State Law & Mindset

[kierkegaard]

For those who have lived in multiple states, how has your perspective on the use of lethal force changed as a result of the different states laws?

Arizona frees you of certain civil liabilities if you have defended yourself from someone committing a criminal offense (rough paraphrase of the statute). Massachusetts does not, to my knowledge, offer this protection. This worries me a bit… and pretty much affects my mindset for using any force in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Any similar experiences?

--kkg

 

[M2 Carbine]

The Texas laws governing the use of deadly force are pretty broad.
Deadly force can be used, not only for personal protection but to protect a third person (stranger), your property and a neighbor's property.

We also have the "Castle Doctrine" that protects you legally and civilly in a "good" shooting.


Years ago I turned down a good job in Illinois and Maryland because of their anti-gun laws.

 

[Jeff White]

No law frees anyone from civil liability. All those laws do is give your attorney grounds to have a suit filed against you dismissed. If the plaintiff's attorney can convince the judge that there are issues that are so serious ( for example, outrageous and reckless conduct on your part, above and beyond what the legislature intended to indemnify the public against) the judge can allow the suit to proceed.

My response to a deadly force situation would be the same here in Illinois where we have such protection, as it would be in Massachusetts where there is no so called protection against a civil suit.

My response would be within the law and hopefully what a disinterested person would consider a reasonable response had that person known what I knew at the time I used deadly force. Wouldn't matter where I was at. Mindset doesn't change.

Jeff

 

[M2 Carbine]

No law frees anyone from civil liability. All those laws do is give your attorney grounds to have a suit filed against you dismissed. If the plaintiff's attorney can convince the judge that there are issues that are so serious ( for example, outrageous and reckless conduct on your part, above and beyond what the legislature intended to indemnify the public against) the judge can allow the suit to proceed.

I said a "good shooting".
If there was "outrageous and reckless conduct on your part" it would not be a "good shooting" and would most likely not have been "No Billed" by the Grand Jury.



From S.B. No. 378 (Castle Doctrine)
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

 

[Ed Ames]

I've mainly lived in California and Texas. They are quite different legally (though not as different as many guess) but my perspective is identical.

Frankly, if civil liability is what holds you back you seriously need to, well... I'll be polite and say you need to re-evaluate your priorities. What holds me back is knowledge of the consequences to the other party. That even injuries can be permanent and killing a human destroys something I cannot rebuild or replace. I don't want to cause those injuries. I don't want to destroy what cannot be rebuilt. I may need to but I surely don't want to.

That would be true whether I was in Texas or Japan, whether there was guaranteed civil liability or the promise of a big fat reward.

 

[Jeff White]

M2 Carbine said;

I said a "good shooting".
If there was "outrageous and reckless conduct on your part" it would not be a "good shooting" and would most likely not have been "No Billed" by the Grand Jury.

Your idea and the grand jury's idea of of what constitutes a "good shooting" may differ dramatically from what the civil court trial judge thinks it is.

I have personal knowledge of a wrongful death suit where a police officer who was shot several times by her assailant in a gun grab situation managed to wrest the gun back and shot and killed her attacker. The shooting was within departmental guidelines, the states attorney said it was justified and still the civil suit was allowed to proceed. It did not prevail, but it was in the courts for 3 years. The plaintiff stated the fight was was over when she regained control of her weapon and that her use of deadly force at that point was excessive. The civil court trial judge bought that argument and allowed the suit to proceed. You can never make blanket judgments about what will or won't be permitted to proceed in civil court. The rules are different there. Anyone who thinks that the civil immunity laws are complete protection is a fool.
Jeff

 

[Deleted member 53664]

My response to a deadly force situation would be the same here in Illinois where we have such protection

I thought it was a near impossibility to carry in IL. To hear that they offer protection from civil liability in a SD shoot surprises me. Can you clarify? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'd just like to know.

 

[Jeff White]

VTFatBastard said;

I thought it was a near impossibility to carry in IL.

It is impossible for a civilian to carry in Illinois. There is no concealed carry.

To hear that they offer protection from civil liability in a SD shoot surprises me.

Concealed carry is not the only possible form of self defense. You can carry a firearm on your own property of fixed place of business here. But firearms are not the only means of self defense, there are other ways to use deadly force besides a firearm.

Can you clarify?

From the Illinois Complied Statutes:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/7‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑1)
Sec. 7‑1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

Just because we have that cesspool called Chicago, doesn't mean there is no right to self defense in Illinois. We actually have better laws on the use of force in self defense then many states that have better gun laws or that permit concealed carry.

Jeff

 

[glummer]

Just playing Devils Advocate ...

The plaintiff stated the fight was was over when she regained control of her weapon and that her use of deadly force at that point was excessive. The civil court trial judge bought that argument and allowed the suit to proceed.

Was it a jury trial? IANAL, but it is my impression that questions of FACT are to be decided by the jury, in a jury trial. If the wounded officer had her gun back, then what would determine if the situation THEN met the requirements for deadly force? Might that not be a question which the judge could NOT decide, in a jury trial?
Or, put it another way, could such a scenario NEVER be excessive force? Could this case have been on the borderline, perhaps justifying a trial, to clarify the facts?

 

[Jeff White]

Might that not be a question which the judge could NOT decide, in a jury trial?
Or, put it another way, could such a scenario NEVER be excessive force? Could this case have been on the borderline, perhaps justifying a trial, to clarify the facts?

Doesn't matter to this debate. It was a good shoot. Everything from the internal investigation by the department involved to the states attorney ruled that it was a justifiable use of deadly force. IIRC, they were still fighting over the weapon when she shot and killed him. But the civil suit was allowed to proceed.

The fact remains that laws granting immunity from civil action aren't any more binding then the waiver you sign when you participate in a hazardous activity. If a plaintiff can convince the judge that there is some reason the suit should be allowed to proceed, it will proceed in civil court. Then there are the federal courts. State laws granting immunity are only valid in state court. A state can't write a law saying what the federal court can and can't do.

Everyone on the internet seems to take so much comfort in the protection they think they have against civil action in a self defense situation. But the fact is, that it's simply not true. And wanting it to be true, and posting on the internet that it's true doesn't change the fact that regardless of what the law says, a suit can still be filed against you and if a judge rules it should be allowed to proceed, regardless of the law, the suit will proceed. If you lose, the law may give you grounds for appeal. But even if you win, you're out thousands of dollars in legal fees. I honestly hope that no one who smugly posts on the internet that if it was a good suit, I can't be sued, nver finds out they are wrong the hard way.

Jeff

 

[M2 Carbine]

Your idea and the grand jury's idea of of what constitutes a "good shooting" may differ dramatically from what the civil court trial judge thinks it is.

If the Grand Jury "No Bills" you it's a "good" (legal) shooting.

With "immunity" under the recently passed Castle Doctrine I suspect the frivolous law suits are at an end.
We will see.

In any case, if I am forced to use deadly force, the last thing I'm concerned about is a civil law suit. I either need to shoot the BG or I don't.

What's a person to do? Say it's OK BG go on and kill me, I won't hurt you because I might get sued.

 

[Jeff White]

M2 Carbine said;

If the Grand Jury "No Bills" you it's a "good" (legal) shooting.

Yes, for the purposes of a criminal action. Has no bearing on civil actions. The rules of evidence and the standards of proof are much different in civil court.

With "immunity" under the recently passed Castle Doctrine I suspect the frivolous law suits are at an end.
We will see.

The qualified immunity police officers have had by statute for decades hasn't stopped them from being sued for use of force issues that were found to be legal by criminal courts (grand juries, coroner's inquests....). The courts find that qualified immunity doesn't apply in many of those cases. I don't know why you think that the courts wouldn't hold the same standard to a private citizen's use of force. In fact, I'm sure when a competent attorney is looking to sue a private citizen for excessive force or wrongful death, that he/she will cite cases where the courts have ruled that qualified immunity was denied in cases of police use of force as part of the plea for the suit to proceed.

Of course often those suits are dismissed at the appellate court level, but they are often permitted to proceed. The police officer will have his defense paid for by the government. A private citizen doesn't have that little perk. It can cost you thousands of dollars to have the frivolous suit against you dismissed.

What's a person to do? Say it's OK BG go on and kill me, I won't hurt you because I might get sued.

When has anyone who said you need to be concerned with being sued ever suggested you shouldn't defend yourself? You do need to take care not to do stupid things that may open you up to civil liability. For instance, it's probably not a good idea to tell the 911 operator you are going to "kill them" as you are are leaving the house to confront burglars on your neighbors property. It's also not too smart to post inane comments on the internet like; "I live in (Texas, Florida, whatever) and we have castle doctrine, it doesn't matter if it's my drunken neighbor standing in my foyer, if he's in my house, he's dead where he stands."

The possibility of a civil case is something everyone who contemplates the use of deadly force needs to be aware of, regardless of what the law says about being immune.

Jeff

 

[Fred Fuller]

If you don't survive Problem One, Problem Two ceases to be much of an issue...

lpl/nc

 

[308win]

Lee is right. And, if a suit is held to be frivolous, the defendant has an action to seek reimbursement of his expenses of defense including the value of loss of time and aggravation from the plaintiff and his attorney, there would undoubtedly be a reduction in the number of civil suits. And, some suits would not be filed that had merit but everything has a cost and wrongful death suits filed under the 'let's sue and see what we can get doctrine' would probably become fewer.

 

[kierkegaard]

At the risk of covering both topics in the thread again:
In no way will anyone be free from frivolous, spiteful or ill-conceived civil cases. However, civil liability is protected in states where statutes are established to do just that: protect you against torts. Enter your lawyer and the judicial system to try and ensure you are maximally protected or minimally exposed (or both), right?

That being said, statutes established to protect the individual should, at a minimum, keep you from having eroded faith in the consequences of a just act. Having lived where there were such laws (and they were certainly pointed out in most, if not all courses taken covering law and self defense) and now living where they do not exist, that certainly effects my “mindset”.

Mindset does not mean the fortitude to follow a thing through to an end. The ends are the "ends", the thought and biases and final decisions on what is acceptable is the "mindset". You can arrive at the same ends with varying mindsets… the crux of the question was the mindset.

For what its worth, I am quite sure that if I had been born and raised in Mass, my perspective on the situation would be different. A conception of wearing “belt and suspenders” is different than having worn them.

--kkg

 

[LanEvo`]

So far, I've lived in NYC, NJ, Philly, Canada, Boston, and MD/D.C. In addition, I've spent time in CA and Chicago. Every North American city I've ever lived in has absolutely SUCKED in terms of the 2A. My impression of America is that my fundamental civil liberties are worth about as much as the paper they're written on...assuming the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were written on toilet paper

EDITED TO ADD: Over the years, I have been violently assaulted twice (both times, by groups of young men). Thanks to the likes of Mitt Romney, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Rudolph Giuliani I was powerless to defend myself against street thugs.

Gun Control...keeping the streets safe for violent criminals since 1967!

 

[granuale]

I have resided in five or so states, and I can say that my perspective on use of lethal force hasn't changed one bit. The 50 state standard for justificaton (affirmative defence to homicide charges) is that you were in imminent fear of death or serious bodily harm. If you go by that standard you will be within your rights in anywhere in the U.S.A.

As for civil liability, why would you care when your life is in danger. You should'nt shoot unless your life is in danger, and if so - why would you worry about your portfolio?

I've committed myself to shoot if need be to defend my life and those that I love. I would never not do so because I was worried about civil liability. The only thing I worry about from state to state is how bad I will get burned if I get caught carrying because they don't allow it. But as always - better to be judged by 12 ....

 

[1911 guy]

State law and mindset.

I'm no lawyer, but here's my opinion. If you use the law to determine if and when to use deadly force, you're being foolish.

My mind has been made up for a very long time that I will do everything I can, within reason, to avoid shooting someone. Putting my family and myself through the legal wringer isn't worth justifying a shoot based on some damn lawyers wording of a law or statute.

I will shoot only to save the lives of myself and my immediate associates and family. Only then does the risk of the three ring circus that is our legal system become worth it.

Oh, Jeff, cops are civilians. You just picked a different vocation.

 

[JWarren]

For those who have lived in multiple states, how has your perspective on the use of lethal force changed as a result of the different states laws?

I've lived in MS, LA, TX, NYC, and FL. So far, nothing in terms of geography has been materially relevant is determining how I should respond to a threat to my life.

However, I get what the OP is trying to say.

My ability to protect myself and what provisions existed for protection of property varied and I had to comply with those laws.


-- John

 

[Jeff White]

1911 guy said;

I will shoot only to save the lives of myself and my immediate associates and family. Only then does the risk of the three ring circus that is our legal system become worth it.

Good point, I only wish more people in the gun culture had that attitude.

Oh, Jeff, cops are civilians. You just picked a different vocation.

SIGH Your assignment for today is to look civilian up in the dictionary and report back to us. It amazes me that so many people in the gun culture want to change the definition of a word that has been in common used for longer then anyone here can remember, just because.....Isn't that what the antis do?

Unfortunately, choice of vocation or not, being retired from the Army precludes me from ever being a civilian by your definition.

Jeff

 

[1911 guy]

Civilian: A person not a member of his or her countries armed forces. Used colloquially to denote law enforcement and other organizations.

Notice "used colloquially". Not a preper definition. Jeff, I'm old Navy myself, so I understand the Army service. Around here, we get every cop, medic and fireman insisting they're not civilians. They are, and we are, too. We're both out of the service and at this time in my life, I'm glad.

If you want to take the difinition way back, it was a roman lawyer. Had nothing to do with military service, in latin anyway. "A specialist in Roman law".

 

[ilbob]

If one is in a situation where one needs to use deadly force, the legal consequences are not anywhere near as important as staying alive. you can deal with them later if you are still alive. If you are not alive to deal with them, it is a moot point.

Both the criminal justice and civil justice system move very slowly, and are very expensive to deal with. Your best bet is to avoid both if you can. In the end, both of them usually get it "right", but you can't ever get that part of your life back.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

Yeah, there's absolutely no way to predict what a jury will decide.
We in the gun culture have an idea of what a jury should do in a case like that. And, the anti's have an idea of what they think a jury should or would do.

But, the jury is made up of different ratios of the different types every time. So there's no way to know.

So, I believe that the only way to have any assurances at all is to do the best job you can of being an intelligent, educated, well trained gun owner.

I've lived in multiple states and countries. I've also been a big road tripper hippie type. I always looked before I leaped with regard to the laws and always been surprised at the little differences that will get you into big trouble. State to state, and country to country, you can really get in trouble if you don't read the fine print.