Thoughts on Self-Defense Shootings

The incident with the senior citizen shooting the two thugs in Florida brought several things to my mind:

1. In a situation like his, what is the likelihood of a civil suit being filed against him by either the perp he shot or one of the other customers? I'm not familiar with Florida law, but I am pretty sure Alabama law would preclude the perp filing a civil suit. My basis for asking about the possibility of another customer suing is someone deciding that their hearing and/or emotional state was disturbed by the event.

2. We've all read stories of justified shoots in other states where the LAC got raked over the legal coals by the local prosecutor. The thought occurs to me that this is one of the tactics to make the individual citizen more dependent upon the government. Which leads to #3.

3. If citizens can be discouraged from providing for their own defense, this provides an excuse for even bigger government, more taxes, and less freedom. It also provides a rationale for removing firearms from private ownership, "You don't need this to defend yourself. We now have enough police to defend you without you taking matters into your own hands."

Am I just a fuzzy-thinking old man or does anyone else think these thoughts have any merit?

SFCRetired said:

The incident with the senior citizen shooting the two thugs in Florida brought several things to my mind:

1. In a situation like his, what is the likelihood of a civil suit being filed against him by either the perp he shot or one of the other customers? I'm not familiar with Florida law, but I am pretty sure Alabama law would preclude the perp filing a civil suit. My basis for asking about the possibility of another customer suing is someone deciding that their hearing and/or emotional state was disturbed by the event.

Click to expand...

Apparently, in Washington State, even if you shoot a person in self-defense, you can be sued. I was told, post shooting, that I will likely find myself being sued by the man I had shot. It has been a number of years, and not a peep. I don't see an attorney taking on a fight like that unless they have money in their pocket, first...lots of money.-

2. We've all read stories of justified shoots in other states where the LAC got raked over the legal coals by the local prosecutor. The thought occurs to me that this is one of the tactics to make the individual citizen more dependent upon the government. Which leads to #3.

Click to expand...

Have you ever reade about a justified shoot coming back as a win in civil court by the perp who was shot? I haven't reade anything. Yea, there are things here, and there regarding freak occurrences, but those are rare enough to still shoot to defend yourself. Then again, would you rather lose your life, or lose your fancy house or fancy car?

3. If citizens can be discouraged from providing for their own defense, this provides an excuse for even bigger government, more taxes, and less freedom. It also provides a rationale for removing firearms from private ownership, "You don't need this to defend yourself. We now have enough police to defend you without you taking matters into your own hands."

Click to expand...

Republicans are the ones who don't want there to be public defenders for individuals charged with crimes. There will never be enough police to warrant no longer needing to defend your life.

Am I just a fuzzy-thinking old man or does anyone else think these thoughts have any merit?

Click to expand...

Nice thoughts.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Have you ever reade about a justified shoot coming back as a win in civil court by the perp who was shot?

Click to expand...

I would think the best examples of these are when cops shoot suspects. They are cleared by their administrative charges and criminal charges but are then found at fault by a civil court.

I think that there are many examples.

But also consider that a trial generally will cost between $40K-$100K in a civil trial, take 2-6 yrs and generally be a headache for a long time to a defendant.

I imagine that there is insurance to cover such circumstances. Its a good aspect to examine, I'll start a new thread for this inquiry.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...rance-for-legal-issues-involved-with-carrying

Justification as an absolute defense, when. 563.074. 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 563.016, a person who uses force as described in sections 563.031, 563.041, 563.046, 563.051, 563.056, and 563.061 is justified in using such force and such fact shall be an absolute defense to criminal prosecution or civil liability.
2. The court shall award attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant has an absolute defense as provided in subsection 1 of this section.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c563.htm

Click to expand...

I think a cop would enjoy the same protections as a citizen except that a cop likely has 'city/union' paid insurance, unlike a citizen, to cover the costs of a civil defense. The other states may be different.

OC for ME said:

I think a cop would enjoy the same protections as a citizen except that a cop likely has 'city/union' paid insurance, unlike a citizen, to cover the costs of a civil defense. The other states may be different.

Click to expand...

Most states have laws where the cop would be liable for the costs (42 USC 1983 case) until a verdict is decided; then the town or state decides if they want to cover these costs. If union contracts cover the cop's out of pocket expenses are likely contact to contract specific for the time period of the case being active.