Possible great idea!!!! Need lawyers to read.

This is a discussion on Possible great idea!!!! Need lawyers to read. within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I agree with both Ron and Rock and Glock. Most people do not handle their entities paperwork correctly, thereby leaving themselves open in a law ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: Possible great idea!!!! Need lawyers to read.

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,768
    I agree with both Ron and Rock and Glock. Most people do not handle their entities paperwork correctly, thereby leaving themselves open in a law suit, and secondly, if your the actor in the event your subject to the lawsuit as well as the company or whatever entity you create.

    Example. If Bill Gates is driving a Microsoft owned car and runs a red light causing injury or damage, both Microsoft and Bill Gates would be named in the suit for damages. I am sure Microsoft has their corporate paperwork up to snuff, so won't get into that aspect. But most small entities do not hold annual meetings and keep their corporate books and funds in perfect order.

    Get some insurance if you feel the need.
    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

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Linn, Oregon
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by ttpete View Post
    Our castle law in MI provides immunity from civil suits for a righteous shoot, and also provides that if someone does file one, that person is liable for all legal fees and expenses incurred by the defendant.
    Just a quick observation about Castle laws and the "immunity" they supposedly provide. The key words are "righteous shoot," which usually is a judgment call made by the local prosecutor. Although it is true that they vary from state to state, it is a mistake to assume that they always apply and guarantee that you will not have to bear the cost of attorney fees.

    For example, in Florida I believe that they only apply in defending your home or in an attempted car jacking of an occupied vehicle.

    Even then, if the local prosecutor rules, for whatever reason, that the shooting was not justified within the law of that state, then you are in a very difficult position in terms of the cost of defending yourself, in both a criminal and potential civil proceeding.
    "It does not do to leave a dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him."

    J. R. R. Tolkien

  4. #18
    Member Array ttpete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Mich
    Posts
    333
    You are not quite correct. In MI, the law provides for Affirmative Defense. In other words, the prosecutor has to prove to the satisfaction of a jury that the defendant WASN'T in fear for his life OR serious injury. The burden is on him, and not the shooter.
    NRA Benefactor member
    Michigan Antique Arms Collectors life member
    Ohio Gun Collectors member

    Opinions expressed here are based upon Michigan state law ONLY. Other state laws may differ. Know and observe your local laws.

  5. #19
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Linn, Oregon
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by ttpete View Post
    You are not quite correct. In MI, the law provides for Affirmative Defense. In other words, the prosecutor has to prove to the satisfaction of a jury that the defendant WASN'T in fear for his life OR serious injury. The burden is on him, and not the shooter.
    You are correct, but my only point was that if the prosecutor elects to charge, and as demonstrated by the Duke Lacrosse case, it may have little to do with the actual merits of the shooting, and go to a jury, although you are right that the burden does shift to the state to prove that the defendant was not in fear of his life, you are still involved in the criminal justice system and will have to assume the substantial costs of hiring an attorney. It was only in that sense that I made my comments.

    Thanks for the clarification.

    Ron
    "It does not do to leave a dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him."

    J. R. R. Tolkien

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,188
    Quote Originally Posted by P7fanatic View Post
    Is that a legal opinion?



    I have seen far less brief ones essentially end up saying the same thing!

  7. #21
    Member Array ttpete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Mich
    Posts
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron View Post
    You are correct, but my only point was that if the prosecutor elects to charge, and as demonstrated by the Duke Lacrosse case, it may have little to do with the actual merits of the shooting, and go to a jury, although you are right that the burden does shift to the state to prove that the defendant was not in fear of his life, you are still involved in the criminal justice system and will have to assume the substantial costs of hiring an attorney. It was only in that sense that I made my comments.

    Thanks for the clarification.

    Ron
    By placing the burden of proof upon the DA, it considerably diminishes the probability that he will even THINK of indicting someone. Think about how hard it would be to prove that someone wasn't afraid of serious injury to a jury. Especially in my area.
    NRA Benefactor member
    Michigan Antique Arms Collectors life member
    Ohio Gun Collectors member

    Opinions expressed here are based upon Michigan state law ONLY. Other state laws may differ. Know and observe your local laws.

  8. #22
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Linn, Oregon
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by ttpete View Post
    By placing the burden of proof upon the DA, it considerably diminishes the probability that he will even THINK of indicting someone. Think about how hard it would be to prove that someone wasn't afraid of serious injury to a jury. Especially in my area.
    No quarrel with that, although I can think of situations where he or she might be tempted to try. Please don't misunderstand my post. I am in no way denigrating the importance of the "Castle Doctrine" to the CCW community. Just suggesting that it is not a panacea for all shootings.

    Ron
    "It does not do to leave a dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him."

    J. R. R. Tolkien

  9. #23
    New Member Array vegashound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    5
    As an attorney, although this is a little out of my field, I can tell you that it just doesn't work. Some of the tax protesters have come up with similar schemes over the years (such as declaring themselves to be the holder in due course of their own person and, therefore, unprosecutable for what their "property person" does) -- the courts give no credence usually to such obvious attempts to avoid liability.

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Aside from the fact Courts do not like it when people try to avoid liability by various legal constructs, it would not work for a simple reason: You own the LLC.

    If the LLC is sued then the assets of the LLC, assuming it is properly capitolized and paperwork in order, limits the owner's liability.

    If the owner is sued for his own actions, the company is an asset of the owner and as such it offers him no such protection to his assets.

    LLCs usually protect against contractual liability, not tort, so even then, you are SOL.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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. Had a great idea...pics to prove it.
    By jca1 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: December 17th, 2009, 06:21 PM
  2. Great idea for a new movie
    By ExactlyMyPoint in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 8th, 2008, 10:17 PM
  3. What a great idea.......but...
    By cannon in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 29th, 2008, 10:48 PM
  4. Great idea for a defensive weapon
    By tns0038 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2008, 08:02 AM

Search tags for this page

conceal carry defense lawyers fort worth

Click on a term to search for related topics.