[kspilot536]

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?

 

[carry ok]

If one considers....

the alternative, of not defending, and the perp inflicts the harm, would you be better off with that?

 

[farronwolf]

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.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007.

 

[Ram Rod]

the alternative, of not defending, and the perp inflicts the harm, would you be better off with that?

I couldn't have said that any better myself.

 

[oneshot]

Not too worry in Mi. as Long as its Justifiable>

Heres why this is from Public Act 309-314

Civil Liability
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).
Criminal Liability
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

 

[archer51]

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.

 

[RETSUPT99]

That's not going to happen in FL...the GunShine State has a detailed Castle Doctrine...not guilty=no suits.:22a:

 

[automatic slim]

I'm glad my brother is a lawyer.

 

[mcp1810]

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?

Don't worry too much about it. You are in Kansas right?

21-3219
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.

Emphasis added. So if your use of force is otherwise legal you don't have a problem.

 

[jp3276]

As the saying goes, "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6."

 

[cuban11182]

I'm glad my brother is a lawyer.

My sister is a lawyer.:danceban:

 

[varob]

You can add a $1,000,000 blanket policy for around $80.00 a year.

 

[TX-JB]

You can add a $1,000,000 blanket policy for around $80.00 a year.

What kind of policy? General Liability? If so, I don't think it would cover litigation.... Please enlighten me...

 

[tiwee]

This is from Missouri law, but look for this in your state law:
Section 563-074 Justification as an absolute defense, w

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.

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.

 

[Eagleks]

In Kansas, the law specifically states that you cannot be sued if it is determined you used the firearm in self-defense.

 

[F350]

In Missouri we are only shielded by castle doctrine in our homes and vehicles (spineless, gutless, worthless, weak kneed, cave in before the battle Republicans) you are on your own on the streets and parking lots. I checked with my insurance company and have it in writing that I am covered in a civil suit resulting from a shooting in which I was not the aggressor (no criminal coverage even if found not guilty or ultimatly not tried), and I carry a $1 million umbrella so I have $1.3 million of coverage. The down side is that THEY provide the lawyer and if it is decided that the claim is cheaper than the court cost they will settle rather than fight.

An umbrella liability policy is really cheap (couple hundred bucks a year) and protects you from so much, someone hurt on your property, in a auto accident resulting in huge medical bills etc.

 

[MattInFla]

Bear in mind that the immunity from recovery does not mean that a suit won't be filed, and the provisions requiring the BG to pay your legal expenses aren't a big help if the BG has no means to pay.

You can still end up holding the bag for thousands in expenses.

Matt

 

[Cold Warrior]

Typical TV News Story: "He was a good boy....He was going to get a job, and start going to church and to school again...and start supporting his baby and girlfriend, and marry her and be a father...but fell in with bad companions who made him do what he did...and he should not have been shot."

 

[TedBeau]

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.

Michigan's law is simular. If you were justified to use deadly force, the BG or his family can not sue.

Just be sure you did everything right. Attempt to desculate, escape and make sure witnesses are aware that you were not the aggressor.

 

[BlueNinjaGo]

Typical TV News Story: "He was a good boy....He was going to get a job, and start going to church and to school again...and start supporting his baby and girlfriend, and marry her and be a father...but fell in with bad companions who made him do what he did...and he should not have been shot."

What kind of b/s is that? Everyone is responsible for their own actions. I believe the Nuremberg Trials clarified that.