Good shoot?
- Thread starter s4s4u
- Start date
It may depend on who initiated aggression in the restroom. If the 22 year old from Detroit started it, the two on one video may not be the determining factor.
If the dead 20 year Old from Pontiac started things in the restroom it will probably be a good shoot, but the 22 year Old from Detroit is going to face civil charges from the woman shot, and probably be trespassed by the mall for failing to comply with the No Firearms Policy. At a minimum.
If the dead 20 year Old from Pontiac started things in the restroom it will probably be a good shoot, but the 22 year Old from Detroit is going to face civil charges from the woman shot, and probably be trespassed by the mall for failing to comply with the No Firearms Policy. At a minimum.
Busterswoodshop
Hunter
Going by just the video.
Two on one.
What are you supposed to do ?
Two on one.
What are you supposed to do ?
Good or bad. We need a hell of a lot of facts that aren't listed to make a correct statement.
The person who mentioned if the case is a real SD case having a firearm in a public place/ private place open to public. That posts "NO firearms" nothing should come of any charges to the armed person for having the gun, again IF the use was legal. That type of court ruling has been about in states for years. The DAs should know better and not even file that charge.
This applies to people that are not band from owning a firearm by fed or state laws.
The woman who was hit by a stray bullet likely will get a lawyer and want money. Doubt the shooter has anything worth going after. The money is with who owes the property. They pull crap like saying the property owner should have had methods in place that prevent or stop violence. So they owe her money. Can they win? it's a civil law case not criminal law. Who knows the outcome.
The person who mentioned if the case is a real SD case having a firearm in a public place/ private place open to public. That posts "NO firearms" nothing should come of any charges to the armed person for having the gun, again IF the use was legal. That type of court ruling has been about in states for years. The DAs should know better and not even file that charge.
This applies to people that are not band from owning a firearm by fed or state laws.
The woman who was hit by a stray bullet likely will get a lawyer and want money. Doubt the shooter has anything worth going after. The money is with who owes the property. They pull crap like saying the property owner should have had methods in place that prevent or stop violence. So they owe her money. Can they win? it's a civil law case not criminal law. Who knows the outcome.
coachk64
Single-Sixer
If it really happened according to the article, there was an altercation in the restroom, then later it restarted at the food court with the attacker bringing a friend. If that is what is determined to be the truth, then I'd say it was justified. If they prove that the altercation never ended, but just started in the bathroom but then extended itself to the food court. then they may say that the shooter had opportunities to end the fight before the gun was pulled and it will be more difficult to be exonerated.
I know real lawyers will disagree with me (I've played one here on the internet for over 20 years) but as for the stray bullet hitting a bi-stander .... if the shooting was justified and ruled self defense then the person liable for any peripheral damage is the person who started the altercation in the first place... the one that got shot not the shooter.
That's the way it should work and might in some states. But don't bet your freedom or pocket book/estate on it.
Logic says your right. Courts/ laws don't always follow logic. Ask google or look up case law if any shootings followed your logic. There might be some.
I could be wrong? But I've never lived in a State that the shooter wasn't responsible for the final destination of the projectile from their firearm. Perhaps someone could school me which states don't follow such procedures?
Here is an example of sorts... couple years ago there was a road rage incident in Florida.... guy is sitting in his car or truck and two guys get out of the vehicle in front of him... somebody did something to piss somebody off... the two guys have guns and one of them, we'll say idiot #1 shoots at the guy in his car... he, citizen #3, retrieves a gun from his vehicle and while still sitting in it shoots both idiot 1 and 2... 1 is wounded and disabled and two is dead..... once the smoke cleared idiot 1 is charged with Felony Murder of his partner.
I know this is not the exact instance we are talking about but shows that it can happen.
It seems somewhere in law it is stated or assumed that if you are committing a crime then any peripheral damage that occurs during and because of that crime you are responsible for.
I know this is not the exact instance we are talking about but shows that it can happen.
It seems somewhere in law it is stated or assumed that if you are committing a crime then any peripheral damage that occurs during and because of that crime you are responsible for.
Busterswoodshop
Hunter
If you are just the get away driver setting in the car , and your partner shoots someone in the bank.
You can be charged with murder.
If you shoplift with a weapon in your pocket , you can be charged with armed robbery.
You can be charged with murder.
If you shoplift with a weapon in your pocket , you can be charged with armed robbery.
2 on 1? I seem to hear the shooter say please or something just before he shoots the guy. Both aggressors seem intent on causing bodily harm. If this was the only evidence I saw as a juror, I would have to say not guilty on all charges, including the pedestrian that was hit. And Buster is right, charge the surviving aggressor with the pedestrian shooting. Was his actions that led directly to the shooting.
