HiPowerGuy
Inactive
As far as the "facts", I am reporting what was presented to us at our required CCW classes. I will see if I can get some answers because that is a good question, agreed.
As far as the statute goes, you're missing the point entirely. There is no statute. In civil cases, the purpose is to assess blame and recover/obtain money for some action or wrong (as perceived by someone else, not you) on your part. It is clear to me there is a lack of understanding between the differences between criminal court and civil court. As an extreme example and not related to this, but for the purpose of showing the difference, look at OJ Simpson. He was found innocent of criminal charges but was guilty in the civil court (big time). How can that be ? The answer is there are two very different court systems. In the criminal courts, the plaintiff is the government and the burden of proof is very high. In the civil court system, the plaintiff is a civilian and the burden of proof is considerably less. Again, right or wrong or legal or not has little to do with it. It is about assessing blame. Nicole Simpson was dead....so how could OJ be sued ? The answer of course, was her surviving family sued (to answer someones question).
Somehow this thread has been turned around and it would seem my position is not-to-shoot in the original scenario at WalMart. Not true. I cant say what I would do based on a few sentences on the internet describing a life or death situation until I was in that situation. What I can say now is what I am prepared to if needed. And pulling that trigger does not make me immune to subsequent reactions both criminal and civil. The laws and interpreation of the laws are not absolute... thats why there are trials, lawyers and judges.
I fully support CCW, the 2nd ammendment and the whole nine yards. I hate the bastards that rob, kill and hurt as much as the next guy. All I am saying is that being aware of possible outcomes will make you better prepared if you are unfortunate enough to be in such a situation. Is there an argument against having too much information ?
As far as the statute goes, you're missing the point entirely. There is no statute. In civil cases, the purpose is to assess blame and recover/obtain money for some action or wrong (as perceived by someone else, not you) on your part. It is clear to me there is a lack of understanding between the differences between criminal court and civil court. As an extreme example and not related to this, but for the purpose of showing the difference, look at OJ Simpson. He was found innocent of criminal charges but was guilty in the civil court (big time). How can that be ? The answer is there are two very different court systems. In the criminal courts, the plaintiff is the government and the burden of proof is very high. In the civil court system, the plaintiff is a civilian and the burden of proof is considerably less. Again, right or wrong or legal or not has little to do with it. It is about assessing blame. Nicole Simpson was dead....so how could OJ be sued ? The answer of course, was her surviving family sued (to answer someones question).
Somehow this thread has been turned around and it would seem my position is not-to-shoot in the original scenario at WalMart. Not true. I cant say what I would do based on a few sentences on the internet describing a life or death situation until I was in that situation. What I can say now is what I am prepared to if needed. And pulling that trigger does not make me immune to subsequent reactions both criminal and civil. The laws and interpreation of the laws are not absolute... thats why there are trials, lawyers and judges.
I fully support CCW, the 2nd ammendment and the whole nine yards. I hate the bastards that rob, kill and hurt as much as the next guy. All I am saying is that being aware of possible outcomes will make you better prepared if you are unfortunate enough to be in such a situation. Is there an argument against having too much information ?