skorittnig
Regular Member
It is my understanding that Aldi's is a posted " no CCW zone". Does anyone know if they are liable for anything resulting from the attempted robbery?
Don't know about their liability.
I do know that a concealed carry permit is for the carrier's self defense.
It does not equip an individual to be a vigilante in a grocery store holdup.
There was no vigilante in the case at hand, simply the lawful use of deadly force to defend life.Don't know about their liability.
I do know that a concealed carry permit is for the carrier's self defense.
It does not equip an individual to be a vigilante in a grocery store holdup.
939.48(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
I could see where he would have to pay for the windows he shot out.
Don't know about their liability.
I do know that a concealed carry permit is for the carrier's self defense.
It does not equip an individual to be a vigilante in a grocery store holdup.
P.S. I find it hard to believe that after months of you slinking back to the Polite and Friendly arms
of Torustotters.net, you would come back here to a site that stresses lawfull self defense
and accuse a Brave and Rightious law abiding family man of being a VIGILANTE!!!
Everyone has liability, whether it is posted or not. However, if posted, they lose immunity.
Please provide the verbiage for the statute, code, or case law precedent upon which you base this assertion.
Otherwise, I call "shenanigans" on this statement.
I AGREE with it in theory, but I have yet to find ANY jurisdiction that has a statute (or any case law where a court ruled in a manner) to hold private property owners liable for injury or damage due the being posted against self-defense.
175.60(21)(b): A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision.
I am curious about this clause. There was a heated debate posted here some time ago about this. It states immunity for those that choose NOT to post or prohibit but doesn't necessarily indicate they have any additional liabilities if they do post. One would ASSUME that if they are granted immunity if they don't post that means with post there is liability to be immune from but it really doesn't state such.
I started this thread with the hope that (because of Aldi's anti-gun policy) Aldi's would somehow be liable for physical/emotional damages, and make other business reconsider their stance.
Any hope here???