Man sued by family of man he shot in self-defense
- Thread starter Erich
- Start date
- Status
Double Naught Spy
New member
So the good guy is being sued for failure to render aid after the shooting and not the shooting itself? That should go just about nowhere. The argument will simply be that he was in fear for his life from the dead guy's accomplices who were present and who ultimately took away the shootee.
The overcrowded profession known as lawyering is filled to the brim with money grubbing dirt bags who are little more than modern day ambulance chasers. I doubt if the perp's "family members" came up with the idea of suing the victim for "wrongful death" all on their little lonesome. They undoubtedly got numerous phone calls from a variety of sleazeballs with a shingle and a shoe shine to "suggest the possibilities" if you get my meaning. And all pro bono with a split at the end - 50/50 or 60/40 for the legal beagle.
All one need do is read any one of a number of Ayoob's columns in the gun rags to understand how prevalent this type of action is following a shooting. According to him, it is to be expected. After all, the "family" deserves something to compensate them for the loss of their wonderful child.
All one need do is read any one of a number of Ayoob's columns in the gun rags to understand how prevalent this type of action is following a shooting. According to him, it is to be expected. After all, the "family" deserves something to compensate them for the loss of their wonderful child.
In the state I live in, if you render aid that you are trained to give, you then have no legal liability if things go wrong.
So for example if you come on an accident scene, and you only have first aid training, but try to do a tracheostomy, and as a result the person gets hurt, you can then be in big legal trouble. But if you stay within the bounds of the first aid training you have received, you are legally safe.
If you are trained in cpr, and in giving it the person dies, you are not legally liable for anything.
Also, if you have cpr training, but do not render assistance, you are not legally liable for anything.
If (and this is a big if) the law is the same in New Mexico, his defense could be that he had no training to render any appropriate aid.
So for example if you come on an accident scene, and you only have first aid training, but try to do a tracheostomy, and as a result the person gets hurt, you can then be in big legal trouble. But if you stay within the bounds of the first aid training you have received, you are legally safe.
If you are trained in cpr, and in giving it the person dies, you are not legally liable for anything.
Also, if you have cpr training, but do not render assistance, you are not legally liable for anything.
If (and this is a big if) the law is the same in New Mexico, his defense could be that he had no training to render any appropriate aid.
Geoff Timm
New member
The filthy shyster scum just want to nail any of the sheep who DARE fight back against their child raping criminal buddies. For every slave who gets killed by a professional criminal, the shyster scum collect a million dollars a year for 20 plus years, straight out of our tax money, to "defend" the criminal.
This time it was the other way around and the LAWYERS MUST MAKE HIM PAY! He's stealing the bread from the mouths of the lawyers poor starving children!
I've had a belly full of Shyster criminal scum. :barf:
I wish I had the money to put an amendment on the ballot. "As officers of our courts, we the people set the maximum salary of all lawyers at $25 per hour, or as much less as they care to charge. Logged time, with proof of work ONLY.
Geoff
Who figures this country will soon have as few lawyers as most countries, instead of more than the rest of the world combined!
This time it was the other way around and the LAWYERS MUST MAKE HIM PAY! He's stealing the bread from the mouths of the lawyers poor starving children!
I've had a belly full of Shyster criminal scum. :barf:
I wish I had the money to put an amendment on the ballot. "As officers of our courts, we the people set the maximum salary of all lawyers at $25 per hour, or as much less as they care to charge. Logged time, with proof of work ONLY.
Geoff
Who figures this country will soon have as few lawyers as most countries, instead of more than the rest of the world combined!
Um, I'm the fellow who posted the link to the story, and I'm a lawyer.
I don't do plaintiff's work, but I know some good guys who do. (Personally, I defend people who have been convicted of crimes on their appeals - some of whom are innocent and some of whom have had their rights violated - the same rights that we all have - so in a very real sense I'm making sure that the government obeys the rules that We The People set up to control it.) They look at their work as protecting the little guy from the big guys, civilly. If some drunk kid in his daddy's sports car runs a red light and creams your car as you drive to work, these are the guys who make sure you get what's coming to you. In my experience, the majority of them do it the right way, and are honorable members of the profession.
Now, there are certainly frivolous suits and suits that make you wonder, "Gee, how could there be any merit to this?" And, obviously, these suits have lawyers at the helm, so I can see how folks might think that these lawyers are in the wrong. In fact, there are ethical rules in every state that forbid lawyers from bringing frivolous suits.
This case hasn't gone to trial, and it's only in the very preliminary stages. I's a little too soon to be indicting the NM Bar on the basis that a silly-sounding suit got filed. We have a good Bar here in NM, and a pretty solid judiciary, and things generally work out the way that they should. I fully expect that things will work out the right way in this case.
Now, Geoff, I make more than that an hour (and - as a government employee - my salary is not particularly high, considering that I have a doctorate and that I'm one of the more experienced people in the state doing what I do). And, Geoff, if you were convicted of a murder based on what you perceived to be a self-defense shooting (and, friends, don't think it couldn't happen), I'm pretty sure you'd want somebody as experienced as I am looking at your case to help you out. Maybe you want to re-think your outburst there, partner.
So, easy on my profession, folks.
I don't do plaintiff's work, but I know some good guys who do. (Personally, I defend people who have been convicted of crimes on their appeals - some of whom are innocent and some of whom have had their rights violated - the same rights that we all have - so in a very real sense I'm making sure that the government obeys the rules that We The People set up to control it.) They look at their work as protecting the little guy from the big guys, civilly. If some drunk kid in his daddy's sports car runs a red light and creams your car as you drive to work, these are the guys who make sure you get what's coming to you. In my experience, the majority of them do it the right way, and are honorable members of the profession.
Now, there are certainly frivolous suits and suits that make you wonder, "Gee, how could there be any merit to this?" And, obviously, these suits have lawyers at the helm, so I can see how folks might think that these lawyers are in the wrong. In fact, there are ethical rules in every state that forbid lawyers from bringing frivolous suits.
This case hasn't gone to trial, and it's only in the very preliminary stages. I's a little too soon to be indicting the NM Bar on the basis that a silly-sounding suit got filed. We have a good Bar here in NM, and a pretty solid judiciary, and things generally work out the way that they should. I fully expect that things will work out the right way in this case.
Now, Geoff, I make more than that an hour (and - as a government employee - my salary is not particularly high, considering that I have a doctorate and that I'm one of the more experienced people in the state doing what I do). And, Geoff, if you were convicted of a murder based on what you perceived to be a self-defense shooting (and, friends, don't think it couldn't happen), I'm pretty sure you'd want somebody as experienced as I am looking at your case to help you out. Maybe you want to re-think your outburst there, partner.
So, easy on my profession, folks.
Scott Conklin
New member
Sorry but...no. Nothing personal but no.
It's not merely these kinds of suits, which are common as fly eggs and result in the accused spending money he seldom recoups even if he wins. It's the entire sub-culture of legalist manipulators that have created, through legislation designed to make their profession more lucrative, so many of the problems in this country.
Why is our medical care so expensive and often so difficult to get? Malpractice. Who made malpractice big business? Attorneys. Enviromental issues, especially asbestos and the continuing, multiplying lawsuits over it? The gun lawsuits, not to make money but to further an agenda? Attorneys. What is behind the creation of probably two-thirds of the laws on the books at the federal level? Money. Who makes it? Attorneys. Who created the legislation? Attorneys.
There are lots of good attorneys out there. Most of the ones I know are good guys. But there's a good sized proportion that are not only typically greedy, thoughtless, living in the "NOW" humans but humans with the knowledge and control to indulge their typical human weaknesses. And after them come another crop of typical humans with the power of the knowledge and authority of law who see they can build on what came before. It took a whole lot of that building on the works of others for us to get to this point and for lawyers to get such an all-encompassing loathing across society. To get rid of that the good guys among you have a lot of work ahead of you, to.
It's not merely these kinds of suits, which are common as fly eggs and result in the accused spending money he seldom recoups even if he wins. It's the entire sub-culture of legalist manipulators that have created, through legislation designed to make their profession more lucrative, so many of the problems in this country.
Why is our medical care so expensive and often so difficult to get? Malpractice. Who made malpractice big business? Attorneys. Enviromental issues, especially asbestos and the continuing, multiplying lawsuits over it? The gun lawsuits, not to make money but to further an agenda? Attorneys. What is behind the creation of probably two-thirds of the laws on the books at the federal level? Money. Who makes it? Attorneys. Who created the legislation? Attorneys.
There are lots of good attorneys out there. Most of the ones I know are good guys. But there's a good sized proportion that are not only typically greedy, thoughtless, living in the "NOW" humans but humans with the knowledge and control to indulge their typical human weaknesses. And after them come another crop of typical humans with the power of the knowledge and authority of law who see they can build on what came before. It took a whole lot of that building on the works of others for us to get to this point and for lawyers to get such an all-encompassing loathing across society. To get rid of that the good guys among you have a lot of work ahead of you, to.
Well, I will insist that no one paint the entire profession with a broad brush.
And, the fact that this particular suit has caused so much outrage (here and on other boards where I've posted this link) demonstrates that such suits are not all that common. What happens is that folks hear about a weird deal (e.g., the McDonald's coffee products liability lawsuit - which I personally put in the category of "don't be an idiot and bad things won't happen, but in which the woman did actually receive third degree burns and in which the award was seriously reduced on appeal) and get outraged, and then they assume that "these kinds of suits" "are as common as fly eggs."
That's just not true.
So, when you're out to tar the few idiots who bring frivolous suits, be careful not to get any on me, or on other good guys. If you have something specific to say, say it. But I shouldn't have to hear about how the legal profession is rotten any more than you should hear that Hoosiers (I am one, like you, btw) are rotten just because some clown in Indy took a shot at a cop last week, and because other Hoosiers have shot other cops before.
Blaming attorneys for suits against gun manufacturers is a little like blaming guns for murders. Sure, the attorney has the free will to turn a case down, but the real problem is the "true believer" idiots who get fired up and try to litigate to stifle others' rights in advancement of the "true cause". Hey, lawyers can be "true believer" idiots, too . . . just as Hoosiers, can 2ndA. It's wrong to blame the whole breed for a few.
Regarding medmal . . . don't get me started. There are definitely two sides to that debate (is it the attys or the ins cos?), and I have no idea which is correct. Probably both. I certainly feel bad for the FL OB/GYNs with their $200k premiums, but I feel worse for the poor Floridians who can't find a doc to deliver their babies. So, do something about it. But I hope they make sure not to change the law to the point where a completely incompetent doctor is protected from having to clean up his messes. . . .
That's not my fault - I have only one vote in this debatably functional experiment in mob rule.
And, the fact that this particular suit has caused so much outrage (here and on other boards where I've posted this link) demonstrates that such suits are not all that common. What happens is that folks hear about a weird deal (e.g., the McDonald's coffee products liability lawsuit - which I personally put in the category of "don't be an idiot and bad things won't happen, but in which the woman did actually receive third degree burns and in which the award was seriously reduced on appeal) and get outraged, and then they assume that "these kinds of suits" "are as common as fly eggs."
That's just not true.
So, when you're out to tar the few idiots who bring frivolous suits, be careful not to get any on me, or on other good guys. If you have something specific to say, say it. But I shouldn't have to hear about how the legal profession is rotten any more than you should hear that Hoosiers (I am one, like you, btw) are rotten just because some clown in Indy took a shot at a cop last week, and because other Hoosiers have shot other cops before.
Blaming attorneys for suits against gun manufacturers is a little like blaming guns for murders. Sure, the attorney has the free will to turn a case down, but the real problem is the "true believer" idiots who get fired up and try to litigate to stifle others' rights in advancement of the "true cause". Hey, lawyers can be "true believer" idiots, too . . . just as Hoosiers, can 2ndA. It's wrong to blame the whole breed for a few.
Regarding medmal . . . don't get me started. There are definitely two sides to that debate (is it the attys or the ins cos?), and I have no idea which is correct. Probably both. I certainly feel bad for the FL OB/GYNs with their $200k premiums, but I feel worse for the poor Floridians who can't find a doc to deliver their babies. So, do something about it. But I hope they make sure not to change the law to the point where a completely incompetent doctor is protected from having to clean up his messes. . . .
That's not my fault - I have only one vote in this debatably functional experiment in mob rule.
So loud and so wrong......
"Why is our medical care so expensive and often so difficult to get? Malpractice."
What you MEANT to say is "malpractice INSURANCE." And, had you made any effort at all to research the issue - and you obvious didn't and won't - you would have found that jury malpractice awards haven't changed much at all. The insurance companies raised the rates anyway.
Why? Not jury awards and not attorneys, your rant notwithstanding. Rates were raised to cover the big losses the insurance companies took when the stock market dropped. They were over-exposed and now the doctors are paying insurers and blaming attorneys. And suckers are repeating this drivel about how "the attorneys" are to blame. Nonsense.
Who made malpractice big business? Attorneys."
Nonsense. A few arrogant, incompetent doctors and boards too gutless to pull their privileges "made malpractice big business." If there were no victims, there would be no cases. Grasp the concept.
Enviromental issues, especially asbestos and the continuing, multiplying lawsuits over it?"
Hey, here's a radical thought - maybe it's big businesses lying to their employees about the known (to the companies) dangers of asbestos. And toxic waste spills. And dumping waste illegally. Think maybe THAT's the reason? Or is linear logic not your style?
The gun lawsuits, not to make money but to further an agenda? Attorneys."
No, anti-gun activists abusing the law to further their agenda - albeit with the aid of certain attorneys looking to make a big name and bigger killing for themselves. What distinguishes anti-gun lawsuits from "Big Tobacco" lawsuits is that there is no deception and an exponential difference in government regulation of the product.
What is behind the creation of probably two-thirds of the laws on the books at the federal level? Money. Who makes it? Attorneys. Who created the legislation? Attorneys."
Fairly frothing at the mouth now, aren't you? You failed Civics 101: Laws are enacted by LEGISLATORS, who are ELECTED. Don't like the laws? Don't look in the mirror.
Same for all those jury awards your little tirade condemns. They are just that - JURY awards. As in, 12 good men and true; peers, the common citizen. That means 12 people found the defendant at fault. NOT attorneys, CITIZENS.
Rationalize that.....
"Why is our medical care so expensive and often so difficult to get? Malpractice."
What you MEANT to say is "malpractice INSURANCE." And, had you made any effort at all to research the issue - and you obvious didn't and won't - you would have found that jury malpractice awards haven't changed much at all. The insurance companies raised the rates anyway.
Why? Not jury awards and not attorneys, your rant notwithstanding. Rates were raised to cover the big losses the insurance companies took when the stock market dropped. They were over-exposed and now the doctors are paying insurers and blaming attorneys. And suckers are repeating this drivel about how "the attorneys" are to blame. Nonsense.
Who made malpractice big business? Attorneys."
Nonsense. A few arrogant, incompetent doctors and boards too gutless to pull their privileges "made malpractice big business." If there were no victims, there would be no cases. Grasp the concept.
Enviromental issues, especially asbestos and the continuing, multiplying lawsuits over it?"
Hey, here's a radical thought - maybe it's big businesses lying to their employees about the known (to the companies) dangers of asbestos. And toxic waste spills. And dumping waste illegally. Think maybe THAT's the reason? Or is linear logic not your style?
The gun lawsuits, not to make money but to further an agenda? Attorneys."
No, anti-gun activists abusing the law to further their agenda - albeit with the aid of certain attorneys looking to make a big name and bigger killing for themselves. What distinguishes anti-gun lawsuits from "Big Tobacco" lawsuits is that there is no deception and an exponential difference in government regulation of the product.
What is behind the creation of probably two-thirds of the laws on the books at the federal level? Money. Who makes it? Attorneys. Who created the legislation? Attorneys."
Fairly frothing at the mouth now, aren't you? You failed Civics 101: Laws are enacted by LEGISLATORS, who are ELECTED. Don't like the laws? Don't look in the mirror.
Same for all those jury awards your little tirade condemns. They are just that - JURY awards. As in, 12 good men and true; peers, the common citizen. That means 12 people found the defendant at fault. NOT attorneys, CITIZENS.
Rationalize that.....
Geoff Timm
New member
Erich posted: "Now, Geoff, I make more than that an hour (and - as a government employee - my salary is not particularly high, considering that I have a doctorate and that I'm one of the more experienced people in the state doing what I do). And, Geoff, if you were convicted of a murder based on what you perceived to be a self-defense shooting (and, friends, don't think it couldn't happen), I'm pretty sure you'd want somebody as experienced as I am looking at your case to help you out. Maybe you want to re-think your outburst there, partner.
So, easy on my profession, folks."
So, the legal profession is one big swindle, if I'm rich I can do anything I please as long as I pay the big bribes to the Shyster Ghods! If I'm poor, or don't have 20 - 30 million around in cash, I better not even think about defending myself.
Geoff
Who, never mind. :barf:
So, easy on my profession, folks."
So, the legal profession is one big swindle, if I'm rich I can do anything I please as long as I pay the big bribes to the Shyster Ghods! If I'm poor, or don't have 20 - 30 million around in cash, I better not even think about defending myself.
Geoff
Who, never mind. :barf:
Double Naught Spy
New member
I somehow doubt these lawsuits are as common as many folks seem to think they are. No doubt suits such as the one mentioned in the thread to get air/print/internet time and so they get overly represented in the public eye. Frivolous suits do happen and this is a classic example.
Erich, sorry man, but you are in a profession people love to hate, except when they need you. It isn't right, just, or polite, but I am sure you aren't surprised by the reaction. I don't know how it is in the rest of the country, but stations in Dallas regularly have advertisements for injury lawsuits and class action lawsuits for various products, procedures, medications, etc. Have you been injured in a car wreck or at work? Did you have bypass surgery the involved the use of the *** technique/tool. Did you get prescribed phenphen or take Metabolife? Have you been involved in an SUV rollover? The stereotype of being greedy ambulance chasers seems to get heavily reinforced by the lawyers who run the commercials for their services. Sadly, it is members in your own profession who are a big source of your image problem.
Erich, sorry man, but you are in a profession people love to hate, except when they need you. It isn't right, just, or polite, but I am sure you aren't surprised by the reaction. I don't know how it is in the rest of the country, but stations in Dallas regularly have advertisements for injury lawsuits and class action lawsuits for various products, procedures, medications, etc. Have you been injured in a car wreck or at work? Did you have bypass surgery the involved the use of the *** technique/tool. Did you get prescribed phenphen or take Metabolife? Have you been involved in an SUV rollover? The stereotype of being greedy ambulance chasers seems to get heavily reinforced by the lawyers who run the commercials for their services. Sadly, it is members in your own profession who are a big source of your image problem.
FrankDrebin
Moderator
I've read some of Ayoob's stuff over the years, and he's come across OK, but then I saw him as an "expert" witness at a trial defending a cop, and he came across like dork. The prosecutor did a good job of making him look like a whore and cop wannabe.
- Status