Modified Weapons and Civil or Criminal Defense - Page 6

Modified Weapons and Civil or Criminal Defense

This is a discussion on Modified Weapons and Civil or Criminal Defense within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by MitchellCT You don't. Given your condition precedent to this conversation is that the shooting was completely legal in all respects, the person ...

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 85 of 85
Like Tree23Likes

Thread: Modified Weapons and Civil or Criminal Defense

  1. #76
    Distinguished Member Array Fitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    So. Central PA
    Posts
    1,875
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    You don't.

    Given your condition precedent to this conversation is that the shooting was completely legal in all respects, the person suing you has no recourse against you.

    Therefore, it doesn't matter.
    Not true. For example, OJ was found not guilty in criminal court but lost the civil suit. One of the reasons for the civil suit provisions of Castle Doctrine law as passed in several states, including PA, was to eliminate civil suits against the victims of crimes who defended themselves by the families of crooks who committed the crime.

    Fitch
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” by H. L. Mencken


  2. #77
    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 Fitch View Post
    Not true. For example, OJ was found not guilty in criminal court but lost the civil suit. One of the reasons for the civil suit provisions of Castle Doctrine law as passed in several states, including PA, was to eliminate civil suits against the victims of crimes who defended themselves by the families of crooks who committed the crime.

    Fitch
    Using the OJ trial as an example of things which were completely legal in all respects, yet resulting is a civil verdict for wrongful death is...

    Inaccurate.

    So.

    Before I bother posting further, someone please chime in here and explain how Fitch is in error. Thanks.

  3. #78
    Distinguished Member Array Fitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    So. Central PA
    Posts
    1,875
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    Using the OJ trial as an example of things which were completely legal in all respects, yet resulting is a civil verdict for wrongful death is...

    Inaccurate.

    So.

    Before I bother posting further, someone please chime in here and explain how Fitch is in error. Thanks.
    Are the civil suits by the criminals or their families from self defense cases where the victim shot the criminal and the shooting was justified also inaccurate? They happened. One of the benefits of the Castle Doctrine, at least in PA is that it eliminates that type of lawsuit.

    I'm also interested in why the OJ case is a bad example. He was found not guilty. The verdict was never challenged in court so it stands. Yet, as I understand it, he lost a civil suit for damages resulting from the victim's death. Or was the suit about something else?

    Fitch
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” by H. L. Mencken

  4. #79
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    The question initially presented, which I answered, was referencing a situation in which everything was justified and all actions were perfect - as such, in a criminal setting with a very high standard of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt, and a civil standard with a low standard of proof - preponderance of the evidence, it's all irrelevant.

    If you are perfectly justified in all respects, nothing matters. You win. Problem solved. Case closed criminally & civilly.

    I was being sarcastic, but I guess only the attorneys reading caught it.

    Sigh.

    OJ was found not guilty in a murder case. The state evidently failed to meet its burden of proof in the criminal matter; however, the civil action for wrongful death, brought under different theories, and requiring a lot less proof to succeed, did in fact succeed, and thus, the problem you seem to be having bounce 'round in your mind:

    OJ was found not guilty in one court, yet liable in another - how can this be.

    I really have no clue how you are using this example for a self defense incident, the castle doctrine or anything remotely related to justifiable use of force, as it's as logical and on point an example as using store bought marshmallow when discussing how to make home made sushi rolls using fresh, top quality ingredients.

    Sure...they both come from a store...but they really have absolutely nothing in common.

    We really aren't discussing the same things, so you are going to have to dramatically redraft your question and associated examples if you'd like to be on point.

  5. #80
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,863
    Quote Originally Posted by Fitch View Post
    Are the civil suits by the criminals or their families from self defense cases where the victim shot the criminal and the shooting was justified also inaccurate? They happened. One of the benefits of the Castle Doctrine, at least in PA is that it eliminates that type of lawsuit.
    This is a common misconception. The law in many states bars an award in justified self defense shooting lawsuits. It doesn't prevent the filing of the lawsuit, nor the defendant incurring thousands of dollars in legal fees before all is said and done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fitch View Post
    I'm also interested in why the OJ case is a bad example. He was found not guilty. The verdict was never challenged in court so it stands. Yet, as I understand it, he lost a civil suit for damages resulting from the victim's death. Or was the suit about something else?

    Fitch
    There is no "challenge" to a not guilty verdict. The State gets one bite at the apple, as it were.

    Matt
    Battle Plan (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.

  6. #81
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Maybe I'm just baiting...

    But I'm really curious...

    glockfan23 - can you tell me exactly why I'm wrong about Florida?

  7. #82
    Distinguished Member Array Fitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    So. Central PA
    Posts
    1,875
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    The question initially presented, which I answered, was referencing a situation in which everything was justified and all actions were perfect - as such, in a criminal setting with a very high standard of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt, and a civil standard with a low standard of proof - preponderance of the evidence, it's all irrelevant.

    If you are perfectly justified in all respects, nothing matters. You win. Problem solved. Case closed criminally & civilly.

    I was being sarcastic, but I guess only the attorneys reading caught it.

    Sigh.

    OJ was found not guilty in a murder case. The state evidently failed to meet its burden of proof in the criminal matter; however, the civil action for wrongful death, brought under different theories, and requiring a lot less proof to succeed, did in fact succeed, and thus, the problem you seem to be having bounce 'round in your mind:

    OJ was found not guilty in one court, yet liable in another - how can this be.

    I really have no clue how you are using this example for a self defense incident, the castle doctrine or anything remotely related to justifiable use of force, as it's as logical and on point an example as using store bought marshmallow when discussing how to make home made sushi rolls using fresh, top quality ingredients.

    Sure...they both come from a store...but they really have absolutely nothing in common.

    We really aren't discussing the same things, so you are going to have to dramatically redraft your question and associated examples if you'd like to be on point.
    Ok, after reading your reply and thinking about it, you are right about the OJ situation being a bad example.

    While I suppose a suit could be filed, what I don't understand is why it's rational for the perp or the perp's relatives to bring a suit for damages when it's a justified shooting in a state like PA. They aren't going to get an award and if they sued me, I'd counter sue for what ever I could extract from them to recover my cost. they and their attorny would have to know it was a lost cause from the start.

    Fitch
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” by H. L. Mencken

  8. #83
    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 Fitch View Post
    Ok, after reading your reply and thinking about it, you are right about the OJ situation being a bad example.

    While I suppose a suit could be filed, what I don't understand is why it's rational for the perp or the perp's relatives to bring a suit for damages when it's a justified shooting in a state like PA. They aren't going to get an award and if they sued me, I'd counter sue for what ever I could extract from them to recover my cost. they and their attorny would have to know it was a lost cause from the start.

    Fitch
    As you can see...It's an overblown fear.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but I see a lot of these knee jerk reactions like the castle doctrine and civil imunity laws as "yawn. whatever..." because they deal with very rare situations...which were already covered by other laws.

    Yes, they are a nice thing to have on the books and make people feel better.

    Still.

    Whatever.

  9. #84
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    Legal / PC thoughts of a jury, LEO, judge, or prosecutor is a reason I use stock firearms for SD. It is only a very minor concern. It is one reason I prefer non-pistol grip shotguns. Again, it is only a minor thought, and if I thought a customization was more reliable or safe, it would be a minor hurdle.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  10. #85
    Ex Member
    Array 1 old 0311's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,429
    I was a Juror on a murder trial. Guy shot 3 carjackers killing two, with a TEC-9. The D.A. kept calling it a 'MILITARY ASSAULT MACHINE GUN." I wasn't the foreman but told the other jurors it WASN'T a military weapon, nor was it a machine gun. They agreed that if the D.A. lied about this he probably lied about other things.
    We found him not guilty.
    MitchellCT likes this.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

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

are modified wepons legal
,

civil cases where self-defense shooter modified gun

,
civil suits against citzen with modified pistol
,

dont defend yourself with a modified firearm

,
modified carry pistol charges elevated to manslaughter in two cases
,
modified criminal guns
,
modified defence firearms
,

modified defence weapon

,
modified firing pin block on carry gun
,
modified self defense weapon
,
modified weapons and murder convictions
,
modified weapons for home defense laws
Click on a term to search for related topics.