Worse legally if BG survives?

I'm curious. If you have to shoot a home invader or whatever, might you be in a worse place legally if he survives? A BG that survives, sitting in a wheelchair preying on a jury's sympathy, might get you in more hot water than one who can't plead his case, even though the charges you face would be lesser.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING administering a coup de grace or any other sick crap. I'm not suggesting executing wounded attackers to save legal hassle. I'm merely curious what outcome is preferable in the courtroom, silent BG or wounded and sympathetic? OK? Purely hypothetical curiosity.

This is a very sensitive subject, and please know that whatever you write here, or anywhere else on the subject, will likely become evidence in a wrongful death suit, or criminal action against you should your District Attorney decide to indict you for a criminal act, after using deadly force to defend your life, or the life of your loved ones.

Most deadly force or lethal force laws mandate that you only use enough force necessary to stop the threat. Operative word here is "stop". Even highly trained law enforcement officers are heavily scrutinized, in the courts and the court of public opinion when large numbers of rounds are expended into the BG. Not saying that's good or bad, but it is a fact. Use what force is necessary, and no more.

The answer to the question is obvious, I think, but I'll let you determine what it is for yourself.

Be safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cayman_shen

I'm curious. If you have to shoot a home invader or whatever, might you be in a worse place legally if he survives? A BG that survives, sitting in a wheelchair preying on a jury's sympathy, might get you in more hot water than one who can't plead his case, even though the charges you face would be lesser.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING administering a coup de grace or any other sick crap. I'm not suggesting executing wounded attackers to save legal hassle. I'm merely curious what outcome is preferable in the courtroom, silent BG or wounded and sympathetic? OK? Purely hypothetical curiosity.

---

What charges do you suppose I'll be facing if I shoot a home invader?

Criminally no, civily yes.

Either way, it will be expensive for the shooter...The DA can press criminal charges if deeded appropriate or not...and the victim's family can file civil charges either for wrongful death, or for medical and loss of wages plus a few other things...

Your legal expenses will be high as you will need to defend yourself against a possible number of law suits..........

Should one or more individuals invade my home and in any way threaten my life, or the lives of anyone in my home, their chances of survival would be pretty slim.... in such a situation I would not shoot to "wound".

I understand that if I ever DID end up in court, this thread would look very bad no matter how many times I re-iterate that I'm just curious. Can't help it though. I'm a person who gets a question in his head and I gots ta have it answered. And I'm not a good enough shot to attempt wounding anyway...I'd have to just shoot center mass until the threat stopped (and NO more, again, I reiterate). I just wonder how much a greivously injured BG might evoke sympathy in court, like if the person was left disfigured or something. The aftermath of a self-defense scenario is interesting to me.

In most states, if your defending yourself against a home invader, you are not going to face criminal charges, regardless of whether he lives or dies (provided you didn't execute him). Civil suits are another story. Unless your state law exempts you from civil liability in a defensive shooting, the person or their family can file a civil case. In that case, the jury is going to hear what a good person he is/was. In fact he'll be such a good person even the Pope goes to him for advice.

And endless question of "buts" and "what if."

If facing civil suits in the matter of defending one's self is that much of a concern to you, you have two choices:
1. Dispose of any deadly weapons and surrender yourself to the bad side or,
2. Use deadly force in a lethal manner.

If you've bought a firearm to defend yourself, DEFEND YOURSELF--OR DON'T!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exacto

Criminally no, civily yes.

---

Mot in TX or some other States,if you were justified to use deadly force the BG has no legal standing to bring a civil case,if you kill him his family members cannot bring a civil suit.
Some states got it right when they noticed all the ridiculous lawsuits criminals filed against Home/Business owners and then won in court because of a bunch of Jurors that seemed to feel that maybe you should have just pulled a gun and told them to leave nicely.

Know your state law. In SC a good shoot comes with a pass on civil liability. This makes absolute sense but we are living in an asylum run by its inmates and anyone can sue for anything. Bottom line. Reasonable assumption of imminent danger of death or great bodily injury is thethe only reason to be using your firearm and you shoot center mass; as far as I am concerned I will shoot him as many times as it takes to make sure he is not a threat anymore but shooting him center mass IMHO is still presuming death as the end result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelcarry

Know your state law. In SC a good shoot comes with a pass on civil liability. This makes absolute sense but we are living in an asylum run by its inmates and anyone can sue for anything. Bottom line. Reasonable assumption of imminent danger of death or great bodily injury is thethe only reason to be using your firearm and you shoot center mass; as far as I am concerned I will shoot him as many times as it takes to make sure he is not a threat anymore but shooting him center mass IMHO is still presuming death as the end result.

---

Florida law is basically the same. If it's a good shoot then the law protects you from civil liability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike1956

What charges do you suppose I'll be facing if I shoot a home invader?

---

Highly dependent on your local prosecutor/district attorney. If you want to see how badly things can go, look up the Harold Fish case here in AZ. It was a shooting out in the boonies, and the prima evidence supported self-defense, but an ambitious prosecutor read it otherwise and spun a completely different story. Fish was convicted and spent years in jail before an appeal correctly reversed the conviction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelcarry

Know your state law. In SC a good shoot comes with a pass on civil liability. This makes absolute sense but we are living in an asylum run by its inmates and anyone can sue for anything. Bottom line. Reasonable assumption of imminent danger of death or great bodily injury is thethe only reason to be using your firearm and you shoot center mass; as far as I am concerned I will shoot him as many times as it takes to make sure he is not a threat anymore but shooting him center mass IMHO is still presuming death as the end result.

---

Astute advice.

I'm shooting to stop a lethal threat. I have enough training to know that my fine motor skills will be up and gone by the time I get to the trigger, so I'm shooting for center mass. If I miss and wing them, and they stop, well then that's where the fight stops. If by aiming center mass, I connect and they die, well then that's where the fight stops.

So, honestly, wouldn't just having insurance be wise if you were afraid of tort?