Bloggin’ da law
Phil, on the TN bill i mentioned yesterday, says:
My rational, though utterly non-legal, opinion tells me that if I harm an atacker in self-defense that I cannot be sued by family of said attacker after the legal system decides: 1. Not to try me, or 2. I am found not guilty.
December 21st, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Nope. Sorry. O.J. Simpson. A conviction can be used against you in subsequent civil case but an acquittal or nolle prosse means nothing.
The other shameful thing is that the damages would be less if you killed him rather than injured him. For wrongful death, the measure is his future income/support to his family. For pain, suffering and disability, the sky’s the limit. Remember the lady who made love to a cup of hot coffee at a McDonald’s?
Get an umbrella policy, they’re not that expensive.
What else I’m thinking: Air force fighter planes have nose cameras that record dogfights. With present technology (e.g. cell-phone cameras) a camera can be mounted on a handgun to record the circumstances of the shooting.
December 21st, 2006 at 2:17 pm
NK, that is what I’m taking from the original post that this law covers: If the state says that you were in fear for your life and cannot be held liable legally, that they are also covering you from the hassle of a civil suit.
OJ got bit because he was the attacker of two unarmed people. A homeowner taking down an armed intruder is the orange to OJ’s apple and deserves to be shielded from a civil suit brought on by the “Little Angel Home Invader” family’s wrongful death scavenging.
December 21st, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Ok, I read it again, twice. It still looks to me like the person defending himself will be in a better position to win since the jury instructions will be according to the statute and not the “case law” (read, judge’s whim) but it does not summarily obviate trial. It goes to substance, not procedure.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Civil immunity means that if the family tries to sue you, all you have to do is go to the judge and show that you qualify for that immunity and the case will not move forward.
OJ never said he was there, so could not prove that he thought his life was in danger. “It wasn’t me” does not qualify for immunity from self defense. “He was comming at me with a knife for no reason, so I shot him” probably will qualify.
In Georgia, as log as the self defense was valid under the deadly force law AND the weapon used was legally in your posession (not in off-limits area or prevented from having one) then a civil trial cannot be held.
Immunity means that all one needs to do is show that you qualify for the immunity and that is it, case over. If during the early part of the trial, even if it is the initial fact finding and discovery, shows that you qualify for immunity, the trial ends (jury never hears anything). So while you may have to pay a lawyer, it would be a small amount compaired to a full length jury trial with experts and such.
December 22nd, 2006 at 7:43 am
Question: Does Civil immunity laws exist in all states?
I don’t think so. I know one of the issues brought up in the Castle Doctrine legislation in a lot of places had added protections for Civil Immunity, but I don’t believe there is any blanket protection country wide.
I think it’s probably best to check on your local laws rather than just assume you aren’t open to suite. Though I still would prefer to go through trial rather than die in an attack.