Man sued by family of man he shot in self-defense


June 8, 2004, 03:07 PM

If you enjoyed reading about "Man sued by family of man he shot in self-defense" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Ex-MA Hole
June 8, 2004, 03:12 PM
G-d, I love this Country!

The poor guy will probably be found guilty, too. As I have said in a few posts- where is personal accountability?

June 8, 2004, 03:14 PM
Now, family members of Chavez have filed a wrongful-death suit against Rose, saying he didn't try to help the teen after the shooting. Rose has filed a counter suit.

Oh boo hoo. I realize that, under some circumstances, you may have a duty to provide aid, but I seriously doubt this is one of them. I hope Rose wins and can get back his legal fees. This is such a crock!

June 8, 2004, 03:38 PM
I bet anything he wins both trials. I sure hope he wins big in the would send a great message to the families of criminals that try this crap.

R.H. Lee
June 8, 2004, 03:43 PM
Any reasonable judge would throw out the case and fine the attorney(s) who brought it. Impeachment of judges is waaaaaay overdue. Where is judicialwatch on this anyway?

June 8, 2004, 05:53 PM
This is one of the most pathetic stories I have heard. How they hell is he supposed to save some kids life after he shot him!! It didn't sound like he was a doctor? I am sure this will get thrown out. If you live down there please keep us posted.

Standing Wolf
June 8, 2004, 06:04 PM
As I have said in a few posts- where is personal accountability?

It died in law school.

June 8, 2004, 08:47 PM
it sounds to me like the only mistake the guy made was letting the SOBs leave the motor home alive. If the one who killed had died instantly, the grounds on which they're suing wouldn't be there:banghead: :cuss:

June 8, 2004, 09:23 PM
They probably figured the guy (or his insurance company) would try to settle quickly, and they'd get to grab some cash. I'm sure they didn't expect him to fight the lawsuit and file a counter-suit as well. Chances are, the family of the dead perp has little or no money, so the counter-suit is unlikely to actually get Rose any compensation for legal expenses, let alone anything else. But, if he wins in both cases, at least it will prevent the perps family from ever being able to sue him again.

One question I'd like the perps family to answer is, how was he supposed to render assistance if the perp and his accomplice flee the scene? If the dead guy had collapsed inside or right outside the motor home, and his buddies took off, then it might have been possible to render assistance, but not in this case.

June 8, 2004, 09:53 PM
An attorney for Chavez's family did not return phone calls to Action 7 News.

Hmm, small wonder.

Perhaps the scumbag lawyer thinks he'll be spending time down south burning in that very special place Chavez is.

Hope the family gets to join them.

:banghead: :cuss: :fire: :fire: :fire:

June 8, 2004, 10:01 PM
Does anyone else have the NRA endorsed self defense insurance? I have have it, and was going to drop it at renewal. Articles like this make me wonder if I should keep it.

June 8, 2004, 10:17 PM
I'm trying to find out the case numbers and particulars about the countersuit, but the New Mexico courts website is either slow or down for the evening.

Here ( is the url.
My guess is that the suit and countersuit can be found by searching for John Miguel Rose or Chavez. After finding the suit and countersuit, we can then figure out who is the scumbag attorney that did the suit, and then its time to make his/her mailbox bleed. :evil:

June 8, 2004, 10:43 PM
Can't happen in Minnesota. Perp is deemed to have "assumed the risk" of injury or death as a result of a victim's resistence to the crime. Minn. Stat. sec. 611A.08.

June 9, 2004, 10:11 AM
F4GIB, that sounds like a very good, common sense law. Does anyone know if any other states have similar protections?

June 9, 2004, 11:29 AM

I beg to differ. Here in the wonderful, and very much liberal, state of Minnesota, you *must* render aid to the person you've shot. Once the danger has passed, you are legally obligated to do so. It's not a good idea, but it *is* the law.

Of course, it could take a long time to be sure that the guy you shot doesn't have backup...


June 9, 2004, 02:35 PM
Okay, as promised, here ( is the New Mexico courts case lookup.

Case #: D-202-CV-200308645
Case Status: PN PENDING
Status Date: 12/22/2003
Filing Date: 12/22/2003
Court: Albuquerque District Court

The good guys are: Plaintiff ROSE JOHN, Attorney(s):ALAN M MALOTT

The lowlifes are: probable parent CHAVEZ (PR) JOSE R, scumsucking lawyer MONTOYA DENNIS W, convicted felon PACHECO ARTHUR

According to, scumsucking lawyer Dennis W Montoya ( is a Civil Rights lawyer.

Dennis W. Montoya
Firm: Montoya Law, Inc.
Address: P.O. Box 15235
Rio Rancho, NM 87174-0235
Phone: (505) 246-8499
Fax: (505) 246-8599
E-mail: Contact Us (

June 9, 2004, 02:37 PM
Time for some e-mail fun! :fire: :D

June 9, 2004, 02:59 PM
. . . you *must* render aid to the person you've shot. Uhhh . . . not knowing if the BG or his buddies are in a position to do me harm, not being a trained paramedic, and not having the equipment or training to safeguard myself against bloodborne pathogens, I'd be REAL reluctant to do more than call for police and EMS.

And I sure wouldn't chase after a FLEEING perp in order to "render assistance." After all, how would CHASING the FLEEING bad guys play out in court?

"Honest, Your Honor, I was just going to offer a band aid to the guy I shot!" :rolleyes:

[politically incorrect mode ON] As far as the plaintiffs in this lawsuit . . . has anyone thought to check their immigration status? :evil: [/politically incorrect mode OFF]

June 9, 2004, 05:09 PM
"Honest, Your Honor, I was just going to offer a band aid to the guy I shot!"

[politically incorrect mode ON] As far as the plaintiffs in this lawsuit . . . has anyone thought to check their immigration status? [/politically incorrect mode OFF]

ooooooooh... I like the way you think. :evil: :evil: :evil:

June 9, 2004, 09:15 PM
While you may be obligated to render aid appropriate to your training and the equipment on hand, in Minnesota you cannot be held civilly liable for injury or death that you legally bestow upon a criminal who is in the act of committing a crime against you.

June 10, 2004, 03:36 AM
How was I supposed to know that chest compressions after a 12 gauge blast were a poor choice? :evil:

June 10, 2004, 05:08 AM
No way man,I've seen those movies where the dead/wounded guy come back to life and grabs your gun...
"Yer honor,I was performing the CPR while holding my gun,and the durn thing went off!it's not my fault the gun went off while I was saving him"

June 10, 2004, 11:35 AM
Thanks to THR and other forums, I have been able to read about more of these types of cases. While I firmly agree that once they make that conscious (and often premeditated) decision to break the laws and threaten someone's safety or life, they fully discard any rights they may have had. I often wonder who initiates these frivilous lawsuits. Are the families of these "products of waste that accumulated in the filter of the gene pool" savvy enough, in regard to the legal system, to file a wrongful death suit.... or do these lawyers troll around the police blotters looking for a way to cash in?

June 10, 2004, 11:38 AM
Before this thread turns into another "lawyer bashfest," please remember that not all attorneys are scum-sucking bottom feeders.

My brother-in-law is a partner in a firm that has very high standards and hates frivilous suits, such as this, as much as we do. In fact, he just applied for his CWP last week.

June 10, 2004, 12:03 PM
It may be tangential to the thread, but as a private citizen who is fed up with the number of frivilous lawsuits, what recourse do I have to voice my opinion (other than a rant here) or affect changes? These lawsuits hurt the "law abiding" citizens that the legal system is supposed to protect. They cost a lot of money to the tax payers. They are often used as the basis for the passing of frivilous laws that infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. Where does it stop? What can we do to affect a positive change?

In discussing this subject with some colleagues, we came up with a change (although not possible, probable, or practical) - That if a judge (and/or jury) determines that a suit is frivilous, the prosecution must pay the damages they originally sought to collect from the defendant. This would take a great step toward stopping these frivilous lawsuits. I realize that there are ramifications beyond my conjecture that lawyers and those with a greater background would tear apart, but as a stand-alone thought, I believe it would work.

June 10, 2004, 12:29 PM
Fitch, The way to get around that is to ask for "unspecified damages" in the filing. That way if it got thrown out as frivilous, all the plantiff would have to say is, "well, I was really only going to ask for $1.00."

June 10, 2004, 01:22 PM
I'm the fellow who posted the link to the story, and I'm a lawyer.

I don't do plaintiff's work, but I know some good guys who do. (Personally, I defend people who have been convicted of crimes on their appeals - some of whom are innocent and some of whom have had their rights violated - the same rights that we all have - so in a very real sense I'm making sure that the government obeys the rules that We The People set up to control it.) They look at their work as protecting the little guy from the big guys, civilly. If some drunk kid in his daddy's sports car runs a red light and creams your car as you drive to work, these are the guys who make sure you get what's coming to you. In my experience, the majority of them do it the right way, and are honorable members of the profession.

Now, there are certainly frivolous suits and suits that make you wonder, "Gee, how could there be any merit to this?" And, obviously, these suits have lawyers at the helm, so I can see how folks might think that these lawyers are in the wrong. In fact, there are ethical rules in every state that forbid lawyers from bringing frivolous suits.

This case hasn't gone to trial, and it's only in the very preliminary stages. We have a good Bar here in NM, and a pretty solid judiciary, and things generally work out the way that they should. I fully expect that things will work out the right way in this case.

June 10, 2004, 08:40 PM
Erich: I fully expect that things will work out the right way in this case. Erich, if you would, please update us on this if you hear anything through the lawyer's grapevine. All too often, the regular newspapers never follow up on stories like this.

June 10, 2004, 11:08 PM
I have a pretty good grapevine on this.

June 11, 2004, 02:17 PM
Just with the small amount of facts we have, do you think that there are grounds for fines or disbarment for this lawyer? ;)

June 12, 2004, 03:32 PM
Erich, glad to hear you have your ear to the ground.

One obvious question--Why doesn't the defendant in the civil suit file a counter suit. In essence saying, "Ok, you can do this but do you really want to go down this road? You may win but there will be a price you will have to pay."

Obvvously money is an issue and so would finding an attorney. It is clear to me the courts and the bar could stop a lot of this crap cold, but for some reason it ain't. So we as citizens get to watch our judicial system victimize someone who obeyed the law.

<I'll stop now, my soap box is too short.>

June 12, 2004, 05:00 PM
It is clear to me the courts and the bar could stop a lot of this crap cold, but for some reason it ain't.

Come, now, outlawing nuisance lawsuits? Why, that would be putting lawyers out of work! They couldn't afford their $2-mil+ homes in the Hamptons! You can't be serious! :evil: :D

June 12, 2004, 06:58 PM
If I recall the story correctly after lo these many days, he did file a countersuit.

No, no grounds for disbarrment.

June 13, 2004, 07:16 AM
sumpnz, I presume that in states with laws rewarding 'reverse damages' for frivolous lawsuits, that 'unspecified damages' are not allowed. I've seen court TV a couple times, and if they don't name a figure, the claim gets thrown out. Even if they don't name a value in the initial paperwork, it would have to come out during the trial.

As far as the damages go, I don't think the family doing the suing is very rich, so they probably view it as a 'nothing to lose' proposition.

Oh, and I'm really interested in how this turns out. I don't catch the final news too often, so I always wonder.

June 13, 2004, 04:14 PM
Okay, so if the dead robber's family doesn't have any money, and the suit is pursued because there is nothing to lose, and the live victim does, isn't this just a case of penalizing the victim and full-employment-for-lawyers act?

Erich, so, in your opinion, does the dead robber's family's lawyer suffer any consequences at all?

June 13, 2004, 06:32 PM
Depending on how poor the family is, it'd vary between one more stain on the family's credit report, to a judgement that could be filled if they won the lottery.

I'd want to worry the lawyer more myself... :evil:

It's always a fine line bewteen disallowing junk lawsuits and making it too expensive for a poor person who has been truley wronged to even try to sue a rich corporation. I think a fine the lawyers approach might work, as they're the one's who know best. And if you keep it in the judge's discretion, it can waived as a threat for the bad ones.

June 13, 2004, 06:58 PM
Hi, Erich, I am here in New Mexico too.
I remember distinctly hearing on the radio and television (for whatever that's worth) that Mr. Rose had to be admitted to the hospital very shortly after the incident with chest pain and shortness of breath.

"Now, family members of Chavez have filed a wrongful-death suit against Rose, saying he didn't try to help the teen after the shooting."

That's a silly expectation to begin with, but expecting this man to help this kid while he is having (what sounds to me) a heart attack is outrageously ridiculous!

"Rose has filed a counter suit."

I really, really hope he wins the countersuit.

"Because the only person who is responsible for the death of Carlos Chavez is Carlos Chavez," Rose said.

Spot on, Mr. Rose.

I will be watching this one closely as well.

June 13, 2004, 11:15 PM
Howdy, neighbor! Nice handle - you wouldn't be a Sandia Man, would you? :)

June 14, 2004, 04:07 PM

Sandia Man? Is that some sort of neolithic caveman? If so, whether I am or not is still under debate:D

If you are asking if I live near Sandia Peak, I do! Westside ABQ!

June 14, 2004, 04:52 PM
Sandia Man was some sort of neolithic caveman, but it's also a term of reference for the folks that work out at the Sandia Labs. The "atoms" portion of your handle was what got me wondering.

I used to be a Westsider, but now I live in the foothills. Both are gorgeous. :)

If you enjoyed reading about "Man sued by family of man he shot in self-defense" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!