Worse legally if BG survives?
This is a discussion on Worse legally if BG survives? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; 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 ...
January 19th, 2013 08:15 AM
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.
January 19th, 2013 09:14 AM
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.
" But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... Baa." Col. Dave Grossman on Sheep and Sheepdogs.
January 19th, 2013 09:23 AM
What charges do you suppose I'll be facing if I shoot a home invader?
Originally Posted by cayman_shen
"To reject the notion of expertise, and to replace it with a sanctimonious insistence that every person has a right to his or her own opinion, is silly."
January 19th, 2013 09:48 AM
Criminally no, civily yes.
Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunder bolt...... Sun Tzu.
The supreme art of war is to defeat the enemy without fighting........ Sun Tzu.
January 19th, 2013 09:52 AM
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..........
There are two types of people who carry concealed weapons...Responsible ones and Irresponsible ones...which are you...
January 19th, 2013 09:54 AM
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".
The Second Amendment *IS* Homeland Security
--------------------- Μολὼν λαβέ ----------------------
January 19th, 2013 10:02 AM
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.
January 19th, 2013 10:14 AM
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.
Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.
NRA Life Member
January 19th, 2013 10:27 AM
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!
Last edited by OldVet; January 19th, 2013 at 12:16 PM.
Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon at large. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid...
Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth
January 19th, 2013 10:33 AM
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.
Originally Posted by Exacto
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.
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
--Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .
January 19th, 2013 10:36 AM
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.
January 19th, 2013 10:42 AM
Florida law is basically the same. If it's a good shoot then the law protects you from civil liability.
Originally Posted by kelcarry
January 19th, 2013 10:43 AM
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.
Originally Posted by Mike1956
AZCDL Life Member
NRA Patron Member
NROI Chief Range Officer
January 19th, 2013 10:44 AM
Originally Posted by kelcarry
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.
You Can Also Find Me On Personal Defense Forum Dot Com
January 19th, 2013 11:55 AM
So, honestly, wouldn't just having insurance be wise if you were afraid of tort?
Search tags for this page
shooting home invader coup de grace
Click on a term to search for related topics.