midtennchip

I guess I missed this thread yesterday when I posted about it in the civil liability thread. In any event, I suspect the lawyer is using this civil suit to build his criminal defense. This was filed by the guy's criminal lawyer. It probably has something to do with getting discovery through the civil case that might not be available in the criminal case.

Those of you thinking of going the umbrella coverage route, be aware that the exclusion might not be easy to find in the policy. In fact, this issue has been litigated in at least 11 (probably more) states (see article below). http://www.irmi.com/expert/articles/2006/cooper01.aspx

Just to show that anybody can sue for anything, here's an article from today's Fox News. Meth addict burglar sues homeowner for shooting him AFTER the burglar shot homeowner in the jaw. Read the article. I suspect the filing of this lawsuit has more to do with the burglar's criminal case than with any chance of winning the civil suit since the burglar's criminal attorney filed the civil suit. This is just a guess, but it could be a way to obtain discovery from the homeowner in hopes of defending against the criminal case. In any event, you need know why somebody would sue another person. It may have MUCH more to do with something OTHER than winning money. Anybody can sue for ANYTHING. No law will stop a lawsuit from being filed. Luckily, the statute we are discussing will at least make the lawsuit implausible (stopping most lawyers from ever filing it) and potentially reimbursing the defendant for his costs. http://www.foxnews.c...test=latestnews

In essence, you are correct. Although I am not aware of any case law on this statute, I believe one of two things could occur to end the lawsuit at the earliest stages: 1. If the shooter was adjudicated in the criminal court as having been justified in using force, the defense files a Motion to Dismiss and asks for attorney fees, costs, etc. in that Motion; or 2. Defendant asks for a preliminary hearing to have the judge determine justification issue. If judge finds that defendant was justified, same motion as mentioned above. Unlike the "loser pays" rule that went into effect in Tennessee this year, the protection in this statute is really strong. It is the only time I know of in Tennessee where the plaintiff ends up paying for the defendant's loss of income from defending himself. It is HUGE. Again, anyone can bring the suit, but they may wish they hadn't. But keep in mind, getting a judgment against the plaintiff is one thing. Collecting is another.

The fact of the matter is, EVERYTHING is going to be taken into account, including what you say (and how you say it). If you are in a true self-defense situation, chances are that you wouldn't be saying anything or the sound of gunfire would drowned out the words. But, I guess it is possible for something to slip out. If something like that does come out, I would expect it to have a significant effect on how a DA and/or civil attorney would view the shooter's actions. Some jurors make a significant issue out of the type of gun used, so I would certainly expect what a shooter says to have an effect on both juries and attorneys handling such a case: http://www.firearmsresearch.org/content.cfm/article_summary?article_id=3652 Summary of Article: Mock juries find that gender and type of gun can have significant effect on guilty verdicts

The operative part of that statute is in the last provision that says "if the court finds that the defendant was justified . . . ". For this protection to apply, some court (either a criminal court or the civil court in the negligence lawsuit) has to find that the defendant was justified. In my opinion, the only real protection provided by this is two-fold: 1. The self-defense criminal statute provides a specific framework for the determination and that can be decided by the judge (rather than a civil jury); and 2. There is a potential for the Plaintiff to have to pay for the Defendant's costs. There is no blanket prevention from having a lawsuit filed against you. However, the threat of having a judge (probably at an early stage) determine that the lawsuit should be dismissed AND the Plaintiffhas to pay the Defendant's costs is better than any other civil lawsuit I know of.

It does seem odd, but I believe a person who obtained the permit under those circumstances would have to immediately surrender the permit to the court.

The interpretation is that the applicant can be denied if he (or she) has BOTH (1) two or more DUIs in 10 years AND (2) one of them within the last 5 years. So, one DUI will not cause a denial. More than two DUIs in last 10 years will not cause a denial if they are all at least 5 years old.

I am a big fan of the FNAR. It is sub-MOA out of the box. Not as ergonomic is an AR, but it is a great shooter.

Just curious (because I really don't know), but doesn't breast cancer research help find treatments for cancer in general?

Sounds like we need more information. If there is a court order (could have been an emergency order without her being there), then there's already been a hearing of some sort. Service is not required for an order for it to be effective. The order is effective immediately. Now, if the papers are just notice of a hearing, then maybe there's a problem. The fact that she knows there's a hearing in October and there is a new set of papers suggests something more has happened. In any event, without knowing if the mother had sole custody before this, it would be difficult to say with any certainty what the answer is. I do not practice in domestic cases, but she needs to get in contact with her attorney ASAP. too many details needed for any of us to be much help with so little information. Good luck. Wish we could be more informative.

You guys seeing this on the news? Saying a guy was ambushed after advertising gun for sale on Craigslist.

That is a great video to show how a cop is supposed to do it. The idiots behind the camera simply are asking for a problem. Luckily, the cop didn't "bite" on it. The cop had the right to stop him and the stop was limited to only what he needed to do to investigate the suspicion and ended immediately upon determining that his suspicion was unfounded. Even after the cop explained what he was doing, the guy keeps pushing it. Why anyone thinks that is helpful to the 2A push or in any way proves anything (other than the guy's an idiot) to anyone is beyond me.

Please don't take offense, but I highly doubt you would know when the questions get into the "dangerous territory." You simply will not have all your mental faculties at that one, but as the law professor video shows, in seeming innocent questions can be a problem.

First, I am not offering legal advice in this post. I am also affiliated with the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, so take that as you believe appropriate. The video of the law professor is good, but I personally believe a self-defense shooting is simply different than almost every other criminal situation. The Network, as part of its benefit package, provides 5 excellent videos on these issues. Massed Ayoob handles one of them and his advice is the best I have heard on this. I think the videos alone are worth the membership cost. I would NOT, under any circumstances, start blurting out all the details of the situation. You will NOT be in a state of mind to do that. Most LEO policies include a 24 or 48 hour period after an officer involved shooting before questioning the officer. If that is the standard for LEOs, it is a good place to start for a self-defense shooting. However, I do believe you need to give some information to put officers on notice that it was a self-defense shooting. It sets the stage of 2 fronts: the mindset of the officers and preservation of evidence. Ayoob goes into detail on this, so I won't do that here, but there are numerous instances of evidence disappearing from a scene because the officers didn't search a wide enough area (I.e., the area where the assailant came from). Finally, some of the so-called experts on this (including several who have written books on it) are just dead wrong. I read 2 books given to me by a client and the suggestions were downright dangerous. The author simply didn't understand the different between an affirmative defense and the "innocent until proven guilty" rule.

Evidently, Holmes was NOT wearing body armor: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Retailer-who-sold-to-Holmes-getting-backlash-3730881.php It appears that he was wearing a BlackHawk Urban Assault Vest: http://tacticalgear.com/blackhawk-urban-assault-vest So, like the moniker "assault rifle," I guess all tactical vests will now become "body armor." Can't wait to see how this gets spun by the media. In any event, it goes to show how bad reporting has become in general. Just can't seem to get the facts straight.

Maybe someone posted this already, but I didn't see. Anyway, it looks like Holmes received a significant amount of grant money to attend his PhD program. That isn't the interesting part, though. Read the comments from the Dean of the school. http://bobagard.blogspot.com/2012/07/getting-it-wrong_24.html Evidently, these training psychology professors are "very much on contact" with these students who receive these grants, but they were totally incapable of identifying Holmes's problems. Doesn't speak too well to the capabilities of these folks. But these are the very types of folks who think they know who should and shouldn't have guns. As the author states, "good job, Medical School faculty."

Thought some of you would be interested in the new GAO Report regarding carry permits by state. It has a LOT of good charts and some "interactive" maps that some of you will find interesting. http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf

I picked up an FNAR in December and it is a great rifle. Very accurate (at least 1 MOA or better) and functions very well in rapid fire drills I've done. Only real downside for me is the cost of magazines. Luckily, I got 4 mags in the purchase of the rifle.

Well, until a few days ago, the answer was "no." However, the Tennessee legislature recently passed a "loser pays" rule that has made this a big issue. But, as I understand it, the rule only applies if the case is dismissed for "failure to state a claim." That means that the judge found that the lawsuit had no basis in the law. In that case, the plaintiff whose case has been dismissed can be charged the reasonable and necessary litigation fees (including attorneys' fees) up to $10,000. This is not the norm in the United States. Typically, there isn't a "loser pays" rule. This is referred to as the "American Rule," as opposed to the "English Rule" which is a "loser pays" rule. The American court system has always viewed the "loser pays" rule as a denial of access to the courts. So, we have purposefully refrained from using the "loser pays" rule in most cases. However, Tennessee (as part of "tort reform") has adopted a "loser pays" rule, to some degree. Also, there are some statutes (both in other states and federally) that provide for a "loser pays" provision.

Yes, anyone can sue. But waivers typically "hold up" in court.

I can't speak for the Diamondback specifically, but I have been extremely happy with the Vortex Viper I got at Christmas. It is, in my opinion, clearly better than any other options I had in the same price range. I had a zeroing issue (turned out to be my boresighter, though) and Vortex customer service was awesome. They immediately transferred me to a tech guy who spent 20 to 30 minutes on the phone with me trying to figure out the problem. Might want to search the Forum on Vortex opinions.

Generally, yes. It always depends on what the language says and what type of issue actually arises, but they are generally effective.

Actually, the Roberts opinion makes this a very different process for repeal. The Senate rules do not allow for a filibuster on bills to impose or repeal a tax. So, the reconciliation process isn't an issue. The repeal can go forward on a straight vote. There's a good article at the link below that has some explanation of why Roberts might have done what he did. Not sure I agree 100%, but it does make some sense (assuming Roberts was concerned from a political angle in the same way Justice Marshall was in Marbury v. Madison). http://ricochet.com/main-feed/An-Act-of-Great-Cunning And here's an article from the Left pointing out the "political genius" of Roberts's move on this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/28/the-political-genius-of-john-roberts/ I still have my problems with this decision. Simply, Roberts could have just ruled with the conservatives (and likely making Scalia's opinion the majority opinion in the case) and dealt with any "political" problems. The tax issue opens up a door that I don't think should be open. However, it is entirely possible that Roberts knew exactly what he was doing and made a decision similar to Justice Marshall's to preserve the effectiveness of the Court.

Actually, no. The Court didn't "create" a tax here. The Bill was, in fact, passed under the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") because the tax (which is referred to in the Act as a "shared responsibility payment") is collected by the IRS. Further, the Act changed many provisions of the IRC, so the Act itself can (and was) construed as part of a tax code bill.