The problem arises when everyone who matters doesn't agree that the shooting was justified. Sometimes someone may use his gun in what he believes is justified self defense, but he doesn't have the final say as to whether or not it's a "good shoot." If the DA or grand jury doesn't agree, he winds up on trial. Now it's not a "good shoot" until the jury decides it is.Micropterus said:...but it seems to me that paying for this sort of "insurance" is a waste of money. If your shooting is "justifiable," you have little to fear in the way of criminal ramifications....
the question of how to conduct yourself following a self defense shooting was discussed at length in this thread: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3721040scottycoyote said:prob the best insurance you could have is to not make any kind of statement to the police other than something along the lines of "i feared for my life, i want to see my attorney now"
The problem arises when everyone who matters doesn't agree that the shooting was justified. Sometimes someone may use his gun in what he believes is justified self defense, but he doesn't have the final say as to whether or not it's a "good shoot." If the DA or grand jury doesn't agree, he winds up on trial. Now it's not a "good shoot" until the jury decides it is.
A reasonable basis for prosecution doesn't necessarily mean that the defendant is guilty. Evidence may be equivocal. Witnesses stories may conflict. There may be political pressure to prosecute. Consider the Harold Fish case in Arizona. Consider the Diallo case in NYC.Micropterus said:...But there has to be some reasonable basis for a prosecution. Without a reasonable basis, it is unlikely a prosecution will move forward....
It doesn't necessarily require everyone who matters to disagree that the shooting was unjustified for you to wind up on trial. You and your lawyer matter too, and you may think you have a good claim of justification. But since there's a dispute on that point, you're going to have to defend your conduct in court.Micropterus said:...If everyone that matters agrees the shooting was unjustified, then there may be some merit to that conclusion..
It's true that many, and probably most, self defense cases get resolved in the defender's favor without going to trial. But rare things still occur; and if it happens to you, you're not really going to care that it's an unusual event.Micropterus said:...Meritless prosecutions occur, no doubt. But in my experience they are rare....
Not every jurisdiction uses the Grand Jury to indict. I suppose that I should add that any competent prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.Micropterus said:If there is sufficient evidence to send a matter to a grand jury, and that grand jury decides there is enough evidence to send the case to trial, is it likely the ACLDN will conclude the prosecution is wrongful?
That aside, let's say you aren't prosecuted, but you are sued in a civil court. The ALCDN can help you here, as much as in the criminal complaint.
Which brings up an interesting quandary.Micropterus said:Indeed, most insurers will hire two lawyers, one for the defendant, and one for themselves - to seek a declaratory judgement that the shooting was intentional and not covered. Once they receive their declaratory judgements, the defendant is abandoned by the insurer.
Depending upon your individual (home-owners) policy, you will have just met your insurers exceptions. Catch-22?
Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated.
I was under the impression that most homeowners policies covered you against accidental shooting lawsuits