October 4th, 2009 09:34 AM
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?
October 4th, 2009 09:37 AM
If one considers....
the alternative, of not defending, and the perp inflicts the harm, would you be better off with that?
Extremism in the Defense of Liberty is No Vice--Moderation in the Pursuit of Justice is No Virtue. - Senator Barry Goldwater
October 4th, 2009 10:14 AM
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.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007.
Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas Hunter Education Instructor
October 4th, 2009 10:58 AM
I couldn't have said that any better myself.
Originally Posted by carry ok
October 4th, 2009 12:25 PM
Not too worry in Mi. as Long as its Justifiable>
Heres why this is from Public Act 309-314
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).
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.
I am glad someone in Michigan gets it!!
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." Ted Nugent
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn
October 4th, 2009 12:54 PM
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.
October 4th, 2009 01:19 PM
That's not going to happen in FL...the GunShine State has a detailed Castle Doctrine...not guilty=no suits.
The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member[/B]
October 4th, 2009 02:08 PM
I'm glad my brother is a lawyer.
"First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
Edge of Darkness
October 4th, 2009 02:48 PM
Don't worry too much about it. You are in Kansas right?
Originally Posted by kspilot536
Emphasis added. So if your use of force is otherwise legal you don't have a problem.
Chapter 21.--CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
PART I.--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 32.--PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
21-3219. Use of force; immunity from prosecution or liability; investigation. (a) A person who uses force which, subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 21-3214, and amendments thereto, is justified pursuant to K.S.A. 21-3211, 21-3212 or 21-3213, and amendments thereto, 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 who was acting in the performance of such officer's official duties and the officer identified the officer's self 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, "criminal prosecution" includes arrest, detention in custody and charging or prosecution of the defendant.
(b) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (a), but the agency shall not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause for the arrest.
(c) A county or district attorney or other prosecutor may commence a criminal prosecution upon a determination of probable cause.
History: L. 2006, ch. 194, § 2; L. 2007, ch. 169, § 1; May 17.
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
October 4th, 2009 02:50 PM
As the saying goes, "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6."
October 4th, 2009 05:41 PM
My sister is a lawyer.
Originally Posted by automatic slim
October 4th, 2009 05:53 PM
You can add a $1,000,000 blanket policy for around $80.00 a year.
Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
October 4th, 2009 07:09 PM
What kind of policy? General Liability? If so, I don't think it would cover litigation.... Please enlighten me...
Originally Posted by varob
"Texas can make it without the United States, but the United States can't make it without Texas!".... Sam Houston
NRA Life Member
October 4th, 2009 07:30 PM
This is from Missouri law, but look for this in your state law:
Section 563-074 Justification as an absolute defense, w
Paragraph 2 is important in that it reduces the incentive to sue you (the civil suit defendant) in order to achieve a settlement out of court.
Justification as an absolute defense, when.
563.074. 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 563.016, a person who uses force as described in sections 563.031, 563.041, 563.046, 563.051, 563.056, and 563.061 is justified in using such force and such fact shall be an absolute defense to criminal prosecution or civil liability.
2. The court shall award attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant has an absolute defense as provided in subsection 1 of this section.
October 4th, 2009 10:28 PM
In Kansas, the law specifically states that you cannot be sued if it is determined you used the firearm in self-defense.
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
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.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors