Would you sue?

Status
Not open for further replies.
i think, in this multifaceted scenario it needs just one more facet to consider, especially for those who said "i'd only want my medical bill paid": bringing a lawsuit may be the only way the victim would receive any compensation from an insurance company.

i'm not sure, if any LE officers here might know, if an officer accidentally injures a bystander while doing his job, would the municipality by which he's employed compensate the bystander? if so, then how much more so should a person be compensated in this case?

there's a lot of background needed to understand the situation. the guy was shot with a .22, "execution style." was he a fellow gumbah of the perpetrator? did he get in too deep with a loan shark or something? was it his drug dealer to whom he owed a lot of money?

i'll mention one last thing, and i hope i'm not being annoying - please let me know if i am. as a private citizen i figure i have one shot in my life that i can ever actually use a firearm for self defense or to harm another in any way, no matter how urgent the need or how valid the reason. after that it's pretty much over, i'd lose my privileges, probably do my time and perhaps lose everything. it's a given. it's the sort of thing one would probably only trade for a loved one, or if his life is on the line. whether the shooter recognized this or not, i reckon us as being equals under the law. so he should assume the same degree of responsibility.
 
Don't some states have a victim's compensation fund of some sort? Illinois does. If you're the victim of a crime, you could have your insurance cover your expenses and then go after the bad guy and/or file for funding from the victim's compensation fund.
 
Since all the sappy background information was provided, it is clear that the shooter was not endeavoring to save me from the carjacking, but in saving his own goodies. He doesn't get to shoot me in order to possibly save his goodies and mom at home. At this point, they are not in the line of fire, but I was.
Click to expand...

Double Naught,
Not trying to be overly critical, but is this opinion apply only because he was pursuing the BG or would it be the same regardless of where/why/how he fired?
 
In many cases you would have to sue both the BG and the GG for your insurance to pay off but that really isn't the question. One of the things I worry about is either hitting a by-stander or being hit by an over zealous GG. Everyone thinks they can be 100% accurate with their headshot from their .45 and after one clean shot everything is over except for the clean-up. In real life a 50% hit rate is outstanding so where do those other bullets go? I think the OP talked about a robber running away and you bet your sweet bippy I would sue in a case like that. Every case is different and I can't say that I would in all cases but a Dirty Harry wannabe better have a good lawyer.
 
You have a robber fleeing, who gets chased into your path, who then tries to carjack YOU in order to get away from the guy he robbed, and the victim shoots YOU, and there is some question as to whether YOU should be compensated? I just don't see the dilemma. The law assigns a reasonable man standard in tort cases, not the individualized circumstances of this particular defendant. Tort law is about assigning compensation to those harmed, not deciding whether the robbing victim is good or noble or righteous.
 
You have a robber fleeing, who gets chased into your path, who then tries to carjack YOU in order to get away from the guy he robbed, and the victim shoots YOU, and there is some question as to whether YOU should be compensated? I just don't see the dilemma. The law assigns a reasonable man standard in tort cases, not the individualized circumstances of this particular defendant. Tort law is about assigning compensation to those harmed, not deciding whether the robbing victim is good or noble or righteous.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Further, we assign the costs of a person's acts to that person. This let's each individual weigh the risk that his own acts will endanger another. Suing the GG doesn't make him bad, it just makes him accountable.
 
"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."

No, your insurance can be forced to pay (by legal action if necessary) and then THEY must go after the party.

I have NEVER seen a health insurance policy that places restrictions like this, and without a written restriction in the plicy the insurance company WILL lose.
 
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...
I would first attempt to sue the bad guy and get him to pay for my medical expenses and time off from work.

But if that failed, then yes, I would sue the good guy.

Everyone who knows me on this forum knows that I'm all in favor of ridding our society of criminals.....however....I'm also a firm believer that you do not needlessly endanger others while chasing a criminal.

If you can shoot the criminal without endangering others....then yeah, shoot him!
Heck, shoot him three times!

But if there is even a remote chance that you will hit an innocent bystander, then NO, you do not take the shot.
Ask yourself this:
Is getting your wallet back worth killing an innocent bystander?

"Yep! I killed four children, three soccor moms, and two firefighters....but I got my wallet back!"
 
Thanks to Mas for entering the conversation. His work has been seminal for me to investigate such issues. I guess I got the school's money's worth for them sending me to LFI-1.

My scenario was different as I wanted to remove the motivation that Brad had. I had no disrespect for his actions intended. I wanted a pure pursuit thread which did not have a possible continuing threat. But it is interesting to see how the real scenario is playing out.

In my original, the RKBA nucleus comment was intended to separate out how one would deal with the practicalities of expenses vs. one's ideological position. How would a progun community deal with someone who seems to be upholding the 'stand up to the bad guy's view' when it goes awry. That's what I get for reading all the jury research.
 
One poster writes, "Tort law is about assigning compensation to those harmed, not deciding whether the robbing victim is good or noble or righteous."

Ummm....NO, actually.

If that were true, every monster righteously shot defense of others or self by police or law-abiding armed citizens, would automatically win every bogus lawsuit they filed.
 
One poster writes, "Tort law is about assigning compensation to those harmed, not deciding whether the robbing victim is good or noble or righteous."

Ummm....NO, actually.

If that were true, every monster righteously shot defense of others or self by police or law-abiding armed citizens, would automatically win every bogus lawsuit they filed.
Click to expand...

I think you misread the post, especially in the context of prior responses. You may have implied an "exclusively" into the first clause.

That a GG was trying to do something laudable, but made an error, would not and should not bar recovery for the harm he causes. The putative defendant's goodness isn't relevent to the fundamental theory in torts that people are liable for their actions.
 
Exactly. In addition, Mr. Ayoob misunderstands the law. Placing YOURSELF in danger by committing a crime and suffering damages because you were stopped by lawful and reasonable use of force bars recovery. It's about responsibility, not morality.
 
"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.

No, your insurance can be forced to pay (by legal action if necessary) and then THEY must go after the party.

I have NEVER seen a health insurance policy that places restrictions like this, and without a written restriction in the plicy the insurance company WILL lose. "

I've been there on that in a car accident. The other party's company decided that the care my doctor suggested was inappropriate and unwarranted. My plan said I had to deal with them. Tremendous hassle. Suing my health care plan sounds like a wonderful use of my time and expense.

As an aside, our plan has told cancer victims that their proposed treatment is 'experimental' and refused to pay. There were lawsuits over that. Hope you don't die before they settle.
 
Theory is great in law school. But in real life, and in real lawsuits, Mr. Ayoob understands the law enough to realize that certain facts may cause a jury to award much less in damages, or no damages at all. ;)
 
"My plan said I had to deal with them. Tremendous hassle. Suing my health care plan sounds like a wonderful use of my time and expense."

You start by filing a complaint with your state insurance commision against BOTH companies.

It often does the trick right there.

"Suing my health care plan sounds like a wonderful use of my time and expense."

All depends on how many $$ are involved.
 
I'm under the one should be responsible for each and every bullet that left his or her gun. That means that you had better practice on a regular basis and know what the heck you are doing. I would not expect any sympathy from an innocent bystander (or his or her family) because I missed. I know its impossible to be 100%, especially under duress, but the odds must be calculated before pulling the trigger. For instance, is there a crowd of people behind the target? Is the bad guy actually still a threat to the person "defending" him or herself? If someone wants to be a cowboy and starts blazing away with total disregard for the safety of others, you better believe I'm going to sue. Even though I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, someone has got to put food on the table and pay the mortgage. As Captain Charlie pointed out, chances are you're not going to get much from the bad guy. I'm not going to just take a loss of wages and eat the medical expenses because of someone elses carelessness.

Lets put it this way. Can a police officer fire on a suspect that is in the middle of a crowded area? What if there is collateral damage? Would you sue the police department or at least try to recover damages? The police officer should recognize that there is too much danger to the general public and seek cover.

I'm not sure who posted the part about returning fire on the good guy, but he has a very valid point. Unless you are watching this whole thing unfold, how do you know who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. Lets assume for arguement sake that the bad guy is not in a ski mask or wearing gang colors. First reaction should be to take cover as soon the first shot is fired. If someone keeps firing in my direction, you better bet I will return fire.
 
Theory is great in law school. But in real life, and in real lawsuits, Mr. Ayoob understands the law enough to realize that certain facts may cause a jury to award much less in damages, or no damages at all.
Click to expand...

I don't believe anyone disputes that, or that it pertains to the point at issue.. The comment contradicting a fair description of the purpose of tort law was wide of the mark. Anyone can misread. Happens to the best of us.
 
This is a very interesting thought provoking thread...

Yes, I would sue. I read the article referred to in the OP. bottom line is the GG had already been shot in the head before he chased the BG. Surely he knew this would have a negative effect on his ability to shoot acuratley, the article described him as having lost his hearing during the altercation and also described he felt like he would black-out at any moment. he knew he was not fit to shoot accuratly at a moving target that he was chasing after being shot in the head.. He also shot someone who was fleeing and was no longer a threat to him. I dont feel bad for the BG and think he deserved whatever negative happend to him..however, If it were my wife, child or me that was shot by the "GG" I'd sue. the innocent in this story was hurt pretty bad and that may have affected her money making ability...she and her family, if she had one still need to eat..who better to be held responsible than the person responsible.

the article focused on the point that the BG had the GG wallet and the GG was worried about his elderly mom who was home alone since the BG now had his address...best thing would have been to call the cops ASAP..chances are they woulda been there waiting for the BG. after knowing he had already shot the GG in the head. and if GG had blacked out, like he felt like was happening, he would chased in vain and no help would have been on the way for him or his elderly mother..It worked out for him in this case but dont think it was the best course of action.
 
I would sue for all expenses and most likely not wanna file charges.

I WOULD NEVER PAY A DIME TO THE FAMILY OF A BG in case of a civil suit, hopefully I'm never put in that situation but nonetheless.
 
We should all go back and read Glenn Meyers' origianal post, as well as Ayoobs post below.

Seems we've mixed up the original incident with the hypothetical posted by Glenn-- and some of us are responding from one context and some the other. If we're going to disagree, then lets do it from the same context!:cool:


Ayoob:
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
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top