The idea that a state law protects you from being sued after a justified use of force is one of the biggest myths in self defense. It comes up in the forum all the time. This is the truth of the matter......
If you think that your state's law protects you from civil action you should watch this
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
The idea that a state law protects you from being sued after a justified use of force is one of the biggest myths in self defense. It comes up in the forum all the time. This is the truth of the matter......
Unintended consequences.
We used to be a joint and several liability state. (I think that has changed.) That's how Valor Corp ended up owing like a million dollars after Nathaniel Brazil shot a teacher, even though the 13 year old and grandmother had a higher percentage of the liability. Valor had more money, so if they were only liable for 10% of $10 million, that million dollars is more than the plaintiff was going to get out of the $9 million that the grandmother or killer was going to be able to pay. So Valor pays.
We also had a statute of limitations, so plaintiffs' lawyers would sue everybody they could as fast as they could. There was a deputy in our county who lost his legs in an accident. The drunk driver was mostly to blame. But the bystander who put a tourniquet on the deputy was also sued, because the lawyer had a limited amount of time, so he sued everybody. I don't think the legislature thought that consequence through.
Which come to think of it, there's another reason why what Hurley did in Arvada isn't the smartest thing. If a cop hurt him, that cop can't get sued, but if a cop gets hurt, the cop can sue him. One more reason it would have been smart to just get out of there.
We used to be a joint and several liability state. (I think that has changed.) That's how Valor Corp ended up owing like a million dollars after Nathaniel Brazil shot a teacher, even though the 13 year old and grandmother had a higher percentage of the liability. Valor had more money, so if they were only liable for 10% of $10 million, that million dollars is more than the plaintiff was going to get out of the $9 million that the grandmother or killer was going to be able to pay. So Valor pays.
We also had a statute of limitations, so plaintiffs' lawyers would sue everybody they could as fast as they could. There was a deputy in our county who lost his legs in an accident. The drunk driver was mostly to blame. But the bystander who put a tourniquet on the deputy was also sued, because the lawyer had a limited amount of time, so he sued everybody. I don't think the legislature thought that consequence through.
Which come to think of it, there's another reason why what Hurley did in Arvada isn't the smartest thing. If a cop hurt him, that cop can't get sued, but if a cop gets hurt, the cop can sue him. One more reason it would have been smart to just get out of there.
The video could be improved upon, but it does get across the point that the old saw "in my state I cannot be suie" is wrong.
There are provisions in some states that allow citizens to have suits (and criminal charges) thrown out, but they do require going to court to request such action.
There are provisions in some states that allow citizens to have suits (and criminal charges) thrown out, but they do require going to court to request such action.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I don't have time to watch this right now, but doesn't the "immunity from civil lawsuit" first require having successfully navigated your defense through a criminal trial?
Not in any jurisdiction that I am aware of.
One would probably want any criminal issues to be resolved first, by acquittal, dismissal, or the granting of immunity from prosecution, because in the criminal arena, the defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself. In the civil arena, the respondent has no such protection.
Even if your state gives you "immunity" from civil action if you are criminally cleared, that immunity doesn't stop anyone from suing you. It gives your attorney a reason to ask that the suit be dismissed.
Yes--and while the statutes in one or two states may appear to specify otherwise, I wouldn't bet a wooden nickel on them. I submit that any statue that limits a plaintiff' right to be made whole because the state has not proven his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt will be struck down if challenged. It's a fundamental aspect of constitutional law.
armoredman
Member
Hmmm...
Hmmm...
It seems that ours, right now, is limited to the original bad actor, not necessarily the family, but it doesn't say adjudged, or stated in a court of law. Of course, everything in law must survive our adversary proceedings, so until a law or Amendment is tested, nobody can be completely sure HOW it will add up, I mean, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is pretty clear, yet it is abrogated hourly. I am not a lawyer - I only deal with the ones who hired crappy lawyers.
ARS said:
Hmmm...
AZ Constitution said:
It seems that ours, right now, is limited to the original bad actor, not necessarily the family, but it doesn't say adjudged, or stated in a court of law. Of course, everything in law must survive our adversary proceedings, so until a law or Amendment is tested, nobody can be completely sure HOW it will add up, I mean, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is pretty clear, yet it is abrogated hourly. I am not a lawyer - I only deal with the ones who hired crappy lawyers.
ARS 13-413 is similar to the law in suite a number of states.
In most states, whether an act was justified is determined by a court in an immunity hearing, which would prevent a full civil trial.
The burden of persuasion is usually a preponderance of the evidence, but Florida differs on that point.
Old Dog
Member
I can certainly concur with this.
One should also note that in shootings - and many use of physical force cases - involving law enforcement officers, the department/agency is almost always sued by the victims' families, often when the permanently disabled or deceased "victim" was clearly engaged in criminal activity and evidence (including dashcam and bodycam footage) paints the incident as a justifiable shooting or use of force. Yet, settlements are routinely paid, and often, the plaintiffs even win. One suspects this is common in our more politically liberal jurisdictions and states.
I wish I could relate details about the last civil trial I was called to testify in, when our department was sued for a goodly sum. We could have lost (our people did screw up) but the plaintiff's attorney was criminally stupid and asked me a question that he shouldn't have (he didn't know the answer to his question, and you lawyers know what a mistake that is). Anyway, I apparently made the jury laugh when I had to answer honestly, and it pretty much screwed his case, which had been going well up til then, but he wanted to entertain the jury (definitely grandstanding) and paint us as idiots who didn't follow our own policies. Our government attorney (who probably wouldn't have made much money in the private sector or ever become a partner in a law firm) rebounded well, re-framed the issue and the plaintiff lost. The plaintiff's attorney lost his client several hundred thousand dollars (don't know why they didn't ask for more). In any event, use of force cases can be interesting when they go to trial. I've seen some hideously bad lawyering (is that a word?) by both sides, some inexplicable verdicts by juries and a couple judges whose cognitive abilities I questioned.
If any of you have Mas Ayoob, Andrew Branca or Marty Hayes on speed-dial, good for you. Going to civil litigation is a total crapshoot, and you've probably got better odds at a Vegas roulette table.
armoredman
Member
Except one tiny little difference - the other section is in our state constitution. Again, I am no lawyer, but I think that might swing some weight.
Mind you, I have no intention of ever finding out how well this actually works - I'd love to get to the other end of this ride without having to use deadly physical force. And, I am on the down slope.
Old Dog
Member
@armoredman - yep, just down there last week. Tengo familia allí, vine a visitar mi madre.
@
Hope you get there uneventfully!
@
Do you somehow think tat a claim by the defender that the injured person had been " attempting to engage in, engaging in or fleeing after having engaged in or attempted to engage in conduct that is classified as a felony offense" would be accepted on the basis of the defender having said so?
armoredman
Member
AS I have stated multiple times, I am NOT an attorney - I just deal with their mistakes. However, as a layperson, this at least looks encouraging, but it has not yet, as far as I know, been used in court so as to prove its practical effect, or lack thereof, ad I am most certainly NOT volunteering to be the first local test case. Interesting you bring that up, since the Constitutional clause does NOT say it has to be adjudicated, however practically I would assume it would have to be done that way.
They can sue. You and your attorney go to court and ask for the suit to be dismissed based on the immunity law and the evidence of the case. If the judge agrees, it stops there. If not, it goes forward. The laws don't prevent a suit, they only make it easier to get it dismissed and that doesn't happen until you get in front of a judge.
AND, to make it even more fun, it's not always super-clear what triggers the immunity clause to kick in. Is it that the DA didn't try to charge? That the indictment was a no-bill? That the person went to trial and was acquitted? The civil judge will decide based on the circumstances of the case.
AND, to make it even more fun, it's not always super-clear what triggers the immunity clause to kick in. Is it that the DA didn't try to charge? That the indictment was a no-bill? That the person went to trial and was acquitted? The civil judge will decide based on the circumstances of the case.
Matthew Temkin
Member
No—as the impending lawsuit’s against Kyle Rittenhouse proves.
You still have to be found justified during the civil process.
Matthew Temkin
Member
Exactly.
Great post.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
