Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A law for CCW holders that should be instituted. Why is it not?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by shotgunner, Jun 19, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. shotgunner

    shotgunner member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    Messages:
    155
    Hello,
    I'm about to receive my ccw some time this year. I'm a resident of Michigan and a responsible firearm owner.

    If I have to shoot somebody, with justification of course. Whether they are killed or merely injured, they or their family can sue me for either hurting them, or killing them. Why aren't there laws that protect the law obiding citizen in situations like this?

    Here is basically what I'm talking about.
    There should be a new, federal law, that concerns the protection of CCW holders who've injured or killed somebody in self defense. This law should protect the CCW holder's property, bank accounts, and any other assets that may be taken from them in the case of a civil lawsuit that the attacker's family has initiated on behalf of their injured/deceased (scumbag in most cases) relative. Why should I have to risk losing everything that I own because I had every reason to shoot somebody in order to protect myself, family, or even a stranger in need?

    Would somebody please elaborate on this for me and possibly tell me why no such protection for responsible firearm owners exists? If the LEO agencies can't be sued for justifiable shootings then why shouldn't private citizens be protected as well?

    Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.
     
  2. davec

    davec Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    302
    Location:
    Bayonne, NJ
    Such laws exsist. Just have to move to Flordia to enjoy their protections.
     
  3. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    16,720
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    Ditto AZ.
     
  4. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    Does anyone know of cases where someone shot someone in self defense, was not charged with a crime, and then successfully sued by the criminal or criminals family?
     
  5. Stickjockey

    Stickjockey Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Messages:
    1,902
    Location:
    Happy Valley, Oregon
    I think the problem doesn't even go that far. In these litigious times, just defending yourself against the suit can be enough to ruin someone financially. Something along the lines of, "If no charges are filed, no suit can be brought" would go a long way towards alleviating this.
     
  6. DJJ

    DJJ Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    Messages:
    461
    Location:
    NM
    But then, vindictive, activist prosecutors might just charge you, even if they know they have no chance of convicting you, just to make sure you get screwed over.
     
  7. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    Not around here. Self defense protects you from civil suits.
     
  8. Technosavant

    Technosavant Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,011
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    Although this is a concern (call your insurance agent, State Farm's liability rider on a renter's or homeowner's policy covers this), I have not yet heard of an instance of such a civil suit. Although it might happen (still, haven't heard of a specific example), I do wonder just how much of a true threat this is.
     
  9. WT

    WT Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,985
    Bernie Goetz.
     
  10. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    What was the outcome of the Bernie Goetz trial?
     
  11. Johnnybgood

    Johnnybgood Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2005
    Messages:
    206
    I have heard of suits being brought

    against someone who legally defended themselves. From what I have heard they have to go through what I want to call a "findings" court. When it is found out at that time that the shooting was justified, the judge dismisses all charges. Unfortunatley you have probably already put out thousands of dollars for your lawyer and court fees. And of course when you try to get these moneys back in a suit, the family of the perp, don't have any money. They were looking to get some from you, so your stuck with two lawyers bill. :banghead:
     
  12. WT

    WT Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,985
    After shooting 4 bad guys, Bernie Goetz was found guilty of illegal possession of a weapon.

    In civil court he was later sued for $42,000,000. Bernie lost.
     
  13. goalie

    goalie Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,168
    Location:
    Minnetonka, Minnesota
    If the shoot is good in Minnesota, you cannot be sued in civil court. One of the few firearms related laws here that is squared-away.
     
  14. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    In florida, if they sue and lose, they lose all of their perks in prison. This makes it generally not worthwhile for crackheads to try suing people who shoot them.

    Once a judge has made a finding that you acted in self defense or the other party is found to have been committing a felony, everything moves super fast since that is the basic decider of whether any cases can go forward from a particular shooting.

    This year they further changed the law so that those findings are even less contestable than before. Anyone in a home is presumed to have violent felonious intent and anytime you engage in a shooting outside the home, you are assumed to have taken sufficient pains to retreat before using deadly force.
     
  15. Sergeant Sabre

    Sergeant Sabre Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,202
    Location:
    Michigan
    In Michigan they can't.
     
  16. jefnvk

    jefnvk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,938
    Location:
    The Copper Country, Michigan
    I see the problem right there. Stop absurd lawsuits. I cannot see how a $42 million lawsuit agains an individual should even be allowed, unless the guy is a billionaire, or the guy he killed was.

    Why isn't something like this covered under cruel and unusual punishment?
     
  17. wdlsguy

    wdlsguy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,880
    Location:
    TX
    Even if the shoot is good in Texas, you can be sued in civil court:

    Texas Penal Code § 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.
     
  18. jefnvk

    jefnvk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,938
    Location:
    The Copper Country, Michigan
    Another thing I forgot to mention. Why limit it to CCW holders, why not to any self-defense shooting? Or even to other self-defense methods, such as baseball bats and knives? Make it so that if you were justified in using force, no lawsuit can be brought.
     
  19. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Nope. Sorry. I don't want the federal government within five miles of our Second Amendment civil rights.

    You can always move to a state that respects the rights of crime victims. Once the federal government gets involved, there's nowhere else left to move to get away from bad laws—and federal law is almost invariably bad law.

    You need to change your state laws.
     
  20. another okie

    another okie Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,850
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    In every state self-defense is a valid defense to any civil or criminal action. That's the common law, which means the legal traditions of hundreds of years of British and American courts deciding such questions.

    The problem is how to determine who is acting in legitimate self-defense.

    The way we determine these things in America is through the courts.
    What's the alternative?

    Laws such as the Florida are just reminders to prosecutors and injured criminals. The charges or lawsuits can still be filed.

    That's the nature of a free society. We have to have some way to determine who's in the right in a shooting. It's unfortunate that sometimes that means good folks have to spend a lot of money on lawyers, but how else are we as a society supposed to determine whether a shooting is good or bad? By social class or race? By possession of a CCW?
     
  21. stangboy555

    stangboy555 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    11
    Not until Oct 1. I really like the text though. Line 24-28 states that if someone sues you and it's found that you did use the force justifiably, then the court pays you back for all attorney fees, lost wages and any other expenses occured due to being sued for a justifiable shooting... Here's a link to the text.

    http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2005/Senate/bills/amendments_Com/pdf/sb0436am191782.pdf

    776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil
    11 action for justifiable use of force.--
    12 (1) A person who uses force as described in s.
    13 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such
    14 force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action
    15 for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the
    16 term "criminal prosecution" includes wrongfully arresting,
    17 detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the
    18 defendant.
    19 (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard
    20 procedures for investigating the use of force as described in
    21 subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for
    22 using force unless it determines that there is clear and
    23 convincing evidence that the force that was used was unlawful.
    24 (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees,
    25 court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses
    26 incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action
    27 brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant
    28 is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

    29 Section 5. This act shall take effect October 1, 2005.
     
  22. BostonGeorge

    BostonGeorge Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    145
    Location:
    Salem, NH
    "The court shall award" doesn't mean the state's going to pay you. It means that they will issue ajudgement against the plaintif, and if they're broke, you're more or less SOL.
     
  23. NC Shooter

    NC Shooter Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    121
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    Come on guys, don't you know that the guy trying to rob you is only doing it to get tuition money for medical school so he can better himself?

    At least that's what the family of the "victim" is going to say...
     
  24. jobu07

    jobu07 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,980
    Location:
    Pike County, PA
    I think you'd be creating a suspect class of citizens then. That's not something we want to do. Remember that whole "all men created equal" thing...
     
  25. Harve Curry

    Harve Curry Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,756
    Location:
    Black Range of New Mexico
    A law for CCW holders that should be instituted. Why is it not?

    First of all you don't need a CCW (a paid for permit that expires and has restrictions set by the state so you can feel like your exercising your 2nd Amendment Rights) to legitamize defending yourself. Think...............
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page