America needs tort reform for lawful self-defense.

.I'm curious how many times an act of self defense has resulted in 8 people being shot by the victim?
Click to expand...

Curiosity is a virtue.

It would also be a virtue to be curious about whether your interests are served by having the police serve as your defense counsel in civil matters, or how a broad grant of immunity for those engaged in self-defense trades one problem, the defense and potential liability costs in civil matters, for another problem, extinguishing the current duty toward the innocent of one engaged in self defense.

It's an interesting topic, but not one that turns on whether an illustration of a principle has transpired exactly as set forth in the illustration.
 
whether your interests are served by having the police serve as your defense counsel in civil matters
Click to expand...

I do not want that. What I want is a justice system. What we now have is anything but a justice system. If I am treated by a different set of standards than other people, then it is not a justice system, it is unjust.

If I shoot a bystander as part of a self defense altercation we all know how that ends for me. But if the police shoot 9! innocent bystanders it is:
"I believe it was handled well,"
Click to expand...
So says the Police Commissioner.

It isn't just me that thinks the doctrine of qualified immunity is unjust,

“Given that qualified immunity is unlawful, should the court revisit it?”
Click to expand...
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...020-it-is-time-to-revisit-qualified-immunity/

A search for 'qualified immunity bar association' reveals the first 7 links are articles at the ABA critical of it.
 
It isn't just me that thinks the doctrine of qualified immunity is unjust,
Click to expand...

We have along history of putting people in different groups and treating them differently in our legal system. Minors are in a different group than legal adults. People who have been found mentally incompetent by a court are in another. Convicted felons are in another. and agents of the government in the course of their official duties are in yet another class.

If you think this is unjust, you have the right to that opinion, and the freedom within our system to work to get the laws changed.

I do not think the right answer is to grant everyone the immunity the police currently have. I think we might be better off if the police were required to operate under the same limitations and risks as the rest of us. But, until such time as the laws get changed, and court rulings require and enforce those changes, we have what we got.

I will continue to hold to my personal opinion that if you shoot someone you should not have shot, no matter the reason, it does not change the fact that you shot them. The reason(s) and circumstances for the shooting can make the difference between it being a criminal or a civil matter, but NOTHING changes the fact that you shot them, and are responsible for that.
 
somebody correct me if I'm wrong, I always thought the reason police have certain immunity is because they are required to be there where citizens are not? To me that's a huge difference in accepting liabilities. This is notwithstanding cases where an armed citizen has no choice but to defend his life but in the course accidentally shoots the wrong person. I do wish there was a way to put all that liability on the bad guy who caused it but that gets complicated...
 
Koda94 said:
somebody correct me if I'm wrong, I always thought the reason police have certain immunity is because they are required to be there where citizens are not?
Click to expand...

While POs aren't required by any law to be somewhere and take action, i.e. they don't owe you or me a duty of protection, a core part of the police function is to apply force. That is going to get people hurt.

When a PO engages in a high speed chase for a trivial violation and kills or maims an innocent person, or shoots at a bad guy and hits an innocent, I think it is a normal reflex to view the event retrospectively and seek ways to dissuade POs to take those sorts of risks in the future. Doing that without compromising the core function of policing is difficult.

This thread is about two related but different topics. The first was whether a defensive shooter should have immunity. Zeke posted the WI immunity code. The second involves shrinking the zone of state immunity, an issue no less difficult.

I wanted a public agency to provide records my client needed. The agency sent someone and was represented, but they didn't provide the records or any excuse for withholding the records. I asked the court to assess against the agency my fees for my appearance that day, which drew an objection from agency counsel that I can't do that because it's "the peoples'" money. The court didn't find my reasoning, "Well then, screw the people", persuasive.
 
zukiphile said:
While POs aren't required by any law to be somewhere and take action, i.e. they don't owe you or me a duty of protection, a core part of the police function is to apply force. That is going to get people hurt.
Click to expand...
I think this is close to what my understanding was, but clarifies it better thank you. Not really for the individual but they are legally required to be there and take action.
 
Not really for the individual but they are legally required to be there and take action.
Click to expand...

That's the job. And on the job police officers are acting as agents of the government. Not as private citizens who happen to wear the same suit and have badges and guns. If a cop shoots someone they should not shoot, and they are acting within their guidelines and training, and the Dept approves their actions, the individual officers dont get sued, the Police Dept or its boss, the City (or county or state) gets sued.

They hired, trained and paid for the cop, they are responsible for what the cop does in their name.

one of the things skewing the public's perception about this, is that often the City (state. etc) will settle wrongful death cases out of court for "undisclosed" sums and usually with a non-disclosure clause, so the public never hears about it, and so goes on thinking the no one is held accountable for the shooting.
 
skewing the public's perception about this, is that often the City (state. etc) will settle wrongful death cases out of court for "undisclosed" sums and usually with a non-disclosure clause, so the public never hears about it, and so goes on thinking the no one is held accountable for the shooting.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you get that someone is held accountable when all that happened is the tax payers paid a settlement amount to someone.
 
I'm not sure how you get that someone is held accountable when all that happened is the tax payers paid a settlement amount to someone.
Click to expand...

Trust me, someone is always held accountable. They may not be punished the way we feel they should be, they may not go to jail or have to pay ruinous amounts directly out of their personal pocket, but there are always consequences, though we seldom hear about them.

Do you think someone who costs their employer millions of dollars due to their errors or incompetence gets away without any consequences? Think again.

It may not be (and usually isn't) what we think they deserve but there are unpleasant and often expensive consequences for those responsible.

Commonly its at the very least the end of any possibility of advancement in their career path. It can even be the end of their ability to work in that chosen field.

No, its not nearly enough to be considered justice, but those people responsible DO have their lives irrevocably altered and not for the better. Don't think they get off without any consequences at all.

I am of course speaking generally, there are always individual cases where that doesn't happen and the "guilty" do get away without serious penalties. Our system isn't flawless, it has people running it...:rolleyes:
 
We have along history of putting people in different groups and treating them differently in our legal system. Minors are in a different group than legal adults. People who have been found mentally incompetent by a court are in another. Convicted felons are in another. and agents of the government in the course of their official duties are in yet another class.
Click to expand...

Mentally incompetent and minors have been determined by the judiciary AND law makers as incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. Felons have been determined by the judiciary AND law makers to have surrendered some of their rights by their actions that have previously been brought before the judiciary system.

But, somehow, agents of the government have been determined by the judiciary, NOT law makers, mind you, ONLY the judiciary, to be exempt from the consequences of their actions.

I am most emphatically opposed to a legal system that affords an 'out' for a criminal wearing a badge. They are fully capable of understanding the consequences of their actions, and did them with disregard for the consequences.

In fact, I want much harsher consequences for those who violate the public trust than for some random victim of a violent crime going about their private business but happened to injure an innocent bystander in the act of defending themselves from an attack.

Our current system of providing a shield for those who violate the law, simply because of who their employer is, when they are charged with upholding and enforcing the laws that they themselves violate is undermining the fabric of our society.

Defending this by saying 'well their career advancement is impacted' is hardly anything approaching justice. Justice would be them facing the exact same consequences that anyone else would face.

'oh darn, I killed an innocent woman, now I'll never make Sergeant'. You or me? We would be fortunate to 'only' be financially ruined and any legacy to our children be wiped away.

I see the arguments that affording protection from liability for someone defending themselves would somehow provide license for people to 'pray and spray' and ask myself: How is that argument any different from the argument that allowing people to go about their daily life while exercising their 2nd amendment right an invitation to shootouts over every single disagreement?
 
ghbucky said:
I see the arguments that affording protection from liability for someone defending themselves would somehow provide license for people to 'pray and spray' ...
Click to expand...

It's not an argument; it's what the words mean. If there is no liability for negligence causing injury to third parties, then one engaging in valid self-defense has the license you describe. That this isn't your motive doesn't change the consequence.

ghbucky said:
...and ask myself: How is that argument any different from the argument that allowing people to go about their daily life while exercising their 2nd amendment right an invitation to shootouts over every single disagreement?
Click to expand...

The difference is that carrying doesn't reduce one's liabilities or duties to others. If you shoot someone who isn't threatening you over a parking space, you still have liability for the injuries you cause.
 
Mentally incompetent and minors have been determined by the judiciary AND law makers as incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. Felons have been determined by the judiciary AND law makers to have surrendered some of their rights by their actions that have previously been brought before the judiciary system.
Click to expand...

The way this is worded leads me to think you have the order reversed. Its the legislature (law makers) acting first, and then the judiciary operating under those laws.

Minors and convicted felons were NOT barred from possessing or buying firearms until the law was passed prohibiting that in 1968. (and that law also included those determined by a court (NOT a doctor) to be mentally incompetent to be prohibited persons as well.

After that law was passed, THEN the judiciary acts on it, barring purchases and bringing charges (hopefully) for those who violate the law.

But, somehow, agents of the government have been determined by the judiciary, NOT law makers, mind you, ONLY the judiciary, to be exempt from the consequences of their actions.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer and can't provide specific references (perhaps some of our legal minds here can) but I believe there is a principle in law about not being able to sue elected officials and other agents of the government, personally, for harm that results from the performance of their official duties.

If a law causes harm to someone, they don't get to sue the legislators who voted for it, or the executive (President / Governor) who signed it into law, as individuals. They sue the government about the law, and if its found the law is harmful, (usually be being unconstitutional) the law gets struck down or changed.

I THINK this is the base principle when it comes to suing individual police officers. When their actions are approved by their superiors in govt, the govt, not the individual bears the responsibility. When those actions are NOT approved by the govt THEN it is the individual officers who face the legal consequences.

Is this justice? doesn't feel like it, it it IS THE LAW.

I am most emphatically opposed to a legal system that affords an 'out' for a criminal wearing a badge. They are fully capable of understanding the consequences of their actions, and did them with disregard for the consequences.
Click to expand...

I am against such a system as well. However, that is not the subject under discussion. The point under discussion has been the perceived need for tort reform and the issue used to illustrate that is the difference in legal treatment between a police officer and a private citizen when both unintentionally shoot the wrong person. Adding in "disregard for the consequences" implies a willful and deliberate act. Are you suggesting that police officers deliberately shoot innocent people because they believe they can "get away with it"??

Defending this by saying 'well their career advancement is impacted' is hardly anything approaching justice.
Click to expand...

I never said it was justice. Only that there was some consequences, not "no consequences" or that the consequences were appropriate to the severity of the act.

Justice would be them facing the exact same consequences that anyone else would face.
Click to expand...

I do not dispute your opinion, but currently our legal system does not agree with you.

I see the arguments that affording protection from liability for someone defending themselves would somehow provide license for people to 'pray and spray' and ask myself: How is that argument any different from the argument that allowing people to go about their daily life while exercising their 2nd amendment right an invitation to shootouts over every single disagreement?
Click to expand...

I see a difference, the former is a plausible situation, the latter is not, simply because there ARE consequences for every shot fired by those defending themselves. Remove those consequences (the first argument) and you remove the NEED for restraint in defensive shooting situations. I do believe that if there are no significant consequences for misses striking the innocent then many people will not restrict themselves to only trying to shoot the people who need shooting and spray and pray becomes a valid tactic with no legal repercussions.

THe other argument is simply the old gun control argument that people should not be allowed (forget your rights) to go armed because they will act irresponsibly with the implication that everyone will be irresponsible, every time, because they ARE armed.

That's crap from the git go, in my opinion, and quite a different matter from the first argument.
 
GHBucky, this post isn't an effort to cut short you line of argument, but to get to the heart of it.

GHBucky said:
I am most emphatically opposed to a legal system that affords an 'out' for a criminal wearing a badge. They are fully capable of understanding the consequences of their actions, and did them with disregard for the consequences.

In fact, I want much harsher consequences for those who violate the public trust than for some random victim of a violent crime going about their private business but happened to injure an innocent bystander in the act of defending themselves from an attack.
Click to expand...

So you are building on a principle that two men who do the very same thing should receive the same treatment, even if one works as a state agent and the other doesn't. This isn't a tort reform idea, but a more basic what's good for the goose point.

If you are just venting, have at it. If you are interested in what is possible, know that the principle to which you give voice is fundamentally at odds with the behaviour of any sovereign. It isn't just applications of force; there are all sorts of doctrines in law to which you and I are subject, but that never apply against government.

Is that balanced, equal and fair? No. It's government.
 
Is that balanced, equal and fair? No. It's government.
Click to expand...

There appears to be no quote these days that someone on the internet does not claim as faked...but whether he actually said it himself, or not, remember what Washington is attributed as saying about government.

"Government is not eloquence, it is not reason, it is a force of nature, like fire, a fearful servant and a terrible master."

you are building on a principle that two men who do the very same thing should receive the same treatment, even if one works as a state agent and the other doesn't.
Click to expand...

I'm actually surprised no one has yet mentioned the greatest example of "injustice" (by sheer numbers if nothing else) and that is WAR.

Some might consider the example extreme, but isn't warfare the greatest example of people not being treated "fairly"? Every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine who ever pulled a trigger, dropped a bomb, etc, or ordered that done, to be fair, aren't they just as "guilty" as the wackjob who opens fire in a nightclub on his own? IS the only difference, and the reason they get treated differently in law because of who they work for??

I don't think so, but that's just me.
 
Historically in war, we take young men the government did not feed, raise or educate, and we take only the healthiest of them. Their servitude is often involuntary, which we aren't supposed to like in principle. If they survive the experience, they get to enjoy what's left of their health and years.

Sometimes we do things because we recognize a necessity and don't have any better ideas.
 
Another thing about war is that the winners write the rules. Things that are done by both sides are awarded or at least ignored when done by the victors, but the losers are prosecuted as war criminals for the same things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top