Hey, I have a couple of question regarding self-defense, all for academic interest, though.
1. I know that an SD shooting is considered "justified" or "unjustified." If it's justified, is the ruling set in stone (a la double jeopardy), or can the DA change their mind and charge the shooter at a later time?
2. Which brings me to a second question. I know that some states saw that anyone who does a "good" shoot is protected from litigation. How far does this protection go? Does it merely guarantee that you'll win a civil trial, or does it mean that any lawsuits will be automatically dismissed?
2a. Assuming it's the second case: if you shoot someone in self-defense and it's ruled justified, and they try to sue you anyway, can you file a counterclaim even if the original lawsuit doesn't go through? Also, I know that some people will fire civil suits before the criminal case finishes. If someone sues you for shooting them, and you are subsequently cleared, will the lawsuit be "grandfathered" in, or will it be automatically dropped as soon as you are cleared?
3. Is it possible for the aggressor to be cleared in a shooting as well? Recently, there was a case in which a SWAT team killed a decorated Marine, Jose Guenera, in his own home. The case is very controversial; it's still under investigation although the officers appear to have been cleared (for now) because the officers saw Guenera point a gun at them. However, the consensus is that he would also have been justified if he fired and didn't know that the home invaders were police (while the police did ID themselves, there is evidence that the Marine didn't hear it, especially during the commotion).
So my question is, is it possible for both sides of a shootout to be "cleared"? The above case may be a bit clouding because the police are directly involved, but consider this case:
A robber invades a homeowner's house, and the homeowner shoots him. The robber survives, and also shoots the homeowner, claiming that he (the robber) also has a right to self-defense. What happens in this case?
Has there ever been any actual cases where both sides were given "good shoot" rulings?
1. I know that an SD shooting is considered "justified" or "unjustified." If it's justified, is the ruling set in stone (a la double jeopardy), or can the DA change their mind and charge the shooter at a later time?
2. Which brings me to a second question. I know that some states saw that anyone who does a "good" shoot is protected from litigation. How far does this protection go? Does it merely guarantee that you'll win a civil trial, or does it mean that any lawsuits will be automatically dismissed?
2a. Assuming it's the second case: if you shoot someone in self-defense and it's ruled justified, and they try to sue you anyway, can you file a counterclaim even if the original lawsuit doesn't go through? Also, I know that some people will fire civil suits before the criminal case finishes. If someone sues you for shooting them, and you are subsequently cleared, will the lawsuit be "grandfathered" in, or will it be automatically dropped as soon as you are cleared?
3. Is it possible for the aggressor to be cleared in a shooting as well? Recently, there was a case in which a SWAT team killed a decorated Marine, Jose Guenera, in his own home. The case is very controversial; it's still under investigation although the officers appear to have been cleared (for now) because the officers saw Guenera point a gun at them. However, the consensus is that he would also have been justified if he fired and didn't know that the home invaders were police (while the police did ID themselves, there is evidence that the Marine didn't hear it, especially during the commotion).
So my question is, is it possible for both sides of a shootout to be "cleared"? The above case may be a bit clouding because the police are directly involved, but consider this case:
A robber invades a homeowner's house, and the homeowner shoots him. The robber survives, and also shoots the homeowner, claiming that he (the robber) also has a right to self-defense. What happens in this case?
Has there ever been any actual cases where both sides were given "good shoot" rulings?
