Carry insurance

One of the issues that New York State used to attack the NRA's Carry Guard insurance program is that it's unlawful to insure against illegal acts. If that's true under the laws of all (or most) states, then no insurance can or will help you if you're convicted of a criminal charge.

But many of the programs out there aren't insurance programs. There are web sites that compare them, so you can see which are insurance compared to which are only (essentially) legal services cooperatives. Here's a link to one such comparison:

https://www.concealedcarry.com/self-defense-gun-owner-insurance-programs-compared/

IMHO, the ones that say "No" for Civil Damages are not insurance plans, they are just legal defense plans. Frankly, if you go to prison because a shooting is ruled to have been a criminal act rather than a justified act of self defense, a civil claim against you is one of the last things you might worry about. But, as O.J. Simpson learned, you can be acquitted in criminal court yet found liable in civil court. (If you want a proper explanation of why that is, ask -- perhaps Frank or Spats will provide a suitably lawyerly explanation.)

So your worst nightmare is to be in a shooting, be found innocent in criminal court, and face a mega bucks lawsuit in civil court by the person you shot -- or his/her family. That's where having some insurance, on top of having your lawyer bills paid, can make a huge difference.
 
Except of course OJ actually should have been found guilty. You might still face that kind of bias in a civil trial but it is less likely.

Many states now have immunity (Stand Your Ground) laws. My state is one such state. I'd never want to be involved in another shooting but the protections are pretty strong.

If you live in a state without such protections then you are kind of stuck.
 
rodfac said:
....thoughts on civil liability after a judgement of no criminal violation in a SD shooting. Thx in advance, Rod....
Click to expand...

A jury verdict of "not guilty" in a criminal trial is not an affirmative finding that the defendant did not commit the crime. It merely means that the prosecutor did not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did commit the crime.

The burden of proof in a civil case is "a preponderance of the evidence" and thus a lower hurdle than "beyond a reasonable doubt." So the actor might be found not guilty at his criminal trial but civilly liable on a tort claim arising from the same incident.

In States in which there is a civil immunity law for bona fide self defense, an acquittal at the criminal trial won't necessarily establish that the defendant is entitle to civil immunity. That area of the law is evolving.

labnoti said:
....If it is truly a clean shoot, you may not even be charged with anything....
Click to expand...

A variation on the "a good shoot is a good shoot" fallacy.

Again, you won't have the final say on whether it was a "clean shoot." That decision will be made by th DA and/or a grand jury and/or the jury at your trial. And you don't get to order your critical incident "made to measure." You will be stuck after the fact with whatever happened and however it happened. Whether or not it was a "clean shoot" will remain to be seen.
 
MTT TL said:
Except of course OJ actually should have been found guilty. You might still face that kind of bias in a civil trial but it is less likely.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. I mentioned O.J. to illustrate the point, which Frank Ettin kindly expanded on, that you can be found not guilty in a criminal trial and still be found liable in a civil lawsuit over the same incident. That's the ONLY point I was making, so let's keep the discussion on topic.
 
My daughter had to use armed force against two armed robbers , they had the money but the bad guy with the gun ordered her to face the wall and kneel down...criminals around here like to not leave a witness that can testify...she feared for her life and shot him with her concealed revolver .

There were NO huge expenses to pay....there were no expenses whatsoever to pay.
The bad guy was arrested , found guilty (she testified) and is enjoying some Angola State Prison time .
This is Louisiana and law abiding person's who defend themselves are not persecuted by the justice system or media .
Here people still have a right to defend themselves without the need for huge amounts of insurance coverage .
Gary
 
gwpercle said:
My daughter had to use armed force against two armed robbers , they had the money but the bad guy with the gun ordered her to face the wall and kneel down...criminals around here like to not leave a witness that can testify...she feared for her life and shot him with her concealed revolver .

There were NO huge expenses to pay....
Click to expand...

Why do people continue to cling to the preposterous belief that a single, felicitous example covers the whole universe of possibilities? Why do you believe that every self defense incident that ever happened, or ever will happen, necessarily will work out the way your daughter's incident worked out? Even Aristotle said, "One swallow does not a summer make."

On the other hand, sometimes a defensive use of lethal force will have grave consequences for the defender, even when ultimately exonerated. For example --


  • This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.

  • Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.

  • Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.

  • Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.

  • Gerald Ung: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately acquitted.

  • Those were all cases of legitimate self defense in gun friendly States, but they happened under circumstances in which the justification for the use of lethal force was not immediately clear. While the actor was finally exonerated, it came at great emotional and financial cost.
 
gwpercle said:
My daughter had to use armed force against two armed robbers , they had the money but the bad guy with the gun ordered her to face the wall and kneel down...criminals around here like to not leave a witness that can testify...she feared for her life and shot him with her concealed revolver .

There were NO huge expenses to pay....there were no expenses whatsoever to pay.
The bad guy was arrested , found guilty (she testified) and is enjoying some Angola State Prison time .
This is Louisiana and law abiding person's who defend themselves are not persecuted by the justice system or media .
Here people still have a right to defend themselves without the need for huge amounts of insurance coverage .
Gary
Click to expand...
She was being held at gunpoint and was able to take her revolver from a concealed place and shoot the guy?? Ballsy...
Why do people continue to cling to the preposterous belief that a single, felicitous example covers the whole universe of possibilities? Why do you believe that every self defense incident that ever happened, or ever will happen, necessarily will work out the way your daughter's incident worked out? Even Aristotle said, "One swallow does not a summer make."
Click to expand...

He's not saying that..He's saying in THIS instance, there was not a YUGE, high $, case that ended up in court costing a bunch of $.
Are ya saying the above can't happen??
 
Having spent my career in the insurance biz, I would be highly suspect of these standalone companies. Where does the money come from to indemnify you if there is a million dollar judgment? No insurance for illegal acts in all States. For a legal act check with a good insurance agent or an underwriter at an insurance company and see how your homeowner's insurance policy will respond.
 
In States in which there is a civil immunity law for bona fide self defense, an acquittal at the criminal trial won't necessarily establish that the defendant is entitle to civil immunity. That area of the law is evolving.
Click to expand...

Interesting. That, of course, is not the way it is usually discussed. I for one appreciate that heads up.

On the more general question, I think most of us realize that all insurance is a bet against yourself. I have so far told myself that the odds of it paying off are too low to justify the expense. If I have to defend myself tomorrow, my opinion could change, but between the low odds of ever needing it and the restrictions placed on the various plans, I personally haven't felt it to be a worthwhile expense.
 
What do you think of the different insurances and has anyone actually used one ?
Click to expand...
You can look into US Law shield their program covers you for criminal and civil cases "AS LONG AS YOU WERE LEGALLY CARRYING" if you were in a prohibited place and carrying and were involved in a SD situation they will not
represent you as well as none of the other insurance or programs
 
Don P said:
You can look into US Law shield their program covers you for criminal and civil cases "AS LONG AS YOU WERE LEGALLY CARRYING" if you were in a prohibited place and carrying and were involved in a SD situation they will not represent you as well as none of the other insurance or programs
Click to expand...
Like a couple of the other programs, U.S. Law Shield is not available in a number of states. (They do offer 50-state coverage, for more than twice the premium cost.)

Where available, they cover only legal fees. They don't cover damages in civil lawsuits, so IMHO it's inaccurate to call their program "insurance." Also, according to the comparison chart to which I linked in a previous post, they are the only one of the listed programs that doesn't allow you to choose your own attorney.
 
aren't there some states that have a law in which a shooting that has been cleared of criminal conduct cannot be brought in a civil suit?
 
aren't there some states that have a law in which a shooting that has been cleared of criminal conduct cannot be brought in a civil suit?
Click to expand...
One is never actually "cleared of criminal conduct".

The charging authority or a grand jury may decide to not go to trial. A jury may decide that the state did not prove criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's not the same as concluding that the actor was innocent.

In a civil trial, the burden of persuasion is a preponderance of the evidence ("more likely than not").
 
In a civil trial, the burden of persuasion is a preponderance of the evidence ("more likely than not").
Click to expand...

Many states also allow for assigning a percentage of blame as well. They might decide you are only 25% responsible. Most people can't afford to be 25% responsible for a 5 million dollar lawsuit.
 
OldMarksman said:
One is never actually "cleared of criminal conduct".

The charging authority or a grand jury may decide to not go to trial. A jury may decide that the state did not prove criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's not the same as concluding that the actor was innocent.

In a civil trial, the burden of persuasion is a preponderance of the evidence ("more likely than not").
Click to expand...
far enough I will restate my question. aren't there some states in which a civil suit will not go forward (summary judgment, dismissed, not entertained by the courts) if the shooter is not criminally charged?
 
No.

In some states, after a suite is filed, one can request an Immunity from Civil Liability hearing. If the hearing is granted, both sides present evidence before a judge. The judge decides on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence. If immunity is granted , the suit may not proceed.

A decision to nt charge or indict does not provide civil immuniy, nor does an acquittal in a criminal trial.

Criminal liability is a different matter.

There are states that allow judges to grant immunity from criminal prosecution, but it is not always wise for a defender to reguest such a hearing.
 
Just to clarify (I hope)

The law as written does allow for immunity but this is not determined at a criminal trial. The Supreme Court of Florida ruled that determination must be made at a civil proceeding, using that standard as the mechanism.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—
(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
(4) In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27; s. 6, ch. 2014-195; s. 1, ch. 2017-72.
Click to expand...
 
MTT TL -- That's Florida. JERRYS. asked if there are any states in which civil immunity is automatic if a shooter is not charged. Oldmarksman responded "No."

Oldmarksman, I'd like to ask if this response was based on having researched the laws of all 50 states, or if you are extrapolating from your home state's law?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top