Dr Susan Gratia-Hupp - Survivor of the 1991 Kileen TX Lubys Shooting

As for your "average person" estimate, 25% is poor, failing, and an excellent statistic to prohibit the carrying of firearms by trained, "average people." But I appreciate your support for my years of posting that CHL training is inadequate for carry purposes. Originally Posted by LL

Then cops shouldn't carry either, their hit ratio is lower than civilians, by quite a bit, even though they have much more training. If we're going off of pure hit ratio numbers then it's safer for me to carry a gun than a cop, so you should be arguing for the disarmament of police.

As for life ... and things going wrong ... it is by definition murder to shoot at someone, miss that person, and hit another innocent person who dies from that hit. Originally Posted by LL

That is incorrect. Police officers and civilians are covered by the same law here. (TX since we're talking about here).

T PC Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

You must prove recklessness to rise to the level of murder, and that is not always an easy thing to do, nor do prosecutors necessarily try that often. If what you say was true the prisons would be full of cops. Might get sued, but it's not automatically a crime to hit an innocent bystander.

The test for recklessness will generally involve asking the question of whether or not the risk was "reasonable", and that's what juries are for. Juries side with good guys surprisingly often, even when they have fucked up.

Careful playing amateur lawyer, you are entering territory you clearly don't know very well.

based on your analysis there is a 75% chance of a round striking another innocent person by the "average person" and that does not factor in pass throughs. Originally Posted by LL

Not even close. There is a 75% chance that the bullet won't hit the bad guy, not a 75% chance it will hit a bystander. Most training for these high occupancy situations involves shooting at an upward angle, so it's more likely that 75% of the missed shots will hit the ceiling. And this isn't my analysis, these are stats from various law enforcement agencies around the country, based on real life history not speculation.

You are clearly not trained in how this stuff works, you are arguing from a position of emotion and gut feelings. Don't get your firearm training from movies.

Careful playing amateur lawyer, you are entering territory you clearly don't know very well. Originally Posted by mansfield

I'm not. And I do.

The state also has to prove "intent" to prove "murder"! And that "intent" is the intent to do the act that resulted in the death of the victim, as opposed to the intent to kill.

And like I said discharging a firearm in a school, restaurant, and/or movie theater with people in it, which is what has been the discussion, on the various threads since Connecticut ... begs for a finding of "reckless" particularly when the shooter will have to explain the "level of training" ... the type of rounds fired ... and the decision making of when to shoot or not shoot.

Depending on the culpable state of mind and the circumstances there may be a lesser homicide than murder, but the potential for an arrest and criminal prosecution are there.

If I recall correctly TCLEOSE qualification requires an 70%* and/or some departments do require higher, like 85%, and it is also my recollection that the TCLEOSE qualification course is not the same as the CHL. Those are minimum standards. * Rule § 217.21*

You find in my posts regarding officers in school that it has been my consistent posting that the officers assigned to schools have more intense training with responding to incidents in buildings and entry into buildings in which are present large numbers of persons, along with the equipment and materiel to address the threats in the school environment, with electronic surveillance to monitor activity and a system in place and enforced to restrict access to the schools without the visitor actually entering the facility.

"average persons" and "average officers" are not acceptable, which pretty much eliminates CHL holders, with a few exceptions.

If I recall correctly TCLEOSE qualification requires an 85% and/or some departments do, and it is also my recollection that the TCLEOSE qualification course is not the same as the CHL. Originally Posted by LL

That has nothing to do with hits in an actual shooting. Civilians tend to fire less rounds than cops, so their hit ratio is higher. Cops tend to "spray and pray" more than civilians. That's just a fact based on years of historical information. No one, cop or civilian, can shoot to their best ability when someone is shooting back at them.

I regularly shoot a passing score on the LAPD SWAT qual courses A and B, which is pretty damn hard to do. That said I have no doubt that if I were in a real shooting my accuracy would drop significantly. That's just reality. Having the decision making skills of whether or not to pull the trigger is where training comes in, not being able to pull off trick shots at 50 yards standing out in the sunshine. But, if your shooting drops by 50% and it's very high to begin with, then certainly you are better off. If you suck standing in the sunshine shooting at paper, you are toast if someone is shooting back at you in the dark.

but the potential for an arrest and criminal prosecution are there. Originally Posted by LL

You didn't say the potential was there, you said if you hit an innocent bystander it's murder, and it most certainly is not.

The potential is always there for bad shit happening to anyone who carries a gun, good guy or bad guy. It's a heavy responsibility which is why the State of Texas makes sure to explain to CHL holders that the class is not "training", and the shooting is merely a test of basic competency.

Some idiots do carry with no more training than that, but those types usually stop carrying after a few times. They go to Wal Mart a time or 2 with their cheap velcro holsters then give up. Carrying a firearm concealed full time is a royal pain in the ass and most don't really do it that often. That's why you rarely see some CHL guy stopping a massacre. But, that doesn't change the fact that it COULD happen and it doesn't change the fact that having armed civilians out in the world has not increased the danger to other citizens.

So we get where we are today, where in the judgment of lawmakers around the country the potential upside to having armed civilians out in the world outweighs the potential risk. That's not likely to change any time soon.

"average persons" and "average officers" are not acceptable, which pretty much eliminates CHL holders, with a few exceptions. Originally Posted by LL

But they ARE acceptable. They are acceptable because the reason folks choose places to do these mass shootings is because they have a high expectation of not encountering any armed resistance. Schools are legislated "gun free zones", making them safe places to cause mayhem. The movie theater shooter in Colorado passed by 2 theaters closer to his home because they allowed concealed carry. He chose a theater that posted signs keeping concealed carriers out. These things are not coincidence.

Having an armed responder on site, even with shitty training, is proven to be somewhat of a deterrent; banks with armed guards are robbed less often as an example, and bank guards are usually TERRIBLE shots. So, if they cause no higher risk simply by being there, and provide even some small deterrent, then they are worth it.

The reality is you can't ever protect 100% against bad things happening, and if you work from the stance that 100% is all that is acceptable you're wasting your time.

Don't get your firearm training from movies. Originally Posted by mansfield

I haven't. I don't.

What do you expect from an idiot like Munchie. Last week he accused me of carrying a gun in class because I said I believe that we have a right to self defense. Munchie has low reading capabilites accompanied with low scruples.

You didn't say the potential was there, you said if you hit an innocent bystander it's murder, and it most certainly is not.

But they ARE acceptable.

The reality is you can't ever protect 100% against bad things happening, and if you work from the stance that 100% is all that is acceptable you're wasting your time. Originally Posted by mansfield

This thread and several others on here are about shootings, just like you mentioned, in people filled areas, e.g. restaurants, schools, and movie theaters. So we post in context and that is who and what the thread is about ... the context. And in that context is it reasonable for an "average person" with 25% skills to shoot an intruder, and now you have injected the "low light" (almost "no light") situation of a movie theater. That's what we have been discussing ... not your skills and your "LAPD Swat" qualifications. Hmm.

Given the conversation it seems more "appealing" to let someone know it's "murder" than to tell someone it's not, and then they find out the hard way. But that's just me. If the "average shooter" has a 25% hit ratio then 75% didn't hit and are bouncing around the theater, restaurant, or classroom.

The remarkable thing about your posts is that you are confirming my concerns, and no it's not better for someone to carry a weapon when they are not properly trained to use it, and it is not better for someone to carry a weapon when they get misinformation about the consequences of using it and when they shouldn't and when they should. Period.

To make the conclusion that someone did not go into a business, because there was a "sign" on the wall or there was no "sign" on the wall is a mind-reading leap that is the luxury of internet posters with extaordinary and super human mental capacities, along with their training.

Usually indugled by someone wanting to use the incident to establish the validity of their agenda. It is an incident involving a unique set of circumstances with unique players. It proves nothing.

If the "average shooter" has a 25% hit ratio then 75% didn't hit and are bouncing around

Sigh, again I thought we were not going to get firearms information from Hollywood. That's not how it works in real life, only in Die Hard movies.

To make the conclusion that someone did not go into a business, because there was a "sign" on the wall or there was no "sign" on the wall is a mind-reading leap that is the luxury of internet posters

Sigh. No, that's the judgment of law enforcement folks. That you think you know more than them doesn't really surprise me.

not your skills and your "LAPD Swat" qualifications.

Sigh. I said I shoot the LAPD SWAT qualifier regularly, not that I have any LAPD SWAT qualification. Don't play your bullshit word games to discredit me simply because you have no facts to back up your arguments.

This is why any discussion on this subject is useless, people like you won't have an honest conversation about the subject. It's all lies and spin tactics.

and no it's not better for someone to carry a weapon when they are not properly trained to use it

This is really the crux of the matter isn't it? You think it's dangerous, yet historically it hasn't been. You don't like that because your gut and your personal fears tell you it should be scary but the truth is tens or even hundreds of thousands of untrained or slightly trained people carry guns every day and nothing bad happens because of it. They don't go to prison, they don't shoot up rooms full of innocent people. And that drives you crazy because it means that you're simply wrong, and you can't deal with that.

SIGH ...

That is incorrect. Police officers and civilians are covered by the same law here. (TX since we're talking about here).

Texas Penal Code 2205(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.Green vs. State, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 5127, * (Tex. Ct. App. -14th, 2009)

You must prove recklessness to rise to the level of murder, and that is not always an easy thing to do, nor do prosecutors necessarily try that often. If what you say was true the prisons would be full of cops. Might get sued, but it's not automatically a crime to hit an innocent bystander.

Carter vs. Texas
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 3230, *( Tex. Ct. App. -Austin, 2010)
"Moreover, the statutory presumption is not an element of the offense that the State was required to prove.” …

referencing Texas Penal Code 22.05(c)

The test for recklessness will generally involve asking the question of whether or not the risk was "reasonable", and that's what juries are for. Juries side with good guys surprisingly often, even when they have fucked up.


Gahagan vs. State
242 S.W.3d 80, *; 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 7842, ** (Tex. Ct. App. –1st, 2007)
the analysis of whether the defendant's culpable mental state amounted to recklessness or criminal negligence requires consideration of all the evidence, not just whether the defendant pointed a loaded gun at the victim and whether the weapon accidentally discharged. Thomas, 699 S.W.2d at 849. Thus, evidence that a defendant is familiar with guns and their potential for injury and that the defendant pointed the gun at the victim "indicates a person who is aware of a risk created by that conduct and disregards the risk." 3Id. at 850.

Careful playing amateur lawyer, you are entering territory you clearly don't know very well. Originally Posted by mansfield

Back at you:
Careful playing amateur lawyer, .....

.... you are entering territory you clearly don't know very well.

Stick with your LAPD SWAT training.

Originally Posted by mansfield
You must prove recklessness to rise to the level of murder, and that is not always an easy thing to do, nor do prosecutors necessarily try that often. If what you say was true the prisons would be full of cops. Might get sued, but it's not automatically a crime to hit an innocent bystander.

The test for recklessness will generally involve asking the question of whether or not the risk was "reasonable", and that's what juries are for. Juries side with good guys surprisingly often, even when they have fucked up.

Posted by Lexus Lover:
Texas Penal Code 2205(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.Green vs. State, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 5127, * (Tex. Ct. App. -14th, 2009)

Carter vs. Texas
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 3230, *( Tex. Ct. App. -Austin, 2010)
"Moreover, the statutory presumption is not an element of the offense that the State was required to prove.” …

referencing Texas Penal Code 22.05(c)

Gahagan vs. State
242 S.W.3d 80, *; 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 7842, ** (Tex. Ct. App. –1st, 2007)
the analysis of whether the defendant's culpable mental state amounted to recklessness or criminal negligence requires consideration of all the evidence, not just whether the defendant pointed a loaded gun at the victim and whether the weapon accidentally discharged. Thomas, 699 S.W.2d at 849. Thus, evidence that a defendant is familiar with guns and their potential for injury and that the defendant pointed the gun at the victim "indicates a person who is aware of a risk created by that conduct and disregards the risk." 3Id. at 850.

BTW, sharpshooter, Green is a murder conviction, affirmed.

Dig around and play lawyer ....

... when you point a firearm in someone's direction, even thinking it is not loaded, it is by penal code definition in Texas .. recklessness .. and that element need not be proved by the State ... just like the State doesn't have to prove a firearm is a "deadly weapon" ...

..... it is presumptively so.

Going back to my statement, if one points a firearm at another person to shoot them, but hits another and kills them, it is murder in Texas, ... it is presumed recklessness and therefore no proof is necessary by the State on the issue of recklessness ...

.. if the person has a CHL the license is therefore admissible to show "a defendant is familiar with guns and their potential for injury" .. so the defendant need not take the stand or otherwise be "required" to prove any evidence to support the conviction for murder.