Would you sue?

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
Usually our scenarios are on whether you would shoot someone and there is a nasty debate.

There are stories of a bad guy getting shot fleeing a property crime and the good guy following and shooting him. Sometimes the good guy gets in trouble. One can google quite a few incidents.

Ayoob recently had an American Handgunner column of a good guy who is shot by a clearly bad guy and survives. He chases the bad guy as the BG had his wallet and guys and 'might' go to his house. Or so he says later (no way to know).

Chasing the BG he fires quite a few rounds and nails also an innocent quite badly. Not charged for that but she sues and it is settled with insurance.

So here we go:

A good guy is robbed (not shot though). The BG runs from his store and the GG follows as he isn't letting the BG get away it with it. A gun fight ensues. The GG's gunfire happens just to injured the innocent:

1. You are an innocent and you get shot such that you are significantly injured and will have lots of expenses, disability, etc. even with your own insurance.

2. Your significant other gets nailed - kid, wife, husband, etc. whatever - same serious injury and expenses.

Do you sue or does your RKBA nucleus in your noggin say that you should NOT sue for the cause? Do you eat the costs and disability even though one could argue that the GG should not have pursued even though the BG got 'what he deserved' and it showed that we stand up to crime, etc.
 
That's a tough one and I can only make the call if it ever happens.

I can't comment further, only say that firearms aren't the perfect answer to self defense. My instructor pointed out you own every single bullet that leaves the barrel. They don't stop at the BG.
 
You are responsible for every round you fire.

If you hit an innocent, you are responsible. An innocent party shouldn't have to sue you to make you do the right thing.

You're talking bullets. Would it matter if you ran them over with a truck?
 
I've sued a few renters for unlawful detainer and I don't feel bad about that. In general though, I believe it's far too easy to sue and win for all sorts of petty crap. But in this case, I'd probably try suing both the GG and the BG. If the GG accidentally shoots me in defense of his life is one thing, but the scenario posted makes that seem unlikely.
 
Tough call, Glenn,

Me personally? No, I don't sue--whether it was me or my wife that were shot.

I've been shot before. Three times as a matter of fact between the service and law enforcement. I figure the fourth one will be the last one. Nobody can be that lucky.

My wife and I also have invested wisely and could cover the costs of such an incident.

If I, or her, were the good guy doing the shooting and an innocent were hit, I would offer to take care of their bills and everything related. But again, that's just me.

I've been there. I've been shot and know the recovery process, the nightmares, et al. I've also seen innocent people shot and have seen the same recovery process.

And finally, KNOWING that my wife and I would unhesitatingly help someone that either of us shot inadvertently/accidentally while in self-defense plays a significant role in our decision-making process.

Good question, good food for thought, although I suspect your overwhelming number of responses will be "Hell, yeah I'd sue!"

Lawyers are our society's modern day version of the hired gunfighter--and anyone can be a lawyer and a laywer will work for anyone.

Jeff
 
I just thought of a nuance.

Your own insurance may not want to pay health costs if they think there is another person responsible. Even if you just wanted the other guy to pay your deductibles, your health company might want the other person to pick up the whole show.

So even with good intentions, you might (depending on coverage) be stuck with a tremendous bill, independent of any punitive damages you might want (if those could be proven).

There is also the difference between getting your reasonable costs covered and going for the 'big, get rich' settlement. Costs can be large if you look at lifetime costs. However, punitive damages - unless the GG -was totally reckless - seem excessive to ask for, IMHO.
 
1. GG shouldn't have shot in the first place. Robbery is not a reason to shoot. Property can generally be replaced.

2. Tough call on whether to sue. I've never sued anyone, nor am I much of a lawsuit person. Having said that, I'd be inclined to say yes, sue, for reason given in number 1 above. Innocent party should be made whole, and whole thing wouldn't have happened had GG used better reason.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Your own insurance may not want to pay health costs if they think there is another person responsible.
Click to expand...

Finally, a good use for lawyers--pitting them against each other.

My truck got hit once, and my personal insurance paid. I did sign papers of subrogation to allow the insurance company to recover their cost.

Now, TSR is in Texas. He gets his spurs sharpened and big ol' plug of chawin' tobacky. If he loses an ear, he can get as much as four bucks, silver.
 
i agree. might as well ask "what if someone hit you with their car?" as a pedestrian, i was hit by a car. my adrenaline was pumping and after going over the car and landing on the other side i got up and started getting really pissed. i told the lady driving she better leave quick or we might both be sorry. stupid thing to do, especially since i couldn't walk for a while after the effects of the injury set in. anyway, it woulda been nice if her insurance paid for her stupidity.

so, although i may believe the guy was in the right - which i wouldn't if he was trying to shoot someone in the back while they fled - my belief isn't strong enough to sacrifice my home and livelihood for it. and if it was a serious injury that's just what it might amount to.

lets say the bad guy stole the shooter's wallet. am i really gonna have to pay with a limp for the shooter not to have to cancel some credit cards and change the locks to his house? is it worth it to him to possibly kill or cripple me so he doesn't have to apply for a replacement driver's license? now that i think about it, the guy might be lucky if i only sue him.
 
Don't want anything more than being made whole by the good guy if the badguy can't do so. The badguy can be responsible for the pain and suffering if they ever make any money again. In a perfect world the badguy is pushing up daisies.
 
Of course, you're responsible for every round you fire. Why should an innocent bystander bear the burden?
 
Do you sue or does your RKBA nucleus in your noggin say that you should NOT sue for the cause?
Click to expand...
You bet. I support your right to defend yourself. I do not defend your right to chase BGs down the street to fulfill some macho need you have. I would be less apt to do so had you actually been defending you and yours and an errant round got out, depending on the situation.
 
Suing the BG is a nonstarter - he has no assets or insurance company. You might get a court to assign him to give you a $100 a week when he gets out of prison. So what - most of these victim compensation schemes don't get paid.

If he gets a job after prison - he might give you a free burger.

Remember health costs are tremendous.
 
I would likely sue if insurance couldn't work it out, as with other forms of accidents, while harboring ill will toward only the bad guy.

I'd want the bad guy targeted first.

If I could get what I needed out of the bad guy, the shooter's suit wouldn't be necessary.

If I couldn't, then I'd file against the shooter, because as mentioned you're responsible for every round sent down range.
 
This is a good post, Glenn and an interesting judgement call.

It would be one thing if the GG was chasing down the BG who fired and missed or who coldly shot a customer on the way out of a store. Lacking that, one has to look at the facts of the incident and determine if the GG's actions were negligent and reckless in causing the injury. If so, then the GG needs to pay the medical costs.

I was actually expecting one of two different questions when I started reading this thread;

- Would you, as the victim of a robbery/shooting sue the BG even if it's unlikely to gain much from him?

- If you were a bystander during a robbery and the victim's bullet struck you, would you sue the GG? (one could optionally set it up that you're hit with an FMJ after it passed thru the BG).
 
I believe in the RKBA for self defense. I do not believe human beings have a right to use deadly force to protect or recover property. I do not believe human beings have a right to use deadly force to satisfy an urge for revenge. What this man did hurts our rights to own guns at all.

Not only would I sue the guy for negligence, I'd press for criminal charges against him.
 
My school of thought is still that property isn't worth a life. GG shouldn't be chasing down a BG over some cash out of the register. However, according to some states (even my own) he can be well within his right. That DOESN'T give him the right to be a bad shot.

Hits me or any one of mine, I'm suing for at least medicals (he causes permanent disability, it's on like Donkey Kong). Luckily for GG it's a business so I should be able to sue said insurance. But that's not to say I won't go after him personally, cause I will if need be.

Don't feel like I should have to pay for someone else's bad shot. And to remove any Devil's Advocates out there, I fully expect to get turned inside and out if I ever shoot an innocent.
 
I believe in the RKBA for self defense. I do not believe human beings have a right to use deadly force to protect or recover property. I do not believe human beings have a right to use deadly force to satisfy an urge for revenge. What this man did hurts our rights to own guns at all.
Click to expand...

I also believe in self defense. I DO believe in the right to protect my property with deadly force in certain circumstances. I DO believe that in certain circumstances one has the right to vengence. A man kills one of your own, he fully deserves to die. PERIOD. He forfeited his right to live when he took that right from one of mine. Maybe that is where we differ.

As to the OP, I think if I were disabled by the GG, or one of mine was killed by him acting illegally or negligently with his firearm, he should be responsible for his actions. We assume that responsibility when we strap on that gun. Just like we assume responsibility every time we get behind the wheel, or anything else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top