OldMarksman said:In most states with an "immunity from civil liability" statute, the defendant, once suit has been filed, precent evidence to the judge in a civil court that the immunity proven allies.
No law prevents a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit against a citizen, anywhere.In Florida, this story had a different ending due to the laws in question.
Bad Guy robed a Dollar General, good guy shot him point-blank,
which killed the scumbag. Family wanted to sue, but due to the
Anti-Criminal Laws in place, they were unable to sue.
Absolutely not--quite the contrary.Are you saying that the presumed defendant in a civil suit over a DGU that was never charged could present that as fait accompli that the DGU was in fact, justified?
You are most welcome.Thank you for your insight in this thread -
Do not so assume.I will assume that you are in the legal profession in some way, of course.
Had he been so trained, and were he able to prove it, (1) he would have known how to not use deadly force improperly,
For those who do, that would be helpful--provided that the actor is able to present to the court sufficient evidence that he acted lawfully.Live in a state that offers immunity to civil suit for self defense.
For those who do, that would be helpful--provided that the actor is able to present to the court sufficient evidence that he acted lawfully.
Not at all. The estates of decedents can sue, and they do it all the time.Is that kind of like dead guys don't sue ....
I really do hope that your are joking....or more like he could have killed the guy with a single stab vs him living after 17+\-.
I most seriouslydoubt that.In North Dakota it is not so complicated. Once the DA rules it was SD it is done.
Civil liability does not fall within the purview of the criminal justice system.And yes I have experience with the criminal justice system here.
most seriouslydoubt that.
TheDA may conclude that the stare has insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable down that a crime has been committed.
But the standard of proof for civil liability is a preponderance of the evidence. That is a long held and fundamental precept of jurisprudence.
and, of course, nothing is "done" on the basis of one DA's determination. The next DA can change things.
Quote:
And yes I have experience with the criminal justice system here.
Civil liability does not fall within the purview of the criminal justice system.
I am sure that what you meant to day is that there would be no need to produce evidence if there were no ciivl suit.There will be no preponderance of the evidence if there is no civil suit.
Irrelevant here.It may not be the purview but many of us have been sued a few time for doing our jobs.
The man who intervened almost certainly did so lawfully (though not prudently), and he had every right to avoid being stabbed again.This is a hypothetical that probably does not apply here,but the good Sam was supposedly stabbed in the neck.
First, the stabber was most certainly not justified in killing the robber, except in in the brief moment in which he faced an imminent threat of death,...
Justifiable, if he had had reason to believe that the immediate use of deadly force had been necessary to protect himself from the knife.And if a single plunge, in that brief moment, had killed him then what?
Well, that would be a very good question indeed, from a "tactical" standpoint, but his intervention was almost certainly lawful.Someone would argue that, "had he not approached him in the first place..."
That would be determined by the triers of fact."Excessive", reminds me of... Seems like a lot, when your not there.