Civil suit?

This is a discussion on Civil suit? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; In Missouri we are only shielded by castle doctrine in our homes and vehicles (spineless, gutless, worthless, weak kneed, cave in before the battle Republicans) ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 54

Thread: Civil suit?

  1. #16
    Ex Member Array F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High in Colorado
    Posts
    1,706
    In Missouri we are only shielded by castle doctrine in our homes and vehicles (spineless, gutless, worthless, weak kneed, cave in before the battle Republicans) you are on your own on the streets and parking lots. I checked with my insurance company and have it in writing that I am covered in a civil suit resulting from a shooting in which I was not the aggressor (no criminal coverage even if found not guilty or ultimatly not tried), and I carry a $1 million umbrella so I have $1.3 million of coverage. The down side is that THEY provide the lawyer and if it is decided that the claim is cheaper than the court cost they will settle rather than fight.

    An umbrella liability policy is really cheap (couple hundred bucks a year) and protects you from so much, someone hurt on your property, in a auto accident resulting in huge medical bills etc.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,857
    Bear in mind that the immunity from recovery does not mean that a suit won't be filed, and the provisions requiring the BG to pay your legal expenses aren't a big help if the BG has no means to pay.

    You can still end up holding the bag for thousands in expenses.

    Matt
    Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
    Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.

  4. #18
    Ex Member Array Cold Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    West Carrollton, Ohio
    Posts
    1,059
    Typical TV News Story: "He was a good boy....He was going to get a job, and start going to church and to school again...and start supporting his baby and girlfriend, and marry her and be a father...but fell in with bad companions who made him do what he did...and he should not have been shot."

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array TedBeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bay City
    Posts
    2,268
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post



    Sec. 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.


    Michigan's law is simular. If you were justified to use deadly force, the BG or his family can not sue.

    Just be sure you did everything right. Attempt to desculate, escape and make sure witnesses are aware that you were not the aggressor.

  6. #20
    Distinguished Member Array BlueNinjaGo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
    Typical TV News Story: "He was a good boy....He was going to get a job, and start going to church and to school again...and start supporting his baby and girlfriend, and marry her and be a father...but fell in with bad companions who made him do what he did...and he should not have been shot."
    What kind of b/s is that? Everyone is responsible for their own actions. I believe the Nuremberg Trials clarified that.

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array ron8903's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by retsupt99 View Post
    That's not going to happen in FL...the GunShine State has a detailed Castle Doctrine...not guilty=no suits.
    I love Florida
    "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
    - Sir Winston Churchill

  8. #22
    Member Array CommonMan101's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    128
    I'm not as worried about a civil suit as I am about their friends coming around for retribution in the middle of the night.

    The last guy I was watching was in my driveway and talking smack to my son's friends who were sitting in the front yard having a smoke when he was picking up his "baby mama" across the street. He was not from the neighborhood and had decided that one of my son's friends was wearing the "wrong" color and had gone to his trunk to get something that most likely was a gun because it fit in his back pocket and he was very brave for being alone with 4 twenty somethings and an older white guy off to the side leaning against a truck. Taking him out and protecting everyone there was not the hard thing - it was knowing he had "bad" friends that don't play by the rules either.

    My house has wood siding so it can burn easily - it has huge windows on most sides - my bedroom has an 8 foot wide opening of windows facing the street. My security cameras would, at best, only record that something happened by a certain amount of people and when. I would only get a decent still frame if they came up close to the house and if my house burns it's a good chance my security PC is burned too. It's only 35' from my bedroom window to the street.

    With the Castle Doctrine around here a civil suit is the least of my worries. Gangs are a whole other game though. I have to sleep sometime!

    I thought it was interesting that the next day the family from that house knew that I had been on guard with my Glock and said "Too bad you didn't shoot him". He is not liked by those who know him so I had that going for me at least.

  9. #23
    Member Array CommonMan101's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by archer51 View Post
    To be honest, I'm not that worried about it. At least I'd be alive, which definitely beats the alternative. To avoid loosing everything you own, immediately put all possessions (house/cars/bank accounts) in your spouses name. Kind of hard to take something you don't have.
    To the best of my knowledge... in Texas your spouse = you. You haven't hidden a thing.

    If I am wrong I would like to see the statute. Too many court cases I know of have panned out this way. But I may have missed some technicality somewhere. I would be very surprised to find it different.

  10. #24
    Member Array CommonMan101's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNinjaGo View Post
    What kind of b/s is that? Everyone is responsible for their own actions. I believe the Nuremberg Trials clarified that.
    It happens...

    If you research this story you'll find the baby-mama suing him even had a restraining order against the perp! What consortium do you have when you have a restraining order against someone?

    The Shootist: One Man Got Involved. The Perry Stephens/George Temple Incident

    (Snipped from article)
    "The actions of both Brian Harrison and Perry Stephens were found to have fallen in the parameters of the justifiable homicide statutes under Louisiana law. No charges were filed against either of them.

    A lawsuit was filed by the mother of George Temple’s son, accusing Brian Harrison of excessive force in his attempt to effect an illegal arrest, and Stephens of “vigilante” action in coming to the aid of Harrison.

    Among the claims listed as a reason for the lawsuit was a “loss of consortium” with Temple."

    ------------
    This was also on ClaytonCramer's CivilianGunDefenseBlog when it happened. OpenCarry.org went over this one a lot, too.

  11. #25
    Senior Member
    Array gimpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,023
    Florida Law regarding legitimate self-defense shooting:

    776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

    (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

    (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

    (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
    "Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other. It undergoes continual change; but this change is not [an improvement]. For everything that is given, something is taken."
    Ralph Waldo Emerson

  12. #26
    Distinguished Member Array SpringerXD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    1,945
    Quote Originally Posted by CommonMan101 View Post
    To the best of my knowledge... in Texas your spouse = you. You haven't hidden a thing.

    If I am wrong I would like to see the statute. Too many court cases I know of have panned out this way. But I may have missed some technicality somewhere. I would be very surprised to find it different.
    Another thing to consider.... in many cases, the court can consider an action to be "preemptive" if it was done within the last 3-6 months, meaning that you saw something coming and took action. They can thereby declare that action null and void.

    You see this happen in divorces sometimes. A man will sell his house to his mom for $1.00 American, then file for divorce a week later, thinking that the sale to his mom would prevent the soon-to-be ex from getting the house. But if the court and/or judge considers the sale to be preemptive, he can still lose the house.

    I'm NOT an attorney and I don't play one on TV, so be sure to see a real one before acting on any Internet advice.
    "I practice the ancient art of Klik Pao."

    -miklcolt45

  13. #27
    Member Array Cougar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    33
    If the direction does not change (soon) in Washington, I fear that we'll become like the UK where the perp has all the rights, and an Ordinary Reasonable Person defending themselves with a firearm (or anything else) will be up S--- Creek.


    Thomas Sowell

    Thomas Sowell

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by kspilot536 View Post
    Is anybody concerned with being sued by family members if you have to draw and shoot a perp for trying to rob you or cause you harm?
    Even if you are within the law and kill a BG trying to comit bodily harm to you,suppose the family brings a suit against you costing thousands of dollars in lawyer fees,it could ruin you're life financially.
    I have heard this happening to LEO''s.
    Any thought on this?
    I'll try to use little words because people love to overcomplicate simple matters.

    If you intentionally shot someone and were justified, it's almost never a consern.

    In civil cases you still need a theory of liability. You are not liable for a justified act - self defense.

    The only way a plaintiff can recover from you is if you have the money, otherwise it's a worthless civil judgement that will be a...hard to collect on.

    As to money, plaintiff's lawyers (I am one) like to go after insurance companies because they have money.

    Insurance companies do not pay for intentional acts, only negligence like accidents or reclkessness.

    If your shooting was not accidental or reckless - like in a case were you deliberately and justifiably shot someone... - it will not be covered by insurance.

    No insurance...no money.

    No $$ = no lawsuit.

    If you were reckless, negligent or unjustified, you have bigger problems than the civil suit.

    The best way to avoid lawsuits is to be well trained and to keep the mouth shut when talking to the police.

    Simple.

    (now watch someone come in with ideas about how complex this is...)

  15. #29
    Distinguished Member Array BlueNinjaGo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,226
    Quote Originally Posted by CommonMan101 View Post
    It happens...

    If you research this story you'll find the baby-mama suing him even had a restraining order against the perp! What consortium do you have when you have a restraining order against someone?

    The Shootist: One Man Got Involved. The Perry Stephens/George Temple Incident

    (Snipped from article)
    "The actions of both Brian Harrison and Perry Stephens were found to have fallen in the parameters of the justifiable homicide statutes under Louisiana law. No charges were filed against either of them.

    A lawsuit was filed by the mother of George Temple’s son, accusing Brian Harrison of excessive force in his attempt to effect an illegal arrest, and Stephens of “vigilante” action in coming to the aid of Harrison.

    Among the claims listed as a reason for the lawsuit was a “loss of consortium” with Temple."

    ------------
    This was also on ClaytonCramer's CivilianGunDefenseBlog when it happened. OpenCarry.org went over this one a lot, too.
    Oh, I know it happens, but it doesn't make it any less retarded.

  16. #30
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,639
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Not too worried about it.

    CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE



    TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT



    CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON



    Sec. 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.



    Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

    Amended by:

    Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007.
    Most CCW states follow up with this legislation that disallows the BG's families to sue the defendant who is involved in a self-defense shooting.

    Missouri did.
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. — Winston Churchill

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. files civil suit against Wisconsin
    By bnhcomputing in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: March 9th, 2010, 05:42 PM
  2. civil suit in Arizona?
    By jzattack in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: February 19th, 2010, 01:20 PM
  3. Insurance for CIVIL liability suit in Self Defense Injury or Death
    By Bag Man in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: October 23rd, 2009, 09:42 PM
  4. No civilian protection against civil suit for reporting terrorist activity
    By paramedic70002 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 26th, 2007, 09:49 AM
  5. FL man who shot teen prankster liable for damages in civil suit
    By peacefuljeffrey in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2007, 09:27 AM

Search tags for this page

brian harrison george temple civil lawsuit
,

civil liability self defense fort myere

,
concealed carry civil suit
,
if you are a plaintiff and withdrawl from a civil suit can you be sued for defense costs
,
ose in a california civil court, you are liable for the expenses of defense the people you sued incurred
,
perry stephens civil suit
,
perry stephens george temple civil case
,
perry stephens, temple loss of consortium
,
sc civil lawsuits for self-defense: .22 beats .45
Click on a term to search for related topics.