Monday, September 22, 2014

Louisville Kentucky Bar Fight Leads to Accidental Shooting

Local news reports

Police say a large bar fight spilled into the street early Sunday morning, resulting in an accidental shooting which sent a man to the hospital.

Alicia Smiley, a spokeswoman for the Louisville Metro Police Department, said a man was thrown through a window during a brawl at Happy Endings bar on 4th Street. He went to his car to get a gun, Smiley said, which went off accidentally when he was hit in the head.

The bullet struck a man in a nearby car, who was treated for injuries that were not life-threatening, police said.

22 comments:

  1. "The man with the gun took a friend to the hospital then returned to the scene and cooperated with a police investigation, Smiley said."

    So the gun wasn't in the bar. So during this fight, this guy gets thrown THROUGH a closed window. Retreats to his car and gets his gun to defend himself. Then someone hits him on the head, which causes the discharge. I'm sure some of our learned legal folk here can clarify, but it sounds like the guy who hit him on the head would be on the hook for it.
    The man then took an injured friend to the hospital, and then returned to cooperate with the police investigation. Something that apparently didn't universally happen, since they haven't identified everyone in the fight. Meaning a bunch of people ran.
    The guy is very lucky to not be in the hospital himself. Being thrown through a window isn't normally the fun thing you see in the old westerns.

    "The man with the gun took a friend to the hospital then returned to the scene and cooperated with a police investigation, Smiley said.
    Police are still trying to identify all parties involved, and the investigation is ongoing."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's possible that the head knocker could be on the hook as the proximate cause of the discharge. Also, in case law in some states, if not in statutes, blows about the head and neck can be considered use of lethal force.

      I say that it's possible because it would depend on a lot of factors--who started the fight, how did it start, did the gun owner try to disengage/de-escalate, etc.

      e.g. Scenario 1--gun owner called the other guy a name, got called one back, threw a bottle at the other guy, got tossed out, and went for the gun to even the score. He picked and started the fight, and tried to escalate by getting the gun--he's lucky he got knocked out before he could commit murder, and is on the hook for the wounded guy's bills.

      Scenario 2--gun owner accidentally bumped other guy, spilling his beer. Gun owner apologizes, but the other guy is drunk and still mad, throws a punch. Gun owner tries to defend himself but gets tossed out by guy's buddies, sees them coming out of the place, runs for his car, sees them following, grabs gun to try and defend himself since they obviously want to beat the shit out of him, gets knocked on the head, and is lucky that the accidental discharge is enough to scare them off (and lucky that Mike doesn't get to take his gun under his one strike proposal). In this scenario, the gun owner didn't escalate, only tried to defend himself with force proportional to what was brought against him, and even tried to flee the conflict--self defense justifies his actions, and the aggressors should be on the hook for the other wounded guy's injury since their actions were the proximate cause of his injury.

      Something in-between these scenarios and we get into a more complicated analysis of the facts, the criminal statutes of the state, and the apportionment of negligence under the state's tort law.

      Finally, the guy's return to the scene and cooperation could mean either that it's more like scenario 2, or that he's overconfident that he was in the right, though I'd lean toward the former as those with the hubris of the latter would be more prone to leaving the scene altogether since they feel that they're totally right. Course, that's a judgment call to be made by the cops, D.A. and any jury if this goes to trial.

      Delete
    2. What good did his gun do?

      What harm did it do?

      Delete
    3. Nice oversimplification, Mike. Depending on what the details turn out to be, it may be that the shot fired from the gun sent a group of attackers fleeing whereas they might have, otherwise, beat the guy into a coma or to death.

      As for the harm, we had a thankfully non-life threatening wound which may, again depending on the details, be something laid at the feet of the attackers who fled the scene.

      You need more details and actual analysis of the case rather than a simple statement of "somebody got wounded--it's all harm!"

      Delete
    4. It's just as likely that he would have sustained nothing more than a fat lip. Gun-rights fanatics always talk in extreme terms like "beat the guy into a coma or to death." How else to justify the extreme remedy?

      Delete
    5. "It's just as likely that he would have sustained nothing more than a fat lip."

      They threw him through a window, which probably gave him at least that, and could have led to serious injury or death. Then they chased him out to his car, obviously intent on doing more damage. THEN they knocked him over the head with something, which is a potentially fatal blow.

      Your and your anti-gun allies constant minimizing of potential harm is reaching levels where we're not going to have to argue against you--just point and laugh with the rest of society who realize that a group of people handing out an ass kicking are a real danger.

      You say that it is exaggerated and extreme to talk about the danger of a person being beat into a coma or beat to death, and yet we can all think of stories of it happening. People get savage when in a group taking part in a fight. When they're drunk, they lose inhibitions and also the ability to accurately diagnose how much damage they're doing--much less how much their buddy is doing.

      Just a week or two ago I saw a couple of stories about bystanders coming to aid someone being attacked--one was in a coma for a time, the other died.

      For you and your cohorts to suggest that people just "take it like a man" and bet on only getting "a fat lip" is foolish and morally repugnant. Instead, anyone finding themselves beset by attackers, especially when there are multiple attackers, should be running for their life, looking to either get help or a weapon that can scare off the pursuit.

      Delete
    6. "It's just as likely that he would have sustained nothing more than a fat lip."

      The problem of course is that your expectation is to trust the angry mob fighting with each other to only beat someone up "just a little bit".

      Delete
    7. He's responsible for raising the threat risk by introducing a gun into a fist fight. A gun owner is responsible for whatever happens when he brings out his gun. If the gun gets taken away, that's his fault. If he drops it and it goes off that's his responsibility. Typical gun loon, won't take responsibility for his own gun.

      Delete
    8. "A gun owner is responsible for whatever happens when he brings out his gun. If the gun gets taken away, that's his fault. If he drops it and it goes off that's his responsibility. "

      An interesting standard Anon. Does your standard also apply to the police?

      Delete
    9. Another problem that's not been mentioned is keeping a gun in the car while you're in a bar drinking is the height of irresponsibility. When you go out drinking, your gun needs to be home locked in a safe.

      Delete
    10. Mike,

      That is no more of a problem than locking the gun in your car while you go into Applebee's for dinner if you are in a state that won't allow you to carry because the restaurant has a bar, or leaving it locked in while going into Starbucks, or into the court house or some other place you can't carry it. I know you don't like people doing this in these cases, but people either have to do this, or make a bunch of extra trips--drive home, lock up gun, drive to city county building to pay for tags, drive home, get gun, proceed with business, etc.

      In the case of him being in the bar, he's not supposed to be drinking and driving, so either he leaves while under the influence and is breaking the law with regard to carrying and driving under the influence, or he has a drink, waits for it to metabolize, and then legally drives home in legal possession of the gun.

      Don't know about the others, but there have been plenty of times when I have done this when either DDing for friends (couldn't carry in the bar) or when out with them and only having one drink that evening so that it had time to metabolize since I was driving myself and didn't want to violate either the carry or driving under influence laws.

      Delete
    11. As for the other Anonymous' comment, it depends on the circumstances--was he actually the one escalating the conflict (e.g. scenario 1 that I offered above) or had the others escalated it to the point that he was threatened with death or "grave bodily harm" in which case he was only responding with equivalent force.

      If he was escalating, Anonymous is correct (at least in part--the other party taking the gun and then harming another could bear some liability as well). If he was responding to the other party's/parties' escalation, they're responsible so long as he didn't do something to negate that.

      Delete
    12. What's interesting SS is you don't think a gun owner is responsible for what happens to his gun. No surprise. That's why you consider negligence, accident.

      Delete
    13. "What's interesting SS is you don't think a gun owner is responsible for what happens to his gun."

      Since you got my statement completely wrong in my beliefs about accidental/negligent discharges, I'd better make sure I'm understanding your assertion.
      You are saying that if anyone is holding a firearm, if they are assaulted, and the assault causes the gun to discharge, the victim of the assault is at fault?

      Delete
    14. "That is no more of a problem than locking the gun in your car while you go into Applebee's for dinner..."

      Well, actually both are unacceptable for the simple reason that cars are too easily stolen or broken into. That's never safe storage. Obviously, popping the gun in the glove box while you go into a bar to "have a few" is doubly wrong.

      Delete
  2. Now there's a real man. He got in to a fight (probably started it) then purposely grabbed his gun, then claimed it was an "accident" when it went off. Laughable. Bringing a gun to a fist fight, John Wayne would be calling him a scared sissy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "He got in to a fight (probably started it) then purposely grabbed his gun, then claimed it was an "accident" when it went off."

      Yes Anon, people who start fights and shot someone often return to talk to the police and assist them in the investigation. Just as common as the poor innocent people who were in the fight running off before the police get there. And in appreciation of him coming back, they didn't arrest them.

      Delete
    2. I have no doubt he felt righteous in his use of a gun, but then you gun loons think it's just fine to shoot and kill those who play music to loud, or throw popcorn. Anyone else pull a gun during the fight? No. Just the kill happy gun loon.

      Delete
    3. "I have no doubt he felt righteous in his use of a gun"

      As was mentioned in the article Anon, the discharge was caused by his being struck.

      Delete
    4. There you go with that dishonest crap again. He went and got his gun, certainly he intended to use it, or why go get it. I said nothing about the discharge. On with your lies.

      Delete
    5. Where did the idea that his gun discharged when he was struck come from? Him?

      Delete
    6. Seeing as the other parties fled, something you noted as a potential sign of guilt in the Dunn case, the police were left with his testimony and that of any other witnesses who stuck around, Mike.

      Delete