Protection from Civil Suits?

[PT111]

NO. The judge SHOULD throw out the case at the first hearing or whatever, after you have spent several thousand dollars, or possibly more, preparing for that first hearing. I can sue anyone for absolutely anything in civil court. I can sue anyone in this thread for causing em distress with their posts and a judge is going to take a look at it before it is tossed.

People tend to get the terms being sued and winning confused. As you say all it takes to sue someone is the filing fee but winning is different. It should be thrown out no later than the first hearing but there is no guarantee of that and then you are in trouble.

 

[thallub]

The Oklahoma "Make My Day Law" was signed into law over 20 years ago. No person who has done a righteous shooting under this law has had a civil lawsuit successfully filed against him/her.

Matter of fact that OK law is retroactive to cover one specific case that spawned the OK "Make My Day Law".

In OK the prosecutor is not required to take take a righteous shooting case to the grand jury. The wounded perp or his family can take up a petition for a grand jury hearing but that never happens. Okies are not moved to sign petitions on behalf of folks who get shot while committing a crime.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Just to clarify: The way they will determine whether or not you are immune from civil suit is by going to court and starting the civil suit process. So you could still require a lawyer.

What these laws do is make it less likely that this scenario ever happens in the first place by making these cases so unattractive that few lawyers would take one.

 

[PT111]

The Oklahoma "Make My Day Law" was signed into law over 20 years ago. No person who has done a righteous shooting under this law has had a civil lawsuit successfully filed against him/her.

Have there been any attempts to file one? I would seriously doubt that there have been any successful lawsuits or even lawsuits making it past the prelims. That would be interesting to know.

What these laws do is make it less likely that this scenario ever happens in the first place by making these cases so unattractive that few lawyers would take one

If I were a lawyer and approached about one I would have to have my fee in advance.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

How complete is the standard your ground coverage in general? I was thinking about if you engage in a legit self-defense shooting but go into spray and pray mode or your bullet passes through the BG and you nail a good person?

Are you protected in those situations in the states that have such laws? Should you be?

 

[PT111]

I once posted a similar question on a different board and was called everything from an idiot to a troll. But to answer your question, I doubt it and except in rare cases no. IMHO only.

 

[RDak]

In Michigan you are generally protected from civil suits in your type of situation.

I've been told by an attorney that that doesn't apply to accidently shooting a bystander though.

 

[Marty Hayes]

Just because there is a statute saying a person is immune from civil suit, doesn't mean the statute is constitutional, and if someone wants to push it, you become the the test case. For example, you shoot and kill an armed robber. No criminal charges are pressed, but you are sued. The suit is thrown out because of the newly enacted statute, but the family of the deceased appeals.

The appellate court decides that people should have the right to sue, regardless of what the prosecutor thinks, so you end up back in court. You appeal the appellate court decision to the state's supreme court, and loose that case too.

Bottom line, is you have now spend $20k on legal fees, before you even start arguing whether or not you were justified.

 

[shortwave]

Either consult an attorney or learn to read your states laws and cases

Although you may have felt that answer was a bit short, IMO it`s one of the best here. Unless you just want to chat about laws and get opinions, given the severity of the question, your best advise IS seeking professional help in Texas. Remember 'you get what you pay for' and all the legal services on the internet is free(including mine).

 

[DougO83]

How is that useless? Do you mean to tell me you would stake your liberty and all you own on the so-called expert advice proffered by strangers and laymen on an internet site?

That was the soundest advice posted here, in addition to Mr. Roberts' posting of the relevant Texas statute. Consult someone in your area who actually knows the law.

You might just thank the gentleman and go your way

Actually, all that particular did was post the LCD answer. It would be the equivalent of a librarian telling me "well, look on the shelves" if I asked for a particular resource. Basically,unhelpful and just and excuse to "participate" in a discussion. No kidding I need to look around and research. This is part of that. I already knew that part. I am not 'staking my liberty" or anything else on the internet. I asked if there was such a statute as I had heard rumor of one and could not come up with anything of true relevance. Actually, Mr. Roberts' post is the only one that was helpful. Now I have an actual statute, that's what my OP was about by the way, to work with and continue gathering information...