Other Side of the Coin

[soundwave]

OK, I was thinking about this and I seriously doubt it will ever happen, but I also wouldn't be very surprised if it did... We all know the legal ramifications of if we shot someone whether justified or not. However, if there was a situation (regardless of the details) where:

1) you were carrying;
2) somehow it was known you were carrying;
3) a victim is shot while you were present;

and the family sues you in court for not shooting the BG.

As I said, I seriously doubt that this would ever happen, but in our sue-crazy society, it wouldn't surprise me if at some point it happened. Now I don't want to get into how it was known that you were carrying, just that it was known. An example that I could think of where you were doing everything right in concealing but was still found out would be like a best friend of your significant other who knew you carried and their significant other (or son/daughter/etc.) were killed.

What do you think?

Cheers.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[steve_db]

I don't think there would be any negligence on the ccw holder in this case.
If the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect you, then why would a court decide that you, as a ccw holder, have an obligation to protect someone.
ianal, but in my opinion this would be thrown out of court.

[QKShooter]

It's an interesting question. I have no idea but, it's an interesting question.
Sued for Failure To Act With Deadly Force To Save A Total Stranger. Hummmmmmmmmmmmmm????

Anybody else want to chime in?

[RSSZ]

I have absolutely NO obligation to protect anybody with my legally carried weapon.--------

[P95Carry]

Interesting - that's for sure!

I could hardly see this happening but - in our litigious society I could imagine someone filing suit - just to try!

We are not LE and it would really only be in an LEO situation where I could see this just might occur. There it perhaps could be viewed as suing for ''dereliction of duty''.

[cray]

I have absolutely NO obligation to protect anybody with my legally carried weapon.--------

+1

That said, would it be so bad, if our society became so comfortable with CCW that they would expect it ... it would be NORMAL for several CCWers to get involved in an incident?

Be kind ......

cray

[SixBravo]

I think Steve is right. Because police are under zero obligation, then I can imagine that no court in their right mind (you guys in California may have to be careful tho) would ever convict you.

[goawayfarm]

What does this say about our legal system?

The fact that somebody would even think it is possible, just goes to show how litigious our society has gotten.

Think about all the really, really, REALLY stupid law suits you've heard of.......................There is probably some ambulance chaser out there who will probably try this one day.....

[TriggerNick]

it posses intresting outcomes, but at this point there is NO way a court would hold a CCW carrier responsable for NOT using deadly force. The laws on deadly force in your own home are strict enough, that using deadly force outside your home (let alone protecting a stranger) is more likely to get you in trouble with the law...

[Packman73]

I have absolutely NO obligation to protect anybody with my legally carried weapon.--------

That's what my ccw instrutor said.

[cmidkiff]

I'm going with the masses on this one. I'm not LEO, and don't pretend to be. I'm under no obligation to defend anyone. The reason I carry is because I want to die of natural causes with (all of) my family by my side.

[ptmmatssc]

I wonder how "good samaritan" laws apply in this case .

[soundwave]

Good Samaritan laws were the original reason why I thought of this question. When it comes to gun laws, it shows specific reasons that you are allowed to not only use force for self/others-defense, it also gives purpose to a type of "good samaritan" so-to-speak exemptions under other special circumstances. Rather than with the normal laws which refer to medical aide.

The reason why I had thought about the question was that I have seen many lawsuits where a person certified to perform medical intervention did not and the family felt that the person was obligated to perform such intervention, hence a lawsuit. I was just making an extension between the two. As I said, doubt it will happen, but this is America. ;O)

Cheers.

[PatrioticRick]

Sounds like something that could happen in California (the sue happy state)

[Eddie A.]

Originally Posted by RSSZ
I have absolutely NO obligation to protect anybody with my legally carried weapon.--------

+1

My CHL is for me and mine, and I'll act when I deem it neccessary to act, but obligated I am not