"You will be sued" [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : "You will be sued"


Master_Blaster1911
11-03-2011, 21:07
Well, apparently not.

In this issue of Rangemaster,

http://www.rangemaster.com/newsletter/2011-11_RM-Newsletter.pdf

Tom Givens recounts that there have been 8 justified shootings in his state (TN) in the last 3 years with no civil suits.

This same is true over the last ten years in Texas; a number of shootings deemed justified by the State and no civil suits. (ETA: That I am aware of- should go without saying but, it's internet; ya can't trust common sense will be present)

Am I saying you can't, nope.

Just observing the fear may well be exaggerated.

Deaf Smith
11-03-2011, 21:53
I agree for states like Texas and Tennessee.

But New York?
Massachusetts?
California?

I dunno about that.

Deaf

Glockdude1
11-03-2011, 22:08
Well, apparently not.

In this issue of Rangemaster,

http://www.rangemaster.com/newsletter/2011-11_RM-Newsletter.pdf

Tom Givens recounts that there have been 8 justified shootings in his state (TN) in the last 3 year s with no civil suits.

This same is true over the last ten years in Texas; a number of shootings deemed justified by the State and no civil suits.

Am I saying you can't, nope.

Just observing the fear may well be exaggerated.

:agree:

Another deeply exaggerated fear in the gun world, is the weapon/ammo/magazine used in a self defense shooting, will be used against you.

I have been looking for a case where a good shooting has turned bad, only because of the weapon/ammo/magazine used some how changed something.

So far I have not found any such case.

:cool:

Mas Ayoob
11-03-2011, 22:23
:agree:

Another deeply exaggerated fear in the gun world, is the weapon/ammo/magazine used in a self defense shooting, will be used against you.

I have been looking for a case where a good shooting has turned bad, only because of the weapon/ammo/magazine used some how changed something.

So far I have not found any such case.

:cool:

May not have been looking in the right places. Do a search for Attorney Lisa Steele's excellent article for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

chris in va
11-03-2011, 22:28
Ah, Tennessee got Castle Doctrine back in 2007. You can't sue in civil court if it's justifiable homicide.

Texas has also enjoyed the protection since 2007.

Here's the code...

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

Lampshade
11-03-2011, 22:44
Another deeply exaggerated fear in the gun world, is the weapon/ammo/magazine used in a self defense shooting, will be used against you.

I have been looking for a case where a good shooting has turned bad, only because of the weapon/ammo/magazine used some how changed something.

So far I have not found any such case.

How about cases where weapon/ammo selection was a factor, not just the only factor.

Seems like that would be a more pragmatic approach.

Glockdude1
11-03-2011, 22:46
How about cases where weapon/ammo selection was a factor, not just the only factor.

Seems like that would be a more pragmatic approach.

Please direct me to such a case. I look forward to reading it.

:cool:

Lampshade
11-03-2011, 23:21
Please direct me to such a case. I look forward to reading it.

:cool:

Although you're the one who is supposedly interested in doing research, and I am merely suggesting a more practical avenue of approach, I'll indulge you and refer you to the case of Harold Fish.

Prosecution made it a point that the use of 10mm HPs was overkill for the purpose of self defense and his ammo selection was used to bias the jury against him.

Lampshade
11-03-2011, 23:46
A further example would be the transition of many police departments from single action capable revolvers to double action only models.

Prosecutors were arguing that certain intentional shootings were in fact accidental, and claiming that officers had unintentionally discharged their revolvers while the hammer had been manually cocked.

This is the same reason why trigger weight can be an issue, because a light trigger makes it possible for prosecution to claim that a shooting was actually accidental.

In fact, there was an article posted very recently in the Lounge, detailing a trial in which the firearm used in the shooting was passed among the jury members and they each felt the trigger pull for themselves. Their determination? The shooting was intentional as the weight of the trigger was such that they did not believe it could be easily, inadvertently pulled as prosecution was claiming.

I believe Massad Ayoob has also written of a client on whose behalf he testified when prosecution made an issue of the fact that the defendant was carrying a spare magazine or two.

kirgi08
11-04-2011, 00:23
tagged.

rjflyn
11-04-2011, 07:09
The thing is even with protections given by certain states you can still get sued. You may still have to hire an attorney, to file the appropriate paperwork to have the case tossed on the appropriate grounds. And this all costs money, though much cheaper than a judgement would be.

Brucev
11-04-2011, 07:57
The thing is even with protections given by certain states you can still get sued. You may still have to hire an attorney, to file the appropriate paperwork to have the case tossed on the appropriate grounds. And this all costs money, though much cheaper than a judgement would be.

Ah... right! The county/st./fed. prosecutor and his office have available the full resources of their office. The individual has only what he can bring to the table... paid for by whatever money is available or can be raised for him. Even if he wins, he can very easily be left financially wreaked. In addition one can only imagine the career and professional consequences that are inevitable.

Donn57
11-04-2011, 09:56
Ah... right! The county/st./fed. prosecutor and his office have available the full resources of their office. The individual has only what he can bring to the table... paid for by whatever money is available or can be raised for him. Even if he wins, he can very easily be left financially wreaked. In addition one can only imagine the career and professional consequences that are inevitable.

Except that civil suits are not done by government prosecutors.

Master_Blaster1911
11-04-2011, 10:31
The thing is even with protections given by certain states you can still get sued. You may still have to hire an attorney, to file the appropriate paperwork to have the case tossed on the appropriate grounds. And this all costs money, though much cheaper than a judgement would be.

The point.

Now how often is far more important. Many things can and may happen which we never take procautions against. Why not? Cost benefit analysis?

Master_Blaster1911
11-04-2011, 10:59
How about cases where weapon/ammo selection was a factor, not just the only factor.

Seems like that would be a more pragmatic approach.

Not really, since DAs have a reputation of throwing anything and everything at the defendent that ammunition was made a factor renders it largely irrelevent.

Rumor says DAs still use the "he was loaded with hollow points" attack event though it is easily defeated by asking every cop who takes the stand what bullets their guns are loaded with.

I'd like to see this article by Steele, Mas referenced, but I can't ferret it out.

Regardless of the article, I've yet to find an case where an obviously justified shooting lead to prosecution simply because X caliber or Y brand was used. Instead you find higly questionable shooting were I would consider it prudent to put the matter before a jury where ammo was one of the many arrows fired at the defendent.

Lampshade
11-04-2011, 11:17
Not really, since DAs have a reputation of throwing anything and everything at the defendent that ammunition was made a factor renders it largely irrelevent.

After the Howard Fish trial at least one juror specifically mentioned the ammo used as a vital issue in his decision to return a guilty verdict.

Regardless of the article, I've yet to find an case where an obviously justified shooting lead to prosecution simply because X caliber or Y brand was used. Instead you find higly questionable shooting were I would consider it prudent to put the matter before a jury where ammo was one of the many arrows fired at the defendent.

And now we've come full circle.

Brucev
11-04-2011, 11:31
Except that civil suits are not done by government prosecutors.

My comment was directed toward the issue of prosecution after a shooting wherein irrational unreasonable attention by the prosecutor was paid to extraneous issues such as the appearance, caliber, name of any weapon used, etc. The point is that even where not warranted by evidence, a country, st. or fed. prosecutor can use the legal process as a weapon to use against a otherwise innocent not-at-fault citizen.

SouthernBoyVA
11-04-2011, 11:36
Well, apparently not.

In this issue of Rangemaster,

http://www.rangemaster.com/newsletter/2011-11_RM-Newsletter.pdf

Tom Givens recounts that there have been 8 justified shootings in his state (TN) in the last 3 year s with no civil suits.

This same is true over the last ten years in Texas; a number of shootings deemed justified by the State and no civil suits.

Am I saying you can't, nope.

Just observing the fear may well be exaggerated.

Just this past spring, I took another class in carry laws and the use of deadly force in my state (Virginia). Present towards the end of the class was the commonwealth's attorney for that county and a man who was running for sheriff of the same county. In speaking with these two gentlemen, I asked them this very thing; were civil suits common after being found that one's use of deadly force was ruled excusable? They both responded that in Virginia, it was extremely rare and neither one of them could relate a case to me.

Of course, you can be sued for most anything, but then doing so against someone who's actions have been deemed proper and correct is really going to be an uphill battle. Best thing is if at all possible, avoid situations where you might be placed in a position to use your firearm.

Spiffums
11-04-2011, 15:02
If a DA wants to get you, your pretty much got. It takes a ton of money to fight the state. The question is Civil basically and this is where you need to make sure your lawmakers know they need to add civil protection into their laws.

Cavalry Doc
11-04-2011, 21:01
Well, apparently not.

In this issue of Rangemaster,

http://www.rangemaster.com/newsletter/2011-11_RM-Newsletter.pdf

Tom Givens recounts that there have been 8 justified shootings in his state (TN) in the last 3 year s with no civil suits.

This same is true over the last ten years in Texas; a number of shootings deemed justified by the State and no civil suits.

Am I saying you can't, nope.

Just observing the fear may well be exaggerated.

If you kill someone in Texas, you will go to a grand jury. Texas has "use of deadly force" laws that allow that under conditions that I would pass on, which is the way I like it.

If someone were to break into my truck and try to steal it tonight, I'd realize that the deductible on my insurance is less than the defense would cost for a grand jury.


Only shoot people that you really NEED to shoot.

Mas Ayoob
11-04-2011, 21:14
I'd like to see this article by Steele, Mas referenced, but I can't ferret it out.



Here ya go, courtesy of Armed Women Against Rape and Endangerment, who reprinted it with the permission of Champion, the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers:

http://www.aware.org/arttruelaw/defendingsd.shtml

larry_minn
11-04-2011, 22:42
Next time you are notified of "jury duty" don't try to get out of it. Sit on a jury and then decide... IF some of the jury pool were folks who COULD be influenced by "The defendent was not satisfied with factory ammo, but loaded super high volicity ammo with the intent to cause the max damage. He was hoping for a chance to test out his vicious ammo......" Or "He modified his gun to a unsafe level"....

It may not be "fair" or "Right" but its another factor that can be used to "cloud the facts" and try to get a member of jury..... Most likely it won't be a issue..

I was also told that IF it is major case. They will NOT be able to verify how far you were. IIRC because it was not a uniform round they can not prove from sample rds. (they will not accept your reloading is uniform) Again shouldn't be a issue.
I have carried my reloads a couple times. Thats all I happened to have in mags at time/too lazy to change ammo.

IndyGunFreak
11-05-2011, 04:43
Although you're the one who is supposedly interested in doing research, and I am merely suggesting a more practical avenue of approach, I'll indulge you and refer you to the case of Harold Fish.

Prosecution made it a point that the use of 10mm HPs was overkill for the purpose of self defense and his ammo selection was used to bias the jury against him.

Bingo... Exactly what I was gonna say. Granted, I think something weird happened out there with Fish (similar to Jesus Gonzales), but his gun/ammo was definitely pounced on by the prosecution.

Bren
11-05-2011, 04:53
Well, apparently not.

In this issue of Rangemaster,

http://www.rangemaster.com/newsletter/2011-11_RM-Newsletter.pdf

Tom Givens recounts that there have been 8 justified shootings in his state (TN) in the last 3 year s with no civil suits.

This same is true over the last ten years in Texas; a number of shootings deemed justified by the State and no civil suits.

Am I saying you can't, nope.

Just observing the fear may well be exaggerated.

Yep, people have MANY exaggerated fears about what will heppen if they are involved in a shooting. Even before we passed a law making the criminal pay the other side's attorney fees and costs if they sue somebody who was jutified in using force against them, it was rare for people to get sued for a shooting here. The police get sued a lot more often. I can't really think of a single case I've heard of in KY where a justified civilian shooter has ever been sued by the person they shot. I don't know why - it's easier to win (small amounts, anyhow) against civilians than police but the only ones I hear about are usually from accidental shootings.

Then again some Glock Talkers think they will be arrested after any shooting, justified or not.:rofl: Others think the police and prosecutors are out to get them.:rofl: However, the level of paranoia vs. knowledge on this forum may not reflect the real world.

Bren
11-05-2011, 04:57
After the Howard Fish trial at least one juror specifically mentioned the ammo used as a vital issue in his decision to return a guilty verdict.



And now we've come full circle.

Really, because intelligent jurors would have convicted Harold Fish in about 3 minutes, if he had used a .22LR.:rofl:

Fish is NOT and never will be an example of someone convicted for a justified shooting, as I have said since well before his trial. The ammo was not a "vital" issue in the case, other than to people digging for reasons to argue he was wrongly convicted. While there may have been legal errors in the trial, they had nothing to do with his gun, ammo, or any of the evidence about the guy he shot.

unclecharlie
11-05-2011, 07:39
I love when people get all sweaty about how these rabidly anti-2A DAs (or Commonwealth's or State's Attorneys or whatever prosecutors are called in your state) are out to crucify law-abiding gun owners.

Unlike most other attorneys, prosecutors take a second oath. We have a higher obligation- we serve the state's interest in prosecuting criminals, we serve and represent the victims of crime, but we also swear to protect the rights of the person who is charged. That is our responsibility and our moral, ethical, and legal duty. The prosecutors I know take that oath and duty VERY seriously.

Also, as another poster said- prosecutors don't sue people. Many states limit civil liability for justified use of deadly force. Great. In those states that don't, it won't be a DA/CA/SA who files the CIVIL suit.

Lampshade
11-05-2011, 07:44
Really, because intelligent jurors would have convicted Harold Fish in about 3 minutes, if he had used a .22LR.:rofl:

Fish is NOT and never will be an example of someone convicted for a justified shooting, as I have said since well before his trial. The ammo was not a "vital" issue in the case, other than to people digging for reasons to argue he was wrongly convicted. While there may have been legal errors in the trial, they had nothing to do with his gun, ammo, or any of the evidence about the guy he shot.

The fact that ammo choice was a relevant factor came straight from the mouth of at least one juror.

Whether you feel Fish was justified in shooting or not is irrelevant.

SouthernBoyVA
11-05-2011, 07:49
I learned a long time ago to never take anything for granted, especially issues of such high import as these we are discussing. Expect the unexpected and try your best to avoid situations where you might find yourself in jeopardy. Then if the worse case scenario suddenly becomes reality, act in your best interests. If that means you can safely escape even when the law does not require it, do this by all means. If it means you have no recourse but to act with extreme prejudice, they do it NOW before you lose any edge you might have.

This stuff is no joke and the very nature of its deadly seriousness means we have all taken a decision to care for our own safety the best way we can. If that moment ever arrives when you have to pull your gun and fire on someone, the last thing you want going through your mind is a bunch of mangled and confusing and contradictory information regarding the correctness of your actions. Such causes hesitation and hesitation gets good and decent people injured or killed.

Mas Ayoob
11-05-2011, 18:51
I love when people get all sweaty about how these rabidly anti-2A DAs (or Commonwealth's or State's Attorneys or whatever prosecutors are called in your state) are out to crucify law-abiding gun owners.

Unlike most other attorneys, prosecutors take a second oath. We have a higher obligation- we serve the state's interest in prosecuting criminals, we serve and represent the victims of crime, but we also swear to protect the rights of the person who is charged. That is our responsibility and our moral, ethical, and legal duty. The prosecutors I know take that oath and duty VERY seriously.

Also, as another poster said- prosecutors don't sue people. Many states limit civil liability for justified use of deadly force. Great. In those states that don't, it won't be a DA/CA/SA who files the CIVIL suit.

Words we should all take to heart.

Most people are decent, and won't try to murder you. The small percentage who would do otherwise are the reason we carry guns and train to use them.

Most prosecutors are decent, and uphold their dual oath to protect the innocent and prosecute the guilty. The small percentage who are either ignorant of the dynamics of violent encounters, or are politically motivated and prepared to sacrifice the innocent, are the reason some of us advise others not to put blood in the water in case sharks are swimming there.

txinvestigator
11-06-2011, 06:39
Ah, Tennessee got Castle Doctrine back in 2007. You can't sue in civil court if it's justifiable homicide.

Texas has also enjoyed the protection since 2007.

Here's the code...

There is nothing in ANY Texas law that prevents a suit in a justifiable homicide.

I have no idea what you cited, but it is not the current law.

jdavionic
11-06-2011, 07:02
There is a subtlety that is sometimes overlooked. The "fear" that many have is hopefully not that they have done something wrong. The "fear" that may follow an incident is that you end up spending a tremendous amount of time and money in defending yourself throughout the process of the investigation.

Having served on a Grand Jury for 6 months and hearing testimony on 500-600 cases, I can say that in my limited snapshot that I didn't see a tendency to pursue cases that were not demonstrated by an ADA and officers' testimony as being an incident where the law(s) was broken. We had a couple of jurors that had very odd opinions on some cases. However they were kept in check by the number of jurors required to decide whether to indict or decide to go with a "no bill" (no indictment).

We had one case where a person had endured a lot of recurring problems. I cannot get into the details. However he responded in a way where many jurors sympathized with his situation. However at the end of the day, he clearly broke the law. He let his frustrations get the better of him and used a firearm.

barstoolguru
11-06-2011, 08:38
Well, apparently not.

In this issue of Rangemaster,

http://www.rangemaster.com/newsletter/2011-11_RM-Newsletter.pdf

Tom Givens recounts that there have been 8 justified shootings in his state (TN) in the last 3 year s with no civil suits.

This same is true over the last ten years in Texas; a number of shootings deemed justified by the State and no civil suits.

Am I saying you can't, nope.

Just observing the fear may well be exaggerated.


you need to double check your info........here are two and I am sure there is more if you look. it might be a good idea to up your homeowners ins, I did mine for a million dollars and it was only 4.00 more a year. Some of the shooters insurance that mas ayoob seems to be the best
even though texas has a laws that does not allow someone to sue, some lawyer might find a loophole and try

http://www.kltv.com/story/10765354/family-of-burglar-shot-and-killed-by-homeowner-fight-back?redirected=true

http://weareaustin.com/fulltext?nxd_id=185807

txinvestigator
11-06-2011, 08:46
you need to double check your info........here are two and I am sure there is more if you look. it might be a good idea to up your homeowners ins, I did mine for a million dollars and it was only 4.00 more a year. Some of the shooters insurance that mas ayoob seems to be the best
even though texas has a laws that does not allow someone to sue, some lawyer might find a loophole and try

http://www.kltv.com/story/10765354/family-of-burglar-shot-and-killed-by-homeowner-fight-back?redirected=true

http://weareaustin.com/fulltext?nxd_id=185807

Texas has no such law.

wackjum
11-06-2011, 08:58
There is nothing in ANY Texas law that prevents a suit in a justifiable homicide.

I have no idea what you cited, but it is not the current law.

Texas Civil Practices and Remedies code § 83.001 - CIVIL IMMUNITY

A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/htm/CP.83.htm#83.001

wackjum
11-06-2011, 09:03
Texas has no such law.

You teach CHL classes?

Shadyscott69
11-06-2011, 09:14
There is nothing in ANY Texas law that prevents a suit in a justifiable homicide.

I have no idea what you cited, but it is not the current law.

Really?

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

Sam Spade
11-06-2011, 09:15
you need to double check your info........here are two and I am sure there is more if you look. it might be a good idea to up your homeowners ins, I did mine for a million dollars and it was only 4.00 more a year. Some of the shooters insurance that mas ayoob seems to be the best
even though texas has a laws that does not allow someone to sue, some lawyer might find a loophole and try

http://www.kltv.com/story/10765354/family-of-burglar-shot-and-killed-by-homeowner-fight-back?redirected=true

http://weareaustin.com/fulltext?nxd_id=185807

Your homeowner's policy covers you on intentional acts that cause injury? I doubt it.

Your state allows a self-defense justification for an unintentional shoot? Doubt that, too.

See the disconnect? If you claim self-defense in the criminal portion, you eliminate that homeowners' insurance coverage in the civil portion.

Sam Spade
11-06-2011, 09:20
Really?

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the]



I think you're missing what an "affirmative defense" is. It is NOT a bar to a suit. It is an argument that shifts the burden to you, and you have to prove it in court. IOW, your cite may say that you're judgement-proof, but it doesn't say that you're lawsuit-proof.

Shadyscott69
11-06-2011, 09:21
This is the relevant section of the SC law.

SECTION 16-11-450. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil actions; law enforcement officer exception; costs.

(A) A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article or another applicable provision of law is justified in using deadly force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of deadly force, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known that the person is a law enforcement officer.

(B) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of deadly force as described in subsection (A), but the agency may not arrest the person for using deadly force unless probable cause exists that the deadly force used was unlawful.

(C) The court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of a civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (A).

Shadyscott69
11-06-2011, 09:23
I think you're missing what an "affirmative defense" is. It is NOT a bar to a suit. It is an argument that shifts the burden to you, and you have to prove it in court. IOW, your cite may say that you're judgement-proof, but it doesn't say that you're lawsuit-proof.

Thanks Sam. You are correct that I didn't really understand the TX law. The SC law I am very familiar with. I spend a lot of time when I teach CWP classes on Castle Doctrine.

wackjum
11-06-2011, 09:30
I think you're missing what an "affirmative defense" is. It is NOT a bar to a suit. It is an argument that shifts the burden to you, and you have to prove it in court. IOW, your cite may say that you're judgement-proof, but it doesn't say that you're lawsuit-proof.

You are correct that the Texas law is an affirmative defense, but you discount how much of an advantage this is. This is about as close to a law that cuts off civil liability as it can get because of the philosophy of open courts.

In the civil arena compared to criminal law, you can get summary judgments. In criminal law, self defense needs to proceed all the way to trial to determine if it was in fact self defense (assuming a grand jury didn't buy it but that's a different issue). In a civil suit, you can move for summary judgment (or in Texas, I would move for no-evidence summary judgment) fairly early in the process.

The South Carolina law is really no different from the Texas law. The defense would be raised and a Court would look into whether the conditions are met. If the conditions are met, the suit is dismissed. They two are just worded differently.

"Judgment proof" means somebody is sued (liability is assessed) but because of their personal resources, no money can be collected. Entirely different matter.

txinvestigator
11-06-2011, 09:54
Texas Civil Practices and Remedies code § 83.001 - CIVIL IMMUNITY

A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/htm/CP.83.htm#83.001

Nothing there prevents a person from suing you. In fact, in a tort, a defendant is ONE WHO HAS BEEN SUED.

This law does not require the civil court consider the result of any criminal proceeding.

If you are sued, the civil will determine if you were justified under chapter 9 of the penal code. If the court determines you were justified, THEN you are immune from liability.

Nothing prevents a person from filing suit

txinvestigator
11-06-2011, 09:55
You teach CHL classes?

Yes I do, that is why I know the law.

Sam Spade
11-06-2011, 09:58
It's an advantage when you're dealing with lawyers who're making business decisions. When dealing with Sovereign Citizens, convicts with nothing but time and a library, or people interested in the principal of the thing, you still have a can o' worms. I freely acknowledge that my opinion is colored by my exposures as a cop.

FWIW, AZ took a different approach. The "loser pays" has nipped all sorts of stuff in the bud:

ARS 13-420. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, costs, compensation for lost income and all expenses incurred by a defendant in the defense of any civil action based on conduct otherwise justified pursuant to this chapter if the defendant prevails in the civil action.

txinvestigator
11-06-2011, 10:00
You are correct that the Texas law is an affirmative defense, but you discount how much of an advantage this is. This is about as close to a law that cuts off civil liability as it can get because of the philosophy of open courts.

In the civil arena compared to criminal law, you can get summary judgments. In criminal law, self defense needs to proceed all the way to trial to determine if it was in fact self defense (assuming a grand jury didn't buy it but that's a different issue). In a civil suit, you can move for summary judgment (or in Texas, I would move for no-evidence summary judgment) fairly early in the process.

The South Carolina law is really no different from the Texas law. The defense would be raised and a Court would look into whether the conditions are met. If the conditions are met, the suit is dismissed. They two are just worded differently.

"Judgment proof" means somebody is sued (liability is assessed) but because of their personal resources, no money can be collected. Entirely different matter.

As I wrote, nothing keeps you from being sued and needing an attorney to seek the immunity. when you write that a person cannot be sued, people think it means what you wrote.

Even a criminal no-bill or not guilty trial verdict does not mean you were justified.

barstoolguru
11-06-2011, 10:02
Your homeowner's policy covers you on intentional acts that cause injury? I doubt it.

Your state allows a self-defense justification for an unintentional shoot? Doubt that, too.

See the disconnect? If you claim self-defense in the criminal portion, you eliminate that homeowners' insurance coverage in the civil portion.

No; it does not cover you in any intentional act but what it does do is cover you under damage done in a shooting to property or persons …….. Say if I shoot at someone and miss the damage is covered as long as it is not malaise towards the person or property that is hit. I asked the agent and told them that I do carry and they took a day and researched it with the underwriters and they said it covers me in any lawsuit that I am involved in as long as it is not criminal intent

edit : any time you pull your firearm there is nothing unintentional about what you plan on doing and if it goes off by accident then homeowners covers it

txinvestigator
11-06-2011, 10:06
No; it does not cover you in any intentional act but what it does do is cover you under damage done in a shooting to property or persons …….. Say if I shoot at someone and miss the damage is covered as long as it is not malaise towards the person or property that is hit. I asked the agent and told them that I do carry and they took a day and researched it with the underwriters and they said it covers me in any lawsuit that I am involved in as long as it is not criminal intent

Your insurance differentiates between culpable mental states?

Bruce M
11-06-2011, 10:13
Yep, people have MANY exaggerated fears about what will heppen if they are involved in a shooting. Even before we passed a law making the criminal pay the other side's attorney fees and costs if they sue somebody who was jutified in using force against them, it was rare for people to get sued for a shooting here. The police get sued a lot more often. I can't really think of a single case I've heard of in KY where a justified civilian shooter has ever been sued by the person they shot. I don't know why - it's easier to win (small amounts, anyhow) against civilians than police but the only ones I hear about are usually from accidental shootings.

Then again some Glock Talkers think they will be arrested after any shooting, justified or not.:rofl: Others think the police and prosecutors are out to get them.:rofl: However, the level of paranoia vs. knowledge on this forum may not reflect the real world.


So you are saying that sometimes it might be ok to... wait for it... talk to the police after a shooting??:whistling:

Sam Spade
11-06-2011, 10:19
I asked the agent and told them that I do carry and they took a day and researched it with the underwriters and they said it covers me in any lawsuit that I am involved in as long as it is not criminal intent

edit : any time you pull your firearm there is nothing unintentional about what you plan on doing and if it goes off by accident then homeowners covers it

Your agent just told you that they don't cover self-defense.

Second, if you pull intentionally (in self defense) and it goes off by accident, that's criminal negligence in every state. Your agent just told you they don't cover that.

Seriously, I suggest you get the policy reviewed by a neutral party. You very well may not be covered for what you think you are.

wackjum
11-06-2011, 10:19
Nothing there prevents a person from suing you. In fact, in a tort, a defendant is ONE WHO HAS BEEN SUED.

This law does not require the civil court consider the result of any criminal proceeding.

If you are sued, the civil will determine if you were justified under chapter 9 of the penal code. If the court determines you were justified, THEN you are immune from liability.

Nothing prevents a person from filing suit

As I wrote, nothing keeps you from being sued and needing an attorney to seek the immunity. when you write that a person cannot be sued, people think it means what you wrote.

Even a criminal no-bill or not guilty trial verdict does not mean you were justified.

I didn't write that a person can't be sued. I was providing a statute when you said no such Texas law exists. Another poster must have said that.

But either way, this is as close to giving civil immunity as the law can get. You can march down to the court house right now and sue everybody on your block for being "bad neighbors." You could even ask for 10 million in damages from each of them. You just need to pay the filing fee and draft your petition. The lawsuit would have zero chance of going anywhere, and you might even get hit with a frivolous lawsuit countersuit, but you can "sue" them.

kat1950
11-06-2011, 10:33
We here in florida were the first state back in 2005 to enact Castle Doctrine Law, which includes at our home, at our bushiness, in our cars and anywhere we have a right to be, Stand our ground, with no civil recourse to the deceased or their families. Been working great here.

http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

Shadyscott69
11-06-2011, 10:45
You are correct that the Texas law is an affirmative defense, but you discount how much of an advantage this is. This is about as close to a law that cuts off civil liability as it can get because of the philosophy of open courts.

In the civil arena compared to criminal law, you can get summary judgments. In criminal law, self defense needs to proceed all the way to trial to determine if it was in fact self defense (assuming a grand jury didn't buy it but that's a different issue). In a civil suit, you can move for summary judgment (or in Texas, I would move for no-evidence summary judgment) fairly early in the process.

The South Carolina law is really no different from the Texas law. The defense would be raised and a Court would look into whether the conditions are met. If the conditions are met, the suit is dismissed. They two are just worded differently.

"Judgment proof" means somebody is sued (liability is assessed) but because of their personal resources, no money can be collected. Entirely different matter.


How do you reach that conclusion? I am not a legal expert by any means.
It would seem the use of the word "immune" in the SC version would make it very different from the TX law.

A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article or another applicable provision of law is justified in using deadly force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of deadly force

I after rereading your post, I think I see what you are saying. Correct me if this is wrong. You can be sued, but if the conditions in the statute are met, you are immune from judgement, and will be awarded all costs associated.

txinvestigator
11-06-2011, 10:45
I didn't write that a person can't be sued. I was providing a statute when you said no such Texas law exists. Another poster must have said that.

But either way, this is as close to giving civil immunity as the law can get. You can march down to the court house right now and sue everybody on your block for being "bad neighbors." You could even ask for 10 million in damages from each of them. You just need to pay the filing fee and draft your petition. The lawsuit would have zero chance of going anywhere, and you might even get hit with a frivolous lawsuit countersuit, but you can "sue" them.

Since you posted the statute in response my reply to someone who said you could not be sued, I gathered you were supporting the person to whom I replied.

Clearly, one can be sued. AND, in the case as serious as as the taking of a life or serious bodily injury, I imagine the court would desire to examine SOME evidence.

txinvestigator
11-06-2011, 10:47
How do you reach that conclusion? I am not a legal expert by any means.
It would seem the use of the word "immune in the SC version would make it very different from the TX law.

A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article or another applicable provision of law is justified in using deadly force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of deadly force

In my thinking, it is the phrase "civil action" that makes these laws different. Both use the term "immune"

wackjum
11-06-2011, 10:52
Yes I do, that is why I know the law.
It can be seen from the earlier posts in this thread (that have been preserved for all to see) that you were caught blindsided by Tx CPRC 83.001 and are now attempting to defend your ignorance by directing it into a differentiation between even being able to file a suit in the first place. I don't fault you for ignorance, but your attempts to cover it do you no credit.

If you really are familiar with how law works, you will know there is a general philosophy in America towards open courts. The system seeks to provide every plaintiff with access to an impartial Court. This is the theory anyway. This is really to our benefit as it gives us all protection of the Court system.

Nothing prevents, and nothing ever should prevent, a person from being able to go down to the clerk and filing a lawsuit. Why? Let's say some statutes come out that start spelling out when you can and cannot file a lawsuit. Do you really want some $12.50 an hour government clerk making the call on whether your case does or doesn't fit in the outlined situations? Real life situations rarely fit neatly into textbook scenarios. Are you going to start telling your facts and evidence to the clerk so he or she can weigh whether you can even file a lawsuit? Sounds like a Court and trial to me.

The way to clamp down on phony cases to a degree is to institute attorney fee shifting where the loser pays the winner's costs of defending themselves. That way, only people that have claims that have merit would bring a lawsuit (or crazy people).

The Texas statute should be obvious to anybody who is familiar with how the legal system works that it is as close to giving immunity as it gets. Even if the statute said (simple example), "No lawsuits may be initiated in response to death or injury suffered in a justified shooting," there would still be a limited Court battle to determine whether the shooting is justified, ie. if the statute applies.

barstoolguru
11-06-2011, 11:06
Your agent just told you that they don't cover self-defense.

Second, if you pull intentionally (in self defense) and it goes off by accident, that's criminal negligence in every state. Your agent just told you they don't cover that.

Seriously, I suggest you get the policy reviewed by a neutral party. You very well may not be covered for what you think you are.


Highlight and post it because that is not what they tell me. I had a run in with some thugs a couple of years ago on a hit and run when I was driving my semi. They hit me cutting in front of me and when he didn't stop I went after him and cornered him at a red light.
I got out with a baseball bat and he jumped the medium getting away. I threw the bat at him and it bounced off his car, up in the air some 20 ft and landed on another car. The man that the bat landed on sued me and my homeowners paid for his damage because it was not malicious towards the second car owner. They call this an act of god and it is covered
As long as it is not at the intended target the homeowners insurance will cover damage as long as you GET sued.

By shooting at someone in self defense and hitting something or someone else is not considered a criminal act but an accident and they are covered under homeowners insurance.
Not sure what state you are in but we can pull without firing (brandishing) to ward off a crime so if the gun goes off in the process it is an accident if there is no intent at what was hit

wackjum
11-06-2011, 11:11
How do you reach that conclusion? I am not a legal expert by any means.
It would seem the use of the word "immune" in the SC version would make it very different from the TX law.

A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article or another applicable provision of law is justified in using deadly force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of deadly force

I after rereading your post, I think I see what you are saying. Correct me if this is wrong. You can be sued, but if the conditions in the statute are met, you are immune from judgement, and will be awarded all costs associated.

First of all, disclosure.. I am a Texas attorney. Former prosecutor, now criminal defense.

I will be happy to answer these general conceptions regarding the law.

As I have mentioned several times in this thread already, America has a general open court philosophy. So very rarely does something come in and cut off even the possibility of a lawsuit from the getgo. The main one I can think of is sovereign immunity. You can't sue the government, except under specific circumstances (Federal Tort Claims Act). If your suit can't fit under the FTCA or some other limited circumstances, the Courts won't hear your case at all.

In any other situation, nothing stops somebody (even a random person) from suing you. They file the lawsuit and then you have to raise some defenses to get it kicked. There have been multiple examples of people filing lawsuits against God. For obvious reasons the cases don't proceed much further, but a lawsuit was initiated.

In both the SC and TX statutes, there is going to be a limited Court battle. Taken from what you posted earlier about SC:

"A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article or another applicable provision of law is justified in using deadly force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of deadly force"

The bolded part is the key. If I were to file a lawsuit against a gun owner who had shot somebody (I wouldn't, but saying), I would allege that the statute doesn't apply because the use of deadly force was not on accordance with the provisions and therefore this clause does not apply. Obviously the shooter would have to assert that it does apply.

In Texas, we have a procedure called no evidence summary judgment where the defense alleges that the plaintiff cannot provide any evidence to support some element of their claim. Assuming a similar procedure in SC, the motion for no-evidence summary judgment would allege that the plaintiff cannot provide any evidence that the shooting was not in accordance with the SC provision.

This "no evidence summary judgment" procedure can happen quickly and early in the lawsuit before any discovery has been conducted. If granted, the lawsuit is dismissed.

But note that fundamentally, nothing is different from the SC or TX law. For the reasons I've stated, you don't want black letter laws that cut off all liability in a given situation. That's just bad. And you don't want clerks deciding the facts and evidence before they determine if a lawsuit can even be filed. That is the role for Courts.

One nice thing in the SC law is that it does transfer costs to the loser, which gives added incentive not to bring frivolous lawsuits. But fee shifting is a separate thing from immunity. It can be said it gives the immunity clause "more teeth."

Shadyscott69
11-06-2011, 11:31
First of all, disclosure.. I am a Texas attorney. Former prosecutor, now criminal defense.

I will be happy to answer these general conceptions regarding the law.

As I have mentioned several times in this thread already, America has a general open court philosophy. So very rarely does something come in and cut off even the possibility of a lawsuit from the getgo. The main one I can think of is sovereign immunity. You can't sue the government, except under specific circumstances (Federal Tort Claims Act). If your suit can't fit under the FTCA or some other limited circumstances, the Courts won't hear your case at all.

In any other situation, nothing stops somebody (even a random person) from suing you. They file the lawsuit and then you have to raise some defenses to get it kicked. There have been multiple examples of people filing lawsuits against God. For obvious reasons the cases don't proceed much further, but a lawsuit was initiated.

In both the SC and TX statutes, there is going to be a limited Court battle. Taken from what you posted earlier about SC:

"A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article or another applicable provision of law is justified in using deadly force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of deadly force"

The bolded part is the key. If I were to file a lawsuit against a gun owner who had shot somebody (I wouldn't, but saying), I would allege that the statute doesn't apply because the use of deadly force was not on accordance with the provisions and therefore this clause does not apply. Obviously the shooter would have to assert that it does apply.

In Texas, we have a procedure called no evidence summary judgment where the defense alleges that the plaintiff cannot provide any evidence to support some element of their claim. Assuming a similar procedure in SC, the motion for no-evidence summary judgment would allege that the plaintiff cannot provide any evidence that the shooting was not in accordance with the SC provision.

This "no evidence summary judgment" procedure can happen quickly and early in the lawsuit before any discovery has been conducted. If granted, the lawsuit is dismissed.

But note that fundamentally, nothing is different from the SC or TX law. For the reasons I've stated, you don't want black letter laws that cut off all liability in a given situation. That's just bad. And you don't want clerks deciding the facts and evidence before they determine if a lawsuit can even be filed. That is the role for Courts.

One nice thing in the SC law is that it does transfer costs to the loser, which gives added incentive not to bring frivolous lawsuits. But fee shifting is a separate thing from immunity. It can be said it gives the immunity clause "more teeth."

I was thinking you were an attorney. :supergrin: I now understand what you are saying. Thanks for the clarification, it makes sense.

txinvestigator
11-06-2011, 12:29
It can be seen from the earlier posts in this thread (that have been preserved for all to see) that you were caught blindsided by Tx CPRC 83.001 and are now attempting to defend your ignorance by directing it into a differentiation between even being able to file a suit in the first place. I don't fault you for ignorance, but your attempts to cover it do you no credit. I am well aware of 83.001. It was the third leg of our "castle doctrine" law. It is part of my Power Point presentation and included in a handout I provide my students. People who claim you cannot be sued are ignorant of the facts. One fact is that a seach of my posts will show I have deen discussing this on this very website for a long time.

There is no attempt on my part to cover anything. What you are doing is attempting to redirect attention from your mistaken belief that immunity and "can't be sued" are essentially tbe same thing.

If you really are familiar with how law works, you will know there is a general philosophy in America towards open courts. The system seeks to provide every plaintiff with access to an impartial Court. This is the theory anyway. This is really to our benefit as it gives us all protection of the Court system.

Nothing prevents, and nothing ever should prevent, a person from being able to go down to the clerk and filing a lawsuit. Why? Let's say some statutes come out that start spelling out when you can and cannot file a lawsuit. Do you really want some $12.50 an hour government clerk making the call on whether your case does or doesn't fit in the outlined situations? Real life situations rarely fit neatly into textbook scenarios. Are you going to start telling your facts and evidence to the clerk so he or she can weigh whether you can even file a lawsuit? Sounds like a Court and trial to me.

The way to clamp down on phony cases to a degree is to institute attorney fee shifting where the loser pays the winner's costs of defending themselves. That way, only people that have claims that have merit would bring a lawsuit (or crazy people). That is exactly correct, and why I correct people who claim you cannot be sued for a use of force or deadly force.

The Texas statute should be obvious to anybody who is familiar with how the legal system works that it is as close to giving immunity as it gets. Even if the statute said (simple example), "No lawsuits may be initiated in response to death or injury suffered in a justified shooting," there would still be a limited Court battle to determine whether the shooting is justified, ie. if the statute applies.It should be obvoius to anyone with basic comprehension skills that proves everything I have posted is accurate.

Why do people like you get sand in their asses when someone corrects them, and then go on the offensive?

Bren
11-06-2011, 15:20
Since you posted the statute in response my reply to someone who said you could not be sued, I gathered you were supporting the person to whom I replied.

Clearly, one can be sued. AND, in the case as serious as as the taking of a life or serious bodily injury, I imagine the court would desire to examine SOME evidence.

You are correct. Each time I teach a class on this section of statutes in KY, I make the point that the statute is so poorly written it's hard to say what it means and it relies on circular reasoning, and probably a legal impossibility, to state why a person is immune. It is so messed up that the only case I have heard of where it was raised here, they ended up letting the guy plead to a lessser offense than try to instruct a jury on this or apply it to the case. The fact that they were trying to write jury instructions on a law that is supposed to prevent you from being prosecuted, including arrest, illustrates the major issue.

The states that have this section copied from each other, so they are likely all pretty bad.

PEC-Memphis
11-06-2011, 21:49
Well, apparently not.

In this issue of Rangemaster,

http://www.rangemaster.com/newsletter/2011-11_RM-Newsletter.pdf

Tom Givens recounts that there have been 8 justified shootings in his state (TN) in the last 3 year s with no civil suits.

This same is true over the last ten years in Texas; a number of shootings deemed justified by the State and no civil suits.

Am I saying you can't, nope.

Just observing the fear may well be exaggerated.

Here's why: "Why? Because every single case was clear-cut, obvious, and morally, legally, and ethically justified"

What if your case is less than clear cut? The burden of proof is different for a civil case compared to a criminal case.

Bren
11-07-2011, 08:47
What if your case is less than clear cut? The burden of proof is different for a civil case compared to a criminal case.

You are correct. In a clearly justified case, you have little to fear regarding arrest, "talking to the police":upeyes:, successful lawsuits, etc. The less clear the justification is, the more likely the problems are. I have also seen issues when someone is justified under the less commonly used statutes, like defense of property/burglary.

IT0
11-07-2011, 12:30
May not have been looking in the right places. Do a search for Attorney Lisa Steele's excellent article for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

I did some google work on this and was unable to find the "excellent" article you have cited.

Note I did however find a very interesting one she wrote about Miranda rights:
http://www.neshooters.com/miranda.pdf and would like to follow up with what she has to say about gun modifications.

Mas Ayoob
11-07-2011, 14:34
I did some google work on this and was unable to find the "excellent" article you have cited.

Note I did however find a very interesting one she wrote about Miranda rights:
http://www.neshooters.com/miranda.pdf and would like to follow up with what she has to say about gun modifications.

I linked the article on the first page of this thread, at Post #21.

Master_Blaster1911
11-08-2011, 06:31
After the Howard Fish trial at least one juror specifically mentioned the ammo used as a vital issue in his decision to return a guilty verdict.

Far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far more important to Fish was his shooting an unarmed man (don't say he had a screwdriver in his pocket, Fish didn't know that).

HE SHOT AN UNARMED MAN- yer just begging for prosecution. After making that mistake you get the ammo, and training, and caliber and everythign else silly thrown at you.

Don't worry about the ammo, the Punisher grips, the logo on the shirt- worry about whether you are justified in shooting and the ammo and caliber are, for all practical purposes, a moot point.

Master_Blaster1911
11-08-2011, 06:37
:agree:

Another deeply exaggerated fear in the gun world, is the weapon/ammo/magazine used in a self defense shooting, will be used against you.

I have been looking for a case where a good shooting has turned bad, only because of the weapon/ammo/magazine used some how changed something.

So far I have not found any such case.

:cool:

May not have been looking in the right places. Do a search for Attorney Lisa Steele's excellent article for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Here ya go, courtesy of Armed Women Against Rape and Endangerment, who reprinted it with the permission of Champion, the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers:

http://www.aware.org/arttruelaw/defendingsd.shtml

I found that one, and no where within did I spot a case where an otherwise justifiable shooting turned south solely on the caliber or ammo. :dunno:

Master_Blaster1911
11-08-2011, 06:40
...However, the level of paranoia vs. knowledge on this forum may not reflect the real world.

Well, speak yer mind why don't ya... though I competely agree. :supergrin:

Master_Blaster1911
11-08-2011, 06:48
There is nothing in ANY Texas law that prevents a suit in a justifiable homicide.

I have no idea what you cited, but it is not the current law.

Depends on your definition of prevents... or, "is." :supergrin:

By one definition it does not stop the court from accepting the case or legally bar a lawyer from filing the suit.

A reasonable person recognizes that the statute disuades many lawyers from investing their time. By that definition it prevents suits, but only by lawyers seeing it as a losing proposition and refuse to waste their time.

Master_Blaster1911
11-08-2011, 07:03
you need to double check your info........here are two and I am sure there is more if you look. it might be a good idea to up your homeowners ins, I did mine for a million dollars and it was only 4.00 more a year. Some of the shooters insurance that mas ayoob seems to be the best
even though texas has a laws that does not allow someone to sue, some lawyer might find a loophole and try

http://www.kltv.com/story/10765354/family-of-burglar-shot-and-killed-by-homeowner-fight-back?redirected=true

http://weareaustin.com/fulltext?nxd_id=185807

Thanks for bring the first to my attention.

I discount the second as it falls outside the intent of the thread- normal Joes' being sued for jsutified shootings. We all know that the poop-stain relatives or poop-sains sued city/county/departments of the officers which shot their poor little babies who were choir boys.

Now, as to the first- it also does not meet the definition of a clearly justified shooting. Texas law reads:

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


The event happened in the afternoon- not nightime. If the burglary was being committed at night then they could have stopped the flight with deadly force.

The two sentences differ- can use deadly force to stop imminent commision of burglary (at any time), but only at night can deadly force be used to stop theft or criminal mischielf. Can use deadly force only at night to stop flight after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft.

The dude was fleeing, the burglary was finished when he left the home. Can't apparently shoot him at 3:00 in the afternoon, no matter how justified it seems and how well it will improve society.

Thanks for the link, it's something we can all learn from.

ETA: I did some appraisal searching for Terry Graham and it appears he might own as much as $4 million in property in Smith County, TX, either directly or through his LLC. His real estate company is estimated to have an annual revenue or $500k. I don't know much about the revenue the Graham Farms receives annually, but he hosted the Cattle Barons Gala this year at the Graham Farm, deduce from that what you may.

He also appears to own a construction company.

I found this diddy:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1787974/posts

Where in Graham was supposedly reaching inside a bag when shot. Guns were found inside.

I think we hit on why he's being sued in this matter. He might be more like the police agency and less like the 99%, sorry, couldn't resist taking a poke at those morons. Back to matter; if you shoot a guy in the head, fleeing a burglary during the daytime when it may not be justified, and are worth millions, you might need to worry about being sued.

BTW folks:

http://www.kltv.com/global/story.asp?s=10782274

The Jury in the Civil case deliberated 4 hours and cleared Graham in the wrongful death law suit. The Grand Jury previously declined to indict Graham for ridding their community of the blight formerly known as Josh Chambers.

The case summary is here:

http://www.rameyflock.com/News/15CHAMBERS%20VS.%20GRAHAM%20SUMMARY.pdf

Chamber's ex-wife sued on behalf of Chamber's two children (read money seeking hag).

Here is Mas' write up on the same events.

http://www.mmdbrokers.com/ayoob1.pdf

Mas Ayoob
11-09-2011, 21:19
I found that one, and no where within did I spot a case where an otherwise justifiable shooting turned south solely on the caliber or ammo. :dunno:

MB1911, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this, but no one ever said that "an otherwise justifiable shooting turned south solely on the caliber or ammo." Your argument therefore becomes a straw man argument.

The way it works is, the other side is allowed to come up with any BS theory they want, which when presented by an attorney is dignified as "opposing counsel's theory of the case." Unfortunately, it is treated as if their BS theory had the same validity as the truth of the "justifiable shooting" that the defense is presenting.

It is a documentable matter of record that lawyers who had no real case tried to construct one out of "he used super-deadly ammo out of MALICE," etc.

Therefore, the defense has to take a great deal of expensive time to deconstruct that BS theory and present the truth. It is much, much easier for the defense to get this across to twelve people who have been expressly selected by opposing counsel during the jury selection process to ensure they have little knowledge of firearms/dynamics of violent encounters/etc. if defendant and defense team can articulate why the hollow point bullet, the large caliber bullet, etc. was used by the defendant.

It's about being able to articulate and authenticate why you did the right thing. Those of us who have been speaking for defendants in court in weapons/shooting cases for decades know this. People who only know what they read on the Internet, don't.

Master_Blaster1911
11-10-2011, 00:16
MB1911, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this, but no one ever said that "an otherwise justifiable shooting turned south solely on the caliber or ammo." Your argument therefore becomes a straw man argument.


Uhmmm, not exactly true... Glockdude sorta said it. You clearly intimated it.

Here's how it went down and I quoted it all for you above.

He wrote, "I have been looking for a case where a good shooting has turned bad, only because of the weapon/ammo/magazine used some how changed something. So far I have not found any such case."

To which you replied, actually quoting Glockdude "May not have been looking in the right places. Do a search for Attorney Lisa Steele's excellent article for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers."

I'm not sure how we were expected to understand that statement, but a reasonable person reads that to mean Steele has a case which turned on the weapon/ammo/magazine.

You didn't "say" it but you sure as hell implied it.

I observed I couldn't find the excellent article and you wrote, "Here ya go, courtesy of Armed Women Against Rape and Endangerment, who reprinted it with the permission of Champion, the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers:

http://www.aware.org/arttruelaw/defendingsd.shtml (http://www.aware.org/arttruelaw/defendingsd.shtml)"

I had already read the article and could not find therein where a case which turned on the ammo... and you call it Straw Man?

No sir, you clearly intimated that Steele had a case for us and she didn't.

If you did not intend to communicate that Steele had a case for us then you are forgiven. We all make mistakes and I'm not throwing stones.

The rest of this is the Straw Man... no one has said that opposing counsel can't give their theory of the case, that it isn't treated with the same validity, that when a lawyer has no case they construct one:

The way it works is, the other side is allowed to come up with any BS theory they want, which when presented by an attorney is dignified as "opposing counsel's theory of the case." Unfortunately, it is treated as if their BS theory had the same validity as the truth of the "justifiable shooting" that the defense is presenting.

It is a documentable matter of record that lawyers who had no real case tried to construct one out of "he used super-deadly ammo out of MALICE," etc.

Therefore, the defense has to take a great deal of expensive time to deconstruct that BS theory and present the truth. It is much, much easier for the defense to get this across to twelve people who have been expressly selected by opposing counsel during the jury selection process to ensure they have little knowledge of firearms/dynamics of violent encounters/etc. if defendant and defense team can articulate why the hollow point bullet, the large caliber bullet, etc. was used by the defendant.

It's about being able to articulate and authenticate why you did the right thing. Those of us who have been speaking for defendants in court in weapons/shooting cases for decades know this. People who only know what they read on the Internet, don't.

And what the hell was that last line? Think that was subtle? A lot of what I know comes from reading your writings. I much appreciate the work you've done, but don't make this personal. It ain't.

More importantly try to stay on the real subject. Did Steele have a case for us where a clearly justified shooting turned solely on ammo or not? Or is it like many observe- when one messes up and shoots an unarmed man, flees the scene, etc., the stops are pulled?

RussP
11-10-2011, 02:19
Uhmmm, not exactly true... Glockdude sorta said it. You clearly intimated it.So, now "sorta" saying something and "intimating" saying something equals actually saying specific words?Here's how it went down and I quoted it all for you above.

He wrote, "I have been looking for a case where a good shooting has turned bad, only because of the weapon/ammo/magazine used some how changed something. So far I have not found any such case."

To which you replied, actually quoting Glockdude "May not have been looking in the right places. Do a search for Attorney Lisa Steele's excellent article for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers."

I'm not sure how we were expected to understand that statement, but a reasonable person reads that to mean Steele has a case which turned on the weapon/ammo/magazine.

You didn't "say" it but you sure as hell implied it.

I observed I couldn't find the excellent article and you wrote, "Here ya go, courtesy of Armed Women Against Rape and Endangerment, who reprinted it with the permission of Champion, the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers:

http://www.aware.org/arttruelaw/defendingsd.shtml (http://www.aware.org/arttruelaw/defendingsd.shtml)"

I had already read the article and could not find therein where a case which turned on the ammo... and you call it Straw Man?

No sir, you clearly intimated that Steele had a case for us and she didn't.I believe you may be tying what Mas said to a specific part of Glockdude1's post instead of the entire post.

Let me ask you this. What is the purpose of the Steele article? What is it meant to communicate?

You say you she did not have "a case for us." Did you read each of the cases noted at the end of the article?

It appears from your earlier post your mind was made up and your opinions in this matter well established even before reading the article.I'd like to see this article by Steele, Mas referenced, but I can't ferret it out.

Regardless of the article, I've yet to find an case where an obviously justified shooting lead to prosecution simply because X caliber or Y brand was used. Instead you find higly questionable shooting were I would consider it prudent to put the matter before a jury where ammo was one of the many arrows fired at the defendent.If you did not intend to communicate that Steele had a case for us then you are forgiven. We all make mistakes and I'm not throwing stones.The last sentence is debatable.

The rest of this is the Straw Man... no one has said that opposing counsel can't give their theory of the case, that it isn't treated with the same validity, that when a lawyer has no case they construct one:



And what the hell was that last line? Think that was subtle? A lot of what I know comes from reading your writings. I much appreciate the work you've done, but don't make this personal. It ain't.

More importantly try to stay on the real subject. Did Steele have a case for us where a clearly justified shooting turned solely on ammo or not? Or is it like many observe- when one messes up and shoots an unarmed man, flees the scene, etc., the stops are pulled?I'll wait to hear your answer to the purpose of the article before asking you a couple more questions.

By the way, your profile lists your occupation as Investigator. What do you investigate?

RussP
11-10-2011, 02:21
I had already read the article and could not find therein where a case which turned on the ammo...This just caught my attention. At what point "had" you already read the Steele article?

cowboywannabe
11-10-2011, 03:59
is there a list of states that protect righteous shooters from civil attack?

Tennessee

Texas

who else?

Sam Spade
11-10-2011, 06:20
is there a list of states that protect righteous shooters from civil attack?

Tennessee

Texas

who else?

Arizona. ARS 13-420.

cowboywannabe
11-10-2011, 06:34
Texas.
Tennessee.
Arizona.

i thought there were a lot more. anybody know difinitively which states?

Master_Blaster1911
11-10-2011, 07:06
This just caught my attention. At what point "had" you already read the Steele article?

After Mas posted about an article by Steele to glockdude and before be posted the link.

That's when I "had" read it.

That piece was the first result to my Google search.

Cavalry Doc
11-10-2011, 07:31
is there a list of states that protect righteous shooters from civil attack?

Tennessee

Texas

who else?

You might not get sued in Texas, but if the bad guy dies, you will most assuredly have to take a trip to the grand jury. Still, an expensive proposition.

Be careful out there.

Master_Blaster1911
11-10-2011, 07:39
So, now "sorta" saying something and "intimating" saying something equals actually saying specific words?I believe you may be tying what Mas said to a specific part of Glockdude1's post instead of the entire post.

Let me ask you this. What is the purpose of the Steele article? What is it meant to communicate?

You say you she did not have "a case for us." Did you read each of the cases noted at the end of the article?

It appears from your earlier post your mind was made up and your opinions in this matter well established even before reading the article.The last sentence is debatable.I'll wait to hear your answer to the purpose of the article before asking you a couple more questions.

By the way, your profile lists your occupation as Investigator. What do you investigate?


Sorta and intimating are all ya got when the poster fails a clear and direct point. However, If Mas was addressing the entire post he would be at the same place: It's only by ignoring the entire second paragraph that one can conclude he was saying, "Well, actually, the ammo will be used against you because that's what lawyers do in court." Maybe he should have only quoted the first paragraph, but he didn't.

The clearest point showing that Mas was addressing Glockdude's second paragraph is in Mas' words mirroring Glockdude's. Glockdude wrote he'd been, "looking for a case..." Mas wrote that Glockdude may not have been looking in the right places.

The rest of your questions are further distractions from the real point. It's not about my interpretation of her reason for the article. It's not about what I believe she was meaning to communicate. It's not about whether I read each foot-note. Why would I read each foot-noted case when none were referencing an instance when a clearly justified case turned on the weapon/ammo/magazine?

I do have a position I hold (mind made up) but it's open to revision. It's also based on rational assessment based repeated behavior- like gravity. I drop a magazine and it falls to the ground, each time. I deduce magazine always fall to the ground when I drop them. Every case where ammo is made an issue I see a messed up case. I don't see clean cut cases go to trial. Therefor I deduce that when you have a clean shoot the ammo doesn't matter, and when you mess up, everything can matter. Messed up shoots are like sticke mags, they don't drop free and fall to the ground. It's just an analogy, it will fail at some point, all analogies do.

Please don't waste my time with a couple more questions about the article since it is a distraction from the real point.

As far as what investigate- everything from simple thefts to felonies and white colar crimes by individuals to "organized" crimes by conspiring persons. I do it for a major company following a distiguished career in the military and law enforcement.

But this aint about my resume. It ain't Mas' by far. I don't claim to be Mas.

It's about whether Mas has for us a case in Steele's article that turned south solely on weapon/ammo/magazine that Glockdude was not looking for in the right places.

RussP
11-10-2011, 08:06
Every case where ammo is made an issue I see a messed up case. I don't see clean cut cases go to trial with any regularity. Therefor I deduce that when you have a clean shoot the ammo doesn't matter, and when you mess up, everything can matter.

Is there something wrong with this logical conclusion?No, nothing wrong at all, but I need to ask, when you say, "Every case where ammo is made an issue I see a messed up case," does that mean you know of these actual cases?

When you say messed up, do you mean it was a questionable self-defense shoot to begin with? And, yes, I know the discussion is about a legal self-defense shooting in the eyes of law enforcement, the prosecutor's office, and/or a grand jury, where some factor about the ammunition used caused a later civil action against the shooter. I understand that.

In those messed up cases you have knowledge of, how many are there? What was the verdict in those cases? Where the verdict was not guilty, were there later civil cases? If yes, what was the result of those actions? Did the ammunition have a bearing on those results?

Looking forward to your response.

RussP
11-10-2011, 12:04
Sorta and intimating are all ya got when the poster fails a clear and direct point. However, If Mas was addressing the entire post he would be at the same place: It's only by ignoring the entire second paragraph that one can conclude he was saying, "Well, actually, the ammo will be used against you because that's what lawyers do in court." Maybe he should have only quoted the first paragraph, but he didn't.

The clearest point showing that Mas was addressing Glockdude's second paragraph is in Mas' words mirroring Glockdude's. Glockdude wrote he'd been, "looking for a case..." Mas wrote that Glockdude may not have been looking in the right places. I'll leave that for Mas to address if he wants to.The rest of your questions are further distractions from the real point. It's not about my interpretation of her reason for the article. It's not about what I believe she was meaning to communicate. It's not about whether I read each foot-note. Why would I read each foot-noted case when none were referencing an instance when a clearly justified case turned on the weapon/ammo/magazine?Wait, I'm confused. First you say,I had already read the article and could not find therein where a case which turned on the ammo...Now you say,It's not about whether I read each foot-note. Why would I read each foot-noted case when none were referencing an instance when a clearly justified case turned on the weapon/ammo/magazine?First you say you could not find a case, then you say/ask why should you read the foot noted cases.Please don't waste my time with a couple more questions about the article since it is a distraction from the real point.I see where this is headed.As far as what investigate- everything from simple thefts to felonies and white colar crimes by individuals to "organized" crimes by conspiring persons. I do it for a major company following a distiguished career in the military and law enforcement.Good for you.But this aint about my resume. It ain't Mas' by far. I don't claim to be Mas.

It's about whether Mas has for us a case in Steele's article that turned south solely on weapon/ammo/magazine that Glockdude was not looking for in the right places.So this is really about showing that Mas perhaps screwed up.

Here, let me ask him that, "Mas, did you screw up in responding to Glockdude1's post referencing Ms. Steele's article?"

He just PMed me. He'll get back to the thread later this afternoon or tonight.

RMD
11-10-2011, 12:27
Texas.
Tennessee.
Arizona.

i thought there were a lot more. anybody know difinitively which states?

Add Colorado to the list (CRS 18-1-704.5(4): "...immune from any civil liability...")

RMD
11-10-2011, 12:38
We here in florida were the first state back in 2005 to enact Castle Doctrine Law, which includes at our home, at our bushiness, in our cars and anywhere we have a right to be, Stand our ground, with no civil recourse to the deceased or their families. Been working great here.

http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

Colorado's goes back to 1985, but only includes the home. They're trying to add businesses to it though.

Mas Ayoob
11-10-2011, 12:48
In the linked article, Ms. Steele cautions about the likelihood of things such as the hollow point issue coming up, in the section she titled "'Killer' Bullets and Hair-Triggers."

For those who want more details on cases where type of ammunition, etc. has been an issue in court, she recommends another article of hers:

Steele, No Bad Bullets, 37 Crim. L. Bultn. 263 (2001).

I don't have a link for it, but it should be available at any legal library.

Master_Blaster1911
11-10-2011, 15:58
I'll leave that for Mas to address if he wants to. That's an excellent idea. Mas is a big boy, he can communicate quite well without your interference. Why'd you insert yourself into this discussion anyways.

Wait, I'm confused. Not surprised.

First you say,
Yes I did.

Now you say,
Yep, and they are not contradictory if you just think about.

First you say you could not find a case, then you say/ask why should you read the foot noted cases.
Wrong interpretation, I don't need to read cases foot-noted when they are not foot-noted about the issue at hand... get it?

I see where this is headed.
Are you cetain?

[/quote]Good for you.[/quote]
Yes it was, what was your point in the first place?

So this is really about showing that Mas perhaps screwed up.

No, busy-body, this is me asking Mas to show me where the case is I thought he was referencing.

So this is really about showing that Mas perhaps screwed up.

Here, let me ask him that, "Mas, did you screw up in responding to Glockdude1's post referencing Ms. Steele's article?"

He just PMed me. He'll get back to the thread later this afternoon or tonight. Today 09:06
Here, let me ask him that, "Mas, did you screw up in responding to Glockdude1's post referencing Ms. Steele's article?"

I can ask Mas exactly what I want to ask him without you, thanks.

He just PMed me. He'll get back to the thread later this afternoon or tonight.

Excellent, maybe you can get C yourself out of the A - B conversation. Frankly, this feels like trolling.

Master_Blaster1911
11-10-2011, 16:29
No, nothing wrong at all, but I need to ask, when you say, "Every case where ammo is made an issue I see a messed up case," does that mean you know of these actual cases?

Yes, I am referring to actual cases.

When you say messed up, do you mean it was a questionable self-defense shoot to begin with?

Yes.


And, yes, I know the discussion is about a legal self-defense shooting in the eyes of law enforcement, the prosecutor's office, and/or a grand jury, where some factor about the ammunition used caused a later civil action against the shooter. I understand that.

OK


In those messed up cases you have knowledge of, how many are there?

I honestly couldn't put a number to it. The way it has worked has been someone says Gobble V. Waddle and I look it up and I find Waddle shot an unrmed Gobble. Another says, Goober v. Nosenugget, and I look it up and Nosenugget shot Goober in the back. A third says Doofus v. Drunkard and I look it up and Drunkard shot Doofus then policed up his brass and fled. These mirror the actual cases, and others, maybe 10 total, didn't keep a count or list.

What was the verdict in those cases? Don't recall.

Where the verdict was not guilty, were there later civil cases? Can't recall
If yes, what was the result of those actions? No real idea.
Did the ammunition have a bearing on those results? In Fish it did (Waddle v. Gobble).

Looking forward to your response.

Now that you have them, what clever little trap do you think you have laid?

Are you about to say since I don't have a list, an enumeration of outcomes, the percentage of civil suits, and the corresponding times ammunition matter based on jury interviews, that I can't honest observe that I have yet to show me a case where a clearly justified shooting lead to persecution of the shooter. That would be no persecution by LE or Prosecutors' btw.

It's also balanced by the absence of prosecution and suits against clearly justified persons. It's two fold. I see suits and prosecutions in messed up shootings. I don't see suits and prosecutions in clearly justified shootings.

If you have a case that goes against that I would love to know about it.

I can change by observation from None, to One.

If you have more, I can can change it from None to a few.

If you have a lot, I can change my opinion from None to guess what, loading DRT ammo has been repeatatively shown win juries in otherwise justified shootings. Case in point when Susan Housewife shot the three time convicted rapist who just broke into her home butt naked and was smacking her with a closed fist and tearing her night-clothes the jury said she would have been justified in shooting the dude, just with not with DRT ammo.

That's what I'm inuirying about Russ.

RussP
11-10-2011, 17:50
That's an excellent idea. Mas is a big boy, he can communicate quite well without your interference. Why'd you insert yourself into this discussion anyways.
Not surprised.

Yes I did.

Yep, and they are not contradictory if you just think about.

Wrong interpretation, I don't need to read cases foot-noted when they are not foot-noted about the issue at hand... get it?

Are you cetain?

Good for you.
Yes it was, what was your point in the first place?

No, busy-body, this is me asking Mas to show me where the case is I thought he was referencing.

So this is really about showing that Mas perhaps screwed up.

Here, let me ask him that, "Mas, did you screw up in responding to Glockdude1's post referencing Ms. Steele's article?"

He just PMed me. He'll get back to the thread later this afternoon or tonight. Today 09:06

I can ask Mas exactly what I want to ask him without you, thanks.

Excellent, maybe you can get C yourself out of the A - B conversation. Frankly, this feels like trolling.

Yes, I am referring to actual cases.

Yes.

OK

I honestly couldn't put a number to it. The way it has worked has been someone says Gobble V. Waddle and I look it up and I find Waddle shot an unrmed Gobble. Another says, Goober v. Nosenugget, and I look it up and Nosenugget shot Goober in the back. A third says Doofus v. Drunkard and I look it up and Drunkard shot Doofus then policed up his brass and fled. These mirror the actual cases, and others, maybe 10 total, didn't keep a count or list.

Don't recall.

Can't recall
No real idea.
In Fish it did (Waddle v. Gobble).

Now that you have them, what clever little trap do you think you have laid?

Are you about to say since I don't have a list, an enumeration of outcomes, the percentage of civil suits, and the corresponding times ammunition matter based on jury interviews, that I can't honest observe that I have yet to show me a case where a clearly justified shooting lead to persecution of the shooter. That would be no persecution by LE or Prosecutors' btw.

It's also balanced by the absence of prosecution and suits against clearly justified persons. It's two fold. I see suits and prosecutions in messed up shootings. I don't see suits and prosecutions in clearly justified shootings.

If you have a case that goes against that I would love to know about it.

I can change by observation from None, to One.

If you have more, I can can change it from None to a few.

If you have a lot, I can change my opinion from None to guess what, loading DRT ammo has been repeatatively shown win juries in otherwise justified shootings. Case in point when Susan Housewife shot the three time convicted rapist who just broke into her home butt naked and was smacking her with a closed fist and tearing her night-clothes the jury said she would have been justified in shooting the dude, just with not with DRT ammo.

That's what I'm inuirying about Russ.Thanks for the information and insight.

writwing
11-11-2011, 15:55
:agree:

Another deeply exaggerated fear in the gun world, is the weapon/ammo/magazine used in a self defense shooting, will be used against you.

I have been looking for a case where a good shooting has turned bad, only because of the weapon/ammo/magazine used some how changed something.

So far I have not found any such case.

:cool:

Sorry but you are incorrect, been there. You are looking for the cases in the incorrect way to justify your point. The question is "Can the weapon/ammo/magazine be brought into evidence in court and used against you?". The answer is yes. What the jury bases a judgement on is anyone's guess.

Glockdude1
11-11-2011, 16:04
Sorry but you are incorrect, been there. You are looking for the cases in the incorrect way to justify your point. The question is "Can the weapon/ammo/magazine be brought into evidence in court and used against you?". The answer is yes. What the jury bases a judgement on is anyone's guess.

I have come to conclusion (respectfuly), the answer to such a situation is, yes, no, maybe and, depend on which city, county, state where such a incident happens.

:cool: