civil liability

[Guest jimg]

Does TN have any law which protects a CCW holder from a civil suit (like wrongful death and the like) in the event they shoot to stop an attack? I *think* FL and perhaps others have law which gives this protect. If not FL then some other state close by either has it as law or is working its way thru the legislature. At any rate Im sure Ive heard of this. While I havent yet gone for my CCW here is this sort of thing covered in the class? That is, not just law but what happens in the event you have to shoot. When I held a CCW in another state my class took a good bit of time on this subject...what to expect post shoot from the police and legal system.

[molonlabetn]

http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll/tncode/e501/e5c7/e680/e6cf?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#

39-11-622. Justification for use of force — Exceptions — Immunity from civil liability. —

(a) (1) A person who uses force as permitted in §§ 39-11-611 — 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201, is justified in using such force and is immune from civil liability for the use of such force, unless:

(A) The person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106 who:

(i) Was acting in the performance of the officer's official duties; and

(ii) Identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law; or

(iii) The person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer; or

( The force used by the person resulted in property damage to or the death or injury of an innocent bystander or other person against whom the force used was not justified.

( The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against the person based upon the person's use of force, if the court finds that the defendant was justified in using such force pursuant to §§ 39-11-611 — 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201.

[Acts 2007, ch. 210, § 3.]

[Fallguy]

LOL molonlabetn beat me to it I see....as I was previewing my post I saw his.

As far as this being coverd in the class, it is up to the instructor. I will just say from what I've read, not much of the law is covered in the classes and lots of times when it is, it is not 100% accurate.

At the end of the day, this is a "Safety" class required by the state, it is to show you can safely operate a firearm. It is not to qualify you with a weapon, educate in the law etc....

[mdmoseley]

When I went through my HCP class this was discussed, he said you should expect to get sued. Doesn't mean you will lose though.

[Guest HexHead]

When I went through my HCP class this was discussed, he said you should expect to get sued. Doesn't mean you will lose though.

How long ago did you take your course? The immunity statute was part of the "Castle Doctrine" law passed last year. I think it only applies in situations where the "castle doctrine" would also apply.

[mdmoseley]

It was in the summer of 06. Basically he said if you shoot someone whether justified or not you can plan on getting sued by either the person or the family. He said most likely it will get dismissed if it was justified but you will incur some cost for your defense. That being said that was before this later law. Despite the law change though I would expect to still have a suit filed against but it sounds like you are better protected legally.

[molonlabetn]

Of course they 'can' sue you... but it must be dismissed if your actions were justified.

[mdmoseley]

100% agree but non the less still a hassle.

[dralarms]

molonlabetn,

Please, pretty please get rid of that avitar, your killing my eyes. The bleach water is begining to ruin my hair color.

[Fallguy]

Does anyone know of any cases of a shooter being sued? And/or it being ruled justified and the person who brought the suit having to pay the shooter's legal fees, etc... ?

As has been said, they can sue you. But the law says if they loose they are supposed to pay your legal fees, any money lost from taking off from work and any other reasoanable expenses incurred by you in defense of the suit. This would be on top of their legal fees of course.

I guess that I have relied on the above (in theory as I have not shot anyone) to keep most lawyers from taking a case unless they thought they had a almost air-tight case. I hope that if I ever do have to defend myself with leathal force there will be no question as to whether it was valid or not.

[mdmoseley]

Of course that law is assuming they have 2 nickels to rub together after they lose. :-)

[Guest Dusty Rhodes]

I am convinced there are 3 lawyers for every resident of the USA. Having said that, I have no doubt the would be one somewhere who would take it all the way to the Supreme Court for "a piece of the action."

It's great that you will be compensated for your legal expenses, does it say you will be compensated immediately or when your claim goes through the system in 2-3 years.

Personally I don't have 25-30K to tie up until the wheels of justice get done grinding.

[Guest bkelm18]

I am convinced there are 3 lawyers for every resident of the USA. Having said that, I have no doubt the would be one somewhere who would take it all the way to the Supreme Court for "a piece of the action."

It's great that you will be compensated for your legal expenses, does it say you will be compensated immediately or when your claim goes through the system in 2-3 years.

Personally I don't have 25-30K to tie up until the wheels of justice get done grinding.

I don't have the dough for it either, but that ain't gonna stop me from plugging a BG if he tries to visit harm upon me.

[Fallguy]

I don't have the dough for it either, but that ain't gonna stop me from plugging a BG if he tries to visit harm upon me.

Exactly. I knew that going in.

I have no recomendation either way, but just FYI there is insurance for such an occasions. These are an addition to NRA membership.

http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/epl.asp

http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/selfdefense.asp

http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/instructor.asp

The last one is just for instructors it appears.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Guys we don't live behind the Iron Curtain.

I have never heard of anyone in Tn getting sued after a justifiable shooting. And the statute doesn't have anything to do with the Castle Doctrine. It has been on the books for about 10 years. If they are committing a violent felony and you kill or injure them they are SOL.

[Mike.357]

I would guess, more often than not when some crackhead felonious sort puts a honest law abiding persons back to the wall and the BG gets shot they do not come from family that has money to hire an attorney. If the shoot looks good it is doubtful than an attorney who gets paid only if they collect is going to take that type of case.

[Guest jimg]

All very interesting, thanx. I think the instructor who advised his class to be prep'ed for a civil action in case of a shooting did them a big favor. While Im sure the law does help some I wouldnt say its a guarantee. Our legal system is so screwed up that any public prosecutor and/or judge wanting to make a political stmt is free to run the CCW holder thru the mill. 'Crackheads' come w/ all sorts of other attributes which make suing the shooter easy to justify. Just b/c a person is recognizable as a drain on society doesnt mean a greasy lawyer wont take the case.

Im very surprised TN doesnt require law content as part of the CCW class.

I would also be interested to know what sort of case law there is involving CCW holders and homeowners who shot a criminal invading their home.

[Fallguy]

jimg....you're right the legal system is a gamble. Of course I'd rather take that gamble than doing nothing with the BG.

Just to clarify...TN issues a HCP (Handgun Carry Permit) it actually allows you to cary open (if you want to) as well as concealled.

There have been several stories posted on here of Self-Defense shootings where the shooter was not charged, you may can do a search and find some.

Just for refrence here is the TN law on Self-Defense T.C.A. 39-11-611

[Guest jimg]

Right, Im certainly NOT arguing for not shooting!! Im in complete agreement that its far better to be alive even if it means a civil suit.

Im glad the TN legislature made an attempt to preclude some of the legal nonsense lawyers love to engage in. Perhaps I couldnt afford such an adventure but at least I might be able to find a lawyer willing to take the case as he'd eventually be paid?

ETA: How does that work to carry openly and is there a good reason to do so?

I certainly believe the shooter wasnt charged BUT that doesnt mean a greasy lawyer couldnt drag him thru civil court.

Edited February 6, 2008 by jimg

[molonlabetn]

ETA: How does that work to carry openly and is there a good reason to do so?

Buy a good OWB retention holster, tuck your shirt in and strap it on.

Reasons to do so:

1. More comfortable in the summertime wearing lighter clothes.

2. Faster access

3. Ability to carry a larger pistol (thus easier to shoot, higher capacity, and more powerful)

4. Good conversation starter

Not everybody feels comfortable open-carrying... and there certainly are many situations which would be more advisable to discreetly conceal. But in the interests of the 4 reasons stated above, the only real question you should ask is if there is a reason not to, in a given situation. Fears of harassment and detrimental effects to public image are way over-exaggerated. The only 'real' issue is the potential for being targeted by a criminal because it is visible... (which I've yet to hear of occurring to a private citizen who was OCing), but is simply another good reason to be aware of your surroundings, as always.

I OC when it is more convenient to do so, in the summer, period. I am aware of the risks, and prepared to courteously respond to encounters with people who notice and have concerns (which has happened to me a total of 3 times in 5 years, and ended positively).

[Guest db99wj]

Unless you carry a 1911 or other firearm with a hammer, then don't carry openly with the hammer cocked, because you will have people screaming, soccer moms fainting, and SWAT teams a swarming......I kid, kid:p:p

[Guest jimg]

Reasons to do so:

1. More comfortable in the summertime wearing lighter clothes.

2. Faster access

3. Ability to carry a larger pistol (thus easier to shoot, higher capacity, and more powerful)

4. Good conversation starter

OK, fair enough. #1 is the reason KT and friends have so much business...even in summer clothes most of their weapons disappear in a pocket...sometimes too well. #2 no argument. #3 yes/no...yes easier to shoot but the better small HGs have pretty good capacity these days and can be had in more capable calibers. #4

To me its a hard call but mostly I tend toward concealed. OTOH open carry could go a long way to get society in general to accept the fact guns arent the wicked thing theyre made out to be. Like I said its a hard call. Our society is sort of a weird illogical mess. On one hand few would deny the usefulness of having a gun to repel an unprovoked attack on their person/family. On the other theyre likely to belittle those who carry in public. Mostly the argument is 'Why would you need that here?' or something along the lines of 'Do you think youre the police?'. Maybe they just dont think deeply about it or have been lulled to sleep by the 'It wont happen to me!' argument. Heck, I dont know but its hard to understand.

Sort of a side note...my preference is to carry a rifle when possible. On those occasions of extended hunting trips the day after seems wrong b/c theres no rifle in my hands or near by. Say what you want about the ME but carrying a rifle (MG in most cases) in public is very appealing. While theres no law against it Im sure it would go over rather badly here.