CCW - The first thing you need

[Hal]

In Ohio, where I live, you will be arrested. Charges will depend on the evidence.The faster you can get to a lawyer, the better off you will be. You may win both the criminal and civil cases, but the cost will be huge. Expect to spend the next decade or two defending yourself in court. From the half-a$$ed data I have gathered over the last 15 years, expect to spend $20,000.00 if you're in the right. More if you can't explain beyond a shodow of a doubt.

------------------
A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined;
George Washington Jan 8,1790--There can be no doubt about the Second Amendment.



[This message has been edited by Hal (edited April 01, 1999).]

 

[Byron Quick]

Well, I've been there on the receiving end of a lawsuit. Product liability on some furniture I had sold. I refused to allow the manufacturer's attorneys to represent my company. Next I politely informed the plaintiff's attorney that he wasn't getting one dime from me. That I would happily go completely bankrupt and destitute ensuring he did not receive one dime from me. If I had to give it all to my lawyer-OK. But he was not going to get anything at all. He had a talk with the plaintiff and my store was dropped from the suit. Amazing what can happen when the opposing counsel on contigency realizes you will not play his game. If I am involved in a wrongful death suit my reply will be the same. Have at it, attorney, you are not getting anything here for I will spend it all on my defense and appeals and will then declare bankruptcy.

 

[James K]

Hal, 20K would be getting off easy, and that would be without a civil suit. Bond, if granted at all, would be at least 100K. Bondsmen require 10%, and that is not refundable when you show up in court; it is the bondsman's fee. So that is 10K a family will have to raise, in cash, just to get the shooter out on bond. And that is a low bond. Right now a fellow is in jail in this county with bond set at 1 million dollars because he was drunk and drove his truck into a car, killing a woman and a child.

 

[John/az2]

I don't want to open up a can of worms here and maybe this should start another thread.
Even knowing that the legal system is all fouled up, I've got to ask why, if a legal ruling finds you in the right for self-defense can you then be sued and found guilty in a civil case? Is there no carry over? And what about double jeapordy (sp?)?
When was there a division made to separate these decisions?

It boggles my mind! Someone straighten me out, please...

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."

 

[DC]

John..
The legal system is composed of different facets...Criminal law (essentially a crime against the state) is the what concerns the State and there are (allegedly) rigorous and narrow criteria to adhere to.
Lets use OJ as an example..(and not quibble about the jury or lawyer talent/tactics...the result is what counts)
In the criminal case the evidence didn't meet the standards for conviction, nor did the State present a sufficiently convincing case ("beyond a shadow of doubt"). Because the State can deprive you of life and or liberty, the standards for conviction are higher.

Civil litigation doesn't involve the State and basically concerns only money and thus the standards are lower and you merely have to convince the jury. Standards of evidence suppression and admissibility are lower, etc, in short there is wider and laxer latitude on acceptable evidence and testimony.
Thus, the acceptable standards of culpability found OJ primarily contributory to Nicole's and Mr. Brown's deaths; thereby financially responsible.
The interesting thing (and in this case it didn't work for the State) is that the State's case has precedence...must be conducted first. Had the civil trial gone first, the State could have used any evidence, etc from the civil case to include in its case, which would have strengthened it.

The concept of double jeopardy only applies to criminal law...I can sue you forever for the same thing.

Jumping to tobacco and gun manufacturers, these are civil suits as there is no way the States and cities can prove criminal intent on the part of the defendents




------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

 

[Rob Pincus]

DC can probly answer this better, but since when do I know when to shut-up:

The provision of Double Jeopardy only applies to the Gov't (in fact, the federal gov't and then seperately to the states, and even municipalities, I believe). Not citizens.

The way I understand it, you can be tried for some crimes by the state and then again for federal violation sstemming from the same crime byt he feds AND possibly sued by several citizens or "entities" (corportations, etc..) for the same act.

The state cannot try you twice, nor can the feds, but t they can each try you once for the same action, and then the civil courts have an open season as well.

If this is all wrong, somebody E-Slap me....

 

[DC]

Rob..
Pretty right on the button.
The impending case against Nichols (OK bombing conspirator) is the State of OK's case, even though he is serving life from the Fed's case.
Also recall that McVeigh and Nichols were convicted of the deaths of the Federal employees, not the rest of the folks, because the Federal crime was Federal property destruction and Federal employees deaths. The State of OK case covers ALL deaths

 

[BAB]

John--Just FYI, in Colorado, there is the so-called "Make My Day" law. Under this (as I understand it), in a justified use of deadly force against an intruder in one's home, assuming certain criteria were met, one is relieved of both criminal as well as civil liability.

If we can get this concept to include out-of-home situations and then regionally expanded, we will have something going for the concept of self-defense.

BAB

 

[John/az2]

The whole concept of being tried criminally, and then civilly for the same crime, to me, does not seem right at all, and is verydisturbing.

It would seem to me that if the state holds to a higher level of proof then a civil suite would fail miserably if tried at a lower standard. But then I am probably holding onto the hope that there would be some type of spill-over from the criminal into the civil.

Such a thing tends to make one feel that it would be better to remove the whole family from the gene pool, not just the perp...egad

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."

 

[45King]

I have the following in my Rolodex. If memory serves, I believe it came from one of Mas Ayoob's columns.
The Second Amendment Attorney Referal Service: (206)454-7012.
This service will give the names of lawyers nearest you who have a good track record with firearms related cases. I've never called, as I've never had reason to. However, in light of this thread, "an ounce of prevention...."

Keith: Hey, I'm just remembering Dean's advice from "Rules of a Gunfight".{G}

------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard

 

[Jeff Thomas]

Jim Keenan, thanks for starting this thread - very helpful. However, I would respectfully suggest that while there are certainly too many of the 'gun nuts' you describe, on this forum they seem rather scarce ... thankfully.

DC, you are referring to what I believe is generally called the English Rule. I'm not an attorney, but I don't think this ever applied in the U.S. Indeed, this is the system also known as 'loser pays', and the losing party in litigation would pay the costs of the prevailing party.

Many people, including me, believe that adopting this system would significantly trim the absurd amount of litigation currently brought in the U.S. Of course, The Association of Trial Lawyers of America (see http://www.atlanet.org/ ) is not too big on this concept. Their motto is 'for the people'. 'Course, they define 'people' as their own members, for this purpose. The general argument is that this would be too hard on the poor. Well, my perspective at this point is that if we keep on the way we are, we're all going to be poor.

I do believe Spartacus has the right idea. Make sure the plaintiff's attorney understands you are one crazy wacko, and you'd actually rather go bankrupt than pay one dime to his / her client. We had a bank here locally that had the reputation of being so crazy (?) that they would spend excessive amounts of money to collect on their notes. What do you know ... it got to the point where locals made sure they paid that bank first, even if they planned to stiff another lender!

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited April 02, 1999).]

 

[Jim V]

Most civil suits in self-defense events are from wrongfull death, meaning that when you shot the SOB that broke into your home or attacked you with a weapon and you defended yourself, you killed the BG by accident.

Another good source for possible assistance if you are involved in a self defense shooting is the AMERICAN SELF DEFENSE INSTITUTE. They have a web site http://www.americanselfdefense.com the dues is $35-45/year and they have an S/D attorney referral service. I joined just because of the referral service. Not a bad idea to have as much legal help as you can get.



------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum

 

[Dennis]

Jim V,
I just blew an hour looking at the site you recommended,

http://www.americanselfdefense.com

It really sounds good! Does anybody else have any experience or comments about this organization?

BTW, they have some very interesting links. Definitely worth a look-see. Thanks Jim V.

 

[Byron Quick]

John, the criminal standard is narrower than the civil standard. The standard of proof in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt." In civil cases it is a "preponderance of the evidence." Double jeopardy does not apply for you are not being sued for murder but rather for wrongful death.

Case in point. A friend was charged with murder after shooting a man who came behind his convenience store counter. The DA could have probably obtained a conviction for manslaughter but probably was not expecting my friend to fight. Well, he did. He hired Mike Garrett, who has the reputation of being the best criminal attorney in eastern central Georgia. Mike wouldn't plea bargain. They went to jury trial and won a not guilty verdict. Then the criminal's family sued my friend for wrongful death. They won a judgement against my friend. He declared bankruptcy and neither they nor their attorney received any money.

Ironically, the man killed had threatened to kill me in front of witnesses several months before. He held his hand in the pocket of his field jacket, stated he had a pistol, and would shoot me. On another occasion I was at another friend's room in a boarding home. This same guy rented a room there. He suddenly began trying to kick the door to my friend's room in. We were sitting there waiting for him to do so.

None of this could be used as evidence in either trial. The man who was killed had been engaging in activities such as this all over town for years. None of that could be brought before the juries.

 

[John/az2]

Spartacus,

Why was this evidence prohibited from being presented in the civil court?


------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."

 

[bruels]

From the California Penal Code:
198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.

************************************




------------------
Bruce Stanton

 

[James K]

Bruce, that CA law is basically the law in most states and is based on common law. I do note, though, that the CA law requires forcible entry, not just unlawful entry. If you leave your door open and someone just walks in, I think you would have to try to evict him, then wait until he uses force of some kind. It is something that could come up if a home owner shot a man who had simply walked into the wrong house.

My original point, though, was to consult a lawyer before carrying a weapon outside the home. Still, I think I managed to start a very interesting thread and hopefully give some gung-ho folks something to think about.