Another Ridiculous "What Would You Do" Question

[Fallguy]

i had read the law but didnt know how to interperet the third party thing, i didnt know if that situation would fall into the third party column, i have been told that third party would be a family member? i would consider third party anyone who needed help.

Well to me the situation of someone walking and spraying the store with gun fire, even if you were the only person in there I think you would be justified. The only reason I even mentioned 3rd person is if for some reason you didn't feel that you were in immediate danger I think it would be reasonable to think others were in danger.

AFAIK 3rd person is just as you say any person besides you and the BG....whether it is a relative or total stranger.

Edited January 22, 2009 by Fallguy

[Guest jdavis]

thanks for the answers, i will get back back now and let the op have his thread back. thanks again

[Warbird]

As the spouse of a legal assistant, anyone will try to sue anyone else for anything they feel they are entitled to. Yes, there are jacka** attorneys that will take on these cases just to milk said ignorant client of a few buck probably. Civil law sucks, and sucks huge.

I don't care how much of a jackas** an attorney is, nobody takes a case they know they have no chance of winning or getting something out of, unless it's same said jacka** who is doing the suing on their own behalf. No attorney is in business to lose money. I guess they could think that a carry permit holder would have insurance, big assumption there. Attorneys turn away loser cases nearly every day of the year.

And attorneys do not take retainers from clients to sue people, unless maybe they are a business who have to sure people in the normal course of business. Even then is usually contingency. There are laws that dictate the amounts lawyers can get from winning cases. It isn't some arbitrary business. If some lawyer breaks the law they stand to be disbarred, suspended or tried criminally.

So civil law sucks huh. I see a lot of this on this board, taking snippets of examples here and there and then making broad sweeping generalizations based on that. So I guess if someone hits your car driving recklessly you won't be using the civil system to recover damages huh? You'll let your own insurance handle the matter and take the increase in bills.

So if a builder made a huge structural failure in building your home, you would never use the civil system to recover your losses right? Ah ye sinsurance again I got it.A company purposefully cuts corners making a product that harms one of your family members, but you'll say ah that's OK I wont sue because civil law sucks.

Our legal system is rife with problems and it is still the most superior system in the world. And thank God we have a system where we can seek to be compensated for the carelessness or purposeful malfeasance of someone.

Just becuase some abuse the syste,m doesn't mean the system sucks. Eveyone hates an attorney, complain all the time about defense attorneys halping ciminals and such all the time, until they need one. Oh but I really didn't do it and I've been accused unlike every other person who is accused but theyre all really guilty. :)

Edited January 22, 2009 by Warbird

[Punisher84]

I don't care how much of a jackas** an attorney is, nobody takes a case they know they have no chance of winning or getting something out of, unless it's same said jacka** who is doing the suing on their own behalf. No attorney is in business to lose money. I guess they could think that a carry permit holder would have insurance, big assumption there. Attorneys turn away loser cases nearly every day of the year.

And attorneys do not take retainers from clients to sue people, unless maybe they are a business who have to sure people in the normal course of business. Even then is usually contingency. There are laws that dictate the amounts lawyers can get from winning cases. It isn't some arbitrary business. If some lawyer breaks the law they stand to be disbarred, suspended or tried criminally.

So civil law sucks huh. I see a lot of this on this board, taking snippets of examples here and there and then making broad sweeping generalizations based on that. So I guess if someone hits your car driving recklessly you won't be using the civil system to recover damages huh? You'll let your own insurance handle the matter and take the increase in bills.

So if a builder made a huge structural failure in building your home, you would never use the civil system to recover your losses right? Ah ye sinsurance again I got it.A company purposefully cuts corners making a product that harms one of your family members, but you'll say ah that's OK I wont sue because civil law sucks.

Our legal system is rife with problems and it is still the most superior system in the world. And thank God we have a system where we can seek to be compensated for the carelessness or purposeful malfeasance of someone.

Just becuase some abuse the syste,m doesn't mean the system sucks. Eveyone hates an attorney, complain all the time about defense attorneys halping ciminals and such all the time, until they need one. Oh but I really didn't do it and I've been accused unlike every other person who is accused but theyre all really guilty. :)

I think you see alot of the complaining because it's always the negative that comes out primarily. You always see the hot coffee lawsuits, the "he was such a good boy and didn't deserve to get shot" lawsuits, but not alot of people talk about their legitimate lawsuits.

I don't think we forget the system can be used for good and legitimate purposes, but there are alot of flaws and a good majority ARE in civil law.

Just my take anyway.

[Guest nraforlife]

But suppose you did shoot him/her and your 225gr .45 rd went through him/her and hit the gas pump outside causing a massive explosion. This explosion caused the bank across the street to empty out as everyone wanted to see what the heck happened. In the confusion a one eyed one legged flying purple people eater robbed the bank. Could you be charged as an accessory?

[Guest tedbo]

I certainly have no desire to force anyone to carry a firearm if they are not comfortable or for many other reasons may wish not to. It is their risk. I have no idea what I would do in that situation.

You are under no obligation to put yourself in the line of fire to take them out of it, just because you are armed. As was said you do not want to shoot an innocent and in a real situation with the heart pounding and adrenaline flowing it could easily happen.

Don't always need a firearm for self defense.

I know people that can do serious damage bare handed.

Heck, in a store anyone can lay out a BG with a can of soup!

Don't always need a firearm or stick.

They should,however,grow a pair when it means a family member is in that sort of danger.

I couldn't live with myself if I failed to protect my wife or my MIL.

Edited January 23, 2009 by tedbo
didn't capture my quote.

[Punisher84]

But suppose you did shoot him/her and your 225gr .45 rd went through him/her and hit the gas pump outside causing a massive explosion. This explosion caused the bank across the street to empty out as everyone wanted to see what the heck happened. In the confusion a one eyed one legged flying purple people eater robbed the bank. Could you be charged as an accessory?

Interesting thought. I'm not sure I have case law on it tho. Because case law on a subject like that only exists...in the Twilight Zone.

[Guest tedbo]

Interesting thought. I'm not sure I have case law on it tho. Because case law on a subject like that only exists...in the Twilight Zone.

DUUUUUDE,Lortabs are good!

[Farman]

Slighly off topic, but this is why you don't want to end up in court with jurors like these desiding your fate.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-lawsuit2309jan23,0,1704148.story

I just don't see how the dock company was responsible for this morons injury.

[Guest canynracer]

IANAL:rolleyes:, but you were acting on behalf of someone else, someone else was in fear of their lives and you are justified in your actions.

+1

[Angus]

I couldn't live with myself if I failed to protect my wife or my MIL.

Really? Your MIL? Seriously?...heh..jk...MIL joke...love her to death...er..I mean I like her alot.

[Guest jackdog]

Put any scenario you want to this but if an off duty Leo is not required to enter the fray than there is no way a HCP party would be required to do so either. Lawsuit over this is about as good as the Democrats rescinding all the BS gun laws on the books.

As far as actually engaging it would depend totally on the circumstances, who was being shot at ETC. People have a choice as to there own defense, I've made mine and if they refuse to armed they have made theirs.

[Fallguy]

Slighly off topic, but this is why you don't want to end up in court with jurors like these desiding your fate.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-lawsuit2309jan23,0,1704148.story

I just don't see how the dock company was responsible for this morons injury.

I agree this guy was the main one at fault, but I think he was probably awarded what he was...one, because his boss was one of the people that dared him to do it and two, because it was large, faceless company being sued.

Your point that a jury can do some of the dumbest things is well taken, but not sure the above case is real comparable to a SD shooting.

[Guest tedbo]

Angus, she be GOOD people! MIL jokes don't apply with her. She asks me when I want to eat,not my wifey.

I must be doin' sumptin' right,eh?

[Farman]

I agree this guy was the main one at fault, but I think he was probably awarded what he was...one, because his boss was one of the people that dared him to do it and two, because it was large, faceless company being sued.

Your point that a jury can do some of the dumbest things is well taken, but not sure the above case is real comparable to a SD shooting.

I saw the "boss" word but didn't relate it to the owner of the company. But you're right that makes difference. As far as the SD shoot, it may depend on who's lawyer could best show it was or wasn't self defense and there was no other choice. And you may also be involved in a wrongful death suit. The whole situation would suck. Almost makes me want to stay home all of the time.

[Guest HexHead]

Lets take this a step farther.

What if the "crazy guy" starts methodically shoting people, men, women, and children, all most execution style.

My Human side kicks in, and I decide to take action, and the "crazy guy" has his back turned to me, and I put a few Remington Golden Saber .45acp round into his back.

I would think that I would be justified in the shooting because I was in fear of my life, even though I shot him in the back.

Discuss

Are they liberals? That would factor heavily into my decision.

[Guest jackdog]

Are they liberals? That would factor heavily into my decision.

+1000 I should risk my ass for a gun grabbing liberal not.

[Guest crotalus01]

You guys are missing out on the new TN civil liabilty law - if a shooting is ruled a justifiable homicie, there is NO civil liabilty, period. The family of the deceased cannot sue.

[Fallguy]

You guys are missing out on the new TN civil liabilty law - if a shooting is ruled a justifiable homicie, there is NO civil liabilty, period.

That is right.

The family of the deceased cannot sue.

That is wrong, they can still sue, they just wouldn't be awarded anything if it ruled justified. Also they are supposed to have to pay your lawyer, for your lost time at work and any other expense in defending the suit.

[wjh2657]

Back to original post. If you wait to defend yourself can the other victims sue you because you didn't act earlier in their defense?

Law says no, you don't have to defend anybody, even yourself!

Problem: Civil Court has absolutely nothing to do with law! I sat on civil juries two different cycles (two years). Law is supposed to be a guideline but it just doesn't work out that way. First off, the no liability provision of the Self Defense law doesn't apply here. That is only between you and the guy you shot (or surviving kin) and has nothing to do with the rest of the folks in the room. And there is a quirky clause in Federal law that over-rides the no liability clause and says you can be sued even by the Victim or his kin.

Jury decides whether or not you pay and indirectly your guilt for wrongdoing. They are deciding if they think you did something wrong, not something illegal.( Remember OJ: Innocent of Murder (criminal court) and guilty of reckless homicide (Civil court). ) If they feel you should have jumped up and saved those poor folks, then you are going to pay them for your terrible mistake.

Of course if you had jumped up and Rambo-ed the BG, they woul probably all have sued you for reckless endangerment for starting a gun fight!

Don't look for justice, common sense or right and wrong in a civil trial. If the jury is dressed and looks like you - you probably win.

If the jury dresses and looks like the folks suing you- you probably lose.

All you can do is stay alive, maybe you were do a change in career and style of living anyways!

[Guest Astra900]

Back to original post. If you wait to defend yourself can the other victims sue you because you didn't act earlier in their defense?

Law says no, you don't have to defend anybody, even yourself!

Problem: Civil Court has absolutely nothing to do with law! I sat on civil juries two different cycles (two years). Law is supposed to be a guideline but it just doesn't work out that way. First off, the no liability provision of the Self Defense law doesn't apply here. That is only between you and the guy you shot (or surviving kin) and has nothing to do with the rest of the folks in the room. And there is a quirky clause in Federal law that over-rides the no liability clause and says you can be sued even by the Victim or his kin.

Jury decides whether or not you pay and indirectly your guilt for wrongdoing. They are deciding if they think you did something wrong, not something illegal.( Remember OJ: Innocent of Murder (criminal court) and guilty of reckless homicide (Civil court). ) If they feel you should have jumped up and saved those poor folks, then you are going to pay them for your terrible mistake.

Of course if you had jumped up and Rambo-ed the BG, they woul probably all have sued you for reckless endangerment for starting a gun fight!

Don't look for justice, common sense or right and wrong in a civil trial. If the jury is dressed and looks like you - you probably win.

If the jury dresses and looks like the folks suing you- you probably lose.

All you can do is stay alive, maybe you were do a change in career and style of living anyways!

Ohh, so that's what they mean when they say "dead men tell no tales" AND "kill them all and let God sort 'em out"

Leave NO survivors and there'll be no one to sue me!

No, seriously, I hear you. Civil court is the biggest crock of ever invented.

[Guest tn.watchman]

Yea, way too much.

Hey did anyone see New Hampshere's HCR-6. Google it. Way to go NH

Boy if Tennessee would only get some b**ls.

[Guest justaman30]

Yes you do there is nothing in the law that says you have to engage in the defense of another. Matter of fact I do not see how it would ever even get to court. I carry to protect myself and family. Others have the same option, if they choose to be sheep that is there tuff S**t.

Agree totally with Jackdog here......

[Guest unreconstructed1]

Jury decides whether or not you pay and indirectly your guilt for wrongdoing. They are deciding if they think you did something wrong, not something illegal.( Remember OJ: Innocent of Murder (criminal court) and guilty of reckless homicide (Civil court). ) If they feel you should have jumped up and saved those poor folks, then you are going to pay them for your terrible mistake.

Of course if you had jumped up and Rambo-ed the BG, they woul probably all have sued you for reckless endangerment for starting a gun fight!

I can agree completely. Sad part is, so many folks buy into the "evil gun" philosophy that they wouldn't be caught dead with a gun, but in the situation where a gun could save their life ( and even though they had the ability to legally carry a gun for their own protection) they'd blame anyone and everyone they could for not taking care of them. I carry a gun to defend me and mine, and for no other reason.