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) ...
October 5th, 2009 02:38 AM
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.
October 5th, 2009 06:45 AM
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.
(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.
Learning to shoot again : Starting Over
November 2nd, 2009 11:34 PM
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."
November 3rd, 2009 09:27 AM
Michigan's law is simular. If you were justified to use deadly force, the BG or his family can not sue.
Originally Posted by farronwolf
Just be sure you did everything right. Attempt to desculate, escape and make sure witnesses are aware that you were not the aggressor.
November 3rd, 2009 09:34 AM
What kind of b/s is that? Everyone is responsible for their own actions. I believe the Nuremberg Trials clarified that.
Originally Posted by Cold Warrior
November 3rd, 2009 09:36 AM
I love Florida
Originally Posted by retsupt99
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
- Sir Winston Churchill
November 3rd, 2009 10:18 AM
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.
November 3rd, 2009 10:29 AM
To the best of my knowledge... in Texas your spouse = you. You haven't hidden a thing.
Originally Posted by archer51
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.
November 3rd, 2009 10:41 AM
Originally Posted by BlueNinjaGo
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.
November 3rd, 2009 12:08 PM
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
November 3rd, 2009 12:12 PM
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.
Originally Posted by CommonMan101
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."
November 3rd, 2009 01:05 PM
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.
November 3rd, 2009 01:26 PM
I'll try to use little words because people love to overcomplicate simple matters.
Originally Posted by kspilot536
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.
(now watch someone come in with ideas about how complex this is...)
November 3rd, 2009 01:34 PM
Oh, I know it happens, but it doesn't make it any less retarded.
Originally Posted by CommonMan101
November 3rd, 2009 05:19 PM
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.
Originally Posted by farronwolf
"I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."
"A lot of phonies in the world who portray themselves as "victims". It takes a great deal of discernment to know they are fake."
By bnhcomputing in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: March 9th, 2010, 05:42 PM
By jzattack in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Last Post: February 19th, 2010, 01:20 PM
By Bag Man in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: October 23rd, 2009, 09:42 PM
By paramedic70002 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: July 26th, 2007, 09:49 AM
By peacefuljeffrey in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
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
civil suit castle doctrine in michigan
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
stephens temple suit
Click on a term to search for related topics.