# was any one told this



## faststang90 (Apr 8, 2013)

when i got my chl i was told if someone was attacking you and you shoot and miss and hit someone or something the person attacking would have to pay for it. today i told to my chl person and he said the law has changed. this happed, some guy was selling a iphone and meet the guy at walmart. the guy told him he had the money out in his truck. they needed to go get it. the guy got out to his truck and the guy attacked him. he shot at the guy and missed and hit someone car. the cops took him to jail for shooting his gun and my have to do jail time. has any one heard this?


----------



## berettatoter (Sep 1, 2011)

We can't kid ourselves. There is a lawyer attached to every round we fire in self defense.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

fastang90:
No, I haven't heard this, but any bullet that leaves your gun is your responsibility.


----------



## faststang90 (Apr 8, 2013)

ok hope i never have to use it.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

fastang90:


> "ok hope i never have to use it."


Don't we all.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Fortunately in my state if you are placed in a situation where you have to employ your sidearm and in the exchange one of your rounds strikes an innocent party, your attacker is at fault; not you. Obviously this assumes that your actions were either justifiable or excusable.


----------



## rex (Jan 27, 2012)

The facts of that scenario are way too vuage (sp), too many variables between what exactly happened and what your specific law is.

If the attack defined a lawful shooting, they should be held accountable. There are times a questionable shooting keeps you out of jail but you still pay in some respect. Even Texas has retart areas. I'm not saying you can spray and pray and be safe, but if you look at police hit ratios it should also pass down to "civillians" that "don't have proper training" that covers them. I was in LE so no, it isn't bashing. I've seen scarier stuffs with gun handling by cops than newbies.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

rex said:


> The facts of that scenario are way too vuage (sp), too many variables between what exactly happened and what your specific law is.
> 
> If the attack defined a lawful shooting, they should be held accountable. There are times a questionable shooting keeps you out of jail but you still pay in some respect. Even Texas has retart areas. I'm not saying you can spray and pray and be safe, but if you look at police hit ratios it should also pass down to "civillians" that "don't have proper training" that covers them. I was in LE so no, it isn't bashing. I've seen scarier stuffs with gun handling by cops than newbies.


If you're referring to my post, the facts are pretty clear. If your use of deadly force was found, or ruled or no billed, as or to be either justifiable or excusable, an innocent party being struck by one or your shots is on your attacker, the operative word being justifiable/excusable same as if no innocent party was struck. You cannot be expected to withhold fire in such a situation because there are innocent parties present when doing so puts you in grave danger of serious bodily harm or worse. This does not mean you are free from civil litigation*, just that your actions would not be deemed as criminal.

* Civil litigation against a victim by an assailant or an assailant's family for wrongful injury or death is quite rare in my state (per a commonwealth's attorney and a man running for county sheriff).


----------



## rex (Jan 27, 2012)

No man, I was referring to the OP's scenario. FL is quite pro on this issue, if you have a miss or shoot through the instigator is held liable. Once you are cleared in the shooting you're also immune from a civil suit, doesn't mean the dumasses won't try but if it does see court they'll be paying you time and money invested.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

rex said:


> No man, I was referring to the OP's scenario. FL is quite pro on this issue, if you have a miss or shoot through the instigator is held liable. Once you are cleared in the shooting you're also immune from a civil suit, doesn't mean the dumasses won't try but if it does see court they'll be paying you time and money invested.


Okay, thanks for your clarification. I appreciate that. While we don't have a "Castle Law" in statute on the books, there is plenty of case law for us here in Virginia. We are not a duty to retreat law (stand your ground). A bill was drafted for a Castle doctrine a little while back but the wording would have compromised that which we already enjoy as Virginians. There is something in the works to support our current case law in this area.


----------



## OldManMontgomery (Nov 2, 2013)

*Sounds like confusion of two issues...*

*Check with an attorney who deals in such matters.*

Under *criminal law* in most states (and can vary, obviously) the person committing a crime is criminally liable for all _crimes_ committed as a result. For instance, if in your _lawful and reasonable_ (another important consideration) response to being attacked with lethal force, an innocent third party is wounded or killed, the one who instigated the chain of events can be charged with assault or murder.

However, this does not automatically remove the onus of reasonable care and competence from the defender. Or - in dog years - a *civil suit* for damages.

Any way one looks at the issue, a sloppy shoot is a bad shoot. Stand by; find a good lawyer.


----------

