Are you Liable if...

[revolvers&w]

beat me to it

If it were three well placed shots, the perp would be dead?? right.

What he said.

 

[Sylvain]

Not sure I would shoot in that situation.
The guy is not pointing a gun directly at you, im not a cop so I would let him take the money and leave.
If he starts to get violent, shoot people and such then I would shoot without warning.
I would not take someone's life just to save the restaurant's money.

 

[LP1]

What he said.

And then you get sued by his mother, his aunt, his brother, the mother(s) of his children, etc. Sad but entirely possible.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If I'm on the jury, you'd walk. If the perp had no gun that would be different. The fact that he is armed with a firearm leads one to believe, "if you don't give me what I want, I will shoot you." In such a case you are protecting another from harm. Blast him.

 

[Caleb]

I would defended the third party who looks to me is in risk of bodily harm. Your lawyer would make it a point you were intervening bodily harm to 3rd person, it was when scum aimed his gun at you that you have lawfully discharged your firearm in self defense.

I don't draw my gun unless I plan to shoot, I shoot to eliminate the threat... Not disable him.

 

[4x4]

Ok, this situation just came to me. Forgive me if i have posted it in the wrong section, i see this as a self defense question.

Situation: You are CC'ing while out to dinner with your family at (insert restaurant name here). While enjoying your (insert food here), a sleaze bag enters with a pistol demanding money. You pull your (insert gun here) and demand he drops his weapon. He turns his hand holding the weapon towards you, presumably to fire. You unload three well placed shot, one severs the perps. spinal cord.

Multiple weeks (or years) later you receive a letter stating the the man you shot is taking you to court for the damages caused by the severd spinal cord.

So, my question is, are you liable in this case?? What are the chances the dirt bag gets hundreds of thousands of dollars off of a man preventing a robbery?

 

[CTC B4Z]

I'd counter sue him for interupting your dinner

 

[4x4]

I'd counter sue him for interupting your dinner

+Cost of 3 bullets + Cost of cleaning your gun

 

[TMU317]

"legal jeopardy" would be criminal. Same as "double jeopardy" means to not be tried criminally twice for the same crime. Civil liability is an entirely different monster. Unless you are wealthy or similar, your chances of getting sued are slim. Lawyers go where the money is. Me, getting sued is not unusual. Doing my job well and 100% legal means nothing when it comes time to sue. The city has deep pockets and criminals will lie through their teeth to get into them.

I was fairly certain that was the case, but didn't want to "assume" anything, as I know what assuming can lead to...

 

[ryknoll3]

You pointed your gun at him first. Just sayin' If someone else is getting robbed ten feet away are you in fear of your life? It would probably be a case by case basis. I doubt he could sue you if you were in the right.

Two things:

1. This is most important.... Indiana's standard is NOT "Fear of your life." This is an often-repeated falsehood on INGO. I see it all the time. The standard is "death OR serious bodily injury." There IS a big difference.

2. Indiana law allows for the use of deadly force to protect yourself OR a third party. The perp pointing the gun at the third party would be your justification to employ deadly force to protect the third party.

Anybody can sue anybody. I think in MOST cases, you would prevail.

 

[cbseniour]

given what you have stated he can probably find a lawyer to file suit against you. Ergo you must again defend yourself. Hire a lawyer, experts etc. If you have liability insurance and there are no exclusions for this type incident then the insurance company owe you a defense and will probably pay the perp off for cost of defense.
IANAL

 

[finity]

You pointed your gun at him first. Just sayin' If someone else is getting robbed ten feet away are you in fear of your life?

Maybe but they definitely are & that's all the justification you need to act on their behalf.

You could be sued, and he could win. There was a case years back where a burgular attempted to enter a residence via a glass roof. The burgular fell through the glass in an attempt to gain entrance, and sliced himself open on a non-serated steak knife; he took the owner of the residence (an 80 year old widow) to court and won 15,000$.

I believe that this is a different scenario from what we are discussing. To a civil jury it's possible that until the burglar makes entry there really is no proof to say that he was trying to make entry. In that case I think it would be the same kind of liability you would incur as if someone walked through your yard & broke their leg tripping on a rake.

Once they are in or you take action to defend yourself even if they aren't in then the situation changes from a civil liability claim to a criminal act & justified use of force in self-defense.

Any slick lawyer could state that his client was not a threat prior to you engaging the individual.

And any minimally competent defense attorney could show that statement to be false given the fact that the BG was armed & in the process of an armed robbery when he was shot.

I think there is a presumption in law that in that type of a situation the BG is DEFINITELY a threat. Otherwise there would be no purpose at all for a self-defense law that allows you to use any kind of force to PREVENT force from being used on you.

IOW, you don't have to wait to be shot before you can shoot the BG who is pointing a gun at you.

They in theory could (and in all actuality, probably would) go with the angle that your use of force was excessive after striking the assailant not once, but two times after only giving him one chance to drop his weapon.

Not that I think a non-LEO would be held to some arbitrary standard of "excessive force" in a case such as this where you are LEGALLY JUSTIFIED to use deadly force. LEGALLY justified as in it's written right there in the IC.

You need to look up the definition of a "forcible felony". The justification to use deadly force goes even further than what ryknoll correctly states above. It not only includes serious bodily injuruy (which includes death in the definition but also the aformentioned "forcible felony" (which includes armed robbery among others).

In all likelihood you would lose.

Really?

Could you please post a case from IN where the victim was successfully sued by the BG in a case of the victim using justified self-defense against the BG during an armed robbery?

Anybody?

I doubt it.

The attorney for the victim would ask if you were a policeman (your response being presumably "no") or if you had any training that would lend creedence to the belief that your actions were appropriate for the "misunderstood" situation ( the response of "I took a CCW/ LTCH handgun course" or a "firearms self-defense course" would not hold any water).

The IC doesn't require you to be trainined in order for you to lawfully use force to defend yourself or others.

My suggestion, Dont use lethal (or potentially lethal force) unless there is no other option. There are simply too many ways for it to turn sideways, in a short period of time.

Hey, finally!

That's the only thing I agree with you about in your entire post. And as a matter of fact is what is even required by law.

But if a guy is pointing a gun at me or someone else implying they will kill me/them then at point you are pretty much at your "last option" stage.

 

[IndyGunner]

IOW, you don't have to wait to be shot before you can shoot the BG who is pointing a gun at you.

+1 This is not Iraq.

 

[newtothis]

Maybe but they definitely are & that's all the justification you need to act on their behalf.



I believe that this is a different scenario from what we are discussing. To a civil jury it's possible that until the burglar makes entry there really is no proof to say that he was trying to make entry. In that case I think it would be the same kind of liability you would incur as if someone walked through your yard & broke their leg tripping on a rake.

Once they are in or you take action to defend yourself even if they aren't in then the situation changes from a civil liability claim to a criminal act & justified use of force in self-defense.



And any minimally competent defense attorney could show that statement to be false given the fact that the BG was armed & in the process of an armed robbery when he was shot.

I think there is a presumption in law that in that type of a situation the BG is DEFINITELY a threat. Otherwise there would be no purpose at all for a self-defense law that allows you to use any kind of force to PREVENT force from being used on you.

IOW, you don't have to wait to be shot before you can shoot the BG who is pointing a gun at you.




Not that I think a non-LEO would be held to some arbitrary standard of "excessive force" in a case such as this where you are LEGALLY JUSTIFIED to use deadly force. LEGALLY justified as in it's written right there in the IC.

You need to look up the definition of a "forcible felony". The justification to use deadly force goes even further than what ryknoll correctly states above. It not only includes serious bodily injuruy (which includes death in the definition but also the aformentioned "forcible felony" (which includes armed robbery among others).




Really?

Could you please post a case from IN where the victim was successfully sued by the BG in a case of the victim using justified self-defense against the BG during an armed robbery?

Anybody?

I doubt it.




The IC doesn't require you to be trainined in order for you to lawfully use force to defend yourself or others.



Hey, finally!

That's the only thing I agree with you about in your entire post. And as a matter of fact is what is even required by law.

But if a guy is pointing a gun at me or someone else implying they will kill me/them then at point you are pretty much at your "last option" stage.

IC doesnt matter when its civil, only criminal. There are plenty of cases where regardless of codified law, a "victim" is sued and pays out. Therefore it doesnt matter what the law is, if a liberal judge decides that your actions were over the top... or maybe you havent seen how the court system has been working these days. Also, "forcible felony" is not a term recognized under Indiana Code.

If they are pointing a gun at another person, then they arent pointing a gun at YOU. YOU have to be in immediate danger of death or bodily harm, or someone around you has to be immediate danger of death or bodily harm in order to use justifiable lethal force... I.E. you cant yell "HEY" and then shoot someone who is at the other end of the restaurant or diner. 3 well placed bullets should be enough to put someone down, and the attorney for the "Victim" will state that you are liable for the paralysis (same way you could be brought to court for a wrongful death suit in the event that the bg was killed).

One final thing, the other attorney will state that you are liable because you didnt give the bg a chance to drop the weapon or flee... and therefore should be liable. Unless he gets a great attorney he is going to lose, whether it be due to a settlement or losing the case altogether.

No good deed goes unpunished.

 

[newtothis]

+1 This is not Iraq.

-1, Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[GBuck]

Newtothis, I wholeheartedly disagree. First, I think, and unless you can cite a case record, that the BG falling through glass and suing is one of those myths that get spread around as facts, much like the FACT that they are getting rid of lifetime LTCHs. Second, The IC listed above does clearly state that you can protect your life OR the life of a third party. You, being an experienced pistol operator, know that you never point a gun at something you do not inted to shoot. If the BG is pointing the gun at a worker, the worker's life is in immediate jeopardy. When he turns to you, your life is in immediate jeopardy. It has been proven time and time again that a gun pointed at you is more than enough reasonable thought that your life is in danger. There is the possibility that you will face civil suit. There is also the possibility that the case will be dismissed or you would win. (this is more likely than losing, in the state of IN)

 

[cbseniour]

Civil law requires that there be a duty to the other person, that the duty be violated and that there be ensuing damages in order to prove liability.

All three requirements must be met.
You had no duty to protect the bg from your bullets. You were justified under Indiana Law to protect yourself and/or the third party by the use of deadly force.
I think a civil liability suite would e very difficult to win that doesn't mean that some lawyer especially anti gun type wouldn't take the opportunity to ruin us financially by forcing you to defend yourself in court.

 

[Caleb]

Newtothis, I wholeheartedly disagree. First, I think, and unless you can cite a case record, that the BG falling through glass and suing is one of those myths that get spread around as facts, much like the FACT that they are getting rid of lifetime LTCHs. Second, The IC listed above does clearly state that you can protect your life OR the life of a third party. You, being an experienced pistol operator, know that you never point a gun at something you do not inted to shoot. If the BG is pointing the gun at a worker, the worker's life is in immediate jeopardy. When he turns to you, your life is in immediate jeopardy. It has been proven time and time again that a gun pointed at you is more than enough reasonable thought that your life is in danger. There is the possibility that you will face civil suit. There is also the possibility that the case will be dismissed or you would win. (this is more likely than losing, in the state of IN)

I agree with this... Newtothis, I think the fits you well.

 

[24Carat]

I am an intelligent, informed, reasonable person. I am also a Sheepdog. All verifiable reliable research sources I have queried and all learned individuals I have sought tutelage from leaves me comfortable in the decision to dust the perp ending the OP scenario and any future potential displays of lethal aggression by the BG. One less witness for the petitioners attorney is a plus. Also, they can't get blood out of a rock.

 

[cobber]

What if you aim at the chest and the third shot hits them in the head. Can I just claim that im not that great of a shot

If you state on the record that you're not that good a shot, that could be evidence that you actually endangered other members of the public by using your firearm. Even if you only hit the perp, with three disabling shots.

And killing the perp doesn't get anyone clear of a wrongful death suit by his estate, grieving widow, etc.

Whether the statute addresses criminal or civil liability, you would still need to prove that you lawfully acted in self-defense.