theorangeplanet 968 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Meth addict accused in burglary sues 90 year old home-owner shot in jaw. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dad2142Dad 6,559 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MT Predator 2,294 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 I can't wait until a big quake breaks that shot hole off on a fault line and dumps it into the Pacific. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogMan 2,343 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Maybe more likely, but not only in California. Anybody can sue anybody, anywhere, anytime, for anything. That doesn't mean they have a case. This is not the legal system going after the homeowner, it's just some dirtbag and his lawyer trying to get a payday. Now, is this type of lawsuit more likely to be successful in California? Well, anything is possible (see State vs. Orenthal James Simpson) but based on the facts presented I'd say not this time, but nothing would surprise me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
belt fed frog 56 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) Can`t happen here if the situation is as stated in link law shields him from Criminal and Civil action of any type . Edited October 30, 2012 by belt fed frog Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mogunner 240 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 That's why it's better to not "wound" a criminal... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Matthew Hopkins 1,065 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) That's why it's better to not "wound" a criminal... still wouldn't matter, family can still sue ie. Zimmerman. "he dun kilt my baby, my baby don't do nutin' wrong" Edited October 30, 2012 by Matthew Hopkins 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Syndicate 812 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 I don't think the case is going to go very far. Well I hope at least. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 7,071 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 In a sane world, the suit would never have been allowed to be filed. California... Best move I ever made was leaving that damned State. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogMan 2,343 Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Can`t happen here if the situation is as stated in link law shields him from Criminal and Civil action of any type . That's a pretty broad statement. I'm not aware of any laws that automatically protect a person from legal or civil action, only ones that can be used as a defense in such actions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 7,071 Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Can`t happen here if the situation is as stated in link law shields him from Criminal and Civil action of any type . That's a pretty broad statement. I'm not aware of any laws that automatically protect a person from legal or civil action, only ones that can be used as a defense in such actions. There are a good number of States with 'Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground' laws that protect the Citizen from Civil lawsuits in a Self Defense shooting.Here in Alabama we've our Stand Your Ground law, and it states: (d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful. Immunity from civil lawsuit In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many laws implementing the Castle Doctrine, particularly those with a "Stand-Your-Ground clause", also have a clause which provides immunity from any lawsuit filed on behalf of the assailant for damages or injury resulting from the lawful use of non-excessive force. Without this clause an assailant can sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain and suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defender, or their next-of-kin may sue for wrongful death in the case of a fatality. Even if successfully rebutted, the defendant (the homeowner defender) may have to pay high legal costs as a result of such lawsuits; without immunity, such civil action could be used for revenge against a defender acting lawfully. Use of force in self-defense which causes damage or injuries to other parties who were not acting criminally may give rise to prosecution and damages. Edited October 31, 2012 by ChileRelleno 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vulcan16 971 Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 The real criminal will be the lawyer the scumbag hires to present his case. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 7,071 Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 That's why it's better to not "wound" a criminal... still wouldn't matter, family can still sue ie. Zimmerman. "he dun kilt my baby, my baby don't do nutin' wrong" If Zimmerman is found to have lawfully defended himself, then the the Martin Family can file all the Civil suits they want to.Florida Law. 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.— (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1). History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 7,071 Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Can`t happen here if the situation is as stated in link law shields him from Criminal and Civil action of any type . I'm trying to find an 'Immunity Clause' in California's law... I can't find it.I do believe that while your use of force to defend yourself may be legally justified and not a crime, the current state of the law in California is that you can still be sued and found civilly liable for causing injury from that use of force. Edited October 31, 2012 by ChileRelleno Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogMan 2,343 Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 (d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful. That's good that you can't be sued if there is no criminal act but it sounds like your legal and civil liability is still at the prosecutors whim. It says "unless the force was determined to be unlawful". He still gets to decide to prosecute you or not depending on whether he thinks something about the way you defended yourself was unlawful. And if he can't prove that, why would you be prosecuted anyway? Regardless, I stand corrected on the immunity from civil liability part. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MT Predator 2,294 Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 I'm trying to find an 'Immunity Clause' in California's law... I can't find it. I do believe that while your use of force to defend yourself may be legally justified and not a crime, the current state of the law in California is that you can still be sued and found civilly liable for causing injury from that use of force. Which is fucked up if you are legally justified to defend yourself with force, what does California think the outcome of that force will be? If you are cleared of a criminal charge, you should with the civil bullshit as well. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MT Predator 2,294 Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 I have a friend who shot and killed a meth head in a fast food joint here in FL. The perp tried to rob the restaraunt, when the staff balked at his demands, he threatened to start shooting customers. My friend was hit in the thigh and leg with three .380s but scored a good controlled pair to the dickhead's chest with his G19. Police arrived and surveyed the scene and interviewed people as my friend was being wheeled to the ambulance. They took his G19 until the "investigation" was complete. A couple hours later after being treated and released, he was given his Glock back by one of the officers who waited there until his release. No court date, just a Police Report, done deal. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 7,071 Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 (d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful. That's good that you can't be sued if there is no criminal act but it sounds like your legal and civil liability is still at the prosecutors whim. It says "unless the force was determined to be unlawful". He still gets to decide to prosecute you or not depending on whether he thinks something about the way you defended yourself was unlawful. And if he can't prove that, why would you be prosecuted anyway? Regardless, I stand corrected on the immunity from civil liability part. If the shoot is deemed unlawful... Well, you're totally screwed anyways. Just remember, Civil Lawsuits are totally F'd up in general. I mean c'mon you can be found Not Guilty of whatever crime, and still be sued and found liable... That is just complete horse shat. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mogunner 240 Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 When my father-in-law and I operated a towing company in California, one night I responded to a call from the local PD. After pursuing a motorcycle, they found the operator didn't have a motorcycle license so the officer requested that it be towed (since the guy was a smart-ass and pissed the cop off). I arrived and used the standard motorcycle slings on it, it was an old Triumph that the guy was all up in my face about "You better not scratch it asshole" until the cop finally made him walk off down the road. When I lifted it up, it snapped the seat hinges as the guy had installed PLASTIC friggin China made imitations instead of the real shit. Long story short, he filed a small claims suit against us, and even though he had tried to outrun the cops the judge still found in his favor for $1000...I bet he didn't pay $5 for those POS hinges. But Karma took over... that weekend we towed his SON'S car in, a sweet-ass Turbo Trans Am that the kid was out screwing around in with no plates on it, because the TITLE was f'd up, and anyone in Cali knows if you ain't got the paper you're pretty well screwed out there. Kid came in, I told him have his Dad come in. Dad comes in, I tell him that we'll run the lien sale on the car and sell it back to him for $1500. He balked at first, but since they couldn't produce legal paperwork on it, the car was gonna be ours in 30 days anyways, so basically he paid us $500 to run the lien on it, which cost us $15. And yeah, he had to go into the court and file that the case against us was paid up... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
belt fed frog 56 Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 ChileRelleno, i have never said i live in Kalifornacate i don`t ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sim_Player 1,939 Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Three .380's to the leg and thigh in exchange for two shots to the chest is a fair trade. Notice how they burried the Zimmerman Case until after the election? If he is found innocent, I hope he can sue the State of Florida. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.