Obama and GUNS

[mcdover]

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

 

Here's Tennessee's:

 

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6, relative to the use of self defense and deadly force.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-11-611, is amended by deleting the section in its entirety and substituting instead the following:

(a) As used in this section:

(1) “Curtilage” means the area surrounding a dwelling that is necessary, convenient and habitually used for the family purposes and for those activities associated with the sanctity of a person’s home.

(2) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed for or capable of use by people.

(3) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently, or is visiting as an invited guest, or any dwelling, building or other appurtenance within the curtilage of such residence.

(4) “Vehicle” means any motororized vehicle that is self-propelled and designed for use on public highways to transport people or property.

(B)

Public Chapter No. 210 PUBLIC ACTS, 2007

2

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where such person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where such person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if:

(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;

(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

© The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

© Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

(d) The presumption established in subsection © shall not apply if:

(1) The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, provided such person is not prohibited from entering the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle by an order of protection, injunction for protection from domestic abuse, or a court order of no contact against that person;

(2) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to remove a person or persons who is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 39-17-1322, the person using force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(4) The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106(21), who enters or attempts to enter a

Public Chapter No. 210 PUBLIC ACTS, 2007

3

dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties, and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified:

(1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;

(2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) The person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so; and

(B) The other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person; or

(3) To resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person using force knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:

(A) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and

(B) The person using force reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

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

Public Chapter No. 210 PUBLIC ACTS, 2007

4

(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.

SECTION 4. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.

PASSED: May 3, 2007

APPROVED this

[mcdover]

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

 

As an attorney, what is your stance on taking a plaintiff's case in which the law stipulates, what is basically, a "losers pay" situation? I perfectly understand the cost involved in defending a lawsuit, but the question here applies to the cost incurred by the plantiff and the risk of also having to pay damages to the defendant.

[mcdover]

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

 

Here's Alabama's Law, notice that it says that a person is immune unless the forced used is deemed to be unlawful. The way I interpret that is, you are immune from civil liabilities unless YOU ARE CHARGED. Not enough evidence, DA thinks he can't get a conviction= NO CIVIL SUIT IS POSSIBLE UNDER THIS LAW.

 

 

Section 13A-3-23

 

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

 

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

 

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

 

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

 

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

 

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

 

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

 

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

 

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

 

(B) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

 

© Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

 

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

 

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

 

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

 

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

 

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

[Boss Doctor]

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

 

Tennessee's law:

 

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

[clark17357]

Being a California lawyer, I will yield to attorneys from the states from which statutes are cited. The devil is in the details. In all statutes, there are a number of factual findings that are necessary before you can reach a legal conclusion, i.e., that one cannot be prosecuted or sued in civil court. Remember that any decision by the District Attorney about whether to prosecute has to do with whether the DA concludes that the offense can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (that is why a verdict is "not guilty" rather than "innocent"). In civil cases, the burden of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence (that translates to 50.1% or more). Thus, you can be found not guilty in a criminal matter and still found liable in a civil matter.

 

Bottom line is that these cited statutes are expressions of the Legislatures of the states that enacted them that the public policy of a given state is to provide protection of some sort to its citizens. What is not often understood well by the public is the difference between what a statute says and how it plays out in the real world. I do not see the statutes cited as being a shield from a lawsuit being filed. Where it would most likely play out as msdover views it is where a criminal is convicted of, say, breaking and entering the home of Mr. Jones and, during that breaking and entering, Mr. Jones shot the criminal. The criminal conviction would likely answer the factual issues such that Mr. Jones would be protected.

 

I do not practice either criminal law of civil liability law. I work in another area of litigation. The current debate in this thread is going in a circle presently and nothing will be resolved beyond what has already been stated. If you live in a state with the protection of one of these statutes, consider yourself fortunate and let it go at that. All of this is hypothetical until you are a party to a lawsuit. Only then is it real. MHO.

 

Jim

[Boss Doctor]

Being a California lawyer, I will yield to attorneys from the states from which statutes are cited. The devil is in the details. In all statutes, there are a number of factual findings that are necessary before you can reach a legal conclusion, i.e., that one cannot be prosecuted or sued in civil court. Remember that any decision by the District Attorney about whether to prosecute has to do with whether the DA concludes that the offense can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (that is why a verdict is "not guilty" rather than "innocent"). In civil cases, the burden of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence (that translates to 50.1% or more). Thus, you can be found not guilty in a criminal matter and still found liable in a civil matter.

 

Bottom line is that these cited statutes are expressions of the Legislatures of the states that enacted them that the public policy of a given state is to provide protection of some sort to its citizens. What is not often understood well by the public is the difference between what a statute says and how it plays out in the real world. I do not see the statutes cited as being a shield from a lawsuit being filed. Where it would most likely play out as msdover views it is where a criminal is convicted of, say, breaking and entering the home of Mr. Jones and, during that breaking and entering, Mr. Jones shot the criminal. The criminal conviction would likely answer the factual issues such that Mr. Jones would be protected.

 

I do not practice either criminal law of civil liability law. I work in another area of litigation. The current debate in this thread is going in a circle presently and nothing will be resolved beyond what has already been stated. If you live in a state with the protection of one of these statutes, consider yourself fortunate and let it go at that. All of this is hypothetical until you are a party to a lawsuit. Only then is it real. MHO.

 

Jim

 

Thank you for your input, Jim.

[mcdover]

Being a California lawyer, I will yield to attorneys from the states from which statutes are cited. The devil is in the details. In all statutes, there are a number of factual findings that are necessary before you can reach a legal conclusion, i.e., that one cannot be prosecuted or sued in civil court. Remember that any decision by the District Attorney about whether to prosecute has to do with whether the DA concludes that the offense can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (that is why a verdict is "not guilty" rather than "innocent"). In civil cases, the burden of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence (that translates to 50.1% or more). Thus, you can be found not guilty in a criminal matter and still found liable in a civil matter.

 

Bottom line is that these cited statutes are expressions of the Legislatures of the states that enacted them that the public policy of a given state is to provide protection of some sort to its citizens. What is not often understood well by the public is the difference between what a statute says and how it plays out in the real world. I do not see the statutes cited as being a shield from a lawsuit being filed. Where it would most likely play out as msdover views it is where a criminal is convicted of, say, breaking and entering the home of Mr. Jones and, during that breaking and entering, Mr. Jones shot the criminal. The criminal conviction would likely answer the factual issues such that Mr. Jones would be protected.

 

I do not practice either criminal law of civil liability law. I work in another area of litigation. The current debate in this thread is going in a circle presently and nothing will be resolved beyond what has already been stated. If you live in a state with the protection of one of these statutes, consider yourself fortunate and let it go at that. All of this is hypothetical until you are a party to a lawsuit. Only then is it real. MHO.

 

Jim

 

Thanks for your insight, Jim. I appreciate your perspective and I understand that lawsuits can be virtually filed for any reason, but, with that being said, according to the Alabama Law and the way it is written, wouldn't a person HAVE to be charged and CONVICTED before a person could file a lawsuit? It appears that it was written to remove any ambiguity concerning the immunity of lawsuits. Here's the language in the law I'm referring to:

 

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

[DubbsFaris]

Gee guys, if I wanted to read this kind of stuff, I would just go back to law school....

 

and I wouldn't wipe my you know what with the socratic method....not one class in law school teaches you how to be a good lawyer...

 

That is evident in how many bad ones are out there...

 

I guess they figure you either will or wont be a good one...

 

Oh yeah, and Judge Peeples(my Civ Pro I Prof) you can kiss my a$$

[Boss Doctor]

Gee guys, if I wanted to read this kind of stuff, I would just go back to law school....

 

and I wouldn't wipe my you know what with the socratic method....not one class in law school teaches you how to be a good lawyer...

 

That is evident in how many bad ones are out there...

 

I guess they figure you either will or wont be a good one...

 

Oh yeah, and Judge Peeples(my Civ Pro I Prof) you can kiss my a$$

 

Huh? Who said that they were going to law school?

[stump_breaker]

I practice law......

Jim

So how much longer until they actually let you start doing it?

 

[DubbsFaris]

Well, no one said law school...its just that the last 3 pages or so are drawn out copy/paste code that isn't even well expounded...

 

I was just saying if I wanted those kinds of pointless back and forth discussions I would go BACK TO LAW SCHOOL...

 

as I neither practice nor do it professionally... nice stumpbreaker, nice

 

I find it amusing that everyone finds the one or two lines in an ordiance or law that supports their conclusions(predisposed I might add) and casts away the rest like it doesn't pertain to the argument.

 

And most attorneys practice 'fragment law'...

 

Snake Doctor- I don't disagree with what your posts have stated...you have well reasoned and sound conclusions...you must not be a lawyer...

 

As far as the overall discussion- Ill own whatever gun I want, regardless of what random law they pass...it's called doing what I want, not what Im told...

 

Whatever you need is only a MLK Blvd. away...

[clark17357]

So how much longer until they actually let you start doing it?

 

No, Stump, we have a different way of putting it. We "practice" law until we get it right. I am in year 31 and still practicing to get it right.

Jim

[Boss Doctor]

Well, no one said law school...its just that the last 3 pages or so are drawn out copy/paste code that isn't even well expounded...

 

I was just saying if I wanted those kinds of pointless back and forth discussions I would go BACK TO LAW SCHOOL...

 

as I neither practice nor do it professionally... nice stumpbreaker, nice

 

I find it amusing that everyone finds the one or two lines in an ordiance or law that supports their conclusions(predisposed I might add) and casts away the rest like it doesn't pertain to the argument.

 

And most attorneys practice 'fragment law'...

 

Snake Doctor- I don't disagree with what your posts have stated...you have well reasoned and sound conclusions...you must not be a lawyer...

 

As far as the overall discussion- Ill own whatever gun I want, regardless of what random law they pass...it's called doing what I want, not what Im told...

 

Whatever you need is only a MLK Blvd. away...

Thanks, Dubbs. When I got burnt-out with the corruption and politics on the police department, I considered becoming a lawyer. But that's difficult for a cop. I didn't think I was capable of representing a client whom I knew was guilty, and being a prosecutor didn't pay enough to justify the debt I'd acquire to become one. Becoming a judge wasn't an option because the only examples I had were corrupt. I didn't even consider things like constitutional law. I think I could've gotten into that. Since our Attorney General doesn't respond to inquiries from the public, I've asked my local representative to clear it up for me. If mcdover is correct, then I'll concede the debate.

[69dejavue]

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.

 

I am well aware that public defenders are not used for civil action. However, if you will actually read the post carefully I said a public defender type (read liberal) that is willing to work pro bono. Or you could have a lawyer from a more liberal group that feels there is an issue in this particular case. The lawyer could come from the NAACP, the ACLU, the National Lawyers Guild, Handgun Control, The Brady Bunch, etc. These groups have millions to pay an attorney. If you prevail you would then try to sue the person, not the lawyer, that brought the action to court. If that person is on welfare you are not going to receive a penny yet you have spent thousands on an attorney.

[69dejavue]

Well this thread started with a what type of handgun to buy question. Maybe it will be a moot point. Below is a sign of things to come.

 

http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm

[mcdover]

I am well aware that public defenders are not used for civil action. However, if you will actually read the post carefully I said a public defender type (read liberal) that is willing to work pro bono. Or you could have a lawyer from a more liberal group that feels there is an issue in this particular case. The lawyer could come from the NAACP, the ACLU, the National Lawyers Guild, Handgun Control, The Brady Bunch, etc. These groups have millions to pay an attorney. If you prevail you would then try to sue the person, not the lawyer, that brought the action to court. If that person is on welfare you are not going to receive a penny yet you have spent thousands on an attorney.

 

I now know what the driver of the short bus feels like on field trip day.

[69dejavue]

I now know what the driver of the short bus feels like on field trip day.

 

If you feel the argument presented was in error I am sure you will articulate. Perhaps you are not aware of how these groups function. An example would be a few years ago when they started bringing suits against the gun manufacturers nationwide. The suits were filed in individual cities, not on a federal class action basis. This forced the gun manufacturers to hire attorneys in each individual city and was bankrupting the manufacturers. Again, don't ever think you are immune from a lawsuit. What if the liberal DA, that doesn't like handguns (as in New York, etc) decides that you used too much force. That you could have stopped after one or two shots but you continued to fire more. What if he attacks you for the type of ammunition you used, as in hollowpoints, etc. Or the explosive ammo and it is determined that you intended to kill the attacker not just stop the threat. There are many variables here for you to be sued. And it happens every day. If you don't believe me, join the NRA, and you can read about it on a monthly basis in the different NRA magazines. Yes I support the Castle Doctrine. Just don't be overconfident. There is always an attorney that is willing to work for commission or idealogy. And again, if you win the case you can't sue a person that is on welfare and has nothing. Therefore you will have paid for your own attorney to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. And no one is going to give you a bailout. I am never surprised by the decision of the courts. I should be but am not. And remember there is no one so God like as a judge in HIS or HER courtroom. If you don't think that ideology plays a role in the judges decision, as opposed to following the law, review Heller v Washington DC. The four liberals denied the Second Amendment is a Personal Right as opposed to a right granted to militias. There is case law that says the police are not required to protect you and you cannot sue if they fail to protect you, even if negligent. Again, it is not just the law, but how it is interpreted. And if you have the liberal DA or judge it can still go against you. If you have been sued extensively you might have a better understanding of these issues. Your life can become a living, frustrating hell for many, many years.

[mcdover]

If you feel the argument presented was in error I am sure you will articulate. Perhaps you are not aware of how these groups function. An example would be a few years ago when they started bringing suits against the gun manufacturers nationwide. The suits were filed in individual cities, not on a federal class action basis. This forced the gun manufacturers to hire attorneys in each individual city and was bankrupting the manufacturers. Again, don't ever think you are immune from a lawsuit. What if the liberal DA, that doesn't like handguns (as in New York, etc) decides that you used too much force. That you could have stopped after one or two shots but you continued to fire more. What if he attacks you for the type of ammunition you used, as in hollowpoints, etc. Or the explosive ammo and it is determined that you intended to kill the attacker not just stop the threat. There are many variables here for you to be sued. And it happens every day. If you don't believe me, join the NRA, and you can read about it on a monthly basis in the different NRA magazines. Yes I support the Castle Doctrine. Just don't be overconfident. There is always an attorney that is willing to work for commission or idealogy. And again, if you win the case you can't sue a person that is on welfare and has nothing. Therefore you will have paid for your own attorney to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. And no one is going to give you a bailout. I am never surprised by the decision of the courts. I should be but am not. And remember there is no one so God like as a judge in HIS or HER courtroom. If you don't think that ideology plays a role in the judges decision, as opposed to following the law, review Heller v Washington DC. The four liberals denied the Second Amendment is a Personal Right as opposed to a right granted to militias. There is case law that says the police are not required to protect you and you cannot sue if they fail to protect you, even if negligent. Again, it is not just the law, but how it is interpreted. And if you have the liberal DA or judge it can still go against you. If you have been sued extensively you might have a better understanding of these issues. Your life can become a living, frustrating hell for many, many years.

 

The driver has turned on the seatbelt sign, please return to your seat and buckle up.

 

1st scenario: According to Alabama law, I would have to be charged and convicted of an unlawful use of force in order to be sued. Scumbag files suits, I file motion to dismiss on the grounds that I was neither charged nor convicted. Case dismissed.

 

2nd: Delusional DA charges me after I successfully defend myself from attack. Now, I have a much bigger worry than a civil suit. Worst case, I get convicted. So now I'm looking a jail time plus a possible lawsuit. If I'm acquitted, end of story. I'm now immune from a lawsuit.

 

3rd: I decide to rid my home of all weapons, especially the one called "The Judge" and my D.E. .50 cal that I affectionately call "Burglar Executioner" because I am sooooo afraid of lawsuits. Scumbag breaks into my house and murders me and my family. All's well though, I can't possibly be sued now.

 

Please give this a rest. This all started with a question concerning a good self-defense weapon. I put my 2 cents in and recommended the Taurus "Judge" due to it being designed and marketed as a close quarters, self-defense weapon. Then, someone throws up an objection due to the name the weapon is marketed under and his belief that a person would be more at risk of a lawsuit. Next thing you know, this whole topic degrades into a pissing match over who can better interpret the laws.

 

What it all comes down to is this, if you are serious about protecting yourself and your family, you should want the best weapon for that job, regardless of the name on the side of the gun. Because, when it comes down to it, the creep breaking in your house or trying to jump you in Wal-Mart's parking lot, doesn't care what your gun is called. I'll take my chances with a lawsuit before I chose an inferior weapon over a superior one that just happens to have a controversial name.

[69dejavue]

OK, try to discuss without your bus driver analogy and emotion coms. Scenario One, it is a federal law suit, not a civil suit filed in Alabama or Tennessee state court. The Castle Doctrine is a non-entity. You are charged by the family for violating the rights of the deceased. It is not necessarily dismissed. If it goes to trial you will pay a lot of attorney fees just to hopefully be found not guilty. And there is nothing you can do about it as you were not charged under state law.

 

As far as the Judge pistol. Is it the best for your home defense scenario. Not necessarily. It fires the 45 LC which is an antiquated cartridge and to my knowledge there are no makers of premium hollow points for the weapon. The 410 shot shell? Not necessarily a stopper. And there are only 5 maybe 6 rounds in the pistol. According to Taurus the rifling of the barrel is intended to make the shot spread very quickly so it will have less impact. I agree you should buy a high quality firearm and ammunition.

 

The name of the weapon- well the Judge may sound neat but it will not help you if sued. I don't know if it will hurt you but it will not help you. And yes companies are cognizant of the impact of the name of a product. Few people know this but the Winchester Ranger ammo was formerly called Black Talon. It is very good ammo. But there was another name before Black Talon. It was called Black Widow because the expansion of the petals of the bullet were similar to a spider's legs. There were posters and ads prepared when the lawyers said look at the issue from a racial issue and they changed the name before the release. And by the way, everything you say on a web site such as this could potentially be used against you in court also. It is doubtful if the other side would know but if they did they could bring in your comments on how you viewed someone (scumbag) that broke into your house.

 

Again, the Castle Doctrine is great. Just don't assume you cannot or will not be sued civily. And again, if you do not have experience in this type of lawsuit try to learn from those that have rather than implying that others cannot read or understand the law.

 

Do you honestly believe that a group such as Handgun Control, The Bradys, Million Mom March, Mayor Bloomberg and others would not bankroll the other side just to bring the issue to federal court? and again, if you prevail and the other person is on welfare you cannot sue and collect. They will have lost nothing and you will have lost a lot of attorney fees. Possibly tens of thousands of dollars. Hopefully someone such as the NRA might assist you if you are a member.

[stormeaston]

Well this thread started with a what type of handgun to buy question. Maybe it will be a moot point. Below is a sign of things to come.

 

http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm

 

 

 

 

This is the kinda stuff we gotta watch out for for the next 4 years.

[mcdover]

OK, try to discuss without your bus driver analogy and emotion coms. Scenario One, it is a federal law suit, not a civil suit filed in Alabama or Tennessee state court. The Castle Doctrine is a non-entity. You are charged by the family for violating the rights of the deceased. It is not necessarily dismissed. If it goes to trial you will pay a lot of attorney fees just to hopefully be found not guilty. And there is nothing you can do about it as you were not charged under state law.

 

As far as the Judge pistol. Is it the best for your home defense scenario. Not necessarily. It fires the 45 LC which is an antiquated cartridge and to my knowledge there are no makers of premium hollow points for the weapon. The 410 shot shell? Not necessarily a stopper. And there are only 5 maybe 6 rounds in the pistol. According to Taurus the rifling of the barrel is intended to make the shot spread very quickly so it will have less impact. I agree you should buy a high quality firearm and ammunition.

 

The name of the weapon- well the Judge may sound neat but it will not help you if sued. I don't know if it will hurt you but it will not help you. And yes companies are cognizant of the impact of the name of a product. Few people know this but the Winchester Ranger ammo was formerly called Black Talon. It is very good ammo. But there was another name before Black Talon. It was called Black Widow because the expansion of the petals of the bullet were similar to a spider's legs. There were posters and ads prepared when the lawyers said look at the issue from a racial issue and they changed the name before the release. And by the way, everything you say on a web site such as this could potentially be used against you in court also. It is doubtful if the other side would know but if they did they could bring in your comments on how you viewed someone (scumbag) that broke into your house.

 

Again, the Castle Doctrine is great. Just don't assume you cannot or will not be sued civily. And again, if you do not have experience in this type of lawsuit try to learn from those that have rather than implying that others cannot read or understand the law.

 

Do you honestly believe that a group such as Handgun Control, The Bradys, Million Mom March, Mayor Bloomberg and others would not bankroll the other side just to bring the issue to federal court? and again, if you prevail and the other person is on welfare you cannot sue and collect. They will have lost nothing and you will have lost a lot of attorney fees. Possibly tens of thousands of dollars. Hopefully someone such as the NRA might assist you if you are a member.

 

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue with me. Sounds like some just want to argue for the sake of argument.

 

Could I get sued? Well, anything is possible. Is it likely? Not very, since I live in a Castle Doctrine state with a VERY unambiguous Stand Your Ground provision. Could the Southern Poverty Law Center represent someone in a lawsuit against me pro bono? Possible, but not likely, and if so, I'm still left with this choice: Carried by 6 or judged by 12. I'll take my chances with the jury, thank you.

 

I could get hit, and killed, by a piece of frozen toliet water falling from a commercial airliner, but it's not likely and that possibility is not going to make me take precautions against it. I AM going to defend myself and my family in what I feel is the best way. So no boogeyman lawyer or anti-gun group waiting to jump at the chance to sue me is going to keep me from that.

 

You know, anything is possible, but the question you've got to follow up with is, is it probable. Of all the self-defense shootings that have occured in which the shooter was cleared of any wrong doing, I wonder how many have resulted in a Federal civil rights lawsuit?

[69dejavue]

I am not trying to argue with you. I do hope that you realize that others have expressed learned opinions other than your own. Just like a Shelby no one person knows everything and hopefully we learn from those that have more knowledge or more experience. Lastly, a little knowledge can be very dangerous.

 

Good Luck and I hope you are never sued. It is no fun and it drags on for years, and years, and years. Often times with no end in sight. If you have to pay for your own attorney it can bankrupt you.

 

Again, good luck.

[BanditSRT8]

OMFG I now have a headache.

 

McDover... you are really ignoring the main point, and arguing just to argue. A civil suit has NOTHING TO DO WITH the criminal trial.

 

NOTHING.

 

Regardless of the criminal trial outcome, you ABSOLUTELY WILL BE sued in a civil court by any remaining family of the deceased, and 98% of the time you will lose the civil suit.

 

Today, the average cost of taking another's life in self defense is about $300,000.

 

If you are found justifiable in the criminal trial, you will still be open to a civil suit (no state law can prevent that), and you have almost no chance of winning that case.

 

Please understand the difference between the criminal trial (where the castle doctrine law is backing you up) and a CIVIL SUIT which the castle doctrine has no bearing on the outcome.

 

In the trial you are being judged on whether or not you had the RIGHT to take the other person's life. Whether or not the scenario played out so that you were justified (murder or self defense).

 

The civil suit always comes later... after it has been established that you did take that other life. The civil suit is not to determine if you were justified (that was your other court date) but to validate the loss of life, and the monetary value placed upon that life for the remaining family... it has NOTHING to do with you being right or wrong (so castle doctrine means NADA), it has to do with you taking the life of someone's husband/father/brother/etc.. and the family will usually win.

 

 

Go ahead... ask me how I know......

 

 

Good God I hope that clears this up for you.

[mcdover]

OMFG I now have a headache.

 

McDover... you are really ignoring the main point, and arguing just to argue. A civil suit has NOTHING TO DO WITH the criminal trial.

 

NOTHING.

 

Regardless of the criminal trial outcome, you ABSOLUTELY WILL BE sued in a civil court by any remaining family of the deceased, and 98% of the time you will lose the civil suit.

 

Today, the average cost of taking another's life in self defense is about $300,000.

 

If you are found justifiable in the criminal trial, you will still be open to a civil suit (no state law can prevent that), and you have almost no chance of winning that case.

 

Please understand the difference between the criminal trial (where the castle doctrine law is backing you up) and a CIVIL SUIT which the castle doctrine has no bearing on the outcome.

 

In the trial you are being judged on whether or not you had the RIGHT to take the other person's life. Whether or not the scenario played out so that you were justified (murder or self defense).

 

The civil suit always comes later... after it has been established that you did take that other life. The civil suit is not to determine if you were justified (that was your other court date) but to validate the loss of life, and the monetary value placed upon that life for the remaining family... it has NOTHING to do with you being right or wrong (so castle doctrine means NADA), it has to do with you taking the life of someone's husband/father/brother/etc.. and the family will usually win.

 

 

Go ahead... ask me how I know......

 

 

Good God I hope that clears this up for you.

 

I assume that you have some personal experience with this and all did not work out in your favor. I also notice that you live in Minnesota, which has a very weak castle law. Another thing I see from your post is that you could quite possibly be a moron. You state, "A civil suit has NOTHING TO DO WITH the criminal trial.", but Alabama law states "(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful."

 

You also state, "Regardless of the criminal trial outcome, you ABSOLUTELY WILL BE sued in a civil court by any remaining family of the deceased, and 98% of the time you will lose the civil suit." This statement almost made me spit my coffee out, it is so ridiculous. First of all, I would love to know where you got that statistic. Second, please site just one verifiable case, where someone was sued in a SYG state where the shooter was not charged with a crime first. I won't hold my breath on that.

 

And then we get to your contridictions. You say, "98% of the time you will lose the civil suit." , then you say, "it has to do with you taking the life of someone's husband/father/brother/etc.. and the family will usually win." Yep, that really cleared it up for me. I have a 98% chance of losing, and the deceased's family USUALLY wins.

 

Obviously something in your past has clouded your vision to this issue.

[BanditSRT8]

Nope, I was born and raised in Florida. I currently live in MN, and yes... we have some not-so-great laws here.

 

And there was no contradiction in what I said, just a lack of reading comprehension on your part.

 

"And then we get to your contridictions. You say, "98% of the time you will lose the civil suit." , then you say, "it has to do with you taking the life of someone's husband/father/brother/etc.. and the family will usually win." Yep, that really cleared it up for me. I have a 98% chance of losing, and the deceased's family USUALLY wins."

 

Where is the contradiction at?

 

98% of the time YOU will lose.

 

The family (the ones SUING YOU) will win.

 

If somehow your state does what you say it does, you live in one back-asswards state because no one else (apparently judging from the responses on this thread) has ever seen anything like it. Even the attorneys who have posted here are puzzled.

[stormeaston]

Now, now boys...............................Santa's watching!

[mcdover]

Nope, I was born and raised in Florida. I currently live in MN, and yes... we have some not-so-great laws here.

 

And there was no contradiction in what I said, just a lack of reading comprehension on your part.

 

"And then we get to your contridictions. You say, "98% of the time you will lose the civil suit." , then you say, "it has to do with you taking the life of someone's husband/father/brother/etc.. and the family will usually win." Yep, that really cleared it up for me. I have a 98% chance of losing, and the deceased's family USUALLY wins."

 

Where is the contradiction at?

 

98% of the time YOU will lose.

 

The family (the ones SUING YOU) will win.

 

If somehow your state does what you say it does, you live in one back-asswards state because no one else (apparently judging from the responses on this thread) has ever seen anything like it. Even the attorneys who have posted here are puzzled.

 

From your response, the moron possibility is now confirmed as a certainty. I will no longer bother responding to your post, as to do so would be futile.

[69dejavue]

Re the many Castle Doctrine laws; to my knowledge none have been reviewed by either their state supreme courts or the US Supreme Court. The laws are relatively new and unchallenged. Anyone can appeal a decision to a higher court and including US Courts of Appeal and eventually the United States Supreme Court. Many laws are passed and eventually struck down by courts in their own states. All we are saying is do not be overly confident in the ability of an untried law to protect you. It is only a matter of time until some attorney finds the perfect case to challenge the laws. The law may or may not pass muster of constitutionality.

 

Again, Good Luck.

 

PS-there is no need for name calling because someone does not agree with you.

[19Maddog64]

Surround your place w/claymore mines rigged w/trip wires and throw a frag at anything thay gets through.

[David Hawkins]

Just use O.J. Simpson for your example....... He walked on a Double Murder but got Nailed for that same Double Murder in a Civil Suit..................