Social liability laws

J

Justme

Moderator
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/

A great essay on social liability that could have ramifications for CCW permit holders. If a host can be held liable for supplying alcohol to someone who then drives into a kid, could a CCW permit holder be held liable if he does not intervene during a mugging or something?

Making americans de-facto conscripted police is a dangerous and very slippery slope. This should be right up wildalaska's boat.
 
One of the few people I have informed of my CHL status asked me the question you described. A lot of people actually think that with a CHL you are "deputized", even some CHL holders from some comments I have seen here :p.

Social responsibility is creating some pretty slippery slopes in general...as far as I can see I'm responsible for me and mine. I would intervene in a 3rd party situation if in doing so I would not further endanger that 3rd party any more than they already were (I had some real tactical advantage that would give us both the upper hand against the BG(s)).

This ought to be a good one.
 
You obviously did not read the essay. The point is that social liability laws are the same as making someone a manditory "good samaritan". If you can hold someone liable for selling a drunk driver a drink you can hold a CCW liable who did not stop a mugging. Slippery slope.

It raises all sorts of questions, like the good swimmers who might avoid beaches so they couldn't be charged with not rescuing someone could CCW holders avoid "hot" spots for fear that if they don't do something they would be held liable for damage caused by a second party.

One more proof that you can not legislate morality. Granted it's not a sound bite read, but I think anyone with a CCW permit should be forced to read it.
 
The proper analogy would be more like if you saw a BG about to shoot someone and said "Wait a minute, you forgot to take the safety off" or "That little 32 won't do here use my Glock".

There are already laws covering what you have questioned in "The Good Samaritan" law and "The assistance to accident vivtims" laws which most states have. You can't be held liable for providing reasonable aide to someone and you are required to provide reasonable assistance to accident victims, usually refering to automobile accidents.

If you are walking down the street and hear a cry for help and can't tell where it is coming from that is one thing, but if you walk by and see a woman getting raped while she is screaming for help and you ignore her there could possibly be some liability.
 
you are required to provide reasonable assistance to accident victims, usually refering to automobile accidents.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and what is reasonable? Are you required by reason of being a CCW holder to intervene in a holdup or mugging? The above law could be used to infer that you are indeed a conscripted cop.

if you walk by and see a woman getting raped while she is screaming for help and you ignore her there could possibly be some liability
Click to expand...

Which as a CCW holder should be scary as hell. I'm not a cop, and while I recognise a moral obligation to help my fellow citizens imagine a legal imperative to interject armed force into any such situation. I have a CCW and carry a weapon for defense of myself and my loved ones, I would help out others if I can, I do not recognise a legal imperative to provide armed help to victims as if I were a deputy sherrif or other law enforcement person. My girlfriend is a prosecuter, imagine the mess that creates.
 
You obviously did not read the essay. The point is that social liability laws are the same as making someone a mandatory "good Samaritan". If you can hold someone liable for selling a drunk driver a drink you can hold a CCW liable who did not stop a mugging. Slippery slope.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't waste a nanosecond of my valuable time reading the essay. However, unless you just mischaracterized the essay, then the analogy contained in the above quote is silly and fallacious. I took the liberty of correcting your spelling.;)
 
if you walk by and see a woman getting raped while she is screaming for help and you ignore her there could possibly be some liability
Click to expand...

"Help" comes in many forms. Pulling out your phone and hitting 911 counts as "help", and would be recorded as such.

There are times when armed force just can't be used. What if the backstop to said rape is a crowded street, or even a daycare center? Would you hope you don't miss, or let the police have that burden? If they miss, they're legally protected. You'd lose everything that supports your family.

Shame it's that way, but it is. You have to evaluate everything that can happen if you intervene, even the perp's family doing the "he was a good boy!" lawsuits and the negative media attention that could cost your family everything. In this day and age, all good deeds are punished.
 
Interesting that you would "waste time" correcting my spelling, when I am too lazy to do so myself, and yet not waste time reading a good essay that has ramifications for gun owners. Posner and Becker are highly respected conservative economists and social commentators, it really is worth the read.
 
Good Samaritan laws say that you can't be sued for providing assistance not that your REQUIRED to provide assistance.

And to force some sense into the discussion, if your carrying CONCEALED then who would be holding you liable for anything??? HELLO....CONCEALED.
Those with delusions of grandeur are often the first to miss the obvious fallacies.

Your apparent sense that your weapon ascribes you or anyone else some authority or hero in waiting status is a tactics 101 noob mistake. NEVER let that you are armed embolden you. Sure way to muck it ALL the way up.

I'm not aware of any law that REQUIRES you assist a 3rd party. Anyone else know of such a law?

The essay seemed a practice in sophistry. Amusing but shines naiveté.
 
It varies from state to state, but...

generally speaking, the Good Samaritan laws hold you blamless for giving aid (to an accident victim for example), as you are "acting in good faith". There is an exception (at least in some states), and that applies to people with EMT training. Those people are required to assist "to the level of their training".

In other words, if you are an EMT (or a Doctor or nurse), you are required to give aid, and can be found liable if you do not. At the same time, the phrase "to the level of your training" protects them from fault, if more help is needed than they can give. Example: Off duty EMT finds a wreck, gives aid, but injured person dies because EMT could not do emergency surgery. EMT cannot be sued for not saving injured person.

We never think this kind of lawsuit would happen, but it must, because the protection was written into the law to prevent it.

As far as I know, this does not apply to CCW holders. States have laws covering the use of deadly force, and many states allow the use of deadly force to prevent certain crimes, BUT no state requires it. It is indeed a slippery slope discussion, but there is a fence at the edge of the slope. You can choose to render aid, but you are not required by law to do so (generally). Not sure how it would play out if you use a gun to "render aid". Depends totally on the situation, AND the location.

There was a case around a decade or so ago (maybe longer, I can't remember exactly), where a guy was on his way into a mall to buy some ammo (he was going shooting), and witnessed a man shoot a woman on the sidewalk infront of the business. The man then shot her several times after she was down. The "good guy" was still in the parking lot, and went back to his car to get his gun. Bad guy gets in his car, and drives away, driving by good guy. Bad guy points gun at good guy, good guy shoots. Bad guy drives out of parking lot, turns corner, runs into phone pole. Bad guy is dead. Good guy goes through the legal process, and while the shooting was justified, he winds up being charged with "usurping the authority of the state", because he acted as both judge, jury, and executioner. This was in Texas.

Use your best judgement, but don't go looking for trouble. If you do, you will surely find it!
 
The only thing a CCW gives you is immunity from that part of Gun Law that prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons. That's it. Regarding SD or aiding crime victims, thru SD Law: your CCW gives you no special privileges or rights than you had before you got the CCW. Anyone can take the kind of actions you describe, with any means, including illegal guns, their fists, karate, a rock, a board, a kitchen knife, none are mentioned in SD or the part of SD Law dealing with defense of others

So the idea you would be held liable in not getting to someone's aid because you had a CCW is completely illogical - unless everybody would be held liable for not doing the same thing. The only thing you can do is carry a gun. You're the same as everybody for SD or Aid-to-Victims.- and for everything else on the planet. Just a normal non-special guy.
 
Last edited:
Completely illogical? Are you guys paying attention? Manditory assistance is a slippery slope, consider what 44amp said:
In other words, if you are an EMT (or a Doctor or nurse), you are required to give aid, and can be found liable if you do not. At the same time, the phrase "to the level of your training" protects them from fault, if more help is needed than they can give.
Click to expand...

Is it not logical and reasonable to think that an attorney could argue that a CCW permit implies a certain "level of training"? Especially considering that most states require some sort of CCW training?

Check with a lawyer, there are indeed laws on the books that require you to render assitance. And don't get me wrong, I don't want that responsibility. In fact, the thought of such responsibility might just cause me to leave the CCW in the safe more often than I might otherwise. An example of unintended consequences I'm sure.
 
Is it not logical and reasonable to think that an attorney could argue that a CCW permit implies a certain "level of training"? Especially considering that most states require some sort of CCW training?
Click to expand...

Nope. Mine requires no training. And states that do, it's training to be sure you're not going to shoot yourself loading the thing, not tactical training.
 
If a host can be held liable for supplying alcohol to someone who then drives into a kid, could a CCW permit holder be held liable if he does not intervene during a mugging or something?
Click to expand...

No. You are talking about two different things entirely. With the bartender, he actively did something that influenced the situation. A CCW not intervening is inactive. The bartender influenced the situation negatively. The CCW person has no influence on the situation.

Also, if a CCW person would be held accountable for inactivity, then shouldn't everyone else who could have done something, anything, to influence the situation in a positive manner, couldn't they then be held accountable.

Sorry, but the presence of a gun does not make you accountable for the safety of others as a CCW person.

As as CCW person who has training, I don't have to give out my services for free. Cops don't do it for free, so why should I? Cops have the whole city legal system behind them. I don't. The PD carries liability insurance on its officers. Are they going to cover me as well if I do the job of their officer?

Where in social liability doctrine say that I must risk my life to rescue a person from a situation? Why must I put their lives before mine? If I am intervening in a lethal force situation, then I am risking my life.

Why would I be liable to use my gun to protect somebody who hasn't bothered to get their own CCW and hasn't bothered to get training?

I may opt to help, but that is my decision and mine alone. I am in no way legally obligated to do so.
 
I have dealt with this same idea on my side of the street.

I am a member of a knife forum, and one section of this board is frequented by professional sharpeners.

Recently, a new entrant posted a question there on the best way to sharpen the metal spurs that cockfighters strap to their chickens' feet.

Here's my quandry. I didn't want any knowledge that I have to be used to further torture animals.

Granted, the idiot could learn somewhere else, or at best I'm not directly responsible for what this scungili does as an adult.

Sooner or later you pick your fight, straighten your shoulders and decide if you're going to sleep comfortably with your own thoughts. I decided that in the end my skills might be responsible for any future torture.

I ran the guy off, reported his actions to the mods (cockfighting is illegal in his state) and asked him the very real question if an investigation by way of his ISP would turn up any other illegal activities.

We haven't heard from him since. Oh, I trust that he still fighting birds. Idiots like this never learn until the cops slip the bracelets on them. But he won't be using my knowledge to further his pursuits.
 
I would like to see something of a different take on the same priniciple applied: a person or entity (judge, CLEO, state government official, etc.) who actively impedes or prohibits CCW rights should be held liable for any and all deaths, injuries, and losses of unarmed victims.
 
could have ramifications for CCW permit holders
Click to expand...

Not a single part of that blog addresses CCW. Zero, zip, nada.

You can't be sued for failing to act when you have no legal duty to act on behalf of another.

Simple as that.
 
Fremmer said:
You can't be sued for failing to act when you have no legal duty to act on behalf of another.
Click to expand...

If your area has a Good Samaritan law, a doctor might be held accountable for not rendering aid--it could be looked upon as withholding aid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top