Obama and GUNS

[mcdover]

Not necessarily. The victim's estate can, and usually does, sue.

 

What don't you understand about this law? It PROHIBITS lawsuits from the assailant, family members, and estate. If you live in one of the Stand Your Ground Law states and you shoot someone breaking into your house, no one involved with the assailant can sue. Not the criminal, his mommy, auntie, baby's daddy, or his estate. Any suit filed would be thrown out immediately providing that the shooting was justifiable. Now, who decides if it's justifiable? That would be the police. No charges against you, no lawsuit is possible. IT'S THE LAW!

 

How about this, instead of posting ignorant statements about what you think, do a LITTLE research first. Lot's of information just a few clicks away. Google is your friend.

[Boss Doctor]

It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and resolve all doubt. ~Abraham Lincoln

 

You are so wrong, I don't know where to start first. Your state, Tennessee not only has a Castle Doctrine Law, but it also has the provision known as "Stand Your Ground" which provides immunity from any and all lawsuits where force is used to protect yourself or another person. You mentioned someone unlawfully entering your home, well this law states that you have NO DUTY TO RETREAT from anywhere you have a right to be. This could be your car, the sidewalk, McDonald's, anywhere. I am glad you're not a cop anymore, since you definitely do not know the laws of your own state.

 

Here's the Tennessee law in a nutshell:

 

The Tennessee "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

 

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

 

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

 

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

 

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

 

Here are the state's with the "Stand Your Ground Law" that are essentially the same as Florida's law and offer immunity from any lawsuits by the assailant:

 

 

• Alabama

• Arizona

• Florida

• Georgia

• Indiana

• Kentucky

• Louisiana

• Oklahoma §21-1289.25

• South Carolina (Persons not "required to needlessly retreat.")

• Texas

• Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)

• Washington

 

 

The state certified, Concealed Carry Instructor, with 12 years of experience as a police officer and range officer, who taught my class disagrees with you completely, and so do the two Tennessee Department of Safety lawyers giving opinions in the matter. You can dispute them all you want, because I couldn't care less if you do. My personal opinion is that it's better to be tried than buried, but I'm not going to add to my problems after the fact when I don't need to do so. Police officers who're involved in lawful shootings are sued all of the time. If they aren't protected, how do you figure that you are?

 

Civil suits are more than finding in favor of the litigant or not; it's also a matter of the severity of the act when it comes to compensating the litigant with punitive damages. In a jury's mind, there's a difference between someone defending their self and their family as a last resort, and someone who's just itching to kill someone legally. If the litigant's lawyer can paint you as the latter in the mind of the jury, you will pay, and the lawyer's use of the name of the gun against you to do just that will happen. Here's another good example of the principle:

 

Everyone knows that hand-loaded ammunition is more accurate than commercial ammunition because it is tuned to the specific weapon. As a police sniper, accuracy is of paramount importance: however, I was not allowed to use hand-loaded rounds even though the bullet was the exact same as is used in the Federal Match Grade 168 grain boat-tail HP ammunition that I used in service. Even though the Federal ammunition may not be as accurate, it reduced the liability to the department during the inevidable lawsuit to follow.

 

Details are a little fuzzy, but in the 70's most gun manufacturers recognized the problem with names. That's why weapons carry a alpha-numeric designation or a nickname that has the opposite effect such as "The Defender" or something of that nature.

 

You should follow Lincoln's advice.

[stump_breaker]

Mcdover, you can be sued for anything even if what you did was legitimate by the wording of the law but depending on the Judge and/or the Jury it may or may not stick.

[mcdover]

The state certified, Concealed Carry Instructor, with 12 years of experience as a police officer and range officer, who taught my class disagrees with you completely, and so do the two Tennessee Department of Safety lawyers giving opinions in the matter. You can dispute them all you want, because I couldn't care less if you do. My personal opinion is that it's better to be tried than buried, but I'm not going to add to my problems after the fact when I don't need to do so. Police officers who're involved in lawful shootings are sued all of the time. If they aren't protected, how do you figure that you are?

 

Civil suits are more than finding in favor of the litigant or not; it's also a matter of the severity of the act when it comes to compensating the litigant with punitive damages. In a jury's mind, there's a difference between someone defending their self and their family as a last resort, and someone who's just itching to kill someone legally. If the litigant's lawyer can paint you as the latter in the mind of the jury, you will pay, and the lawyer's use of the name of the gun against you to do just that will happen. Here's another good example of the principle:

 

Everyone knows that hand-loaded ammunition is more accurate than commercial ammunition because it is tuned to the specific weapon. As a police sniper, accuracy is of paramount importance: however, I was not allowed to use hand-loaded rounds even though the bullet was the exact same as is used in the Federal Match Grade 168 grain boat-tail HP ammunition that I used in service. Even though the Federal ammunition may not be as accurate, it reduced the liability to the department during the inevidable lawsuit to follow.

 

Details are a little fuzzy, but in the 70's most gun manufacturers recognized the problem with names. That's why weapons carry a alpha-numeric designation or a nickname that has the opposite effect such as "The Defender" or something of that nature.

 

You should follow Lincoln's advice.

 

Now, you've got me concerned about the quality of legal advice in the State of Tennessee. You might want to go back and ask your lawyer friends exactly how a lawsuit is going to be tried if state law prohibits it. You also might want to ask them about the protections provided by the Castle Doctrine in your state, especially the provision that specifically addresses lawsuits. See, here's how it works:

 

I shoot a burglar in my house. The police are called, investigate and determine no charges are to be filed. The assailant lives and wants to sue me for shooting him. He actually finds an attorney that will agree to sit down and discuss the merits of the case. The lawyer finds out no charges were filed against me and the shooting was determined justifiable by the police investigation and DA's office. OVER. At this point, the attorney CAN NOT FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST ME. Not only is it prohibited by law, it would also open up the attorney and the assailant to a civil suit by ME.

 

There have been numerous shootings in various states where Stand Your Ground laws are on the books, I challenge you to find just one case, where a suit was even filed in a state that has the SYG provision of Castle Doctrine and no charges were filed against the shooter.

 

Where I think you are confused about all of this, is that you are trying to reconcile this law with your history and knowledge of law enforcement. Shootings by police officer in the line of duty are a totally different animal than civilian shootings.

[Boss Doctor]

Now, you've got me concerned about the quality of legal advice in the State of Tennessee. You might want to go back and ask your lawyer friends exactly how a lawsuit is going to be tried if state law prohibits it. You also might want to ask them about the protections provided by the Castle Doctrine in your state, especially the provision that specifically addresses lawsuits. See, here's how it works:

 

I shoot a burglar in my house. The police are called, investigate and determine no charges are to be filed. The assailant lives and wants to sue me for shooting him. He actually finds an attorney that will agree to sit down and discuss the merits of the case. The lawyer finds out no charges were filed against me and the shooting was determined justifiable by the police investigation and DA's office. OVER. At this point, the attorney CAN NOT FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST ME. Not only is it prohibited by law, it would also open up the attorney and the assailant to a civil suit by ME.

 

There have been numerous shootings in various states where Stand Your Ground laws are on the books, I challenge you to find just one case, where a suit was even filed in a state that has the SYG provision of Castle Doctrine and no charges were filed against the shooter.

 

Where I think you are confused about all of this, is that you are trying to reconcile this law with your history and knowledge of law enforcement. Shootings by police officer in the line of duty are a totally different animal than civilian shootings.

 

Okay, how are they different other than the deep pocket principle? Protection of the law is simply that, isn't it?

 

Perhaps one of the lawyers in TS will comment here?

 

I do not pretend to be a lawyer, and I was a police officer in a state other than Tennessee. I'm not about to hire various civil attourneys in Tennessee to give me their opinions in the matter when I have already heard two lawyers for the state tell me theirs.

 

I do know that the only time that I was "sued" as a police officer was for something that even disinterested witnesses verified that I never even came close to doing, (the suspect claimed that I broke fused vertebrae in his back by picking him up and body-slamming him to the ground, then changed his story to say that I did it by putting him in the patrol car, then changed the story again to say that I did it by bending him over the trunk of the car while searching him). When I arrested the suspect he told me in front of a paramedic that he was going to make me pay for arresting him by suing me. His lawyer was given clear proof that his client was lying via witnesses and a document that his client signed, (the document was not police related). Did the lawyer drop the case when he found out his client was lying? No! Did the court throw it out? No! Why not? Wasn't I protected by the law? The department's insurance company paid the bastard $10,000 to settle out of court because it was cheaper than paying lawyers to fight a case they'd certainly win.

 

You can be sued for damn near anything, and it will cost you dearly to fight it.

[Boss Doctor]

Posted in the wrong thread!

[69dejavue]

What don't you understand about this law? It PROHIBITS lawsuits from the assailant, family members, and estate. If you live in one of the Stand Your Ground Law states and you shoot someone breaking into your house, no one involved with the assailant can sue. Not the criminal, his mommy, auntie, baby's daddy, or his estate. Any suit filed would be thrown out immediately providing that the shooting was justifiable. Now, who decides if it's justifiable? That would be the police.[/size] No charges against you, no lawsuit is possible. IT'S THE LAW!

 

How about this, instead of posting ignorant statements about what you think, do a LITTLE research first. Lot's of information just a few clicks away. Google is your friend.

 

I am not aware of any state where the police decide if a homicide is justifiable. In most cases the police prepare the investigation and forward to the Prosecutor's Office. The Prosecutor may review and make a determination on their own or present to a Grand Jury and allow the Grand Jury to make the decision. The police do not make the decision.

 

Yes the Castle Doctrine does serve to help protect the homeowner but it is not a guarantee of civil immunity.

[mcdover]

I am not aware of any state where the police decide if a homicide is justifiable. In most cases the police prepare the investigation and forward to the Prosecutor's Office. The Prosecutor may review and make a determination on their own or present to a Grand Jury and allow the Grand Jury to make the decision. The police do not make the decision.

 

Yes the Castle Doctrine does serve to help protect the homeowner but it is not a guarantee of civil immunity.

 

What is if with all the legal geniuses on this site. Yes, the DA's office officially charges someone with a crime, but they rely on the police to investigate and decide if charges are warranted or not. Do you think a DA is going to charge someone and submit to a grand jury if the police department is going to testify to the contrary?

 

Have you read the law? It is a GUARANTEE of immunity from civil liability. It clearly states it in the law that persons acting in defense, are IMMUNE from civil action by the assailant or his estate.

 

Since there seems to be several people here that can obviously post on a web forum, but can't seem to use Google, I'll post up the Wiki link for you all to see. Now, I'm assuming that you know what a web link is, but just in case, it's the line at the end of my post that is underlined. All you have to do is place your pointer over the provided text and push the left button on your mouse. You will be immediately taken to another webpage that will give you lots of information about the topic we've been discussing. Something that may surprise you, is the fact that there is a section entitled "Immunity from Civil Lawsuits". Again, I am assuming that you can get this far and actually find the site, but what I can't guarantee is, can you comprehend what you are reading, and unfortunately, as the old saying goes, "You can led a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

 

I've done all I can do.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

[Boss Doctor]

What is if with all the legal geniuses on this site. Yes, the DA's office officially charges someone with a crime, but they rely on the police to investigate and decide if charges are warranted or not. Do you think a DA is going to charge someone and submit to a grand jury if the police department is going to testify to the contrary?

 

Have you read the law? It is a GUARANTEE of immunity from civil liability. It clearly states it in the law that persons acting in defense, are IMMUNE from civil action by the assailant or his estate.

 

Since there seems to be several people here that can obviously post on a web forum, but can't seem to use Google, I'll post up the Wiki link for you all to see. Now, I'm assuming that you know what a web link is, but just in case, it's the line at the end of my post that is underlined. All you have to do is place your pointer over the provided text and push the left button on your mouse. You will be immediately taken to another webpage that will give you lots of information about the topic we've been discussing. Something that may surprise you, is the fact that there is a section entitled "Immunity from Civil Lawsuits". Again, I am assuming that you can get this far and actually find the site, but what I can't guarantee is, can you comprehend what you are reading, and unfortunately, as the old saying goes, "You can led a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

 

I've done all I can do.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

 

Have you noticed that the laywers on this forum are quiet about this?

 

The people you are insulting are police officers and former police officers who know more about the process than you although with the addendum that procedures can vary by state.

 

You look at the law as if it's black and white, while the people who work in it see grey. Yes, the Castle Doctrine says you don't have to retreat. I never said that it didn't. The immunity clause is for a shooting that has been ruled justifiable: however, who makes such ruling? The police investigate crime and present their findings to the prosecutor. They have no power to declare anything. The police decide if there's enough probable cause to hold you up to 20 hours while the prosecutor decides to formerly charge you. The prosecutor will not waste tax payer's money to pursue a case that he believes he will not win. Lack of the prosecutor's action does not necessarily mean that it's an official ruling. Herein lies my hang-up with the whole thing. If the prosecutor's decision is not considered an official declaration of justifiable homicide like a Grand Jury's decision would, then the protection of that portion of the law does not apply. OJ lost in a civil trial because it is not bound by the same rules of evidence as a criminal trial.

[StratGirl]

Have you noticed that the laywers on this forum are quiet about this?

 

 

Because it's already been discussed. Snake Doctor, I think you should go to law school! You seem to enjoy legal arguments.

 

http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php...0399&st=120

 

http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php...st&p=467832

[mcdover]

Have you noticed that the laywers on this forum are quiet about this?

 

The people you are insulting are police officers and former police officers who know more about the process than you although with the addendum that procedures can vary by state.

 

You look at the law as if it's black and white, while the people who work in it see grey. Yes, the Castle Doctrine says you don't have to retreat. I never said that it didn't. The immunity clause is for a shooting that has been ruled justifiable: however, who makes such ruling? The police investigate crime and present their findings to the prosecutor. They have no power to declare anything. The police decide if there's enough probable cause to hold you up to 20 hours while the prosecutor decides to formerly charge you. The prosecutor will not waste tax payer's money to pursue a case that he believes he will not win. Lack of the prosecutor's action does not necessarily mean that it's an official ruling. Herein lies my hang-up with the whole thing. If the prosecutor's decision is not considered an official declaration of justifiable homicide like a Grand Jury's decision would, then the protection of that portion of the law does not apply. OJ lost in a civil trial because it is not bound by the same rules of evidence as a criminal trial.

 

Here's my last post on this subject, since logic and reading comprehension are obviously lacking by a select few here:

 

If the defense of your self, property, or others do not result in criminal charges, you are immune from ANY civil suits. If you are charged and acquitted, again, you are immune from civil suits. It's that simple. That is how the law is written, no gray area, no room for interpretation. It IS black and white!

 

Oh, how I don't want to even touch your OJ analogy since it is so stupid and not relevant to the discussion at all, but I can't resist. OJ was sued for wrongful death and his defense both criminally and civil was not self defense. Annnnnd, if had admitted to the killing and the defense was self defense, California did not and does not have a Stand Your Ground Law so he still could have been sued and found liable for wrongful death.

 

It appears that you just want to argue. You have made statements that are obviously ignorant, I post facts that dispute your assumption, then you go off on another tangent without coceding you last point. You claimed to be a former cop, but you seem to have never heard of Castle Doctrine or the Stand Your Ground provision in your own home state. Then, you try to make a point by posting a story about an expierence you had after arresting someone. What that had to do with civilian self defense, I still don't know. I also got the opinions of your shooting instructor and a couple of state attorneys. You might want to inform them of the actual law of Tennessee (SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-11-611) I will especially like this part:

 

SECTION 3. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6, is amended by adding the following new § 39-11-622:

(a)

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in §§ 39-11-611-- 39-11-614, or § 29-34-201, is justified in using such force and is immune from civil liability for the use of such force, unless:

(A) The person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106(21) who:

(i) Was acting in the performance of his or her official duties; and

(ii) Identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law; or

 

(iii) The person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer; or

(B) The force used by the person resulted in property damage to or the death or injury of an innocent bystander or other person against whom the force used was not justified.

(B) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against such person based upon the person’s use of force if the court finds that the defendant was justified in using such force pursuant to §§ 39-11-611--- 39-11-614, or § 29-34-201

 

 

I will say that I occasionally have to travel through the great state of Tennessee, and with your reasoning and sense of logic, I thank God that you are no longer in law enforcement.

[mcdover]

Because it's already been discussed. Snake Doctor, I think you should go to law school! You seem to enjoy legal arguments.

 

http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php...0399&st=120

 

http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php...st&p=467832

 

Stratgirl,

 

If you were practicing in a state that had the Stand Your Ground provision of Castle Doctrine and a person wanted to hire you to file a lawsuit against another person who had shot your prospective client while they were in the commission of an illegal act, let's say B&E of the shooter home. No charges were filed against the homeowner, what you you tell the potential client? Just curious.

[LuisA]

No, that's not why, handgun rounds go through walls and out windows resulting in collateral damage when used in the home. Those people will then sue you

 

Glocks are like a revolver - once you load one in the chamber, they go BANG once you pull the trigger - no safety. More rounds, easy to reload...n00bs drops rounds when trying to reload a revolver. The XD would be a good choice too. For the home, a nice 12 gauge with shot does well - it will not penetrate drywall like a handgun round. Easy to use and less aiming required.

 

So, take into consideration your surroundings as well as access to the defense tool. Always good to have a few spread around the house (yet secured from curious hands)

 

 

Glocks are NOT like revolvers, they do in fact have a safety.......you should know this if you have ever been inside a Glock.

 

Don't worry about penetrating walls and shotting someone in another room or house........buy the proper ammo, like frangible, for inside the house.

 

I have many 1000's of round with my H&K's and Sig's and don't remember the last time one jammed.......a good gun, well maintained, should not jamm.

[StratGirl]

Stratgirl,

 

If you were practicing in a state that had the Stand Your Ground provision of Castle Doctrine and a person wanted to hire you to file a lawsuit against another person who had shot your prospective client while they were in the commission of an illegal act, let's say B&E of the shooter home. No charges were filed against the homeowner, what you you tell the potential client? Just curious.

 

 

I would tell them they have to pay up front!

[mcdover]

I would tell them they have to pay up front!

 

What? No contingency? I'm shocked!

[Afterburner]

What is if with all the legal geniuses on this site. Yes, the DA's office officially charges someone with a crime, but they rely on the police to investigate and decide if charges are warranted or not. Do you think a DA is going to charge someone and submit to a grand jury if the police department is going to testify to the contrary?

 

Have you read the law? It is a GUARANTEE of immunity from civil liability. It clearly states it in the law that persons acting in defense, are IMMUNE from civil action by the assailant or his estate.

 

Since there seems to be several people here that can obviously post on a web forum, but can't seem to use Google, I'll post up the Wiki link for you all to see. Now, I'm assuming that you know what a web link is, but just in case, it's the line at the end of my post that is underlined. All you have to do is place your pointer over the provided text and push the left button on your mouse. You will be immediately taken to another webpage that will give you lots of information about the topic we've been discussing. Something that may surprise you, is the fact that there is a section entitled "Immunity from Civil Lawsuits". Again, I am assuming that you can get this far and actually find the site, but what I can't guarantee is, can you comprehend what you are reading, and unfortunately, as the old saying goes, "You can led a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

 

I've done all I can do.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

 

Not arguing the Castle Doctrine and lawsuits but please, when trying to find info on topics, don't use wikipedia. The info there can be unreliable as anyone can go in there and edit it.

[mcdover]

Not arguing the Castle Doctrine and lawsuits but please, when trying to find info on topics, don't use wikipedia. The info there can be unreliable as anyone can go in there and edit it.

 

Post# 109- I quoted and provided the actual Tennessee law concerning Castle Doctrine and the immunity from lawsuits. In this case, the wiki article is dead on.

[69dejavue]

Strat girl, feel free to jump in here. Correct me if I am wrong but the Castle Doctrines are state laws. But they would not protect one from federal civil suits, such as violation of civil rights. Is that correct?

 

I could see an attorney saying that while the homeowner is not an agent of the government Federal Court would be the only relief to a victim's family. Your thoughts?

 

Again, I think the Castle Doctrine laws are great for homeonwers but do not assume you will not be sued or it cannot happen. Law is ever evolving and there are judges that would be sympathetic especially if this could further the liberal cause. How does this law compare with Tennessee v Garner?

[Boss Doctor]

Because it's already been discussed. Snake Doctor, I think you should go to law school! You seem to enjoy legal arguments.

 

http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php...0399&st=120

 

http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php...st&p=467832

 

What some see as arguing is The Socratic Method of learning, and that is how I learn best. I don't seek professional advice from someone who's read a Wikipedia article, which is why I asked the lawyers for input. Even when I am talking to a professional I'll try to ask challenging questions to reassure myself that they haven't left anything out.

[Boss Doctor]

Here's my last post on this subject, since logic and reading comprehension are obviously lacking by a select few here:

 

If the defense of your self, property, or others do not result in criminal charges, you are immune from ANY civil suits. If you are charged and acquitted, again, you are immune from civil suits. It's that simple. That is how the law is written, no gray area, no room for interpretation. It IS black and white!

 

Oh, how I don't want to even touch your OJ analogy since it is so stupid and not relevant to the discussion at all, but I can't resist. OJ was sued for wrongful death and his defense both criminally and civil was not self defense. Annnnnd, if had admitted to the killing and the defense was self defense, California did not and does not have a Stand Your Ground Law so he still could have been sued and found liable for wrongful death.

 

It appears that you just want to argue. You have made statements that are obviously ignorant, I post facts that dispute your assumption, then you go off on another tangent without coceding you last point. You claimed to be a former cop, but you seem to have never heard of Castle Doctrine or the Stand Your Ground provision in your own home state. Then, you try to make a point by posting a story about an expierence you had after arresting someone. What that had to do with civilian self defense, I still don't know. I also got the opinions of your shooting instructor and a couple of state attorneys. You might want to inform them of the actual law of Tennessee (SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-11-611) I will especially like this part:

 

SECTION 3. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6, is amended by adding the following new § 39-11-622:

(a)

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in §§ 39-11-611-- 39-11-614, or § 29-34-201, is justified in using such force and is immune from civil liability for the use of such force, unless:

(A) The person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106(21) who:

(i) Was acting in the performance of his or her official duties; and

(ii) Identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law; or

 

(iii) The person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer; or

(B) The force used by the person resulted in property damage to or the death or injury of an innocent bystander or other person against whom the force used was not justified.

(B) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against such person based upon the person’s use of force if the court finds that the defendant was justified in using such force pursuant to §§ 39-11-611--- 39-11-614, or § 29-34-201

 

 

I will say that I occasionally have to travel through the great state of Tennessee, and with your reasoning and sense of logic, I thank God that you are no longer in law enforcement.

 

I see you’re another TS member who likes to insult others from the safety of a keyboard. How brave of you.

 

I said in post# 96, “I do not pretend to be a lawyer, and I was a police officer in a state other than Tennessee.” How’s your reading comprehension? I left the police department in Missouri in September 1993, and I do not recall them having any such laws at the time.

 

First, my subject matter that you responded to was about the name of the gun being used to establish your mindset in a post shooting civil suit to increase punitive damages against you. You responded: “Well, your whole point on civil suits are moot to me. I live in a state that has Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws, so I am protected against any civil suit in the case of self-defense regardless of the what the weapon used is called. Someone can ATTEMPT to break into my house, and, if I feel that my, or my family's life is threatned, I can use deadly force with a weapon called "Burglar Executioner", and not fear any civil suit. Just as long as the shooting is considered justifiable, I can not be sued.”

 

I said in post# 86, “In which state would that be? In Tennessee, killing a person unlawfully entering your home is justifiable homicide…” [Castle Doctrine] “…but you have no real protection from civil suit.”

 

Then you start in with insulting and posting laws from Tennessee without answering my question? You continue condescending remarks about my “lawyer friends” after I told you that they were lawyers for the Department of Safety in Tennessee Department. I continued with my original subject about the name of the weapon being used against you in a civil suit. You’re still stuck on immunity from civil suit, yet you did not answer my question in post#100. Seeing as you’re stuck in Tennessee’s laws, (which was passed in 2007 BTW), look at it again.

 

The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against such person based upon the person’s use of force if the court finds that the defendant was justified in using such force pursuant to §§ 39-11-611--- 39-11-614, or § 29-34-201

 

The prosecutor not pursuing a case is not a decision by the court, genius.

[Boss Doctor]

Strat girl, feel free to jump in here. Correct me if I am wrong but the Castle Doctrines are state laws. But they would not protect one from federal civil suits, such as violation of civil rights. Is that correct?

 

I could see an attorney saying that while the homeowner is not an agent of the government Federal Court would be the only relief to a victim's family. Your thoughts?

 

Again, I think the Castle Doctrine laws are great for homeonwers but do not assume you will not be sued or it cannot happen. Law is ever evolving and there are judges that would be sympathetic especially if this could further the liberal cause. How does this law compare with Tennessee v Garner?

 

I wasn't even going to go there with him.

[69dejavue]

Snake Doctor; I try to avoid the political discussions as they turned so nasty and hateful. It is easier to just skip subjects. I thought it was safe to at least discuss firearms but even that has turned nasty with accusations, name calling, and belittling. I just wish people, not you, could discuss an issue without the name calling, vitriolic rhetoric, etc. It is a serious issue but really can be discussed in a civil fashion. I have knowledge and experience in these areas but also like to hear from Strat Girl and others and concur that the courts do not necessarily take judicial notice of wikipedia.

 

Don't get me wrong. If people want to engage in name calling, belittling, and accusations that is their business and should be allowed. I am not trying to censor anyone. But they lose credibility if they cannot argue their point without resorting to the above.

 

And Strat Girl can correct me if I am wrong but I assume none of the Castle Doctrines have undergone a United States Supreme Court Review. And should the Supreme Court review this issue after President Obama appoints justices it could be reversed. Obviously everyone hopes that no one breaks into their home and threatens them or their family. The use of deadly force should always be as a last resort and the home owner should be prepared to articulate why theyl felt it was necessary to protect them and their family (and not just property).

[mcdover]

I see you're another TS member who likes to insult others from the safety of a keyboard. How brave of you.

 

I said in post# 96, "I do not pretend to be a lawyer, and I was a police officer in a state other than Tennessee." How's your reading comprehension? I left the police department in Missouri in September 1993, and I do not recall them having any such laws at the time.

 

First, my subject matter that you responded to was about the name of the gun being used to establish your mindset in a post shooting civil suit to increase punitive damages against you. You responded: "Well, your whole point on civil suits are moot to me. I live in a state that has Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws, so I am protected against any civil suit in the case of self-defense regardless of the what the weapon used is called. Someone can ATTEMPT to break into my house, and, if I feel that my, or my family's life is threatned, I can use deadly force with a weapon called "Burglar Executioner", and not fear any civil suit. Just as long as the shooting is considered justifiable, I can not be sued."

 

I said in post# 86, "In which state would that be? In Tennessee, killing a person unlawfully entering your home is justifiable homicide…" [Castle Doctrine] "…but you have no real protection from civil suit."

 

Then you start in with insulting and posting laws from Tennessee without answering my question? You continue condescending remarks about my "lawyer friends" after I told you that they were lawyers for the Department of Safety in Tennessee Department. I continued with my original subject about the name of the weapon being used against you in a civil suit. You're still stuck on immunity from civil suit, yet you did not answer my question in post#100. Seeing as you're stuck in Tennessee's laws, (which was passed in 2007 BTW), look at it again.

 

The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against such person based upon the person's use of force if the court finds that the defendant was justified in using such force pursuant to §§ 39-11-611--- 39-11-614, or § 29-34-201

 

The prosecutor not pursuing a case is not a decision by the court, genius.

 

I have seen the light! Between your insightful analogies about OJ Simpson, the opinions of your shooting instructor, and the anecdote about your police brutality lawsuit, you have convinced me that I am completely wrong. I also want to apologize for hurting your feelings .

[Boss Doctor]

Because it's already been discussed. Snake Doctor, I think you should go to law school! You seem to enjoy legal arguments.

 

http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php...0399&st=120

 

http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php...st&p=467832

 

I think that you missed the main question of mine, because it wasn't discussed in these links.

 

A prosecutor will not waste time/money to take a case that he knows will be ruled as "justifiable homicide" in front of the court. He simply choses to not pursue charges. The Tennessee law states that a shooter is immune from civil suit if the court finds that it was justifiable homicide.

 

So the question is: Does the lack of action on the part of the prosecutor consitute a finding of the court?

 

If not, you can be sued under state law; if it is then you are safe under state law.

[Boss Doctor]

I have seen the light! Between your insightful analogies about OJ Simpson, the opinions of your shooting instructor, and the anecdote about your police brutality lawsuit, you have convinced me that I am completely wrong. I also want to apologize for hurting your feelings .

 

I'd explain the relevance, but I think that would be a waste of my time.

[FiaCobra]

I read through the rest of this thread and I want my 10 minutes of life back !!!

[svtkeith]

Don't stop now....This is just starting to get good.

 

 

So far the score is

 

Doc.... 1

 

other team.... 0.

[69dejavue]

Yes, you may be eligible to recover your attorney fees if you prevail. In the meantime you pay, and often times up front. If the other person, or the estate, chooses to use some public defender type working pro-bono they have nothing to lose. And if they have no money they can't be forced to pay for your attorney fees. Unfortunately, just the way the system works. Thank goodness I have good attorneys and lots of them.

[mcdover]

Yes, you may be eligible to recover your attorney fees if you prevail. In the meantime you pay, and often times up front. If the other person, or the estate, chooses to use some public defender type working pro-bono they have nothing to lose. And if they have no money they can't be forced to pay for your attorney fees. Unfortunately, just the way the system works. Thank goodness I have good attorneys and lots of them.

 

Oh goodness, ! Public defender? If someone sues you, you are the defendant. You can't be assigned a public defender to sue someone. Lawsuits cost money, so an attorney is either going to make you pay upfront to sue someone, or they are going to accept the case on contingency. What attorney would take a lawsuit for monetary damages pro bono? Me thinks you watch waaaay too much tv.

 

If the attorney doesn't think you got much of a chance of winning, they are going to make you pay the legal fees upfront and charge you an hourly rate. As Stratgirl stated a few posts back, she would make them pay upfront before taking the case, because THEY ARE GOING TO LOSE!

 

In most cases, you won't be awarded legal and attorney's fees if you prevail as a defendant in a lawsuit, but this law makes the point to allow this, which serves as deterrent against filing a lawsuit in the first place.

 

Maybe one of the TS members who practice law can chime in with their person opinion about filing lawsuits where the law allows for the defendant to recover all legal fees, along will all expenses incurred in defense of the lawsuit, including loss of income.

[clark17357]

I practice law and what I would want to see is the statute or statutes you all are discussing. Until I read the statute or statutes, I cannot draw any conclusion about whether it can actually prevent a lawsuit from being filed. Most often I tell a client that, in America, you can be sued for anything. The question is whether you can win it and at what cost? In my 30 years of doing this, it seems most common that, even when a lawsuit seems to be prohibited by statute, "something" can still be filed that addresses the alleged wrongful conduct, in this case, a shooting, but maybe brings in legal theories that are outside what is prohibited by the statute. Creative lawyers can do a lot to get a case in front of a jury. Whether they should be doing that is a debate I will stay out of but I understood the point in this thread to be, even if you win the lawsuit against you, there is much it costs you in terms of money up front, loss of time and emotional turmoil. Again, it would be helpful for me to see the statute or statutes being discussed.

Jim