Would you donate money for legal defense of self-defense shooter?

[DHJenkins]

So some people would rather donate to an attorney who charges full price?

Donations + pro-gun legal counsel at a substantial discount = good for everyone

 

[Bill_Rights]

Organized, national legal defense?

Further to my (OP) posting late yesterday, the NRA does have such a legal defense fund: The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund. Understandably, their Trustees, who decide which cases to fund, favor cases having nation-wide impact on 2A and broad gun rights legislative initiative and court precedent. A little more high-falutin' than I had in mind, but OK...

Someone should cantact the NRA CRDF and ask if they could serve as a "clearing house" for the collection and disbursement of funds targeted toward a specific, grass-roots case that we would/might contribute towards. This would be "ear-marking" of funds in a good way, eh?

 

[mljdeckard]

To....whomever it was that asked,

The reason I would be more likely to support a local effort is quite frankly the ability to verify legitimacy. I mean, I really like some of you guys, the rest of you I am completely neutral about, but if you're 'just some guy on the internet' asking for money, I'm very wary about sending money at all. I had a bad taste in my mouth after watching the 9-11 money get thrown around like the ball at a Globetrotters game.

Also, if there was someone who was involved in a legitimate shooting being prosecuted locally, I would feel bad if all I could do was send them $20 and hope for the best. I would contact the defense and see if there was any way I could help with the investigation, research, or activism for the case.

 

[Bill_Rights]

chris in va said:

It just appalls me people would have the nerve to sue someone defending themselves against an armed attacker. Sick.

Of course, we all feel the same way. However, I did not ask idly about the civil suit.
- While almost no family I know would be this way, some families would be vindictive and opportunistic, seeking to profit from their shot family member's "misfortune", even though he/she was a creep and they knew it. Fact of life.
- Smelling blood, some "slip-and-fall" lawyers will take such cases for "free", for a (huge) cut of the $ if they win a judgement/settlement.
- These civil suits happen way more than they should. Books to help out armed citizens (Massad Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme" and Chris Bird's "The Concealed Handgun Manual" and others) document enough cases to assure me that this is far, far from rare.
- Finally, most insidious of all, I think, anti-gun groups have been known to (usually secretly) fund lawyers to represent plaintifs in civil suits. The purpose would be to besmirch gun owners and scare people from carrying or defending themselves. In a related matter, politicians, elected District Attorneys and so forth may bring unmerited criminal charges for political or electoral gain. [NOTE: I don't have documentation for either of these latter two practices, so I'll try to find some. HOWEVER, a number of you have said you'd help in non-monetary ways - the criminal phase prosecuted by government would be a great place to get local action going and put pressure upon local officials to drop the charges! Money would also be useful, though, to pay for lawyer fees (and expert witnesses, etc.) for the defense of the criminal prosecution. Even if the case eventually gets dropped, there will be legal expenses up to that point.]

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Bill Rights: "Of course, we all feel the same way."

Not me. One man's home invader is another man's confused drunk daughter trying to escape a predator at a frat party. One man's heroic homesteader is another man's gun-happy mall ninja. I've seen both sides of these stories. If my daughter got drunk at a party, narrowly escaped a date rapist, fled into a neighbor's yard, was pursued and entered the storm cellar only to be met with a thirty round fusilade of 7.62x39 delivered by Gecko45 as he screams "Castle Doctrine!" and ejaculates into his jockey shorts, you BET YOUR BEHIND I'd sue him.

 

[Bill_Rights]

Duke,

Ok, point made.

You further reinforced my premise, that it is possible for a shooter to be good with the law and still get sued.

Wait. I mispoke. Anybody can sue anybody else anytime for any reason.

The correction you're making is to my assumption that any civil suit after a criminal acquital or dismissal, is a "bad" suit. Life can be complicated and downright unfortunate. My assumption would be wrong, sometimes.

I still think that if a civil suit threatens 2A rights, even if it has some 'human" merit or justice, the gunner who is sued should be vigorously defended (I'd help pay for it), and punative damage payments should be minimized. In public opinion, high punative damages are associated with shady or immoral activities. Gun ownership and responsible use are not either. In my book, if the situation is questionable, we ought err on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt to the shooter - 2A rights are THAT important.

 

[71Commander]

If someone is in your house who doesn't have permission, you can shoot them without fear of a civil suit, in "Stand your ground" states. You no longer have a duty to retreat. It matters not if they intended you harm or not.

Chaulk up one dead daughter.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

71Commander: "If someone is in your house who doesn't have permission, you can shoot them without fear of a civil suit, in "Stand your ground" states. You no longer have a duty to retreat. It matters not if they intended you harm or not."

Name one such state, with citation to governing statutory immunity.

You can't, because they don't exist.

If the new electric meter guy steps into the ell or storm cellar to read the meter in my house by mistake, having permission to read the meter of the house next door, I may not shout, "Gotcha!" and gun him down inside my open doorway without fear of civil suit -- in any state in the Union.

 

[JWarren]

DoD wrote:

Name one such state, with citation to governing statutory immunity.

You can't, because they don't exist.

Wrong:

See Mississippi Statute 97-3-15

A person using deadly force in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1)(e) or (1)(f) shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force and shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of force. The presumptions contained in subsection (1)(e) and (1)(f) shall apply in civil cases in which self-defense is claimed as a defense.

EDIT: I do need to mention this...


DoD wrote:

If my daughter got drunk at a party, narrowly escaped a date rapist, fled into a neighbor's yard, was pursued and entered the storm cellar only to be met with a thirty round fusilade of 7.62x39 delivered by Gecko45 as he screams "Castle Doctrine!" and ejaculates into his jockey shorts, you BET YOUR BEHIND I'd sue him.

Nice little imaginary scenerio. I love the way you characterize your fellow gun owners.

I'm going to sound heartless for a moment, but I think it bears mentioning. Of course, we probably shouldn't let a few facts get in the way of an emotional plea.

This mentality is exactly what is wrong with this country: Lack of personal responsibilty and some convaluted belief that bad things NEVER happen from your OWN choices and consequences.

Let's see... your scenerio...

1.) Girl goes to party and gets drunk.
2.) Girl doesn't go with escorts-- whether girlfriends or guy friends.
3.) Girl meets happy rapist and gets herself in private situation with him.

Now...

She ends up INSIDE my house in the middle of the night. I wake up and am groggy responding to what I rightfully am concerned about.

I see someone in my house. In a perfect world, I'd get an idea of what is going on prior to taking any actions. All ends well.

Or, it could just as easily be an armed intruder who will react IMMEDIATELY and shoot me the instant he sees me. And then I am dead because I needed to find out if the armed intruder was in fact DoD's drunk soriety girl daughter.


Whether you like it or not, we have a case of breaking-and-entering. I'd REALLY love to know where you get your Eye of Providence. Maybe we can get up a group-buy.


I find it interesting that you completely ignore the series of mis-steps of personal choices that lead up to that situation and only focus on the tragic climax-- and pretend that the homeowner responding to a situation INSIDE his home is somehow completely responsible for the entire series of events.

Here's a newsflash that it seems that many forget:

Bad things happen. They happen with greater frequency when you make bad choices.



-- John

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Mississippi Statutes 97-3-15 reads in pertinent part, (subsections e and f referenced in your excerpt):

"(e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be;

(f) When committed in the lawful defense of one's own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;"

Neither (e) nor (f) apply to the hypothetical I described. The drunken girl is not making an attempt to commit any felony on Gecko45, nor is she in imminent danger of accomplishing a designed felony. Although I am not admitted in Mississippi, I do not read the statute you cite or its crosscites to grant immunity in the situation I described, nor would it be a bar to suit even if its presumptions applied.

I'm the biggest gun nut I know, but I cringe whenever someone says the phrase "castle doctrine." There is no such general doctrine, only a series of statutes and court precedent varying among the states. Even in such states, one legally may not lie in ambush for the first trespasser to cross their threshhold no matter the circumstances, gun them down, and avoid civil suit.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

JWarren: "Whether you like it or not, we have a case of breaking-and-entering."

Probably not. Again, I'm not admitted in Mississippi, but in Maine where I practice, the drunken sorority girl would not be guilty of burglary or of any other felony. She would be guilty of misdemeanor criminal trespass, except that she has the excuses of necessity and competing harms. She is not guilty of burglary at any event, as she did not enter the premises with the intent to commit a crime. Again, Mississippi law very well may vary. But incidental trespass is not a felony (or burglary) in any state I've lived or practiced.

 

[JWarren]

DoD,

Your analysis presumes that the homeowner knows what is going on in the mind of a person who has broken into his home.

That will not true-bill in grand-jury and therefore DOES give immunity from civil liability in the case where the homeowner has reason to believe that there is a threat.

Breaking-and-Entering certainly qualifies for that belief there is a threat.

Only in the case where this would true-bill and have a criminal conviction would there be an opening for a civil suit.

I don't know how you could read that any other way. There has been a great deal of discussion of this within our state, and a couple months ago, there was an in-depth article written that examined this in our MS Farm Bulletin.

If I can find the article, I can send you a copy if you'd like it.


DoD wrote:

Even in such states, one legally may not lie in ambush for the first trespasser to cross their threshhold no matter the circumstances, gun them down, and avoid civil suit.

No one has presented any scenerio of anyone "lying in wait' to "ambush" anyone. Your scenerio was a person who has broken into your home-- for whatever reason.


-- John

 

[JWarren]

Dod wrote:

JWarren: "Whether you like it or not, we have a case of breaking-and-entering."

Probably not. Again, I'm not admitted in Mississippi, but in Maine where I practice, the drunken sorority girl would not be guilty of burglary or of any other felony. She would be guilty of misdemeanor criminal trespass, except that she has the excuses of necessity and competing harms. She is not guilty of burglary at any event, as she did not enter the premises with the intent to commit a crime. Again, Mississippi law very well may vary. But incidental trespass is not a felony (or burglary) in any state I've lived or practiced.

Regardless of what potential crime the girl could be charged with (which isn't the issue), the condition of standing INSIDE your residence in the middle of the night for whatever reason HAS created the reasonable belief within the homeowner that a response would be justified. That will not true-bill and you know it. The lack of a True-Bill and conviction means that it was justifiable and therefore DOES fall within the exemption from civil liablity.

It would be a tragedy, but not one where the homeowner is criminally, civilly, or morally guilty.

-- John

 

[chuckusaret]

I am glad I live in Florida, we have the Castle Law that gives me the right to self protection.

http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

 

[Duke of Doubt]

JWarren: "Your analysis presumes that the homeowner knows what is going on in the mind of a person who has broken into his home."

No; normally (again, in my state) a break in (actually in this case, unlawful entry, as nothing was broken) creates certain presumptions. Proving burglary in Maine (intent to commit a crime is a necessary element) does not require getting inside the trespasser's head. Intent may be inferred under the circumstances. But not reasonably inferred under the circumstances of my hypothetical. Probably Gecko45 would avoid criminal prosecution or conviction. But I don't think (again, as a non-MS atty) the immunities and presumptions you cite would immunize him from civil suit -- in the hypothetical I describe (yes, it's an "imaginary scenario" -- as with most of the hypotheticals I and others use, it's realistic and based on some real events, greatly simplified and somewhat modified to eliminate unnecessary and confusing detail and to raise the relevant legal issues).

"That will not true-bill in grand-jury and therefore DOES give immunity from civil liability in the case where the homeowner has reason to believe that there is a threat."

But not a reasonable belief sufficient to raise the presumption, in my amateur opinion. Even if so, this doesn't keep him from being served in civil court and being required in a series of motions to prove the immunity applies. A presumption of immunity is not a bar to suit.

"Breaking-and-Entering certainly qualifies for that belief there is a threat.
Only in the case where this would true-bill and have a criminal conviction would there be an opening for a civil suit."

I don't get that from the authorities you cite, at all.

"I don't know how you could read that any other way. There has been a great deal of discussion of this within our state, and a couple months ago, there was an in-depth article written that examined this in our MS Farm Bulletin. If I can find the article, I can send you a copy if you'd like it. "

I honestly would appreciate that, because if I am mistaken and one may indeed escape civil suit in the hypothetical scenario I described in Mississippi, I would be seriously troubled and would avoid traveling in Mississippi. One flat tire on a dark and stormy night, one knock at the wrong open door, and I'd be toast with no remedy for my family -- no thanks.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

chuckusaret: "I am glad I live in Florida, we have the Castle Law that gives me the right to self protection."

The article to which you link contains only the following general reference to civil liability: "It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them."

I don't have a problem with that, as it would appear to mimic the MS statute cited by JWarren -- if you reasonably defend yourself from an attack in your home, you enjoy certain presumptions of immunity from civil suit. Such most assuredly would not bar suit in all cases of asserted "home defense" -- which is precisely what most fans of "castle doctrine" seem to think such a doctrine accomplishes.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

JWarren: "Regardless of what potential crime the girl could be charged with (which isn't the issue) ..."

Ah, but it's precisely the issue. MS 97-3-15, which you cite, requires as a condition precedent that the intruder be committing or in imminent danger of committing a felony. The only felony remotely applicable would be burglary -- difficult in some cases to prove, as I can attest, and not at all applicable to the hypothetical I presented. No burgary, no felony. No felony, no presumption of homeowner immunity.

"... the condition of standing INSIDE your residence in the middle of the night for whatever reason HAS created the reasonable belief within the homeowner that a response would be justified. That will not true-bill and you know it."

And so Gecko45 may indeed escape criminal prosecution or conviction. But the civil immunity requirements you cited yourself are quite different.

"The lack of a True-Bill and conviction means that it was justifiable and therefore DOES fall within the exemption from civil liablity."

Not according, it would appear to this non-MS atty, to MS 97-3-15.

 

[Bill_Rights]

Oh cool! I am learning a lot from the two lawyers duking it out, so to speak! (Yes, lame pun intended). Or, I will learn when I have time to read it closely.

As OP, I think the legal aspect being debated is a bit off topic, but still valuable for those of us legal-laymen who voted blindly. It is valuable because it shows the complexity of cases one might well be donating toward if asked according to my OP scenario.

All the more reason we need to be ready to contribute to defend a not-so-wealthy shooter. There is some middle ground, even if a civil suit is allowed for a hearing. In an unfortunate case like DoD posed, there is plenty of blame on the person who got shot and ideally some responsibilty on the shooter, if not technically blame, fault, liability, etc. Even though it is very costly, it may take a civil jury decision to "split the baby" (Ref. to King Solomon in the Bible, citation upon request) best as may be done. HOWEVER, that requires top notch legal representation for the shooter, or the plaintif's attorney will "demogogue" the non-sophisticated jury into an excessive judgerment against the shooter in a field day. NOT A GOOD OUTCOME.

It would be nice to have a good way to inform prospective pro-shooter donors of the nature of the civil-case-threat and the merits of defending it. I know, however, the defendant's attorney may not want to release such information in case it compromises his defense....

 

[JWarren]

BOR wrote:

In an unfortunate case like DoD posed, there is plenty of blame on the person who got shot and ideally some responsibilty on the shooter, if not technically blame, fault, liability, etc. Even though it is very costly, it may take a civil jury decision to "split the baby" (Ref. to King Solomon in the Bible, citation upon request) best as may be done.

What is ideal about that????


I seriously hope to god you are never in a position where you have to make a split-second decision with someone in your house at 3 AM.

You may somewhat less academic with your evaluation when OTHER peoples' stupid life choices potentially cause YOU to lose everything you worked for all your life and when you are minding your own business.


Thank God I live in one of the state's that protect me from such.


-- John

 

[JWarren]

Duke,

This may be interesting reading for you...


http://www.msgovt.org/blogs/tag/castle-doctrine-law/

Senate Bill 2426, signed into law in March of this year, if someone breaks into your home, your occupied vehicle or your place of business or work environment, you may presume that he is there to do bodily harm and may therefore use any necessary force against him, including deadly force.

Mississippi’s official state website, in short-handing what Senate Bill 2426 accomplished, indicates that the bill creates a presumption of the right to use defensive force and immunity from civil liability for actions taken when a person feels threatened by an intruder to the home, place of business or employment, or occupied vehicle.

...the immunity from civil liability means that the intruder or his family cannot sue the protected individual in tort to recover from the injuries that the intruder sustained at the hands of the protected individual during the course of the intrusion.

It doesn't seem all the confusing-- except to a person who issues a challenge to:

Name one such state, with citation to governing statutory immunity.

You can't, because they don't exist.

and then it is show that (as of 2006)

Mississippi is one of 15 states with a “Castle Doctrine” law, the euphemistic term for a law that expands an individual’s right to defend himself in his residence — his “castle” — to a much broader scope of turf.

and (as of 2006):

Currently eight additional states (Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Virginia) are considering adoption of a version of the “castle doctrine” law.

I'll have to check what passed and what states adopted a civil liability immunity, but according to my math, that is potentially 23 states.

I think

You can't, because they don't exist.

has been debunked.



-- John

 

[Bill_Rights]

JW,

When I said

ideally some responsibilty [rests] on the shooter, if not technically blame, fault, liability, etc.

I was thinking of the correct and normal but awsome responsibility we gunners take on when we draw a gun on someone or pull the trigger. I was NOT referring to some sort of legal responsibility of the attacked peson for the actions of the attacker. But we have been posting enough stuff close to that that your reaction is understandable.

No, I was just thinking of the normal responsibilies we all take when we arm ourselves. (Mind you, I have recently completed my CCW/CHP training and my application is going through "the system" even now, so my head is full of this stuff.)

But before I shoot someone, even in my own house, I WILL TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY, EVEN IF NOT REQUIRED TO BY LAW, not to shoot one of my own children. Not to shoot one of their friends, who might be sleeping over without my knowledge (there IS fault in that situation, anyway). Not to shoot such a high-power round that it will penetrate the walls of my house and go into/through the walls of neighboring houses thus endangering innocent people. Responsibility to keep my finger out of the trigger guard until I begin aiming. Responsibility to dial "911", if I have time, and leave the mic open during the shooting, or have someone else I trust talk to the operator. Etc., etc.

These are the kinds of responsibilities I was speaking of when I mentioned "shooter's responsibilities".

If I am doing everything I am supposed to be doing (i.e., fulfilling my responsibilities), I have no problem shooting first and asking questions later if I get in a jam and have to make a snap decision.

If I am seriously delinquent in fulfilling any of my normal, practical, safe-arms-bearing responsibilities, then I am leaving myself open to a world of legal hurt, maybe criminal, maybe civil, even if the need for self-defense and discharge of firearms were, themselves, real and justified. Least-wise, so I have been taught to think....

 

[71Commander]

Name one such state, with citation to governing statutory immunity.

You can't, because they don't exist.

Michigan and Texas.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

JWarren, I am NOT saying there aren't statutes and court decisions upholding a homeowner's right to defend himself -- a defense to criminal charges -- and offering certain limited immunity to civil liability in certain cases of self defense. I AM saying that none of those statutes -- in any state-- confers the sort of blanket immunity which you and some other self-defense enthusiasts seem to believe they do.

The secondary sources you cite are not the law in your state -- the statute is. And the statute is loaded with all sorts of qualifying language which attorneys are used to parsing. We know what it means when "reasonably believes" shows up in the statute. That doesn't mean "reasonably" as YOU might define it under the circumstances. It means "reasonably" as civil law has established over centuries and as a jury of your peers may determine.

If you are so certain that the MS statute confers blanket immunity for shootings in one's dwelling, I propose an experiment: shoot your next trespasser, and claim immunity. Then tell us how it goes.

 

[JWarren]

DoD,

I have NEVER seen anyone on THR ever suggest "blanket" immunity.


Show me where you mentioned the word "blanket immunity" in your challenge:

Name one such state, with citation to governing statutory immunity.

You can't, because they don't exist.

What I linked later was the a legislative think-tank in our state discussing the ramifications of the law in our state. It is not without merit-- especially considering it is funded by our state. I've shown you the statute, and I showed you a think-tank group interpreting that statute. I feel rather comfortable with that.

At any rate, I am done here. I won't try to hit a moving target.


-- John

 

[JWarren]

Bill,

I understand what you are saying in your post #46. However, I reponded primarity to your mention of a civil court....

In an unfortunate case like DoD posed, there is plenty of blame on the person who got shot and ideally some responsibilty on the shooter, if not technically blame, fault, liability, etc. Even though it is very costly, it may take a civil jury decision to "split the baby" (Ref. to King Solomon in the Bible, citation upon request) best as may be done.

That suggested that both bear some of the reponsiblity in a CIVIL court (read: $$$$).

Splitting the baby in the Bible was an attempt to reveal the true mother of a child. It is NOT a method of equitable justice.


-- John