PDA

View Full Version : The aftermath of a self defense shooting


10-06-2005, 11:11 PM
I have some stupid questions. What if some random bad guy kicks in your front door with a weapon and you shoot and kill him. Then his family sues you in civil court. If the shooting was justifed and the victim or family have no real case to win, you're still going to be force to pay for an attorney to represent you. Either way, it is a lose-lose situation.

Here is my question, what if you get into a gun battle with the bad guy, and both parties get injured, can you sue him or his family in civil court? Or what if you get into a gun battle with the bad guy and you get injured but the bad guy is perfectly fine (no injury but get arrested). Can you still sue him or his family? I dont know why criminals always have more rights than law abiding citizen. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

whatever
10-06-2005, 11:30 PM
These are questions for a lawyer. Asking legal advice on an annonymous forum can sometimes lead to trouble.

imported_dadoody
10-07-2005, 12:07 AM
I agree.

Just remember...law and lawyers in this country, nothing is concrete. It's all a show...

delloro
10-07-2005, 8:50 AM
"Can you still sue him or his family?"

sure sue him, and then what? they don't have money.

"I dont know why criminals always have more rights than law abiding citizen."

they don't.

"Just remember...law and lawyers in this country, nothing is concrete. It's all a show..."

you need a better lawyer. http://www.calguns.net/laughroll.gif

10-07-2005, 9:15 PM
If the shooting was justifed and the victim or family have no real case to win, you're still going to be force to pay for an attorney to represent you.
In theory, you can ask the court to have the other (losing) side pay for you legal expenses (either the actual expenses, or reasonable expenses). In practice, courts tend to not grant that. Furthermore, one can probably assume that neither the bad guy nor his family have any money, so asking them to pay for your attorney is silly.

Here is my question, what if you get into a gun battle with the bad guy, and both parties get injured, can you sue him or his family in civil court?
You can sue anyone you want. Question is whether you have any chance of succeeding. In this case, if you were justified in shooting the bad guy, he must have been doing something pretty bad, and you'll be able to get him for damages. Problem is that most likely the bad guy has absolutely no money, so sueing him is a waste of time (see above). Sueing his family is silly - they did nothing wrong; that case is just going to get thrown out.

Or what if you get into a gun battle with the bad guy and you get injured but the bad guy is perfectly fine (no injury but get arrested).
Whether the bad guy is injured or not makes no difference: you got injured by the bad guy, he was doing something illegal, he's liable for damages. Again, this is purely theoretical: most bad guys are poor, and this particular bad guy is probably in jail.

Unfortunately, very few rich people go around robbing peoples houses and getting into gun battles. It would make the lawsuits much more interesting.

I dont know why criminals always have more rights than law abiding citizen.
Quit whining. They don't. In theory, everyone has the same rights in civil court, whether they are bad people or good people. In practice, the smart and wealthy people usually end up having more rights, because they know how to avail themselves of the legal system, and they can get better lawyers. Given that most common burglars and robbers are neither smart nor rich, they will typically end up with fewer rights.

10-08-2005, 6:56 PM
I just recently read some things on breakthroughs in stun weaponry. I dunno, these two upcoming weapons might be kinda fun, for lack of a better word, to use in a defensive situation. Hmm, hot lead, electric bullets, a lightning gun, or a plasma gun? So much to choose from! Heh, heh..

WEAPONS designed to fire "electric bullets" into crowds are being developed for police and border protection agencies in the US.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725126.300


Militaries and their contractors are getting closer to putting the hurt on a whole bunch of people at once, according to the magazine, with "weapons that can incapacitate crowds of people by sweeping a lightning-like beam of electricity across them."

Meanwhile, Xtreme Alternative Defense Systems (XADS), based in Anderson, Indiana, will be one of the first companies to market another type of wireless weapon. Instead of using fibres, the $9000 Close Quarters Shock Rifle projects an ionised gas, or plasma, towards the target, producing a conducting channel. It will also interfere with electronic ignition systems and stop vehicles.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000965.html

Of course, the plasma gun is a wee bit big:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/images/xtremeads.jpg

- N

C.G.
10-08-2005, 7:44 PM
Originally posted by SLB:
I just recently read some things on breakthroughs in stun weaponry. I dunno, these two upcoming weapons might be kinda fun, for lack of a better word, to use in a defensive situation. Hmm, hot lead, electric bullets, a lightning gun, or a plasma gun? So much to choose from! Heh, heh..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">WEAPONS designed to fire "electric bullets" into crowds are being developed for police and border protection agencies in the US.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725126.300


Militaries and their contractors are getting closer to putting the hurt on a whole bunch of people at once, according to the magazine, with "weapons that can incapacitate crowds of people by sweeping a lightning-like beam of electricity across them."

Meanwhile, Xtreme Alternative Defense Systems (XADS), based in Anderson, Indiana, will be one of the first companies to market another type of wireless weapon. Instead of using fibres, the $9000 Close Quarters Shock Rifle projects an ionised gas, or plasma, towards the target, producing a conducting channel. It will also interfere with electronic ignition systems and stop vehicles.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000965.html

Of course, the plasma gun is a wee bit big:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/images/xtremeads.jpg

- N </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, this should be legal in PRK. No detacheable mags, would only have to cut off the "pistol grips." http://www.calguns.net/laughroll.gif

Charliegone
10-08-2005, 10:43 PM
"A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously <span class="ev_code_RED">beneath</span> the action of the weapon."

Since its not beneath it wouldn't count hehe. Just the forward pistol grip probably would. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
EZ how you can just get around some laws..

C.G.
10-09-2005, 4:17 PM
Originally posted by Charliegone:
"A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously <span class="ev_code_RED">beneath</span> the action of the weapon."

Since its not beneath it wouldn't count hehe. Just the forward pistol grip probably would. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
EZ how you can just get around some laws..

You are right. These should sell better than the Kel-Tec SU-16! http://www.calguns.net/laughroll.gif