Would you sue?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I sue for actual damages, but not punitive damages. The guy is responsible for his actions, and he needs to pay the hospital bills if he accidentally shoots someone. But, I don't sue for any of the punitive or "pain and suffering" damages.

Depending on where he shoots me, I might have to sue for "loss of consortium." I'm just saying... :p
 
Suing the BG is a nonstarter - he has no assets or insurance company.
Click to expand...
We have an officer working for us that's a bona fide, real life multimillionaire. Yup, a regular McMillan.... on paper that is ;).

He sued a BG about 20 years ago and was awarded an astronomical amount of money.

Problem.

The BG's only possessions were a welfare card and a pair of stolen Nike tennis shoes. That's why a multimillionaire drives a 14 yr. old vehicle and works two side jobs. :D
 
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...

Here is where I philosophically and geographically disagree.

Having grown up in a rural, ranching area of Texas, no sheriff or grand jury would ever indict you for chasing down a guy who'd just stolen your horse or some cattle.

In many cases, your property is how you make your livlihood. And not everyone can afford the requisite insurance--or the costs it often takes to recover/replace property in time to not fall behind on bills/business expenses.

My property is MINE. No one else's. No one else has a right to it. The law says it is illegal to steal my property or otherwise take it without my express consent.

I lost count growing up of the number of times our neighbors, and even my own grandfather, would get in the pickup or saddle up and go hunt down some vagabond that we'd let sleep in the barn, only to find he'd stolen some tack, leather, clothes or whatever.

Nine times out of ten, the property was recovered at the point of a lever-action rifle. Sheriff was never called. No fuss was ever made and no one ever got hurt.

In today's politically correct and lawyer-laden society (which, incidentally experiences a MUCH higher crime rate than when and where I grew up), it is generally accepted that so long as you're not hurt, it's okay for scumbags to steal your property, point guns at you in the stealing of your property, and generally threated to come back and "get you" if you cause any trouble during the stealing of your property.

I do not buy that. I didn't buy that growing up. I didn't buy that as a soldier. I didn't buy that as federal agent. And I don't buy it today as a private semi-retired citizen who just wants to be left the hell alone.

And as far as vengeance, I won't do that over property. But hurt me or my wife or my dogs, and you better never stop running.

Not only would I sue the guy for negligence, I'd press for criminal charges against him.
Click to expand...

Best you'd get in most (sane) states would be negligence (reckless). Intent would have to be proved, and nobody "intends" to shoot an innocent bystander.

BUT . . . negligence is usually a HUGE deciding factor in the awarding of both damages and punitive damages.

Jeff
 
Punitive damages are not available for purely negligent behavior. Punitives are to punish an intentional behavior, but negligence is an unintentional lapse of care.
 
TexasSeaRay:

unfortunately, not everyone in the usa can afford the luxury of living on a rural ranch. and laws have to be made that can be applied to all fairly, rich or poor. lets make the comparison a little more fair.

lets say i did get robbed. i followed the thief to your house (of course you weren't complicit in his actions) where he sought refuge in your living room. he left the door open in his haste and was running out the back way when i shot through the open door. your wife was sitting there in the living room nursing the baby, but i'm a pretty good shot so i'm confident i'm not gonna hit them. anyway - he stole my stuff!

for those of us that are in more densely populated areas i feel this would be a more apt comparison. when your neighbors hunted down these vagabonds, they weren't in a place where stray fire was likely to hit someone, were they?

i'm not trying to be snarky, but i'd like to ask for your thoughts on the situation in the place of the victim, who loses a loved one, rather than the goodguy retrieving his stuff.
 
Based only on the info you have provided I would sue his a$$ to the fullest extent. He has no business doing the cops job. Having a gun is for self defense only, not retaliation or to recover property.
 
Last edited:
Do you sue or does your RKBA nucleus in your noggin say that you should NOT sue for the cause?
Click to expand...

What the hell does RKBA have to do with whether or not you sue? We aren't talking about suing to remove firearms from the shooter, are we? We are talking about $$ compensation.

If you are wrongfully injured, be it by the good guy driving a car or shooting you, you deserve to be compensated for you damages, lost wages, etc. I don't care if the good guy shooter is legally attempting to stop a crime for the purpose of recovery of property or to protect his/her own life. The shooter does not have the right to shoot me as a non-aggressor or bystander.
 
Based on the example, I am going to sue that clown for playing rambo and chasing the guy and shooting after the threat was over.

When I recover I will find a way to tie his homepage to my webcam every morning while I do my PT exercises :eek:

Seriously, My RKBA brain tells me not to chase people when I am not getting paid to do so and not legal to do so. Even in that case you still owe a high duty of care to any bystanders.
 
A few points that should go into the discussion...

1. Brad, the shooter in this case, had already been wounded in the forehead by the perpetrator, an intentional execution shot with a .22 that fractured the skull and temporarily knocked him out.

2. Brad was not worried about money. His conscious concern was that the suspect had stolen his keys to his home, and his wallet with the address to that home, where his elderly bedridden mother lay helpless.

3. When Brad fired the shots in question, the man who had shot him was attempting to enter a van occupied by a woman unknown to him, who had stopped at the corner. He aimed at Brad and Brad fired. The suspect fell. It was apparently at this point that the woman driving the car -- an about-to-be carjacking victim, apparently, who had not been seen by Brad as he aimed -- was hit.

Full story appears in the current (March/April 2008) edition of American Handgunner magazine, beginning Page 36.
 
I don't think its a tough call to make. I would sue. However, you can't expect insurance to cover it. Such a claim would likely be rejected by the company. Very likely the supposed good guy would have been charged with reckless endangerment, at the very least, and since the good guys reckless behavior led to it, his insurance wouldnt pay out. Who else you going to sue? the robber?
 
Now the real case mentioned is a bit different from the hypothetical store owner not letting the BG get away.

That takes more thought. In the real case from the article I would be more likely to have some compassion for the shooter. In the example case if the shopkeep had taken one in the dome.

The way I read the OP we were talking about a hypothetical shop keeper not letting the BG get away.

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.
Click to expand...
 
It seems to me that one who shoots has the responsibility (or the duty) to make sure that no rounds hit anything other than the target (the BG). I don't care what caused the shooting. If you shoot, and you cause damage to an innocent, then you get to pay. That includes property damage, or damages for injury or death.

The answer for most people will be to sue. They don't care about what stuff was stolen, or about anything else. All they know is that you shot them, they didn't sign up to be shot by you. That's just the way it is.

Of course, you always have the option of choosing not to shoot, in which case there will be no liability. It's your choice. You have to live by it.
 
Suing the BG is a nonstarter - he has no assets or insurance company.
Click to expand...

I know, but indicated I would as a matter of principal. Some of my former tenants still owe me a lot of money that I'll never see. I collected some, but, every time I'd garnish their wages they'd just go get another job and at some point, I'd lose track of them and that's that.:mad:
 
I don't think the added facts change anything at all. Tort law is about compensation, not about whether someone is a good person or not.
 
The idea behind guns being available to the citizen is that not everybody is a reckless fool who would abuse of them, either by committing crimes or neglecting a responsible behaviour. So why not suing the "good" guy would be sticking to the cause? But i must say i'm not familiar with the US legal system, so i will limit myself to say that the one who shot the bullet would have to pay for the medical bills, the missed incomes and the eventual permanent damage.

By the way, this is a question separated from reality. I.e. how many women have said "I don't care if you don't want this baby, i'm keeping it and i will raise him on my own" only to ask a judge a few months later to force the irresponsible father to pay alimony?
 
If some reckless person shot me, I wouldn't sue him, I'd shoot him (if able). If a GG shoots me, he becomes the BG to me, no matter what his intentions are. If you shoot, you are responsible for where your bullets go, no ifs ands buts or maybes, you are responsible.
 
Let us not forget that part of the reason that most of us carry is that it is THE effective deterrent to crime. It is the criminal of any stripe who should be the one afraid of the scenario, not their intended target. I for one would not like to be an example of deterring the deterrence.
 
You bet your A$$ I would sue, and for plenty. The idiot's right to self defense ended when the BG fled; pursuit was reckless and irresponsible conduct. The RKBA implies the obligation to use firearms in a safe and responsible manner. Suing someone who fails to do that is not against the RKBA, it is in support of it.

Jim
 
I always enjoy Glenn Meyer's posts, because the guy knows what he's talking about and, more important, what he has to say makes people think.

This thread is a classic example.

First, Glenn gave a brief precis of the actual case. Then, he asked a hypothetical that is different in critical ways. In the hypothetical Glenn presents, the good guy has NOT been shot, merely robbed at gunpoint. The hypothetical chase then goes out in the street, shots are fired, and an innocent bystander is hit by the Good Guy's gunfire.

That's two prisms through which to view the same question, should the armed citizen pursue an armed felon or not?

As we watch the thread unfold, we see a couple of things. First, it's human nature to judge one's own kind more harshly, since their actions reflect on us, consciously or subconsciously. Second, it's easy for folks who came in late to get a skewed perception of the actual encounter. On threads like these, by the second page some people will be responding without having read all that went before.

Let's look through that prism from another angle.

You are the driver of a van, unarmed and untrained in these things, minding your own business as you roll to a stop at an intersection. Suddenly, a man appears at the door of your van, armed with a gun. Unknown to you, though you'll find out later, he is attempting to carjack you and has just shot another helpless, innocent victim in the center of the forehead and left him for dead. Suddenly, someone shouts at the armed offender, and he turns and raises his gun to shoot that person. The person who shouted fires his own gun, dropping the offender and also unintentionally wounding you. His actions have physically harmed you, but he has also saved you from probably being kidnapped by a man who shoots his victims in the forehead.

Does this change your outlook at all, as a plaintiff with the option of suing the man who kept you from being carjacked, and/or kidnapped, and/or murdered?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top