Shoot until the threat ceases to be a threat!

[Peace]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/11/wash-homeowner-shoots-wounds-would-be-burglar/?test=latestnews


You train mentally and physically to stop the threat.
And that may take more than you think!


So thankful that this guy and his wife seem to be ok. I would not want to tussle with anyone in my house, in the dark, with a gun.

[RobertNashville]

Exactly what I've been taught at every class I've ever taken.

 

Many people, even firearm owners, don't realize that it just doesn't happen like it does on TV...unless you happen to make THE perfect shot into the brain or the heart the attacked is likely not going to go down; even a heart shot can result in a few seconds of life during which time the attacker can still perhaps get a killing shot off at you!

 

Unfortunately; juries often don't understand this truth so if you end up facing one you'll need a good attorney and an expert or two to explain it to them...it also helps if you've had training and can show that you followed your training "shooting until the thread it stopped"!

[Mister L]

The sad thing is that he will be sued for damages in a civil suit.

[RobertNashville]

The sad thing is that he will be sued for damages in a civil suit.

Well, nothing can prevent a civil suit but at least in Tennessee, if the shooting is ruled to be justified then the shooter has an affirmative (and I think pretty iron-clad) defense to such a suit.

 

That doesn't mean you won't need a good attorney, however.

 

More the problem is a DA who is a bit overzealous and/or who doesn't understand why someone would keep shooting until the person is down and clearly out of the fight.

[Guest Torrin]

Well, nothing can prevent a civil suit but at least in Tennessee, if the shooting is ruled to be justified then the shooter has an affirmative (and I think pretty iron-clad) defense to such a suit.

 

That doesn't mean you won't need a good attorney, however.

 

More the problem is a DA who is a bit overzealous and/or who doesn't understand why someone would keep shooting until the person is down and clearly out of the fight.

 

 

Hmmm, I thought in Tennessee if the shooting was ruled as justified, there was no option for the shootee to pursue the shooter in civil court.

[Peace]

Hmmm, I thought in Tennessee if the shooting was ruled as justified, there was no option for the shootee to pursue the shooter in civil court.

Great thought. Anyone know the definitive answer on this?

[RobertNashville]

I'm sure one of our fine attorney's that frequent TGO will correct me if I'm wrong but nothing can prevent another person (like a family member of a thug we had to fire upon in self defense) from filing a civil suit for damages.  The law in Tennessee is an affirmative defense to such a claim.

 

I suspect that, because they know this, most attorneys are probably not going to bother to bring such a suite for that family member but I don't believe anything can stop them from doing so.

 

It's also important to note that for that section of the TCA to be in effect, the shooting must be RULED to be justified meaning that having a DA simply chose not to prosecute DOES NOT give us protection from civil liability.

 

So...if you are ever involved in a SD shooting you had better call your attorney IMMEDIATELY after you've called 9-1-1 and you should have the name and number (cell phone number preferably) of an attorney you can call with you at all times...I DO.

Edited February 12, 2013 by RobertNashville

[midtennchip]

Robert has it right (glad you remember what we talked about at the self-defense seminar).  The shooting has to be RULED justified to obtain the protection from a civil suit.  If a DA does not prosecute the shooting criminally, or if the charges are just dropped without a ruling from the judge, then the protection does not go into effect. 

 

Maybe it helps to think of it this way:   No need for more than one court proceeding to determine if the shooting was justifiable self-defense.  The protection from civil liability prohibits a second case (i.e., a civil case after the criminal case) where there has already been a case in court that heard the issue and made a ruling that the shooting was justified.  No need to go through that again to prove it (we also dislike inconsistent rulings on the same set of facts). 

 

But, if there hasn't been a criminal case with a ruling, then a civil case may be filed. 

Edited February 12, 2013 by midtennchip

[Guest PapaB]

Robert has it right (glad you remember what we talked about at the self-defense seminar).  The shooting has to be RULED justified to obtain the protection from a civil suit.  If a DA does not prosecute the shooting criminally, or if the charges are just dropped without a ruling from the judge, then the protection does not go into effect. 

 

Maybe it helps to think of it this way:   No need for more than one court proceeding to determine if the shooting was justifiable self-defense.  The protection from civil liability prohibits a second case (i.e., a civil case after the criminal case) where there has already been a case in court that heard the issue and made a ruling that the shooting was justified.  No need to go through that again to prove it (we also dislike inconsistent rulings on the same set of facts). 

 

But, if there hasn't been a criminal case with a ruling, then a civil case may be filed. 

 

This is just a taste of what you'll learn if you have the chance to attend the seminar Chip puts on (and at no charge). I know he wants to do it again so keep watching for an announcement and jump at the opportunity to meet, greet and learn. You'll be glad you did (or wish you had).

 

Sorry for the temporary hijack. We now return you to your discussion.

[TMF]

Either way, I'm worrying about civil/criminal penalties after I'm sure that I'm no longer in danger.  If I'm more concerned before the shooting with what will happen to me criminally/civilly after the shooting, then clearly I'm not in fear for my life.  If I was in fear for my life the only thing I would care about is terminating the threat. 

Edited February 13, 2013 by TMF

[RobertNashville]

Robert has it right (glad you remember what we talked about at the self-defense seminar).  The shooting has to be RULED justified to obtain the protection from a civil suit...

 

It was a GREAT seminar and that one fact is probably the most important piece of information I picked up (and one I'm sure a majority of folks don't understand)...I've tried to educate myself about the legal concerns of a SD shooting and I've attended other seminars but that piece of information was either never covered or I've just always missed the distinction!