Customer shoots bank robber in Warren

[branford]

161. Of course that's not "okay."

It's never "okay" when an innocent dies, and even the death of an armed an dangerous assailant is tragic. However, as I indicated before, your ultimate goal still remains elusive.

If you're arguing that you personally would be reticent to ever fire a gun in self-defense or even just believe that as prerequisite to a concealed carry license there should be minimal safety and competency training, we certainly have no quarrel. You must asses your own risks and I do not oppose reasonable means to improve actual firearm safety.

I'm more concerned that as a matter of law you want to effectively remove a persons right to defend themselves, at least with a firearm, due to any potential risk to third-parties. That I would vehemently oppose this, and it would almost certainly be unconstitutional.

In you hypothetical, if the shooter otherwise legally owned and carried the gun, and did not otherwise violate any established principles of self-defense (e.g., fired at an obviously escaping suspect, etc.), the shooting would appear to be lawful and reasonable, and the death of the innocent entirely the responsibility of the bank robber. In fact, as an attorney, I can assure you that the robber would almost certainly face a felony murder charge.

The basic tenets of criminal and civil law are also not suspended against third-parties in the event of defensive firearm use. If the shooter was somehow criminally or civilly negligent, he (or she) could still face penalties (e.g., firing into a large crowd while intoxicated after the assailant is down even if otherwise lawfully defending themselves, etc.).