What is the actual percentage of civil suits filed against CCWs?

Do you know anyone personally who has been sued because of a self defense issue?

  • Yes, I have direct personal knowledge of at least one civil lawsuit

    Votes: 2 7.4%

  • No, I have no direct personal knowledge of a civil lawsuit.

    Votes: 25 92.6%
  • Total voters
    27
B

butch50

New member
I joined this forum not too long ago, after having applied for my chl, and while waiting for it. One of the truisms stated in my CHL class was that if you ever shoot someone you will be sued in civil court, even if you are not charged with criminal charges. I accepted this at face value at the time knowing how litiguous Americans are.

Reading the threads over the past couple of months I have noticed that there is a generalized agreement with that fear of civil lawsuit. Seems to me that nearly everyone on this forum is convinced that if they ever use a gun in self defense they will be sued in civil court. Again, I assumed that is true.

BUT, I started wondering today if that is not a false assumption. Does anyone have or know where to find statistics on this? Just how likely is one to be sued in REALITY? Does anyone actually know? Is it possible that this is a self perpetuated myth?

I give you this for instance: Every attorney that I know (and I know a few) would, before spending any time and money suing me, look at my assets to see if I was worth suing. In my case they would say no, he does not have enough assets to make a suit profitable for the attorney. If the attorney had a wealthy client all wound up and ready to pay big fees he would say yes of course. But how likely is it that the family of a thug would be wealthy?

Facts please, just facts, not opinions: Does anyone have facts on this?
 
yes i know someone that was sued for a justifiable shooting. the BG died and the next of kin thinking thier "little angel" had been gunned down by the big bad white guy, sued. my friend says its the best thing that happened cause he got to explain to the family what their punk kid was up to, and that it was a self defence shooting. even if it did cost him $$$.

my CHL instuctor did say "you WILL be sued" the BG or the BG's next of kin gets an attorny on a contengency fee. if they win he gets paid if not they are not out any money. you on the other hand will have to pay for an attorny and the average is $20,000.
 
Too bad the BGs family will likely be a bunch of low-lifes with no cash or you could probably countersue to recover costs.
 
I had to put down "no" because I don't know anyone who has used a weapon for SD with or without being sued. I'll bet most of us fall in that category, and perhaps you should restrict the question to those that know someone who was involved in a shooting?

But that said ... the lawyer who spoke at my advanced concealed carry class gave several anecdotes where people were sued that had used a gun and no criminal charges were ever filed. Both, however, were situations where people used a weapon to defend someone else when they didn't fully understand the situation.

The one that struck me as the most intersting was this one (race of individuals is only included because it shows why there wasn't an obvious connection).

Guy at park sees a teenage blonde white girl walking along. A beat up van pulls up beside her, and an African American man wearing ratty clothes jumps out of the van and begins yelling at her. Girl yells back, then takes off running with the man chasing her.

Guy at park whips out gun, forces black guy to the ground, then calls 911.

Po po gets in hizzle (does that work right?) and discovers that the black male is the adoptive father of the minor girl (like 14 or so), and a highly reputable social worker to boot, and the girl has been running away from home and using drugs and etc. Black guy was trying to bring her back home.

Police say no injury no foul and walk away. Black man sues guy in park in civil court for "false imprisonment" and basically takes every penny he has (insurance and umbrella liability don't help in this case).

The moral wasn't that you shouldn't get involved in this situation; of course you should. The mistake the samaritan in the park made was that instead of confronting the situation and calling the police and getting involved like he would as if unarmed, he went straight to clearing leather and holding an unarmed man at gunpoint. He didn't even attempt to learn what was going on, just drew lethal force on a man trying to gain control of his minor daughter.

If the black male had brandished a weapon, outcome probably would have been different. If the guy in the park had just used physical force (tackling the black male, then finding out the truth of the situaiton) the outcome might have been different. And of course a different jury/ judge might not have found against the samaritan either.

Colorado law specifically gives you a right to use lethal force to defend yourself or someone else from being kidnapped, so until I'd heard this story I might have done the same thing. Though I'd like to think that in most situations I'd at least interject myself to see if anything more was requied (i.e. shouting you're calling the police would probalby send the normal perv/rapist running back to his car to get away).

And while I wasn't there and don't know how badly the father was treated ... I don't think I'd be filing suit against someone who was trying to protect my daughter.
 
My concern about the whole lawsuit issue is that some people become so wrapped up in the potential for being sued that it seems to over shadow the primary reason they chose to arm themselves. Which would be worse, being sued or being dead? Know and follow the law, use good judgement, don't help create or inflame the situation and be able to articulate why you acted as you did. You may or may not be sued. Even if you are sued you can avoid a judgement against you by following the above rules. On the bright side if you (not your estate) are being sued, you survived the encounter.
 
How is tackling the assailant vs. holding him at gun point going to make any difference in a finding of "false imprisonment?"

False imprisonment requires an element of "without legal justification." If there was no criminal case brought against the guy, then it appears that the police felt he had legal justification under a "reasonable person" standard, so he must have had a crappy attorney if he lost the lawsuit.
 
How is tackling the assailant vs. holding him at gun point going to make any difference in a finding of "false imprisonment?"

False imprisonment requires an element of "without legal justification." If there was no criminal case brought against the guy, then it appears that the police felt he had legal justification under a "reasonable person" standard, so he must have had a crappy attorney if he lost the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Just recounting the story the lawyer told. And I don't know all the little details. The lawyer seemed like a very nice/smart guy, as well as a fellow shooter, so I believe him when he says it's an actual occurence.

If I had to guess ... I would say the difference between tackling the guy and pulling a gun on him has to do with difference in Colorado law between physical and lethal force. But since defending someone from kidnapping with lethal force is specifically allowed ... I don't know.

Sorry. Can't defend the decision because I don't agree with it; it's just what I was taught in class.

My own POV is that I will not be concerned about future lasuits or anything else if I feel a need to defend myself with my firearm. If I have to pull my weapon, the SHTF and my only concern is coming out alive.

The rest can be dealt with by lawyers after the fact, and I will just be happy to still be alive to deal with it.
 
I can totally see why he got sued, my older brother is adopted, of asian origin, if my father was yelling at him or chasing him in public and some bystander pulled a weapon on my dad, their would of been a gun fight...

Ive said it in the past and i'll say it again, some people are too quick on the draw.
 
Yeah you have to remember the thing about superheroes is that if they existed in today's society they'd be getting sued all the time.
 
I can totally see why he got sued, my older brother is adopted, of asian origin, if my father was yelling at him or chasing him in public and some bystander pulled a weapon on my dad, their would of been a gun fight...

Ive said it in the past and i'll say it again, some people are too quick on the draw
Click to expand...

Would your father open fire on a good samaritan who doesn't understand the situation but believes he was protecting a child? Wouldn't he understand how things looked, and maybe even take similar action himself if he observed a similar situation? If the former is true, I have to agree with your second statement as it relates to your father ... some people are too quick on the draw.

I understand why you're a bit defensive on the matter of race and people drawing quick conclusions, but sometimes there's not time for anything but a hasty conclusion. And then we need to sort things out afterward (i.e. "what the hell you doing chasing her?" "She's my daughter", etc.) as quickly as possible to determine what's really going on.

From either perspective, my feelings are (and these are the same as I would do even before the class):

1. Bystander: I would intercede without a weapon and try to figure the situation out. Depending on his reaction I would either walk away, take down his license and call the police, or if the situation seemed extreme take my chances by interceding forcefully.

2. Father: I would not be happy someone detained me while performing my fatherly duties. But I would also be grateful that someone stepped up to defend my daughter. We've all seen the video at the mall of a young girl being pulled away to later be raped and killed. If only someone would have had the opportunity and would have taken action then.

My .02 ...
 
This problem is why I love the new law that florida just passed. If I am involved in a shooting and it is found to be justified then there will be no chance for me to be sued in civil court.
 
Hooray for Castle Laws, they need to spread. Has anyone found a website for a data base of any kind that sheds some facts on this?
 
There are a lot more lawsuits between the ears of some firearms instructors than in the courts. I've known a couple of people who took the lives of bad guys. Neither got sued.

Spurious lawsuits generally don't make it too far, unless one happens to be in a jurisidiction run by the kind of people who'd elect Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Klinton, Kennedy, Kerry, etc, etc., to represent them in D.C.

I'm judgment-proof and will never incur legal fees, regardless of the situation of a shooting to which I'm a party, as long as I'm the shooter, not the shootee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top