Civil suits

[FireBirdDS]

After hearing what others have to say about the subject, it's left me with the impression that any situation where an attacker is stopped (killed, injured) and is ruled by police to be a legitimate case of self defense, though there would be no criminal charges filed in such a case, there is a high likely hood that whatever civil suit brought to bear by the attacker's family would certainly bring financial ruin. It almost sounds like if I survive the encounter, my life after that would surely turn to hell.

Any thoughts? Feedback?

 

[PhilB]

If you live in Indiana, I don't think that is the case. I believe if the shooting you are involved in is ruled to be justified that you can't have a civil suit brought against you for that. You might want to read thru the "stand your ground" law to be sure though. This is a snippet I found with a quick search...

"(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

I'm sure there are more knowledgable members who can give you better information.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Then you sue 'em right back. And sue every single one of their family members, friends, employers, etc. Put pressure on everyone else so that if their suit is dropped, so will all of yours.

-J-

 

[Trooper]

If you live in Indiana, I don't think that is the case. I believe if the shooting you are involved in is ruled to be justified that you can't have a civil suit brought against you for that. You might want to read thru the "stand your ground" law to be sure though. This is a snippet I found with a quick search...

"(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

I'm sure there are more knowledgable members who can give you better information.

by not having to retreat could mean that you do not have to back down when being bullies (like the union thugs at the State House or a drug gang trying to push neighbors around).

 

[sloughfoot]

After hearing what others have to say about the subject, it's left me with the impression that any situation where an attacker is stopped (killed, injured) and is ruled by police to be a legitimate case of self defense, though there would be no criminal charges filed in such a case, there is a high likely hood that whatever civil suit brought to bear by the attacker's family would certainly bring financial ruin. It almost sounds like if I survive the encounter, my life after that would surely turn to hell.

Any thoughts? Feedback?

Pretty close to being right. It doesn't matter what the law says, it is what the jury and Judge says in the inevitable civil case.

You don't have to believe me. Just ask any Police Officer involved in a totally justified shooting.

 

[IndyGunSafety]

If you live in Indiana, I don't think that is the case. I believe if the shooting you are involved in is ruled to be justified that you can't have a civil suit brought against you for that.

Nope. They can sue the crap out of you! I thought the same thing but our "Castle Law" is not as good as some. Learned this at an Indy Gun Safety special event where Bryan Ciyou was the speaker. I asked him several questions about it.

 

[.45 Dave]

Nope. They can sue the crap out of you! I thought the same thing but our "Castle Law" is not as good as some. Learned this at an Indy Gun Safety special event where Bryan Ciyou was the speaker. I asked him several questions about it.

Very interesting. However, if my life or my wife's life or even a third party's life is on the line, I'll take may chances in court to save them. If I don't then there really is no reason for me to carry a gun in the first place. I would be nothing but another sheep target for a BG who doesn't care about the law.

 

[24Carat]

"No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

Cut and dried.

Needs to be tested in court.

Jeopardy = Loss.

If I give my dollars to a Lawyer to represent me, I have suffered a loss.

If Petitioner can find a fool to represent them so be it.

Counter sue.

End of story

(I love these Glock phrases)

 

[jbombelli]

I could not find a definition of "jeopardy" in the Indiana Code.

All I could find was Black's Law Dictionary, wherein it is defined as follows:

"Jeopardy is the danger of conviction and punishment which the defendant in a criminal action incurs when a valid indictment has been found, and a petit jury has been impaneled and sworn to try the case and give a verdict."


I can't find any definition anywhere that specifically includes civil suit.

There have been many threads on this on INGO, and here is what I took away from them, based on what some of the INGO attorneys had to say on the issue:

You CAN be sued. At some point the suit will most likely be dismissed, but at what stage in the process that will actually happen is unclear.

Now, provided you were justified, and the police reports say so, I doubt the shootee or his estate is going to find an attorney to pursue the case without paying them a hefty retainer up front. Attorneys don't like to take losing cases without being paid first. And if he's worth a damn he'll tell his clients they're going to spend a lot of money and lose.



Part of the problem here (probably all of the problem) is that our state legislature does not issue statements of intent regarding the laws they enact. They leave it to the courts to figure out.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

legal jeopardy =/= civil jeopardy

-J-

 

[vitamink]

Pretty close to being right. It doesn't matter what the law says, it is what the jury and Judge says in the inevitable civil case.

You don't have to believe me. Just ask any Police Officer involved in a totally justified shooting.

Exactly what he said.

Any time a shooting happens the family sues the police. It may be different for individuals as the people suing may not feel you have enough money to warrant the expense.

Timothy "Jake" Laird

brief synopsis:

Ken Anderson is diagnosed bipolar schizophrenic and is off his medication. He goes to his mom's house and kills her. He then tells his brother, "wait'll you see what happens next!" He then goes outside and starts shooting up the neighborhood. As officers arrive on a "man with a gun" call he starts shooting their cars with an SKS wounding several LEO'S (4) and fatally injuring Jake laird. Pete Koe is able to close the distance on Ken Anderson despite being shot in the thigh with a 7.62x39. Ken transitions to a 357 but isn't fast enough and is shot and killed.

Family sues IPD stating that if their firearms program and officers are so "top notch", the officer should have been able to shoot the gun out of his hand.

 

[24Carat]

legal jeopardy =/= civil jeopardy

-J-

^^?^^

 

[wva3470]

You can be sued for anything for any reason. If you use force, deadly, physical or other and someone dies or is severely injured, you will be sued. It's called "Insurance". Just ask any LEO, or Liability Insurance carrier, and you'll find out carriers will pay some major dollars to avoid losing mega dollars. Been involved, currently involved, doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong whatever the cheapest route is will be the route taken. JUSTICE is defined by dollars and cents, NOT right or wrong.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Part of the problem here (probably all of the problem) is that our state legislature does not issue statements of intent regarding the laws they enact. They leave it to the courts to figure out.

Not entirely true.

IC 35-41-3-2(a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.

That's something of a statement of intent for the new deadly force against public servants amendment.

 

[24Carat]

"Originally Posted by hoosiertriangle
I have the same question. My quick review of trial law in Indiana reveals that the issue has not been decided. Furthermore, "legal jeopardy" has been defined in the context of actions brought by the state. There is very little Indiana case law on the use of "legal jeopardy" in the context of civil liability. Finally, Black's Law Dictionary may be a fine starting point, but has no authority. I was not able to find a court opinion here that has so limited the definition of "legal jeopardy" solely to criminal proceedings."

Though there may not be " Indiana doesn't have an official record of legislative intent." Intent in statute has been addressed in Starr Vs. State:

"statutes should be interpreted in order to give efficient operation to the expressed intent of the legislature. Id. The best evidence of legislative intent is the language of the statute, giving all words their plain and ordinary meaning unless otherwise indicated by the statute. Chambliss v. State, 746 N.E.2d 73, 77 (Ind. 2001). Statutes relating to the same general subject matter are in pari materia and should be construed together so as to produce a harmonious statutory scheme. Sanders v. State, 466 N.E.2d 424, 428 (Ind. 1984)."

I feel my argument stands, legal jeopardy is inclusive of civil as well as criminal action. I therefore am not chilled from action.

"(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."