Is there a duty to act?? What would you do?

[24Carat]

Not quite...

The phrase is "...legal jeopardy..." not "...legal liability..."


In Black's Law Dictionary, the term Jeopardy is defined as "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 in a court of competent jurisdiction..." and has nothing to do with civil suit.

To the best of my knowledge you can be sued in Indiana after a righteous shoot. They'll just claim the force wasn't "reasonable." Based on the righteousness of the shoot, they might have a hard time finding an attorney to take the case, and may well have a hard time winning, but I don't believe that prevents them from trying. Any attorney worth his salt, though, would probably tell them they're going to spend a lot of money and then lose, but again that doesn't preclude them from trying.


More discussion here:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...llowed_against_lawful_self_defense_in_in.html

and here:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._homeowner_and_the_burgler_tx_court_case.html

and here:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo.../31099-self_defense_and_lawsuit_question.html


edited: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But I do my best to understand my rights and responsibilities as a citizen, and to know the potential ramifications of whatever course of action I might choose to take in a given situation.

My reasoning is the IC meant to remove the Chill factor from one taking a defensive action. Is it it your contention that the legislature left the door open for civil action? Seems to be a half measure.

 

[jbombelli]

My reasoning is the IC meant to remove the Chill factor from one taking a defensive action. Is it it your contention that the legislature left the door open for civil action? Seems to be a half measure.

Did you go back and read through those threads I linked?

I recommend reading them, and seeing what some of the INGO attorneys have said on this.


Anybody can be sued for anything at anytime. Don't ever forget that.

 

[24Carat]

Yes I read them. This post sorta sums up my understanding of the situation:

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.

 

[.45 Dave]

I seem to remember there was a situation about a year or two ago in Indy where a guy went into a fried chicken place and pulled a knife trying to rob it. A customer pulled his gun and held him until the police arrived. The police commended the customer and the fried chicken place gave him a free dinner.

 

[jbombelli]

Yes I read them. This post sorta sums up my understanding of the situation:

Then you should go read them again. But let me help by quoting a couple of pertinent posts for you.

Your post does not make any sense. As explained earlier in this thread (or in the related thread), the term "jeopardy" is simply not applicable to a civil suit. Jeopardy has do with criminal cases.

Yes, I am an attorney.

Going back to the original question, I believe it is possible in Indiana for such a case to go to trial, although it would be very difficult. Such a case can certainly be filed, anything can be filed, it is just a question of how long it goes on.

Fargo is an attorney as well.


That's two attorneys.

When it comes to the law, I'll believe the word of multiple attorneys in agreement before I'll agree with people who haven't gone to law school.

 

[24Carat]

Has there been a civil case filled since July 2011 ?

 

[MikeDVB]

AGAIN ! I try to interject into the conversation . . . .

What happened to "No Legal Liability"?

It is in the IC. There is no distinction between criminal or civil.

It says "No Legal Liability" !!

Cut and dried, discussion over.

There is a difference between legal liability and civil liability as I understand it. You could not be charged, or be acquitted of charges - but still lose a civil suit. Look at O.J. Simpson for example... He wasn't convicted but he did lose the private civil suit.

 

[Steve B]

IMHO I would be more concerned with the Dbag's family or friends seeking revenge for his death than a law suit. You see it all the time on the news. Some poor distraught mother wailing about her poor baby being killed while committing a crime. He was such a good boy. Never mind he was a gang banging worthless POS that never did anything positive for society. At least the lawyers you can see coming.

 

[finity]

You see it all the time on the news.

In IN?

If you "see it all the time" then it should be easy to post a link (or even several) to show where it has happened...in IN.

That said, I do agree that you may be more likely to receive some sort of gang retribution (of course, that's only if the BG that you shot was a gang member) than to be sued in court for a justified self-defense act.

I think the fact that there is little or no case law on the subject tells me that those mythical lawsuits just don't happen in IN and IF they do it's only very RARELY.

People keep bringing up the OJ trial. That case is NOT pertinent here.

OJ NEVER claimed self-defense. OJ was in California.

He was charged with MURDER. There was never ANY QUESTION of self-defense. There wasn't enough evidence to convict him of murder but the jury felt there WAS enough evidence of wrongful death. That is a HUGE difference. It's hard to claim wrongful death if the criminal justice system has found your actions to be fully legally justified.

Also, did I mention that the OJ case happened in CALIFORNIA not INDIANA?

 

[Hayseed_40]

and OJ did NOT do it, right?

 

[Hookeye]

Very close to that many yrs ago.
3 punks in drugstore late at night, 2 making noise/diversion, 3rd stealing stuff.
No big deal IMHO, happens all the time, the store has cameras and insurance.

Just got in there for prescription, got out of ER, infant was sick (kid and mom then at home). Problem with reading the prescription, took a long while.
Winter, had a coat on and S&W under, was maybe 2 am.

Punks left, I continued reading a gun mag in the periodical section. Yay.

10 mins later punks come back silent, fast and split up.
I moved to the end of the mag rack and started drawing my Smith as the lead moron rounded the corner.
In my head there was a lot of screaming "Don't do it!" (for him not to draw anything as I really didn't want to have to kill him).

I had the jump on him, posted to engage BD#2 down a ways (where the 3rd was I have no idea).

They all ran out. No shots fired.

Pharmacist calls my name, I go back and get my stuff, he is clueless to what almost happened.

Go to front counter and one cashier gal is shaking, the other takes my money and I leave.

Clothes were like I stood in a shower.

Dunno what weapons the badguys had, if any...........but they weren't there for anything good.

Decided a revolver and no speedloaders was a bad choice for multiple targets.

I remember a deal yrs before then, as a kid even, where some badguys herded... I think it was Burger King employees.... into a back room and executed them, down in Indy. I swore way back then that I'd never go down like a friggin sheep at a slaughterhouse.

I thought the punks were just shoplifting morons, that left. They came back for something more and put me in the middle of the possible mess. That was entirely their fault.