Revisiting the topic of civil liability in a self defense shooting

[S&WForty]

USCCA Defense Shield although there are "stand alone" carriers.

Does the NRA offer anything comparable? Or is their insurance only for firearms?

[DaveTN]

Many people seem to desperately look for a guarantee that if they are in the right they won’t be charged criminally or sued civilly.

There are no guarantees. But I believe that one thing you can do to reduce the risk is your state of mind about how you would react in a deadly force situation. If you limit the use of deadly force to situations where you are truly in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm; your risk of being charged or sued is pretty low. Not what you think you could make someone believe; but what you truly believe. Not some interpretation of some law that you think creates a free fire zone on your property, or some misguided belief that you can kill anyone that you perceive as a threat.

If you are going to carry a gun; know the law. Read it, and make sure you understand it. It’s not rocket science; but it also has many variables and is generally applied to a specific situation or set of circumstances.

I don’t know how many times I’ve seen on here “I don’t care what the law says; I’m taking care of my family!†Taking care of your family implies that you won’t be going to prison; if you do you didn’t take care of your family. Situations and circumstances, they can change in a split second; be able to keep up.

[DaveS]

My handgun instructor told us that in a self defense shooting, if you injure or kill an innocent bystander, you are LIABLE for that.

Dave S

Edited October 24, 2012 by DaveS

[DaveTN]

My handgun instructor told us that in a self defense shooting, if you injure or kill an innocent bystander, you are LIABLE for that.

Dave S

Of course you are. The circumstances determine the degree. You could also be charged criminally. There are also situations where you might shoot an innocent bystander and not be charged.

[TMF]

If you limit the use of deadly force to situations where you are truly in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm; your risk of being charged or sued is pretty low. Not what you think you could make someone believe; but what you truly believe. Not some interpretation of some law that you think creates a free fire zone on your property, or some misguided belief that you can kill anyone that you perceive as a threat.

100% on this.

For me it is quite simple. Fear for your life means exactly that. If one is considering using deadly force, but the deciding factor is one's interpretation or concern of the law, I'm figuring that they are not in fear of their life. Having experienced a few scenarios where imminent death was a probability, the concern of my actions being justified never entered my mind. Not until afterward when I was explaining my actions in a sworn statement.

One scenario that sticks out clear was a situation that I asked myself if I should shoot. Having the presence of mind to ask myself that question answered it for me. About 30 seconds later I don't recall asking myself that question when I opened up, because the answer was beyond clear.

[Oh Shoot]

...For me it is quite simple. Fear for your life means exactly that.

Not speaking of you specifically at all, but except for intruder in your home, that fear had better be generally "reasonable" to LE and if not, to random peers also.

- OS

[TMF]

Not speaking of you specifically at all, but except for intruder in your home, that fear had better be generally "reasonable" to LE and if not, to random peers also.

- OS

Well I guess it would naturally be. If the choice is life or death, what happens afterward shouldn't be a concern at the time. If a person has to ask themselves "should I shoot" then the answer is "no". Like I said before, in fear for your life means exactly that; you fear that you will die if you choose not to defend yourself.

[DaveTN]

Not speaking of you specifically at all, but except for intruder in your home, that fear had better be generally "reasonable" to LE and if not, to random peers also.

- OS

That was my point; no one cares whether you were in fear or not; only would they have done what you did in the same circumstances. Of course they get to sit around and think about it for days, weeks or months.

With the first Police car that arrives at the scene, you will be coming in contact with people that will be making decisions about your future and the future of your family. Have a plan; you are the one that is going to have to live with it.

[Oh Shoot]

... Like I said before, in fear for your life means exactly that; you fear that you will die if you choose not to defend yourself.

And DaveTN and both agree that is not necessarily enough. If I'm the investigating officer, the DA, or member of the jury, I had better feel the same.

That's why it's in the self defense statute as a qualifier.

You yourself might well never act in a way that would seem unreasonable to any of the above; but I certainly can't say the same for all people. Maybe not even the majority of them.

- OS

Edited October 25, 2012 by OhShoot

[TMF]

And DaveTN and both agree that is not necessarily enough. If I'm the investigating officer, the DA, or member of the jury, I had better feel the same.

That's why it's in the self defense statute as a qualifier.

You yourself might well never act in a way that would seem unreasonable to any of the above; but I certainly can't say the same for all people. Maybe not even the majority of them.

- OS

Sure, but is that not moot? What happens next shouldn't make it's way into the choice to defend your life if you are truly in fear of it.

[Oh Shoot]

Sure, but is that not moot? What happens next shouldn't make it's way into the choice to defend your life if you are truly in fear of it.

Some people are afraid of damn near everything. Some people may honestly fear for their life in a situation that you or I might shrug off.

Some people think BHO is a great president.

Point is, the final call ain't based only on where the shooter's head honestly was at the time.

And of course, some people shouldn't own guns. But I have to advocate their right to.

- OS

Edited October 25, 2012 by OhShoot

[RobertNashville]

Does the NRA offer anything comparable? Or is their insurance only for firearms?

NRA doesn't as far as I know.

[midtennchip]

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

Edited October 25, 2012 by midtennchip

[Guest Cappy423]

does anyone here know of a case that was dismissed due to T.C.A. 39-11-622  ? Either deadly force or physical force...

Edited February 16, 2013 by Cappy423