If you shoot a BG in your home, what are the civil consequences?

[Min]

Suppose you are acquitted by a grand jury of all wrongdoing because it was deemed a justifiable shooting. So, no charges pressed.

But what are the civil consequences? Are you still susceptible to being sued by the perpetrator's family for either killing or maiming him?

And if you are, what are your chances of winning this civil suit? (Or will this case likely be thrown out of court for being a frivolous lawsuit).

 

[Reno]

They can still sue you. However, you can file a countersuit and hope that'll scare them off.

edit: of course, local laws can and will vary

 

[Werewolf]

In Oklahoma a good shoot in your home is immune from civil liability. This is not true of a good shoot outside the home.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Too many variables for a definitive answer. Depends on where you live, who you are, who the BG was, who the DA is, what the political climate is due to recent events, etc., et yada.

 

[Josey]

Several years ago there was a bunch of B&Es of businesses in my area. Some business owners decided to sleep in their stores. One night a burglar broke in and was shot by the store owner. The store owner was indicted. Castle doctrine did not apply. The BGs survivors sued the store owner also. The store owner had a great attorney that got the store owner acquited. The store was insured. The insurance company bailed. The store owner hired a second lawyer to represent him in the civil trial. The store owner won. That sounds good, right? The store owner had to sell his assets, right down to his hunting and fishing gear, ATVs and boat as well as his home and store to pay off the lawyers. Winning isn't everything.

 

[Roadkill Coyote]

In Oklahoma a good shoot in your home is immune from civil liability. This is not true of a good shoot outside the home.

Likewise Colorado, where our statute was styled after Oklahoma's

 

[Standing Wolf]

One of the reasons I live in Colorado is that the criminals' relatives' assault lawyers are held at bay by law—and deservedly so.

 

[Kenneth Lew]

If you live in Texas and the only asset you have is your home and you don't plan to move. Tell them, "Go ahead and sue me, you will get nothing!"

If you own other assets (real property), be prepared to get sued for the rest of your life and the possibilty of loosing it all to lawyers/plantiffs.

 

[Tharg]

Gawd i just don't understand why that crap doesn't get thrown out of court w/o even looking at it twice....

BG breaks into your home, uninvited, unknown, and w/ unknown intent...

you wack him

family comes and tries to sue you for wrongful death/maiming/use-of-force of said BG - wrongfull???!?!?!? if the BG didn't decide that MY house was a good place to be where he/she wasn't wanted and he/she didn't belong it wouldn't have been an issue now would it?!??!

your precious son/daughter was a criminal - one you prolly kicked out/ostrasized/didn't care about. that is untill some lawyer said to ya - we can make some cash here..... for you AND me.

Just makes no sense. Don't understand how any judge in his right mind shouldn't be able to toss the case into the shredder and say "give me a break" Long before a trail came and rendered a lawful citizen who wasn't breaking any laws broke trying to not be decided against and made a criminal for protecting his home/person against someone who didn't care enough about his victims freedoms/liberties/life/property in the first place.

J/Tharg!

 

[Werewolf]

In the same vein I don't understand why the good guy doesn't turn around and countersue the BG's family when they do. Stuff like pain and suffering, emotional trauma caused by having to shoot the scumbag and by their failure as parents to properly raise their child, etc.

Or better yet head 'em off at the pass and sue the scumbag's family before they even get a chance.

I know there are some very creative lawyers out there who could come up with a theory of the case that would fly.

 

[standingbear]

tharg...seems to be the climate these days..money money money.I agree 100 percent..too bad the victims have to lose everything to save their own skins from prison..even after they were robbed at gunpoint.sometimes,it seems the idiot that broke intro the house has more rights than the victims that were traumatized.

they first show the homeowner talking with police then it shows the burglars next of kin sobbing and pleading that he was a troubled kid but never hurt nobody..yada yadda yada.why why why.A long rap sheet seems to disappear from the publics eye,the surviving accomplice sues for injuries sustained in a fall down the steps....the sad thing is ..he may win.

its all about money..the burglars are worthless...forgotten until they become a cash cow for some attorney.so now some homeowners gotta worry about defending themselves in court after defending themselves in their own home..

if someone has broken into my place,the last thing Im going to be thinking about is going to jail for defending my family and myself from whatever..

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Too many variables for a definitive answer. Depends on where you live, who you are, who the BG was, who the DA is, what the political climate is due to recent events, etc., et yada.

The DA has nothing to do with a civil trial, and that what the question in this thread is about.

As far as suing the family of the dead criminal, what will you gain by doing that? Nothing, because they are very unlikely to have any money. All you will get is a nice big bill from your own attorney.

 

[4v50 Gary]

The only real winners are the attorneys.

This doesn't mean there isn't a solution. Put your real property into a living trust. Do the same for the vast majority of your chattel (personal property and financial assets). When the opposing side's attorney prys into your financial standing and finds nothing, (s)he'll probably drop the case (workload of other excuse) because there's no $ in it.

We need tort reform really bad.

 

[M2 Carbine]

"If you shoot a BG in your home, what are the civil consequences?"


Nothing if I dump his sorry butt in the river.

If I'm going to lose everything to some common law piece of trash wife and low life lawyer , may as well take the chance.

 

[Mr. Kook]

Humorous, completely ironic response:

Break into home of family of said victim, get shot (possibly killed, but probably just injured), and sue for pain, suffering, etc.

 

[Spinner]

OK, New Zealand may be backward in its gun laws, etc and you are probably not going to be aquitted for a shooting here (the use of a firearm for HD is strictly forbidden .... however, you're allowed to shoot a roaming dog that's threatening your stock ) but at least you're not going to be sued by a criminal's family.

We have a limited number of civil suits ... we're nowhere near as litigious a society as the USA. We can't sue for medical malpractice for instance, but the victim of malpractice can apply to the Accident Compensation Commission for financial assistance. ACC also covers accidents that result in time off work, sports injuries, motor vehicle accidents, permanent disability, etc.

Our ACC process underwent an upheaval after a convicted felon fell from a high stone wall in the process of attempting to escape from prison. He broke his leg, claimed and received ACC payments in compensation for pain and suffering. In the wake of the review ACC is not available for anybody who is injured or killed in the process of commtting a crime.

Any burglar injured or killed while conducting a burglary is not elligible for ACC ..... and their families can't sue either. So, here you are safe from civil lawsuits resulting from the death, injury or disability of a criminal .... you just have to try and justify the use of a firearm to protect yourself and your home.

Spinner

 

[GSB]

I once read a story where a car thief successfully sued the owner of a car he stole because it had faulty brakes and the thief was injured. We need some reform here.

 

[R.H. Lee]

The DA has nothing to do with a civil trial, and that what the question in this thread is about.

Oops, sorry. My bad. I did not read and comprehend before responding.

 

[keyhole]

"I once read a story where a car thief successfully sued the owner of a car he stole because it had faulty brakes and the thief was injured. We need some reform here."


Heck, we need a MAJOR overhaul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Been watching the system from my point, LEO, and know that it needs major work. As for shooting BG's, depends on the locale. I know of one shooting around here, where the GG, shot the BG as he was on the way out the door. GG won in court. Rare.

 

[ysr_racer]

Legal advise you get on the internet is worth exactly what you paid for it, NOTHING.

 

[DMK]

IMO, if you get injured while commiting a crime, you and your kin should lose all rights to press any civil or criminal charges.

Two kids broke into my school when I was younger and injured themselves doing so. Their parents successfully sued the school. How does this insanity happen?

:banghead:

 

[goalie]

Minnesota thankfully has a law restricting civil suits in the case of a self-defense shooting. One of the few good things about Minnesota's deadly force laws, as we have no castle doctrine, and we do have a duty to retreat.