Immunity from civil action after a shooting? - Page 4

Immunity from civil action after a shooting?

This is a discussion on Immunity from civil action after a shooting? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Marty Hayes But, there are many which are not simple nor clear cut. And, while the defender may have been justified, he ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 59 of 59
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: Immunity from civil action after a shooting?

  1. #46
    Ex Member Array MadMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Hayes View Post
    But, there are many which are not simple nor clear cut. And, while the defender may have been justified, he still gets prosecuted. (Think Harold Fish).
    Thanks for the heads-up MitchellCT. I didn't see that one.

    Also, Marty, it looks like your cited cases make MY point. If you observe the Rule of Three Stupids very carefully, and never pull out your gun if there is absolutely any other option, you're likely never going to get prosecuted nor need a fancy-pants lawyer like MitchellCT to get you out of hot water. Even in the RARE event you need your ccw for self defense.


  2. #47
    Ex Member Array MadMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    When you make a several hour, contradictory statement to the police, prosecutions tend to be as inevitable as 1 tequila, 2 tequila, 3 tequila, whore...

    Or was that floor...Eh. Either. Or. Both. Whatever.
    So - for all your years of direct experience, all you really have to show is the Harold Fish case, and that case is far from cut-and-dried. In other words, EVERYONE who legitimately and legally uses a firearm to protect themselves or their family never gets prosecuted. I like those odds. Seems like some type of insurance program would be a waste for such a minuscule eventuality, don't you think?

  3. #48
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,568
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMac View Post
    Thanks for the heads-up MitchellCT. I didn't see that one.

    Also, Marty, it looks like your cited cases make MY point. If you observe the Rule of Three Stupids very carefully, and never pull out your gun if there is absolutely any other option, you're likely never going to get prosecuted nor need a fancy-pants lawyer like MitchellCT to get you out of hot water. Even in the RARE event you need your ccw for self defense.
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMac View Post
    So - for all your years of direct experience, all you really have to show is the Harold Fish case, and that case is far from cut-and-dried. In other words, EVERYONE who legitimately and legally uses a firearm to protect themselves or their family never gets prosecuted. I like those odds. Seems like some type of insurance program would be a waste for such a minuscule eventuality, don't you think?
    Mac you mixed up your quotes... too many tequilas?

    Seriously though, I see less harm in ALCDN than I do in say DEFENSE SHIELD... if for no other reason than the cost... If you want to join a group of like minded individuals, get education and training in firearms use at a discount, for a few bucks a year, good on you... If you want to spend multiple hundreds of dollars a year for the same thing, well, go ahead... a fool and his money, and all that...

    The only thing ALCDN is missing is a forum (I think) and their journal is available for anyone to read, member or not... and has articles written by Ayoob and others.

    Marty has apparently done some expert witness testifying... Can't say the same for Tactical Tim...

    Either way, I'd say that joining is not necessary... Knowing the laws of your state is. Knowing a good lawyer can't hurt.

    As to the rule of 3 stupids... stupid is relative... and I choose to live life. Arguably the safest place to be is in your own home, in your bedroom, with guns at the ready... anything else could be considered "stupid" or "dangerous".
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  4. #49
    Ex Member Array MadMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,095
    I did mix them up.

    I wanted to point out that, basically, we are talking about extremely remote possibilities here. Along the lines of Steve Irwin getting killed by a ray.

    And before I get beat up by the DC Cliche Team, I know anything can happen to anyone at any time. It's always about likely outcomes and tradeoffs. That's where the imprtant disctinctions are made.

    I am not bashing our friends at ACLDN or even Tactical Tim the YouTube Warrior. I am just pointing out that there are sensible precautions to take, and then there's just nuttery.

  5. #50
    Member Array Marty Hayes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMac View Post
    Thanks for the heads-up MitchellCT. I didn't see that one.
    Even in the RARE event you need your ccw for self defense.
    Since the likelihood of need a gun for self defense is exceedingly rare, why bother carrying one in the first place? The prepared individual does not manage his life around statistics, but instead, prepares for the statistical anomily.
    Marty Hayes, President
    Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, Inc.
    www.armedcitizensnetwork.org

  6. #51
    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 MadMac View Post
    So - for all your years of direct experience, all you really have to show is the Harold Fish case, and that case is far from cut-and-dried. In other words, EVERYONE who legitimately and legally uses a firearm to protect themselves or their family never gets prosecuted. I like those odds. Seems like some type of insurance program would be a waste for such a minuscule eventuality, don't you think?
    You have completely mistaken what I said.

    Leme be usin simple words: If you make a several hour long statement to the police in which you contradict yourself multiple times, you will leave the police with no choice but to conclude you were lying to them, and in such instance, having discharged a weapon at another person, then being less than completely honest with the police in your statement, the case will likely be referred to the prosecution for court action.

    Harold Fish talked himself into the defendant's chair.

    My previous statement RE: Tequila; and this statement above is limited to the scope of Mr. H. Fish & his statements alone.

    Get it?

    Got it?

    Good.

    Insert sarcastic smile here.

  7. #52
    Member Array Marty Hayes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    When you make a several hour, contradictory statement to the police, prosecutions tend to be as inevitable as 1 tequila, 2 tequila, 3 tequila, whore....
    What his contradictory statements the compelling reason why he was prosecuted? Or, was there some other behind the scenes agenda? Remember, he wasn't prosecuted until political pressure got to the local DA, but the contradictory statements were part of the record early on.

    And, I only used the Fish case as an example because the details are so widely known.
    Marty Hayes, President
    Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, Inc.
    www.armedcitizensnetwork.org

  8. #53
    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 Marty Hayes View Post
    What his contradictory statements the compelling reason why he was prosecuted? Or, was there some other behind the scenes agenda? Remember, he wasn't prosecuted until political pressure got to the local DA, but the contradictory statements were part of the record early on.

    And, I only used the Fish case as an example because the details are so widely known.
    Politics wouldn't have resulted in the prosecution had he not given them the "in".

    Even without politics, if you "lie to the police" it starts the ball rolling in ways you don't want it to - thus, our professional disagreement on the issue of statements from previous forums/posts/what not.

    I'm not sure I'm right, I'm not sure you are wrong, but everyone brings their experience to a discussion (except those with only speculation...) and people who have a different background will see the same things differently.

    However...in my view, Fish, by rambling, opened up everything, and without it, their would be very little for a prosecutor to have used against him.

    Even the "10mm" BS at trial was just that. a trial tactic. It wasn't a substantive issue in the prosecutions theory. It's like biting when you are in a grappling match.

    You prepare by conditioning, learning technical moves and making weight...then if you end up in the tangle and things are up for grabs, and you get a hand in bite range...sure. Why not? Go for it!

    Same thing with a 10mm. Prosecutor probably didn't know what a 10mm was other than 1cm till he read the report...and when it comes time to put someone in jail for killing someone else, he used what he had.

    Had it been a 9mm Glock, he'd have gone with a Bruce Willis movie line about undetectable guns.

  9. #54
    Member Array Marty Hayes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    50
    I think Mr. Fish would be the first one to agree that his statements to police without an attorney present was not a good idea. And, for the record, ACLDN also advises never to sit down with a police/prosecutor and give a formal, tape recorded statement without counsel present too.
    Marty Hayes, President
    Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, Inc.
    www.armedcitizensnetwork.org

  10. #55
    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 Marty Hayes View Post
    I think Mr. Fish would be the first one to agree that his statements to police without an attorney present was not a good idea.
    One wonders why, after it all worked out so well the last time...

  11. #56
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,886
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    One wonders why, after it all worked out so well the last time...
    That was just wrong in so many ways.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  12. #57
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Originally Posted by oakchas
    If I'm in my living room, and someone barges in the front door and they are between me and the safe room (whichever that is; bedroom, gun room, safe room), I can kill them where they stand as long as they can harm me with some sort of force (whatever they broke in with, crowbar/bat/jersey boot, what have you). If they are just standing there, I can't kill 'em as long as they are not demonstrating the ability to use force against me.
    While I would never advocate shooting unless you believed you were in extreme danger Oklahoma law says that anyone who breaks in is presumed to be there to do you bodily harm. It would be up to the State to prove otherwise should they decide to charge you.

    Michael

  13. #58
    Ex Member Array MadMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    You have completely mistaken what I said.

    Leme be usin simple words: If you make a several hour long statement to the police in which you contradict yourself multiple times, you will leave the police with no choice but to conclude you were lying to them, and in such instance, having discharged a weapon at another person, then being less than completely honest with the police in your statement, the case will likely be referred to the prosecution for court action.

    Harold Fish talked himself into the defendant's chair.

    My previous statement RE: Tequila; and this statement above is limited to the scope of Mr. H. Fish & his statements alone.

    Get it?

    Got it?

    Good.

    Insert sarcastic smile here.
    That's exactly how I intrepreted your post.

    [insert quizzical look at a snarky JD]

    HarleyQuizzicalLook.jpg

  14. #59
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    lots of respect going around the table... good stuff.... thanks to every one

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Sponsored 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
  •  

Search tags for this page

civil immunity for self defense cases
,
civil immunity in self defense
,
civil suit after self defense
,
civil suit for drive by paintball shooting legal actions
,
civil suit for self defense shooting
,
civil suit immunity self defense
,
civil suit shooting
,
how do you get immunity from a civil suit
,
oklahoma ccw civil suits
,
self defense immune to civil charges in sc
,

self defense shooting civil suit

,

uscca under investigation

Click on a term to search for related topics.