Civil liability - how often limited by statute?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DickP

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
86
Location
San Antonio, TX
Hey everybody-

My understanding is that, in some jurisdictions at least, people who use lethal force to defend themselves or others are shielded, by statute (affirmative defense?), from civil liability if they are not found criminally liable.

Is this correct? If so, how prevalent are these civil protections? 30% of states? 50%? More states than 10 years ago? Less? This seems really important, as a practical matter...

Thanks!
 
Alaska has a very broad one, mostly untested at this point:

AS 09.65.330. Immunity: Use of Defensive Force.

(a) A person who uses force in defense of self, other persons, or property as permitted in AS 11.81 is not liable for the death of or injury to the person against whom the force was intended to be used, unless the person against whom force was used was

(1) a peace officer, whether on or off duty, who was engaged in the performance of official duties;

(2) a fire fighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic engaged in the performance of official duties; or

(3) medical personnel, a health care provider, or a first responder in an emergency situation.

(b) The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of a civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is not liable under (a) of this section.
 
Oklahoma statutes prevent the perp/family of the late perp from suing in civil court in righteous self defense cases.
 
Please recognize that "Castle laws" or so-called "stand your ground" laws do have limitations.

We have such a law in Michigan. They still charged a CPL holder for Manslaughter after he fired at a fleeing carjacker and his bullet killed a woman in a house across he street.

He had a CPL, and he was in the right to defened himself, but as soon as the bad guy was fleeing, he evidently lost the legal shield of a "justified shooting" and now is facing criminal charges and most likely a civil suit.

Just a heads up that you are always ultimately responsible for your actions, no matter what shield laws might be in place. Mess up too much and you'll hang for it.
 
Washington's law:

RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime — Reimbursement.


(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

(2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.

(3) Notwithstanding a finding that a defendant's actions were justified by self-defense, if the trier of fact also determines that the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the charges filed against the defendant the judge may deny or reduce the amount of the award. In determining the amount of the award, the judge shall also consider the seriousness of the initial criminal conduct.

Nothing in this section precludes the legislature from using the sundry claims process to grant an award where none was granted under this section or to grant a higher award than one granted under this section.

(4) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section is decided by a judge, the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special verdict under subsection (4) [(5)] of this section.

(5) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section has been submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the following form:


answer yes or no
1. Was the finding of not guilty based upon self-defense? . . . . .
2. If your answer to question 1 is no, do not answer the remaining question.
3. If your answer to question 1 is yes, was the defendant:
a. Protecting himself or herself? . . . . .
b. Protecting his or her family? . . . . .
c. Protecting his or her property? . . . . .
d. Coming to the aid of another who was in imminent danger of a heinous crime? . . . . .
e. Coming to the aid of another who was the victim of a heinous crime? . . . . .
f. Engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the crime with which the defendant is charged? . . . . .
 
Here's a link to "The Castle Doctrine: A State-by-State Summary". This may answer your questions on which states have this protection for the victim.

http://tekel.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/the-castle-doctrine-a-state-by-state-summary/
California was not on the list but strangely enough the PRC was one of the first to have a so-called "make my day" law. Our law sez that when somebody (other than an immediate family member) forces entry into a domicile the occupant is "legally presumed" to be in fear of losing life or suffering great bodily harm and use of lethal force is justified. Of course, that won't protect you from prosecution in San Francisco or Los Angeles County because the Nazi district attorneys there don't give a fly'n rodent's posterior about what the law sez.
 
I love Washington's law: not only full civil protection, but a full refund of expenses incurred in successfully defending a criminal prosecution.

My only concern is that such a law will add even more motivation for the prosecutor to, shall we say, influence the outcome of a case in one particular direction. (See also: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/04/supreme_court_accepts_new_pros.php and http://reason.com/archives/2009/09/28/the-infallible-prosecutor; the first has to do with a prosecutor withholding exculpatory evidence, the second with prosecutors actively manufacturing inculpatory evidence).
 
Flyboy, thanks for the links. It is a real shame that this kind of crap happens in the US.
Two guys from Ada, OK were railroaded onto death row by a putrid prosecutor and crooked cops. The scumbag who was later proven by DNA evidence to be the murderer testified against those guys at their murder trial.

Barry Scheck and the Innocence Project got them freed. The city of Ada has raised property taxes twice to pay their share of the federal jury award.


BTW: An OK prosecutor is not required to take a righteous self defense shooting to the grand jury. The family of the late perp can take up a petition for a grand jury: Of course, no one is going to sign a petition on behalf of a home invader. Our former prosecutor gave passes in three righteous shooting cases. IMO the shooter in this case did not have to shoot the big dumb kid:

http://concealed.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/stand-your-ground-law-in-oklahoma-upheld/




The family of the late perp can take up a petition for a grand jury: Of course, no one is going to sign a petition on behalf of a home invader.
 
alsaqr, I'm actually in law school in OKC, and John Grisham came to speak to us about that case. I'm sorry to say I had other commitments that evening; I would love to have been there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top