In Missouri....under Castle Doctrine...you can't be held civilly responsible for shooting a bad guy in your home....not by him/her and not by family and friends.
Printable View
In Missouri....under Castle Doctrine...you can't be held civilly responsible for shooting a bad guy in your home....not by him/her and not by family and friends.
And that is how case law is made. While it's unfortunate that he went thru it, his case sets the basis for any future cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by gasmitty
Check your HO policy and see if you're covered.Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckQue
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exacto
^^^^^^Not in Michigan^^^^^^
See below
A person who uses force in accordance with the Act is immune from civil liability for damages caused by the use of such force (PA 314). Additionally, courts must award attorney fees and costs to an individual who has been sued for using force and the court finds that the force was in accordance with the Act (PA 312).
Criminal Liability
Under the Act (PA 310), no crime has been committed when a person uses force as authorized. If a prosecutor believes that the force is not justified, he or she must provide evidence that the force used was not in accordance with the Act. Such evidence must be presented at the time of warrant issuance, preliminary examination, and trial.
If it is deemed a no bill your biggest worry will most likely be retribution(paybacks) from the knuckledraggers friends and family.
You need to go read your specific states laws regarding these matters, as EACH STATE is different.
This is very much the same as FL's law. It does not say you can't be sued, only that costs and fees will be awarded if shooting was justified. One would think any lawyer worth two cents would recognize this as a case that cannot be won and would reject it, but...
FYI.
Insurance is available through an organization called USCCA. It is specifically for the legal expenses you will likely be facing if and when you
need to defend yourself or your family by using a weapon to administer deadly force to stop an attack.
There are probably others, but this is the one I am aware of.
Almost regardless of the situation or jurisdiction you will probably find yourself facing criminal or civil charges, maybe both.
Whenever you use a gun in self defense, it should only be because of grave fear of bodily harm or death, as stated above. When discussing your actions with your lawyer, and with investigating powers in the presence of your lawyer, you fired your gun because you were "in fear for your life" and you fired to "stop the threat of bodily harm or death".
About 15 years ago, (I think) a gentleman in WA state was sued after using his gun to stop a threat. The assailant survived but had to wear a colostomy bag the rest of his life. The assailant sued, but was counter sued for emotional distress caused to the citizen after having to use his gun, nightmares of the assault and so on. The citizen had a great attorney (my late uncle) and won a huge amount from the assailant - which was never paid. Mr. Colostomy ended up dying in a gang related drive buy a couple of months after the ruling.
I think my aunt still has information from his case somewhere.
I think Mr. Zimmerman will avoid jail time because Mr. Martin is not alive to tell his side of the story.
Flame me... I'm ready, I know my opinion is prob against the norm here.
It is possible, but remember that sometimes attorneys tell their clients to "sit down, and shut up or you will ruin it for yourself." Sometimes being quiet is in your favor, no matter which side of the legal case your on.Quote:
Originally Posted by SCXDm9
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by dben002
Do what you want with your money--can't hurt--have at it. I am sure that I will know when I am in imminent danger and I will be sure enough that my firearm will protect me and I am sure that the prosecutor will thank me for getting rid of the scum and I am sure that is where the matter will end and I am sure that I can find a better place to spend my money than with an insurance company, who, if you have not had a good shoot, will probably screw you anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckQue
I guess if I have to shoot in defense of myself or loved one, thinking about my legal issues will be about as important as the gun buster signs are to mass shooters.
The charges against Mr. Zimmerman would certainly be much less severe than they would be had been had Mr. Martin survived. Had the authorities been able to interrogate Mr. Martin, there may well have been no charges whatsoever. Hard to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by SCXDm9
Zimmerman and Martin are not being discussed herein if I remember the OP. :yup: Just re-read it. :yup:
IFF you are culpable, it doesn't matter if he/she is alive or dead because an attorney will be coming after you for either he or she or their heirs or other relatives. At that point it becomes who has the best legal position and the most compelling story (theater).
There was a saying my ccw instructor used "There is a lawyer for every bullet you shoot." You can always counter sue. The insurance people keep talking about covers lawyers cost and such... nothing more than that.
In Idaho:
6-808. CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR SELF-DEFENSE. (1) A person who uses force as justified in section 18-4009, Idaho Code, or as otherwise permitted in sections 19-201 through 19-205, Idaho Code, is immune from anycivil liability for the use of such force except when the person knew or reasonably should have known that the person against whom the force was used was a law enforcement officer acting in the capacity of his or her official duties.