PDA

View Full Version : Q: Justifiable Homicide - Privileged Act


puropuro
08-06-2010, 11:06 AM
(I tried to search, but couldn't find anything)

So, I'm reading up on the latest CA laws in preparation for CCW.
I have the 2010 edition of How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail.

Page 111 states that Justifiable Homicide is a Privileged Act, which means a BG's family can't sue me in civil court if it's done in lawful self-defense.

However, most of the advice I read on self defense suggests that I should expect and prepare for a civil lawsuit if I'm ever in that situation.

Is the Privileged Act stuff just a pipe dream?

vantec08
08-06-2010, 11:20 AM
yep. A true Castle Doctrine prohibits those civil suits .. . .CA is far from a real Castle Doctrine.

BusBoy
08-06-2010, 11:26 AM
yep. A true Castle Doctrine prohibits those civil suits .. . .CA is far from a real Castle Doctrine.

Doesnt the civil code 3333.3 stop these civil suits? OR is my thinking way off and Im reading it wrong.

Ron-Solo
08-06-2010, 11:30 AM
I've shot 4 people in the line of duty, and was sued each time. Each one was determined to be justified and we won each lawsuit, but it was a PITA to go through.

Plan on getting sued.

jaymz
08-06-2010, 11:33 AM
Four?! Where the heck did you work? My dad was LAPD for 30 years and never had to shoot anyone. I didn't realize that there were many cities worse than LA in So Cal.

SJgunguy24
08-06-2010, 11:35 AM
I've shot 4 people in the line of duty, and was sued each time. Each one was determined to be justified and we won each lawsuit, but it was a PITA to go through.

Plan on getting sued.


In my CCW class we were told if you draw and have to fire, every bullet that leaves your gun will cost you 50K. That's if you don't hit anybody, if you do, that can double and you had better be 100% in the right or a prison term will come with the civil judgement.

SJgunguy24
08-06-2010, 11:36 AM
Four?! Where the heck did you work? My dad was LAPD for 30 years and never had to shoot anyone. I didn't realize that there were many cities worse than LA in So Cal.

Somewhere down thataway. Ron Solo is a good guy and I'm glad we have him here and on our side.

He speaks I listen, period.

Mitchell_in_CT
08-06-2010, 11:41 AM
(I tried to search, but couldn't find anything)

So, I'm reading up on the latest CA laws in preparation for CCW.
I have the 2010 edition of How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail.

Page 111 states that Justifiable Homicide is a Privileged Act, which means a BG's family can't sue me in civil court if it's done in lawful self-defense.

However, most of the advice I read on self defense suggests that I should expect and prepare for a civil lawsuit if I'm ever in that situation.

Is the Privileged Act stuff just a pipe dream?


The determination of justification is made by the police or court in the aftermath of the shooting.

In the criminal side of the aftermath, the state needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they do not believe they can meet the burden they may not charge, or with the introduction of self defense at trial you can win the case, and thus, the homicide is justified - a priviledged act under the law for which you cannot be found guilty of a crime.

In the civil side, the proof is the preponderance of the evidence, a much lower standard - 50% + 1 - and while the state may not be able to meet it's standard of guilt, a civil case operating on a lower standard for liability, may be able to do it.

In the civil side, you again have the ability to show the incident was self defense - a priviledge act for which you have no civil liability. This is shown after the commencement of the suit by the motions of the parties to the court.

Under the federal rules of civil procedure (CA rules are going to call it something else...) you would be filing a motion to dismiss because the case fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In layman's terms, "Please dismiss the case because even though I shot him and killed him, I was justified to do so - here's why....evidence attached... - and for the forgoing reasons, my actions were priviledged so even though I admit to killing him, his family can get no relief from the court."

Long story short, no, priviledged act is not a pipe dream; however, it's not as simple as "I shot him in self defense. It's a priviledged act. I'm going. Bye..."

macadamizer
08-06-2010, 12:01 PM
The determination of justification is made by the police or court in the aftermath of the shooting.

In the criminal side of the aftermath, the state needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they do not believe they can meet the burden they may not charge, or with the introduction of self defense at trial you can win the case, and thus, the homicide is justified - a priviledged act under the law for which you cannot be found guilty of a crime.

In the civil side, the proof is the preponderance of the evidence, a much lower standard - 50% + 1 - and while the state may not be able to meet it's standard of guilt, a civil case operating on a lower standard for liability, may be able to do it.

In the civil side, you again have the ability to show the incident was self defense - a priviledge act for which you have no civil liability. This is shown after the commencement of the suit by the motions of the parties to the court.

Under the federal rules of civil procedure (CA rules are going to call it something else...) you would be filing a motion to dismiss because the case fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In layman's terms, "Please dismiss the case because even though I shot him and killed him, I was justified to do so - here's why....evidence attached... - and for the forgoing reasons, my actions were priviledged so even though I admit to killing him, his family can get no relief from the court."

Long story short, no, priviledged act is not a pipe dream; however, it's not as simple as "I shot him in self defense. It's a priviledged act. I'm going. Bye..."

Demurrer.

jaymz
08-06-2010, 12:02 PM
Somewhere down thataway. Ron Solo is a good guy and I'm glad we have him here and on our side.

He speaks I listen, period.

I have no doubt he's a good guy, my comment wasn't meant to be disrespectful. I was just amazed that there's a place that has enough dirtbags that one cop had to shoot four of them. Most cops never have to shoot anything other than paper.

Wherryj
08-06-2010, 12:14 PM
It might be better if we had a "make my day law" instead of castle doctrine? I'm not certain if this law actually works to provide protection against a senseless civil suit either?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.

GrizzlyGuy
08-06-2010, 12:14 PM
Here is a good article on the subject (http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue4/documents/9selfdefense.pdf) from Loyola Law Review:

California Penal Code section 197 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/197.html) states that ď[h]omicide is . . .
justifiable when committed by any person [who is] . . . resisting any
attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some
great bodily injury upon any person.Ē When a person acts
justifiably and commits murder, the act is privileged. A privileged
act is one that would usually subject the offender to liability, but it
does not do so under the circumstances in which the act took place.

The footnote references this case:

See, e.g., People v. Hardin, 85 Cal. App. 4th 625, 102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 262 (2000) (holding that the victim was privileged to use force in evicting
defendant from her home but the defendantís use of force against the victimís
force was not privileged).

My non-lawyer interpretation is that you may very well get sued, but being a "privileged act" provides you with a defense in the civil case.

Ron-Solo
08-06-2010, 12:19 PM
Four?! Where the heck did you work? My dad was LAPD for 30 years and never had to shoot anyone. I didn't realize that there were many cities worse than LA in So Cal.

32 years in various areas of LA County. I'm what is referred to as a S*** Magnet. I've spent time in some areas of LA County that the City of LA didn't want. My first shift was at Firestone Station in 1978. We hadn't been in the field 30 minutes when we encountered an angry man with a rifle and handgun headed for revenge after a drunken brawl. He gave up fortunately. I spent the LA riots in North Long Beach, Compton, and South Central LA. I've worked every area patrolled by the Sheriff east of the 110 freeway, and a few shifts west.

Sometimes, things just happen. It is a very unpredictable job. Five minutes before any of the incidents, it was just a "routine" night. Next thing you know, someone's shooting at you with an AK-47 and all you've got is a wheel gun and a trusty Ithaca 12 gauge. God and your training take over at that point.

Ron-Solo
08-06-2010, 12:27 PM
Here is a good article on the subject (http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue4/documents/9selfdefense.pdf) from Loyola Law Review:



The footnote references this case:



My non-lawyer interpretation is that you may very well get sued, but being a "privileged act" provides you with a defense in the civil case.

Well, you never know what's going to happen in court, especially Federal Court.

In my first case, we were not allowed to mention the fact that the guy I shot had just shot at three people minutes before I encountered him.

When asking for damages, his lawyer was able to claim that for 6 months after I shot him he was unable to work because of it, when in fact he was in jail. We were not allowed to mention that he was in jail because it might prejudice the jury.

Doesn't quite seem fair does it?

The jury saw thru his razzle dazzle act and we won on all points of the case.

Doheny
08-06-2010, 12:28 PM
Somewhere down thataway. Ron Solo is a good guy and I'm glad we have him here and on our side.

He speaks I listen, period.

+1
......

pnkssbtz
08-06-2010, 12:39 PM
(I tried to search, but couldn't find anything)

So, I'm reading up on the latest CA laws in preparation for CCW.
I have the 2010 edition of How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail.

Page 111 states that Justifiable Homicide is a Privileged Act, which means a BG's family can't sue me in civil court if it's done in lawful self-defense.

However, most of the advice I read on self defense suggests that I should expect and prepare for a civil lawsuit if I'm ever in that situation.

Is the Privileged Act stuff just a pipe dream?
It has been my experience that you can be sued for anything.

My father once was sued personally by a customer who was unhappy about a job (due to her stupidity really), and sued him personally. Despite the fact that his company was a corporation, some how the Judge allowed him to be sued PERSONALLY. The customer won the case some how, but ended up finding herself in contempt of court and being counter-sued and losing that.



For those that want to know, the reason for the law suit was that the Stupid Customer paid the $3,500 for her job to some guy who was standing in our office (he was actually a customer). No one was at the front desk at the time so the Stupid Customer assumed he worked for us. When she went to pick up the job we refused to release because she hadn't paid us (Stupid Customer got no receipt).

She got a hold of the crook who took her money and he was her witness where he testified that he gave us the money. Despite lack of receipt and that this crook wasn't an employee of our company the lady won the lawsuit.

However she was so spiteful, that after my father paid her the judgment sum, she refused to sign off on it, leaving a lien on his house. So he counter sued, she was found in contempt and had to pay him back TWICE what she originally won AND she had to pay a fine in contempt of court.

The crook tried to hang around outside our business but left after we kept calling the cops on him.

pnkssbtz
08-06-2010, 12:41 PM
Well, you never know what's going to happen in court, especially Federal Court.

In my first case, we were not allowed to mention the fact that the guy I shot had just shot at three people minutes before I encountered him.

When asking for damages, his lawyer was able to claim that for 6 months after I shot him he was unable to work because of it, when in fact he was in jail. We were not allowed to mention that he was in jail because it might prejudice the jury.

Doesn't quite seem fair does it?

The jury saw thru his razzle dazzle act and we won on all points of the case.

Can you expand on why you couldn't divulge important information?

puropuro
08-06-2010, 4:44 PM
Thanks for all the info, gents!

Kinda makes me angry when I think about getting sued by a dirtbag and his family, when I'm lawfully defending myself and my loved ones.

I guess I expected as much.
Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
I've got gunlaw.com and calguns foundation loaded in my phone contacts.
Next, umbrella policy for my homeowners or maybe the NRA insurance policy.......

POLICESTATE
08-06-2010, 4:56 PM
Can you expand on why you couldn't divulge important information?

Because it messes with criminals' rights.

ZombieTactics
08-06-2010, 5:12 PM
32 years in various areas of LA County. I'm what is referred to as a S*** Magnet. I've spent time in some areas of LA County that the City of LA didn't want. My first shift was at Firestone Station in 1978. We hadn't been in the field 30 minutes when we encountered an angry man with a rifle and handgun headed for revenge after a drunken brawl. He gave up fortunately. I spent the LA riots in North Long Beach, Compton, and South Central LA. I've worked every area patrolled by the Sheriff east of the 110 freeway, and a few shifts west.

Sometimes, things just happen. It is a very unpredictable job. Five minutes before any of the incidents, it was just a "routine" night. Next thing you know, someone's shooting at you with an AK-47 and all you've got is a wheel gun and a trusty Ithaca 12 gauge. God and your training take over at that point.
Guys like you remind me how cheaply I lay claim to any notion of manhood. God bless you.

kcbrown
08-06-2010, 5:31 PM
Well, you never know what's going to happen in court, especially Federal Court.

In my first case, we were not allowed to mention the fact that the guy I shot had just shot at three people minutes before I encountered him.

When asking for damages, his lawyer was able to claim that for 6 months after I shot him he was unable to work because of it, when in fact he was in jail. We were not allowed to mention that he was in jail because it might prejudice the jury.

Doesn't quite seem fair does it?

The jury saw thru his razzle dazzle act and we won on all points of the case.

This is why I cannot bring myself to call what we have a "justice system". Justice cannot be served unless all the available facts are visible to the jury. That said, I believe that if any evidence supplied by the prosecution was collected in violation of someone's 4th Amendment rights, that shouldn't merely be grounds for elimination of the evidence, it should require automatic dismissal of the case. Rights don't mean anything unless they're taken very seriously.

Big Jake
08-06-2010, 5:31 PM
yep. A true Castle Doctrine prohibits those civil suits .. . .CA is far from a real Castle Doctrine.

Very true!

stitchnicklas
08-06-2010, 6:01 PM
well if some one broke into my house and i felt threatened i would pull that trigger and deal with the courts,i feel this a better route then me being on a metal tray at the coroners office..... just saying.

since i i do not have a ccw i carry a tazer,i have had some confederation when i had it and none were deemed a necessity to draw...thank god...

fd15k
08-06-2010, 6:43 PM
Four?! Where the heck did you work? My dad was LAPD for 30 years and never had to shoot anyone. I didn't realize that there were many cities worse than LA in So Cal.

Scott Reitz shot 5 people working 30 years for LAPD ;)

macadamizer
08-06-2010, 7:35 PM
This is why I cannot bring myself to call what we have a "justice system". Justice cannot be served unless all the available facts are visible to the jury. That said, I believe that if any evidence supplied by the prosecution was collected in violation of someone's 4th Amendment rights, that shouldn't merely be grounds for elimination of the evidence, it should require automatic dismissal of the case. Rights don't mean anything unless they're taken very seriously.

I agree in principle, but in practice, unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way. Juries are made up of people, and sometimes people can be swayed by really damning information, even if it isn't relevant to guilt or innocence in the current case. As an example, the fact that a particular defendant was convicted of, say, burglary, isn't relevant (under our rules of evidence, at least) as to whether or not he is guilty of the crime he is currently being tried for.

Sure, evidence of past crimes is something we would like to see put in front of the jury -- and oftentimes it is -- but in some cases, it would unfairly prejudice the jury. Like it or not, when someone is on trial, you are only trying them for the current case, and not trying them based on all the bad things they may have done. At sentencing, sure, the fact that they have a rap sheet a mile long is relevant -- but not necessarily at the guilt phase. I think most people would guess -- and probably rightly so -- that someone who has been convicted of crimes in the past is more likely to have committed the crime he or she is currently being tried for. That's not fair to the defendant, though. The defendant has a right to be judged based on the facts of the case, and not their overall character.

If people on a jury really could be relied on to listen to only the evidence and facts in the case in front of them, and not judge the defendant on his looks, or mannerisms, or criminal record, then all of the information wouldn't be withheld from the jury. Since we can't keep a jury from deciding based on looks or mannerism, the best we can often do is to withhold this other information.

This is why defendants often do not take the stand in their own defense, BTW. If a defendant takes that stand, a lot of this sort of info can come in, because it is oftentimes relevant to the witness' credibility. But if the defendant doesn't take the stand, usually this sort of information is found to be more prejudicial than probative, and is kept out.

kcbrown
08-07-2010, 12:27 AM
I agree in principle, but in practice, unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way. Juries are made up of people, and sometimes people can be swayed by really damning information, even if it isn't relevant to guilt or innocence in the current case. As an example, the fact that a particular defendant was convicted of, say, burglary, isn't relevant (under our rules of evidence, at least) as to whether or not he is guilty of the crime he is currently being tried for.

Sure, evidence of past crimes is something we would like to see put in front of the jury -- and oftentimes it is -- but in some cases, it would unfairly prejudice the jury.


Either a particular type of evidence will prejudice the jury or it won't. If evidence of past crimes is ever stricken on the basis that it may prejudice the jury, then it should always be stricken for that very reason.


The biggest problem with striking evidence that was properly gathered is that those who do so are guilty of attempting to influence the verdict of the jury. It is not their call to make as to whether evidence is or is not relevant -- that's the jury's call to make.

Yes, the jury is composed of people who make decisions about things, and it is possible that they may decide based on factors that the judge may believe to be irrelevant. That fact is why we have jury trials at all. If the legal system is allowed to influence what the jury does and does not see on any basis other than a rights violation of some kind, then that is little different than simply eliminating the jury entirely and letting the judge issue the ruling himself.


I understand the theory behind the current approach. But I very much disagree with it. If you wish to create additional protection for the defendant, you can add the requirement that the judge must agree with any guilty verdict rendered.

socal2310
08-07-2010, 7:36 AM
I agree in principle, but in practice, unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way. Juries are made up of people, and sometimes people can be swayed by really damning information, even if it isn't relevant to guilt or innocence in the current case. As an example, the fact that a particular defendant was convicted of, say, burglary, isn't relevant (under our rules of evidence, at least) as to whether or not he is guilty of the crime he is currently being tried for.

Sure, evidence of past crimes is something we would like to see put in front of the jury -- and oftentimes it is -- but in some cases, it would unfairly prejudice the jury. Like it or not, when someone is on trial, you are only trying them for the current case, and not trying them based on all the bad things they may have done. At sentencing, sure, the fact that they have a rap sheet a mile long is relevant -- but not necessarily at the guilt phase. I think most people would guess -- and probably rightly so -- that someone who has been convicted of crimes in the past is more likely to have committed the crime he or she is currently being tried for. That's not fair to the defendant, though. The defendant has a right to be judged based on the facts of the case, and not their overall character.

If people on a jury really could be relied on to listen to only the evidence and facts in the case in front of them, and not judge the defendant on his looks, or mannerisms, or criminal record, then all of the information wouldn't be withheld from the jury. Since we can't keep a jury from deciding based on looks or mannerism, the best we can often do is to withhold this other information.

This is why defendants often do not take the stand in their own defense, BTW. If a defendant takes that stand, a lot of this sort of info can come in, because it is oftentimes relevant to the witness' credibility. But if the defendant doesn't take the stand, usually this sort of information is found to be more prejudicial than probative, and is kept out.

Um, I think you missed the part where the police officers were the defendants in civil court.

Then again, would the information have been suppressed if the defendant were a private citizen who lacked the backing of a government agency? If the judge was putting a higher burden of proof on the government, I'm all for it (though I would prefer a statutory requirement to do so).

Ryan

Mulay El Raisuli
08-07-2010, 7:44 AM
Either a particular type of evidence will prejudice the jury or it won't. If evidence of past crimes is ever stricken on the basis that it may prejudice the jury, then it should always be stricken for that very reason.


The biggest problem with striking evidence that was properly gathered is that those who do so are guilty of attempting to influence the verdict of the jury. It is not their call to make as to whether evidence is or is not relevant -- that's the jury's call to make.

Yes, the jury is composed of people who make decisions about things, and it is possible that they may decide based on factors that the judge may believe to be irrelevant. That fact is why we have jury trials at all. If the legal system is allowed to influence what the jury does and does not see on any basis other than a rights violation of some kind, then that is little different than simply eliminating the jury entirely and letting the judge issue the ruling himself.


I understand the theory behind the current approach. But I very much disagree with it. If you wish to create additional protection for the defendant, you can add the requirement that the judge must agree with any guilty verdict rendered.


Doesn't PC 118 basically say just that?


The Raisuli

macadamizer
08-07-2010, 9:32 AM
Um, I think you missed the part where the police officers were the defendants in civil court.

Then again, would the information have been suppressed if the defendant were a private citizen who lacked the backing of a government agency? If the judge was putting a higher burden of proof on the government, I'm all for it (though I would prefer a statutory requirement to do so).

Ryan

kcbrown was talking more generally than the case in hand, and I responded in kind. I don't know what happened in this case. In civil court, the same mantra -- evidence needs to be more probative than prejudicial -- still applies.

bodger
08-07-2010, 9:37 AM
The way the justice system is these days, we should be thankful anyone covets the position of LEO.

They protect us from these skells and have to defend their own lives in the process and end up sitting in court listening to some shyster trying to get money for his scum criminal client.

nick
08-07-2010, 9:47 AM
Four?! Where the heck did you work? My dad was LAPD for 30 years and never had to shoot anyone. I didn't realize that there were many cities worse than LA in So Cal.

Not everyone's so lucky.

nick
08-07-2010, 9:58 AM
Well, you never know what's going to happen in court, especially Federal Court.

In my first case, we were not allowed to mention the fact that the guy I shot had just shot at three people minutes before I encountered him.

When asking for damages, his lawyer was able to claim that for 6 months after I shot him he was unable to work because of it, when in fact he was in jail. We were not allowed to mention that he was in jail because it might prejudice the jury.

Doesn't quite seem fair does it?

The jury saw thru his razzle dazzle act and we won on all points of the case.

Sounds all too common. "No, you can't mention the facts relevant to the case because these facts may benefit the dirtbag. Somehow (in my experience, at least), it's usually the dirtbag with whom our justice system sides.

My brother had just this sort of thing in court. He got hit by a woman who was driving without insurance of driver's license. She didn't have either, being an illegal immigrant and all. So in court he wasn't allowed to mention that she didn't have a driver's license or insurance.

nick
08-07-2010, 10:00 AM
It has been my experience that you can be sued for anything.

My father once was sued personally by a customer who was unhappy about a job (due to her stupidity really), and sued him personally. Despite the fact that his company was a corporation, some how the Judge allowed him to be sued PERSONALLY. The customer won the case some how, but ended up finding herself in contempt of court and being counter-sued and losing that.

Chances are it was because he was the sole owner of the corporation, or the owners were closely related to each other.

snobord99
08-07-2010, 10:20 AM
(I tried to search, but couldn't find anything)

So, I'm reading up on the latest CA laws in preparation for CCW.
I have the 2010 edition of How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail.

Page 111 states that Justifiable Homicide is a Privileged Act, which means a BG's family can't sue me in civil court if it's done in lawful self-defense.

However, most of the advice I read on self defense suggests that I should expect and prepare for a civil lawsuit if I'm ever in that situation.

Is the Privileged Act stuff just a pipe dream?

I would think of it this way: there's no such thing as "can't sue." Anyone can sue anyone else at any time; the only question is will they win and what will it take to win?

snobord99
08-07-2010, 10:30 AM
Doesn't PC 118 basically say just that?


The Raisuli

How did that define perjury? :confused:

jokat989
08-07-2010, 12:08 PM
im training to become a paramedic and an instructor told me a story where a man had a heart attack. she was off duty and found him uncounsious so she imideatly started cpr and called an ambulance. she ended up saiving his life, but because she had done cpr most of his ribs near the heart was broken(this is actualy normalprocedure in cpr). he later sued her for causing more harm to him despite the fact that he would have died. she ended up winning, but the moral of the story is that this state is full of ignorant sue happy people just waiting to take advantage of the legal system.

Mulay El Raisuli
08-09-2010, 8:18 AM
How did that define perjury? :confused:


Ooops! Wrong section. KCBrown said something about the judge should agree with the verdict. There's a section of the PC that gives the judge the authority to overturn a verdict if he finds that the verdict is contrary to law or fact. Basically, the judge must already agree with the verdict.

I thought that was 118. I see that I am wrong. But, I can't remember which section it was either. I did at one time read it. I know it is in there somewhere. But, my Google-fu is weak at present & I am unable to find the section.


The Raisuli

kcbrown
08-09-2010, 11:58 AM
Ooops! Wrong section. KCBrown said something about the judge should agree with the verdict. There's a section of the PC that gives the judge the authority to overturn a verdict if he finds that the verdict is contrary to law or fact. Basically, the judge must already agree with the verdict.


A law or procedural rule allowing the judge to overturn the verdict if he believes it contrary to law or fact is not the safeguard I have in mind unless it limits the judge to overturning guilty verdicts only.

Otherwise it's simply another way of wresting control from the jury (and, effectively, eliminates the power of jury nullification).

k1dude
08-09-2010, 12:15 PM
im training to become a paramedic and an instructor told me a story where a man had a heart attack. she was off duty and found him uncounsious so she imideatly started cpr and called an ambulance. she ended up saiving his life, but because she had done cpr most of his ribs near the heart was broken(this is actualy normalprocedure in cpr). he later sued her for causing more harm to him despite the fact that he would have died. she ended up winning, but the moral of the story is that this state is full of ignorant sue happy people just waiting to take advantage of the legal system.

Supposedly we're protected by the good samaritan law, but as you can see, people sue anyway regardless of the law and courts allow it to happen. So what good is the law if no one practices it? Sort of like "ILLEGAL" aliens. We don't enforce those laws either.

gunn
08-09-2010, 12:23 PM
Sounds all too common. "No, you can't mention the facts relevant to the case because these facts may benefit the dirtbag. Somehow (in my experience, at least), it's usually the dirtbag with whom our justice system sides.

My brother had just this sort of thing in court. He got hit by a woman who was driving without insurance of driver's license. She didn't have either, being an illegal immigrant and all. So in court he wasn't allowed to mention that she didn't have a driver's license or insurance.

Q: In theory, could your brother have tipped off the INS? Would they care?

-g

Wherryj
08-09-2010, 1:28 PM
I have no doubt he's a good guy, my comment wasn't meant to be disrespectful. I was just amazed that there's a place that has enough dirtbags that one cop had to shoot four of them. Most cops never have to shoot anything other than paper.

I guess that you've never been to San Bernardino?

Ron-Solo
08-09-2010, 5:16 PM
I have no doubt he's a good guy, my comment wasn't meant to be disrespectful. I was just amazed that there's a place that has enough dirtbags that one cop had to shoot four of them. Most cops never have to shoot anything other than paper.

No disrespect taken. :) There's plenty of dirtbags, it's just fortunate that most don't want to get into gunfights. Usually, they will just snipe and run. I can't count the number of times where that happened, it gives me a headache.

I guess that you've never been to San Bernardino?

I avoid San Bernardino just like a do certain areas of LA. :cool:

jaymz
08-09-2010, 9:10 PM
In case you didn't notice, I live in San Bernardino! It's not nearly as bad as you might have heard.

Mulay El Raisuli
08-10-2010, 7:21 AM
A law or procedural rule allowing the judge to overturn the verdict if he believes it contrary to law or fact is not the safeguard I have in mind unless it limits the judge to overturning guilty verdicts only.

Otherwise it's simply another way of wresting control from the jury (and, effectively, eliminates the power of jury nullification).


It is a safeguard in that the judge is only allowed to overturn guilty verdicts. A verdict of 'not guilty' is something that just cannot be touched.


The Raisuli