Does anyone have that NRA Self Defense Insurance


PDA






gym
October 30, 2013, 10:32 AM
Got the email from them and was wondering if it's a good idea or a bad one. Sometimes taking insurance like that shows intent. Like putting up a sign that says Beware Dangerous dog. Lawyers say your better off without that sign, it basically says you knew you had a dog that bites.
Was wondering if this type of insurance would translate the same way.
You must have thought you were going to shoots someone if you went and got insurance to pay for the damages. Thoughts?

If you enjoyed reading about "Does anyone have that NRA Self Defense Insurance" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
The_Next_Generation
October 30, 2013, 05:33 PM
I've wondered this same thing and would like to hear if anyone has anything to say.

Twiki357
October 31, 2013, 12:59 AM
Like the saying goes “Justice is blind” which can often be translated into justice can’t always see the truth other than the snow job a lawyer can put in front of a judge. Sorry if I sound cynical, it’s because I am.

bainter1212
October 31, 2013, 08:38 AM
I am also curious. I don't think insurance shows intent.......any juror here in CA will be very familiar with the litigious nature of our society, a simple reminder would do.

Mike1234567
October 31, 2013, 05:50 PM
I decided to "disconnect" from all the hype and BS a long time ago. If they didn't make a good profit from it then they wouldn't offer to sell it. I could insure for everything from Alpha to Omega, spending three times everything I have, and still not be covered for every contingency. Frankly, I'm sick to death of the "games" we're expected to play in today's abusive frenzied economic BS society.

mljdeckard
October 31, 2013, 05:52 PM
Does auto insurance mean you have intent to get into a car accident? Does health insurance mean you plan on needing a heart transplant? .......

madwildcat
October 31, 2013, 09:55 PM
Does auto insurance mean you have intent to get into a car accident? Does health insurance mean you plan on needing a heart transplant? .......
To be fair, there are specific situations with both that can be viewed as intent for one reason or another. Kind of like taking out a large life insurance policy days "before" finding out you have a terminal disease.

I personally don't have this insurance, but I do know some that do, and I think around here it wouldn't be viewed as intent. Now in New York City or some parts of Kalifornistan, that might not be the case :)

RetiredUSNChief
October 31, 2013, 10:21 PM
Insurance is insurance. People need to quit worrying so much about how such matters might look in court if a shooting happens and worry more about understanding the laws enough to know when to shoot and when not to shoot.

I'd spend more time studying the laws on deadly force and when it's justified and less time on worrying about the vagraties of "what if the jury doesn't like the fact that I have self-defense insurance". And couple that with thought experiments on plausible self-defense scenarios in which exercise one's understanding of these laws.

We've seen plenty of examples of people just on this site alone who have some gross conceptual errors with respect to deadly force and self-defense laws. This is the meat and bones of the issue and we shouldn't let these other things excessively distract us from it.

texasgun
October 31, 2013, 11:18 PM
Fact: MOST justified SD shootings in Texas (either home-invasion) or on the street are pretty straight forward and there won't be a lengthy and costly trial.

Now - if there is a complicated case with lots of questions and it's a lengthy trial ... you certainly will benefit from the insurance but trust me, ANY qualified DA will milk the fact that you preemptively bought such an insurance to the max...

I wouldn't get it. And it's not cheap either.

Blacksmoke
October 31, 2013, 11:35 PM
I bought it years ago when I first obtained a concealed carry license. Did not renew it. I would like to hear from someone who had occasion to submit a claim and how that went with the insurance carrier. Clearly, the downside of self defense and lethal force is the civil claims by the perp's family. Our civil court system allows anyone with a grievance to file a lawsuit and resources are expended defending one's self. It makes sense to have coverage for that kind of litigation. I just wonder if the claim would be paid.

gym
November 1, 2013, 12:56 PM
I'll tell you a little short story. In the development I live in, there is a Lawsuit that is coming to a head this week, "been 5 years since it was instituted". There are about 50 defendants involved, all had to hire attorneys, "every one" 3-500 per hour, over what a group of folks said about another fellow in here , "who is the plaintiff". It is pretty deep, goes to "Pedophilia" but many people who knew nothing about the darn thing were subpoenaed to testify, for one side or the other. Unfortunately people are crazy and you just never know.
It started over principal, but now there are 1 1/2 million in damages up for grabs. The guy who instituted the case is wealthy and has spent over 500,000 in legal fees over what most of us would have said, the guy is a jerk, forget about it. So you never know when someone is going to come after you, especially over a shooting case.
That other family I saw on fox, is suing the state and the school system for the kid dropping dead in the gym, after a special prosecutor found no cause, he just died.
I had a woman walk in my Gym swipe her card and drop dead right there.
Thank God no one sued us, but if it happens to you and you don't have an extra half million laying around for attorneys fees, good luck.

mljdeckard
November 1, 2013, 09:31 PM
As for the idea that your state has civil immunity, stand your ground, and/or castle doctrine, just remember that ANY law is only as strong as the court hearing it. All it takes is a rookie DA trying to make a name for himself and a judge who has been sleeping on the couch for two weeks and you will be putting your lawyers kids through college instead of your own, REGARDLESS of the inevitable outcome. There was never enough evidence to charge and try George Zimmermann.

TennJed
November 3, 2013, 02:11 AM
I decided to "disconnect" from all the hype and BS a long time ago. If they didn't make a good profit from it then they wouldn't offer to sell it. I could insure for everything from Alpha to Omega, spending three times everything I have, and still not be covered for every contingency. Frankly, I'm sick to death of the "games" we're expected to play in today's abusive frenzied economic BS society.
Of course insurance companies want to make money, but do you carry homeowners insurance in case of fire? The odds of using it are very, very low. But the consequences of not having it if needed are very, very high.

Carrying a gun for self defense is in a way insurance. The odds of you needing a gun are very, very low. The consequences of not having a gun when you need it are very, very high. Gun companies make money selling guns the same way as insurance companies make money selling insurance. Do you fall for the "BS and hype" associated with defensive guns, or do you spend money to protect your family, even though the odds are low you will need it?

V-fib
November 3, 2013, 02:24 AM
[/QUOTE]Like putting up a sign that says Beware Dangerous dog. Lawyers say your better off without that sign, it basically says you knew you had a dog that bites.

We have a "beware of dog" sign at the front of our driveway even though our "pup" passed away 4 years ago and we didn't get another dog. I think that's pretty cheap insurance.

v-fib

Mike1234567
November 3, 2013, 10:55 AM
Of course insurance companies want to make money, but do you carry homeowners insurance in case of fire? The odds of using it are very, very low. But the consequences of not having it if needed are very, very high.

Carrying a gun for self defense is in a way insurance. The odds of you needing a gun are very, very low. The consequences of not having a gun when you need it are very, very high. Gun companies make money selling guns the same way as insurance companies make money selling insurance. Do you fall for the "BS and hype" associated with defensive guns, or do you spend money to protect your family, even though the odds are low you will need it?
No, I currently have no homeowner's insurance. Part of my disconnect from overspending and "being used" was to downsize my home too. If my home burns up I can have the mess cleaned up and buy a used trailer installed all for about $10K. Since I have no significant other to keep happy then I can do as I please. I no longer have pricey contents either. And I'm perfectly happy without an expensive house and pricey furnishings... happier, in fact. I have zero debt and nearly zero worry about my "stuff". :)

I do carry on my property and in my car. But that pistol is a tangible item that I can trade or sell if I want. I like that kind of insurance. The way I see it, in the very unlikely event that I'm forced to defend myself with a pistol then I probably won't be tried at all. If I am tried then I'll ask for a state attorney.

gunlaw
November 3, 2013, 11:21 AM
Generally evidence of insurance is inadmissable in a civil trial. Mentionig insurance in the presence of the trier of fact can result in a mistrial.
In a criminal trial it would most likley be excluded as irrelevent.
My recollection of the NRA self defense insurance is that it covers criminal defense in a self defense situation and it only pays if you are successful.
also the policy limits are $50,000.00.

km101
November 3, 2013, 04:14 PM
I don't think that SD insurance would show intent. To me it would just be prudent.
But the point is moot. It is very pricey, and I cant/wont afford it. I'd rather spend the money on guns and ammo.

SouthernBoy
November 3, 2013, 05:08 PM
Better to get a personal liability policy. They are inexpensive and go a long way in easing your concerns. I have just such a policy for $1 million and my agent knows why.

Reloadron
November 3, 2013, 06:28 PM
Got the email from them and was wondering if it's a good idea or a bad one. Sometimes taking insurance like that shows intent. Like putting up a sign that says Beware Dangerous dog. Lawyers say your better off without that sign, it basically says you knew you had a dog that bites.
Was wondering if this type of insurance would translate the same way.
You must have thought you were going to shoots someone if you went and got insurance to pay for the damages. Thoughts?

Last week we had a thread about someone who managed an accidental discharge of a firearm in a public rest room. Fortunately nobody was injured or killed. While I don't plan an accidental discharge I would like the peace of mind that if something like that should happen someone else will not own my home or property.

I also don't plan to run someone down with my truck but on the off chance something bad happens I would like the peace of mind that my butt is covered. While the odds run against my neighbor walking his dog and being sucked into a giant sinkhole on my front lawn I would like the peace of mind of knowing if it happens I am covered.

However, insurance is a funny animal in that what works for some does not work for or isn't needed for others. Me? Based on the situation of my wife and I insurance in just about all forms is a good investment, we have more to lose than I would care to lose.

Back to the accidental discharge in a public rest room. What if that bullet had struck an innocent person in that rest room? Not a question of a justified self defense shooting. The guy responsible will end up with some paying up to do.

Ron

mfcmb
November 3, 2013, 06:59 PM
According to my research:

o If you use a firearm you can face a criminal suit, then a civil suit.
o You have no control or say in whether either or both suits are brought against you.
o It typically costs $50K to $100 to defend against a criminal suit, and $100K to $150K to defend against a civil suit.
o Whether or not you ultimately prevail in court it will still have cost you all that money.
o Self defense insurance policies, of which there are only two or three available in the USA, will only reimburse you AFTER you have been acquitted, etc. You still have to come up with the cash up-front to fund your defense. (I don't have that kind of cash.)
o The Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Network (http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org),of which I'm a member, was set up to address this gap. IF you're a member, and if their board of firearms self defense experts judges that you appear to have acted within the law, then they will immediately supply a retainer to get your attorney started on your defense, will supply more funds as your case progresses, and will provide expert advice and support to your lawyer.
o The US Concealed Carry Association has combined these two, and at a very reasonable price provides both insurance and a legal defense fund. I'm a member of this association, primarily for the insurance: which is cheaper and has more coverage than then NRA insurance.

Hope this summary helps.

Bill50
November 4, 2013, 12:14 AM
Even California has Castle Dotrine.

Stand Your Ground and Castle Dotrine are only needed in states that allow criminals to sue their victims for damages.

SouthernBoy
November 4, 2013, 09:56 AM
Posted by mfcmb:
According to my research:

o If you use a firearm you can face a criminal suit, then a civil suit.
o You have no control or say in whether either or both suits are brought against you.
o It typically costs $50K to $100 to defend against a criminal suit, and $100K to $150K to defend against a civil suit.
o Whether or not you ultimately prevail in court it will still have cost you all that money.
o Self defense insurance policies, of which there are only two or three available in the USA, will only reimburse you AFTER you have been acquitted, etc. You still have to come up with the cash up-front to fund your defense. (I don't have that kind of cash.)
o The Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Network (http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org),of which I'm a member, was set up to address this gap. IF you're a member, and if their board of firearms self defense experts judges that you appear to have acted within the law, then they will immediately supply a retainer to get your attorney started on your defense, will supply more funds as your case progresses, and will provide expert advice and support to your lawyer.
o The US Concealed Carry Association has combined these two, and at a very reasonable price provides both insurance and a legal defense fund. I'm a member of this association, primarily for the insurance: which is cheaper and has more coverage than then NRA insurance.

Hope this summary helps.

"o If you use a firearm you can face a criminal suit, then a civil suit."
I've never heard of a criminal suit. Can you enlighten me about this one?

"o Self defense insurance policies, of which there are only two or three available in the USA, will only reimburse you AFTER you have been acquitted, etc. You still have to come up with the cash up-front to fund your defense. (I don't have that kind of cash.)"
My policy covers my attorney's fees outside of the face value of the policy and are not limited by that value. Don't know about how or when they pay... good point and something I should look into.

The attorney whose card I carry, is well known to the gun culture in in my state and has a lot of experience in defending firearms-related cases. There are a few others in my area of national renown of whom I could also contact.

Lastly, much is going to hinge upon the state and even the county in which you live. How the DA (commonwealth's attorney here) views the use of deadly force, etc. In that regard, my area is quite good for people like us. Virginians also enjoy an affirmative defense. And our laws are largely grounded in case law with not a whole lot of statute law poisoning the well. They harken back to 1607 and tend to favor the victim over the aggressor.

mfcmb
November 4, 2013, 11:30 PM
I may not have the terminology exactly right but I believe the concepts are correct:

CRIMINAL SUIT
A criminal suit is where the DA on behalf of "the people" charges you with a criminal act: say of killing someone. Criminal acts are classified into misdemeanors and felonies of different grades.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Most persons charged with a crime plead that they didn't do the crime: that they are "not guilty" of breaking the law. When it comes to self defense cases it's different. Here the defender admits to breaking the law (brandishing a firearm, assaulting someone, killing someone, etc.) but claims that he/she qualifies for one of the allowable exceptions (e.g. it was the only way to prevent another person from killing you). So instead of saying "I didn't do it" you say "I did it, but I have an allowable excuse". This is called an affirmative defense: I affirm that I broke the law, but I qualify for an exception.

CIVIL SUIT
This is where the grieving family, etc. claims under a different set of laws that you have caused them loss, suffering, etc. and that you should pay them money to ease the pain or to make up for the loss.

Do you remember O.J. Simpson? If I recall correctly: He was acquitted in the criminal case where the DA tried to prove that he killed his wife. But he was found liable in the later civil suit brought against him by her family.

SouthernBoy
November 5, 2013, 06:42 AM
Posted by mfcmb:
I may not have the terminology exactly right but I believe the concepts are correct:

CRIMINAL SUIT
A criminal suit is where the DA on behalf of "the people" charges you with a criminal act: say of killing someone. Criminal acts are classified into misdemeanors and felonies of different grades.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Most persons charged with a crime plead that they didn't do the crime: that they are "not guilty" of breaking the law. When it comes to self defense cases it's different. Here the defender admits to breaking the law (brandishing a firearm, assaulting someone, killing someone, etc.) but claims that he/she qualifies for one of the allowable exceptions (e.g. it was the only way to prevent another person from killing you). So instead of saying "I didn't do it" you say "I did it, but I have an allowable excuse". This is called an affirmative defense: I affirm that I broke the law, but I qualify for an exception.

CIVIL SUIT
This is where the grieving family, etc. claims under a different set of laws that you have caused them loss, suffering, etc. and that you should pay them money to ease the pain or to make up for the loss.

Do you remember O.J. Simpson? If I recall correctly: He was acquitted in the criminal case where the DA tried to prove that he killed his wife. But he was found liable in the later civil suit brought against him by her family.

"CIVIL SUIT"
This would be a criminal charge where I live, not a civil suit.

"AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE"
You mostly got this correct. In Virginia, one does not have to be in fear of imminent death; serious bodily harm is sufficient. Better to say "perceived serious bodily harm or death". The thread does not have to be real. The victim's perception of this is enough to warrant the use of deadly force. [Ex: perp uses a toy gun at night]. Your goal is justifiable homicide.

"CIVIL SUIT"
These are rare in Virginia once the victim's actions have been deemed to be justifiable (either by a trial or a no bill). Several years ago, I asked a commonwealth's attorney and a man running for sheriff of a neighboring county if such suits are common and both replied that they could not recall having seen one in their careers.

The last time a "Castle Doctrine Law" came up in the general assembly, we shot it down. The way it was written could have spelled the end of some of the rights and privileges we enjoy here in my state. A new bill has been drafted but I don't know if it has been presented as of yet. The new bill would not infringe upon what we currently have here. Our laws governing the use of deadly force are good ones.

gym
November 5, 2013, 07:04 PM
Let's understand that you can't get water from a stone. If you don't have the assets required to defend against a suit, you will be deemed uncollectable. Someone may win a judgment but in FL your home and 1 vehicle is homesteaded, so no one can ever take that away. Possibly if you sold it they could get the judgment, but if you just kept the house I doubt that they could get anything. Also annuity's and paid life policy's, are about 90 % unbreakable. Any other assets you have would be at risk. but only back taxes will get your home sold from under you once it's homesteaded.
If you have no assets you really are a bad person to sue, I would imagine they would follow the money and sue any and all persons and or businesses that could pay. Such as the gun manufacturers and place where the shooting took place, "for not providing adequate security" I wouldn't worry about the civil court in FL as long as you were in the right. In NYC that would be a different story. Fl doesn't even allow for a civil suit if the act falls under the Castle Doctrine.
Fla. Stat. 776.032 (2013)

776.032. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting 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 was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

RetiredUSNChief
November 5, 2013, 10:28 PM
^^^^

Keep in mind that many times the legal proof of a person having justifiably used deadly force is the outcome of a court battle.

Prosecuters generally screen the clear cut cases out, I agree. But if there's any doubt, then it goes to court.

That means immunity often does not apply until AFTER things are proven in court.

An inportant point to ponder on.

gym
November 6, 2013, 12:55 AM
I always respected Jeb Bush, for sighing that Doctrine into law, the day his term was up. It was the best parting gift he could have given the citizens and lawful gun owners of this sometimes legally confusing state. It made up for all the things he may have done that were wrong or stupid, with one stroke of the pen.
At least if it's a clear cut case, "Like someone breaking In with a gun at 3 AM" , you don't have to worry about the relatives of a guy with 30 priors trying to take away your house in court because their cousin or brother couldn't get it with the barrel of a gun.
And it saves the taxpayers a ton of money not having to litigate these types of bullcrap cases.

If you enjoyed reading about "Does anyone have that NRA Self Defense Insurance" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!