Are you Liable if...

[Bill of Rights]

Denny347 gave the explanation that "jeopardy" in legalese refers to criminal court, i.e. "double jeopardy". See post #18 in this thread.

As I read it, jeopardy from the court system, that is, the government, is what's prohibited. If I am harmed by someone's action, it is not within the power nor the proper role of government as I see it to deny me the ability to be made whole.

That said, if the person against whom force is used under 35-41-3-2 has made a stupid decision, I am of the opinion that the responsibility for damages caused by his crime rest with him, just as if two commit a crime and one is killed by the victim of the crime, the other criminal stands trial for some form of homicide.

I've been careful to clarify what is my opinion. I do not have access to legal software and databases to give case cites. That will require an attorney or someone else with that access to provide.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Hammerhead]

You may be correct, Bill. However as written, "legal jeopardy" does not specify criminal or civil. Because it is stated in a self defense statute I'm inclined to believe that it was meant to be broad enough to cover both. Your statement of damages and culpability being squarely on the shoulder of the criminal(s) in question is what makes me believe that the victim or their rescuer in the case of a third party are not liable because the actions of the criminal(s) have caused the damages. By saying in a self defense statute that you are not to be placed in any legal jeopardy, the government isn't denying a right to be made whole as in a civil case, but rather placing the blame for damages not on the person required to defend themselves.

If we are to believe that a criminal (i.e. armed robber) commits a crime and is shot by the victim, it's his own damn fault for committing the crime. He wouldn't have been shot otherwise. So he damaged himself. As you said, the idea extends to multiple assailants where one is shot or killed, the other holds the blame for the death, not the victim. The idea of suing oneself for damages because of a crime you committed is absurd, but is more acceptable than suing the victim.

Legal jeopardy does not necessarily match to double jeopardy. Double jeopardy in and of itself is a very specific legal term that covers a very specific set of legal circumstances. Being placed in "...any legal jeopardy whatsoever" isn't nearly as specific.

It is possible, without actually being there and questioning the writers of this statute, to believe that they said "any legal jeopardy" in the place of "any criminal jeopardy." Perhaps they intentionally made it broad enough to cover criminal and civil because they knew of the culpability of the criminal perpetrating an act requiring self defense from the victim.

Again, I could be wrong, and I would happily admit being so. I just don't have enough information on it.

 

[Mackey]

Just my humble opinion:
He was demanding money. I would give him my money. Unless it were clear that he was going to harm someone I wouldn't even pull my piece. Unless you're a LEO I wouldn't get into the demanding that he drop his weapon thing. In nearly every video I've seen where a citizen (usually cashier or owner) presents his arms during robberies, the shooting starts. The sleaze will start shooting, and most like start missing, but spraying the other patrons in the establishment as he tries to escape (really ... most robbers are fond of their lives, unlike homicidal maniacs who need to be put down) . Anyway, since the creep has no money .. and may be dead if you follow your plan... guess who will get sued. Also, If he won the gunfight my kids would be without a dad. if I did, my life would be tied to this piece of s*** or his family and/or lawyers for life.

You have to make your own decisions. But I believe our self-protection fantasies (that's what they are ... but they are important for training) should always start with us looking for a way out. That's not being a coward, that's playing smart.

 

[24Carat]

Denny347 (authority?) gave the explanation that "jeopardy" in legalese refers to criminal court, i.e. "double jeopardy". See post #18 in this thread.

As I read it, jeopardy from the court system, that is, the government, is what's prohibited. If I am harmed by someone's action, it is not within the power nor the proper role of government as I see it to deny me the ability to be made whole. ( ??? Civil Law's exercise, scope and limits on redress is established by legislative statute )

That said, if the person against whom force is used under 35-41-3-2 has made a stupid decision, I am of the opinion that the responsibility for damages caused by his crime rest with him, just as if two commit a crime and one is killed by the victim of the crime, the other criminal stands trial for some form of homicide.

I've been careful to clarify what is my opinion. I do not have access to legal software and databases to give case cites. That will require an attorney or someone else with that access to provide.

Blessings,
Bill

Access to legal software and databases still would not give any of us the standing or authority to obtain a final reading and allow us to comfortably lay this discussion to bed. A judge is the only authority.

Absent a judge our next best means of clear direction and understanding is two fold:

1. Understanding the definitions of the words in the statute individually and in context IE the phrases from a legal / statutory standpoint.

legal
adj., adv. according to law, not in violation of law or anything related to the law.


legal action
n. any lawsuit, petition or prosecution.


jeopardy

n. peril

1. Risk of loss or injury; peril or danger.

jeopardy legal definition
n A defendant’s risk of punishment.

Civil law (or civilian law) is a legal system inspired by Roman law and whose primary feature is that laws are codified into collections, as compared to common law systems that gives great precedential weight to common law on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.[1][2]

Parties in Civil Litigation

The parties to a civil lawsuit include the plaintiff, the defendant, and possibly third parties.
The plaintiff is the party that has allegedly suffered some legal wrong at the hands of the defendant, the party responsible for infringing upon the plaintiff's rights. The plaintiff files a lawsuit against the defendant, using the courts as the forum to argue that the defendant should be held responsible for the plaintiff's injuries and should compensate (suffer injury or peril) the plaintiff for its losses.

Thus we are talking about "No Legal Jeopardy". NOT "No Criminal Legal Jeopardy", NOT "No Civil Legal Jeopardy". Simply "No Legal Jeopardy".

The second necessary consideration is the intent of the statute.

The legislature clearly wanted to remove the risk and exposure associated with a legally licensed handgun owner exercising a potentially lethal response to what they, in their judgement as being a "Proper Person", feel is necessary to halt the threat to themselves or third parties. This is a calculable intent to protect the citizens of Indiana from the BG.

Both civil and criminal threat can and will effectively chill action of the LTCH holder equally. Why in heavens name would the legislature remove one threat that hampers their intent and not the other?? By your reasoning Bill, IC 35-41-3-2 Use of force to protect person or property is effectively impotent.

 

[Bill of Rights]

24Carat,
I was asked to cite a case. The use of those legal databases, such as Westlaw and LexisNexis, is necessary to find those cases. I have no access to them, and if there is case law in which a judge has ruled on the meaning of the statute, that's where it would be found.

Again, I'd love for this to be true: I'd love to have the statute specifically protect me from not only criminal prosecution, but also from the vindictive family members of the slimeball whose criminal acts I may have to end tomorrow with a bullet. The fact that people are sued for doing exactly that tells me that the law does not, in fact, provide that protection.
Someone with a legal degree, if you'd chime in and lay this to rest with some case cites, please, I think I would not be the only one to appreciate it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[24Carat]

 

[T.Lex]

I do not believe that statute has been interpreted in the context you describe.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Is the question, "will I be sued successfully on this fact pattern?"

Or is it, "is there a magic aegis law that prevents me from being sued?"

 

[GlockFox]

Just my humble opinion:
He was demanding money. I would give him my money. Unless it were clear that he was going to harm someone I wouldn't even pull my piece. Unless you're a LEO I wouldn't get into the demanding that he drop his weapon thing. In nearly every video I've seen where a citizen (usually cashier or owner) presents his arms during robberies, the shooting starts. The sleaze will start shooting, and most like start missing, but spraying the other patrons in the establishment as he tries to escape (really ... most robbers are fond of their lives, unlike homicidal maniacs who need to be put down) . Anyway, since the creep has no money .. and may be dead if you follow your plan... guess who will get sued. Also, If he won the gunfight my kids would be without a dad. if I did, my life would be tied to this piece of s*** or his family and/or lawyers for life.

You have to make your own decisions. But I believe our self-protection fantasies (that's what they are ... but they are important for training) should always start with us looking for a way out. That's not being a coward, that's playing smart.

+1 I was ready to start the debate until I read this. Great reminder!!

 

[singlestacksig]

i think the criminal would be liable for his own injuries, he was in the act of committing a crime.

 

[Hammerhead]

Is the question, "will I be sued successfully on this fact pattern?"

Or is it, "is there a magic aegis law that prevents me from being sued?"

Oh, I have no doubt that a law suit CAN be filed against you. Would it be successful in IN with the current self defense statutes and the fact that the criminal is generally held liable for their criminal acts (i.e. accomplice is shot in self defense, they're charged with homicide or getaway driver is just as guilty as bank robber)?

 

[24Carat]

I do not believe that statute has been interpreted in the context you describe.

Who describes?

 

[24Carat]

Is the question, "will I be sued successfully on this fact pattern?"

Or is it, "is there a magic aegis law that prevents me from being sued?"

By my expending monies to hire a lawyer to respond to a suit being filed against me I am suffering a loss IE jeopardy. (Possible damages in counter suit?)

Magic law? No. But clarification is sorely needed here. Addressing this to the author of the statute would be appropriate. Who was that?

 

[Bill of Rights]

By my expending monies to hire a lawyer to respond to a suit being filed against me I am suffering a loss IE jeopardy. (Possible damages in counter suit?)

Magic law? No. But clarification is sorely needed here. Addressing this to the author of the statute would be appropriate. Who was that?

There were several authors of the various changes to the law, plus the authors of the changes that happened after the original authors wrote their bills but before the legislature voted on the bills in question. Such changes could happen any time between First Reading (to the committee that hears the bill) and Second Reading (when the committee votes on the bill). On rare occasions, such changes can even happen after Third Reading (when one or another house votes on a bill), not to mention happening in conference committee when the houses of the legislature have voted on different versions of it.

The original law we have now was penned in 1976.

It was amended in 1977, 1979, 2002, and 2006.

As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.

If I recall correctly, 2006 was when the Castle Doctrine was re-codified and clarified to leave no doubt about there being no duty to retreat. I'm not sure if the no jeopardy clause was added or not.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[T.Lex]

Guys,

There's another layer of complexity - Indiana doesn't have an official record of legislative intent. It is not too harsh to say that it absolutely doesn't matter what the author(s) of the legislation intended, it only matters what was written. The courts will only look at the same letters, words, and sentences that you are. Then, they will interpret them within the framework of whatever case is before them.

So, getting back to my prior post, I am not familiar with any case in Indiana that interpreted that statute in the context of a civil suit brought against someone who claimed protection from a civil suit under that statutory provision. We won't know the answer unless and until that kind of case gets brought.

That's a long way of saying, "Your guess is as good as mine."

Getting back to KF's point, there is no law out there that will prevent you from being sued. At that point, it depends on the facts, the lawyers, and the court (and the court of appeals) to decide whether you are protected.

There's a phrase "issue of first impression" to signal when a court is looking at an issue for the first time. As far as I am aware, a self-defending defendant in a civil suit from the would-be-aggressor plaintiff, would be such an issue of first impression in the Indiana appellate courts.

I am open to correction on this, though, as I've not researched it. If someone wants to hire me to do that, we can make those arrangements. But, the answer may still end up being, "It depends."

 

[Bill of Rights]

T.Lex and Kirk, thank you for your input, gentlemen. I had said that the fact that people do file these lawsuits tends to indicate to me that the law does not, in fact, protect people against these types of civil suits. (that is, I can't imagine an attorney not using that clause to at least defend his client, if not file for summary dismissal.) Am I following that logical chain correctly? If not, explain, please?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Is the confusion over people thinking that Indiana law is like the law of other states, e.g. Florida, that bars civil litigation after a finding (however that is done) of self-defense???

 

[finity]

Is the confusion over people thinking that Indiana law is like the law of other states, e.g. Florida, that bars civil litigation after a finding (however that is done) of self-defense???

Thats not MY confusion.

I know that you can be sued for anything, at any time. I just think that it would be a (hopefully) very short lived suit - to the point that the judge would (hopefully) dismiss it quickly - due to the plaintiff being the person responsible for the actions that led to causing their own injury & the defendant being found legally justified in using the amount of force that they did against the plaintiff.

It would suck that you had to spend any money at all defending this but it would (hopefully) be a small amount in the big picture of things.

 

[Hammerhead]

Thanks for the discussion, guys. I'm not saying that some moron who decides to mug you and gets a dose of lead poisoning in return couldn't sue you for his injuries, it just should be fairly simple to see the case go bye-bye with the statute in question.

Then again, if you'd just make that case of lead poisoning fatal...

+1 to you guys. Edit: I'll have to get T. Lex when I spread some around.

 

[CarmelHP]

I've researched it on Lexis and find no cases referencing that section.