You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hypothetical: Can you sue someone for "making you" shoot them in SD/HI?
- Thread starter vicdotcom
- Start date
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
Some states (MI included) have laws the remove any civil liability if the shooter is found to have had a clean shoot.
Great law that every state should incorporate. No downside since if it is a murder/assault you can take it to civil court anyway, but it keeps up safe.
Great law that every state should incorporate. No downside since if it is a murder/assault you can take it to civil court anyway, but it keeps up safe.
Sure from the perp, but not by their families for a "wrongful death suit".rondog said:Double taps help prevent lawsuits by injured perps.
mgkdrgn
Member
Suing is one thing.
Winning the suit is another.
COLLECTING from someone with little or no assets (who was the last millionaire home invader you heard of?) is pretty much impossible.
But, of course, YOU still get to pay your lawyer (and no, they won't take a case against someone with no assets on a contingency basis).
Winning the suit is another.
COLLECTING from someone with little or no assets (who was the last millionaire home invader you heard of?) is pretty much impossible.
But, of course, YOU still get to pay your lawyer (and no, they won't take a case against someone with no assets on a contingency basis).
mgkdrgn
Member
Sure from the perp, but not by their families for a "wrongful death suit".
In states with a good castle doctrine (like South Carolina) ... that isn't an issue. If it is a good SD shoot (ie, I am not charged) a civil suit can not be brought.
In the case of a "home invasion", the only question on the "good shoot/bad shoot form" is "Was the dwelling forcibly entered while the occupant was there?" If the answer is YES .... good shoot.
mgregg85
Member
Might as well put the tort system to some good use, if you ever get the chance then go for it.
Well technicaly shooting someone is a crime in many states and self defense is merely a legal defense against commiting the crime. For example justifiable homicide is still homicide, which is a crime that has merely become justified under the circumstances. The required elements present in those circumstances to be a justifiable crime vary from state to state.
Personaly I would not sue unless I sustained significant financial loss. Civil court is very different from criminal court and a "preponderance of the evidence" far easier to arrive at than "beyond a reasonable doubt". You could be justified in shooting them, but find yourself still losing in a counter suit over medical bills or some other claim regarding thier own financial loss from the situation. Losses they really did clearly incur with the only question being whether you are responsible.
Some courts could even declare that while the criminal was 90% responsible for the incident, you were 10% responsible and therefor 10% of the financial burden (of possibly hundreds of thousands in medical bills) is on you. Judges and jury members are individuals and there is some with very different views.
Even if you have an 80% chance of not losing in a counter suit, is a 20% chance of losing tens or hundreds of thousands from the counter suit worth gaining a few thousand from your minimal losses?
Now if they sue you, then feel free to counter sue them for losses. Otherwise let it go.
There is some states on the other hand that forbid the criminal from suing under statute for losses sustained during a crime. I guess in those situations only one side can legaly sue? Maybe it would be worth considering then.
In court outside of TV and massive judgments that make the news there is few winners in big cases. There is just losers and bigger losers. Especialy in lengthy cases.
You could win $10,000 and still have legal bills totaling several times as much, nevermind the loss of time and energy, while the criminal already sitting in prison is losing no time coming to court to fight it.
The court system can be used to punish people. If you don't mind losing some to make someone else lose more that is fine, but expecting to actualy win more than you spend is excessively hopeful. Especialy if the person you are suing is a criminal with few personal assets, who is going to be in prison for some time earning no wages, and when he gets out likely won't make enough to pay you back before inflation has cut any settlement into a mere fraction of the value if they ever do. Even being awarded a judgement is only the first step towards actualy receiving the money. It can take years to collect, if you ever even do from a career criminal that spends much of thier life in and out of prison not working.
You on the other hand as a productive member of society probably have a lot more in assets to lose in a countersuit and certainly a larger income than the $0 the criminal in prison will be earning in prison, and will be expected and legaly forced to pay it in a reasonable amount of time.
Personaly I would not sue unless I sustained significant financial loss. Civil court is very different from criminal court and a "preponderance of the evidence" far easier to arrive at than "beyond a reasonable doubt". You could be justified in shooting them, but find yourself still losing in a counter suit over medical bills or some other claim regarding thier own financial loss from the situation. Losses they really did clearly incur with the only question being whether you are responsible.
Some courts could even declare that while the criminal was 90% responsible for the incident, you were 10% responsible and therefor 10% of the financial burden (of possibly hundreds of thousands in medical bills) is on you. Judges and jury members are individuals and there is some with very different views.
Even if you have an 80% chance of not losing in a counter suit, is a 20% chance of losing tens or hundreds of thousands from the counter suit worth gaining a few thousand from your minimal losses?
Now if they sue you, then feel free to counter sue them for losses. Otherwise let it go.
There is some states on the other hand that forbid the criminal from suing under statute for losses sustained during a crime. I guess in those situations only one side can legaly sue? Maybe it would be worth considering then.
Clearly someone lucky enough to have limited experience with the court system.Might as well put the tort system to some good use, if you ever get the chance then go for it.
In court outside of TV and massive judgments that make the news there is few winners in big cases. There is just losers and bigger losers. Especialy in lengthy cases.
You could win $10,000 and still have legal bills totaling several times as much, nevermind the loss of time and energy, while the criminal already sitting in prison is losing no time coming to court to fight it.
The court system can be used to punish people. If you don't mind losing some to make someone else lose more that is fine, but expecting to actualy win more than you spend is excessively hopeful. Especialy if the person you are suing is a criminal with few personal assets, who is going to be in prison for some time earning no wages, and when he gets out likely won't make enough to pay you back before inflation has cut any settlement into a mere fraction of the value if they ever do. Even being awarded a judgement is only the first step towards actualy receiving the money. It can take years to collect, if you ever even do from a career criminal that spends much of thier life in and out of prison not working.
You on the other hand as a productive member of society probably have a lot more in assets to lose in a countersuit and certainly a larger income than the $0 the criminal in prison will be earning in prison, and will be expected and legaly forced to pay it in a reasonable amount of time.
Last edited:
leadcounsel
member
Well, I would imagine that generally the reason you would shoot someone would be because they are destitute (poor), ex-cons, druggies, etc. basically with little or no money - hence that's why they are robbing you with a weapon, breaking into your house, etc.
Assuming that 1) they lived and 2) they have any assets to begin with, I see no reason for not sueing them on the basis of intentional infliction of emotional distress, damages to your property as proximate cause of their actions and the natural response that it elicits (you shoot them in self defense and they bled on your floor, or the damage they caused to your home, car, whatever...).
Whether you would win or not depends on the facts, jurisdiction, judge, etc.
Assuming that 1) they lived and 2) they have any assets to begin with, I see no reason for not sueing them on the basis of intentional infliction of emotional distress, damages to your property as proximate cause of their actions and the natural response that it elicits (you shoot them in self defense and they bled on your floor, or the damage they caused to your home, car, whatever...).
Whether you would win or not depends on the facts, jurisdiction, judge, etc.
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 81
- Views
- 3K