equivalent holder that hit an innocent party with an expanded hollowpoint are pretty rare and I can't even recall the last time I saw one that caused a serious injury.

The much greater concern is a missed shot that hits an unintended target.

I don't buy into the pass through argument at all. I have read a number of articles over the years that cited gunfight data from LEO and ABC agencies that all gave a relatively low number of percentage of hits. So if statistically speaking more shots miss than hit, you can't worry about a hit that may pass through. And if you still do, you'd have to shoot a really anemic load or caliber to guarantee no exit... and to get there you would still have to be a supreme operator to guarantee no misses... oh wait, even our very best can miss under that kind of pressure with a moving target!

Bottom line is that you should not worry about a pass through, but since a miss won't stop an attacker and is a real liability, train to minimize that possibility instead.

Way more folks get struck by lightning each year than people that have to worry about preforming perfectly under pressure in a life/death situation and then have a round pass through the intended target into another person.

And lets say all that falls into line and you can see it develop in front of you... would you NOT shoot/stop an active shooter because you might catch someone else on the pass through??? (also realizing that a pass through would have exhausted much /most of it's energy going through the first person- so the chances of it doing major damage to the 2nd is diminished considerably)

Sometimes I wonder about marketing ideas. Names shouldn't matter, but I still wonder.

A jury shouldn't care whether a manufacturer names a type of ammo "Humble Petition to Kindly RSVP Your Plans to Leave Me in Peace" or "Flesh Rending Zombie Death."

But what if Shannon Watts is the jury foreman, and what if your ammo of choice is RIP, with manufacturer's claims about flying hole saws and shrapnel peeling off into what we would call the threat, what Ms. Watts would probably call a victim?

That old joke, now probably considered religious bigotry, about the Amish farmer confronting a burglar with a fowling piece got it right. According to the joke, the dignified elder said to the burglar, "I would not hurt thee for all the world, but thee are standing where I am about to shoot."

The right idea. Respect life, stop threats.

I keep thinking I shouldn't care about labels. But RIP?

treadlightly wrote:Sometimes I wonder about marketing ideas. Names shouldn't matter, but I still wonder.

A jury shouldn't care whether a manufacturer names a type of ammo "Humble Petition to Kindly RSVP Your Plans to Leave Me in Peace" or "Flesh Rending Zombie Death."

But what if Shannon Watts is the jury foreman, and what if your ammo of choice is RIP, with manufacturer's claims about flying hole saws and shrapnel peeling off into what we would call the threat, what Ms. Watts would probably call a victim?

That old joke, now probably considered religious bigotry, about the Amish farmer confronting a burglar with a fowling piece got it right. According to the joke, the dignified elder said to the burglar, "I would not hurt thee for all the world, but thee are standing where I am about to shoot."

The right idea. Respect life, stop threats.

I keep thinking I shouldn't care about labels. But RIP?

That was what got the Black Talons taken off the market. They advertised it's "lethality" showed expanded rounds, and bragged about the types of wounds it would cause. There are several defensive rounds out there that are just as "lethal" expand the same, and cause the exact type of wounds, but the marketing strategy killed it.

The more benign sounding name given to ammo, guns, or even knives, are better in my opinion, because I don't want a prosecutor holding up something with "flaming death" printed on it, at my trial.

Excaliber wrote:Pass through shots by an LTC or equivalent holder that hit an innocent party with an expanded hollowpoint are pretty rare and I can't even recall the last time I saw one that caused a serious injury.

The much greater concern is a missed shot that hits an unintended target.

^^^^ ^^^^


In addition, if there was a pass through shot that harmed an bystander, it would be a very far fetched legal argument, even in today's litigious environment, that the shot was caused by negligence etc.

Missing a shot altogether however and hitting someone else, now that's a different proposition.