Defending against violent crime - reimbursement

[dmazur]

As a result of trying to follow various developments in the current events related to Heller and the basic civil right of self-defense, I realized that I was basically ignorant.

That is, without further research, I couldn't understand half of what I was reading.

I found, for Washington State, that the following is on the books -

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. ...

Is this usual or unusual? By that I mean, does anyone know offhand if the majority of the other states have similar laws, or are the folks in Washington just lucky?

 

[ctdonath]

Very unusual ... and the way things should be.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Should be the same for civil as well - EVERYWHERE!

Woody

 

[The Tourist]

I was about to post that. I wondered if it covered civil actions.

If I'm ever charged civilly after self defense, I intend to sue the guy's family. I'll tell you why.

After Chris Farley died, there were numerous people who cried a river over the event. They canonized him. They started charities. "Everyone" expressed shock over the tragedy.

The reality was a tad different. It turns out that everyone knew about his problems with substance abuse and did nothing. I've even heard an urban legend that David Spade wasn't even at the funeral.

In other words, his death was a long time acomin' and nobody did squat.

If I'm attacked, in most scenarios the attacker needed drug or alcohol money. And his family knows and his family is doing nothing.

If I have to go to a shrink post mortem for PTSD because the aggressor's mother didn't do a good job in wiping his butt, I'm going to sue her.

 

[Flyboy]

I like the law, but I can see an unintended consequence.

We've already seen that unethical prosecutors will cheat to win. This can provide additional incentive to the prosecution to make sure they don't lose.

Granted, it may also cause them to think twice about whether they want to try in the first place, but I doubt that, say, Mike Nifong would be deterred.

If this came up in my state, I'd write letters in support of it, but I'd definitely be wary of the potential for motivating abuse.

 

[Flyboy]

If I have to go to a shrink post mortem for PTSD because the aggressor's mother didn't do a good job in wiping his butt, I'm going to sue her.

A) I doubt you'd have a legal case.
B) You'd look like a cold-hearted, profiteering bastard to the judge and jury, suing the mother who just lost her child. Don't you watch the news?
C) Are you really trying to argue that the decedent wasn't responsible for his actions? Because that's the claim you'd be making.

 

[leadcounsel]

There is a HUGE drawback to mandatory reimbursement. Think about it for a second and it will come to you.

If a judge/jury is on the fence about someones' guilt or innocence, and if that person is an undesirable character, they may find him guilty just so the state or other party does not have to give the unpopular person a windfall.

It's best to leave the reimbursement up to the judge/jury to decide. Then the financial aspect does not play any role in the verdict.

 

[The Tourist]

suing the mother who just lost her child.

Let her lawyer paint me anyway he wishes.

In the final analysis, she is an uncaring citizen who plunked her butt on a couch watching Oprah while she knew her son robbed the populace for drug money. If anything, she guilty of assault before and after the crime.

Child? Anyone who commits strong-arm robbery is not a child. He's a dead felon.

I intend to sue her right out of her double-wide, and I'll make sure a newspaper reporter gets a front row seat to the trial.