Does anyone have a link to a website or organization that keeps track of civil suits brought as a result of the use of deadly force? I frequently read/hear of situations in which a person was found to be justified in the use of deadly force, but then faces civil litigation. I'm interested in doing some research on that issue. Thanks.
Use of deadly force and civil litigation
- Thread starter River Rat
- Start date
Tried the NRA?
Well, good luck with that. A person can file a lawsuit anywhere, anytime, for anything in the USA. They may not win because of some law on the books, but they can still sick their attorney on whomever they wish.
As for the original post here, I think I'd start with the NRA. If they don't have exactly what you need, they can probably point you in the right direction...
Well, good luck with that. A person can file a lawsuit anywhere, anytime, for anything in the USA. They may not win because of some law on the books, but they can still sick their attorney on whomever they wish.
As for the original post here, I think I'd start with the NRA. If they don't have exactly what you need, they can probably point you in the right direction...
Used to be that you had to have $15 to file a lawsuit and that was pretty much the only requirement. It probably varies by state and jurisdction and with inflation. Filing a lawsuit and winning are two totally different things but both can be extremely expensive to both parties before it is over with nothing accomplished. As far as the Castle Doctrine goes the family can sue and then it will be up to you to prove that you were covered by it. You also have to remember that just because you weren't charge by the DA in a shooting due to CD doesn't mean that you are automatically off the hook in a civil court.
DesertDawg
New member
I'll bet that the ACLU has exactly what you're looking for, or at least would be able to steer you in the right direction. The NRA might have some info, but it's probably only gun-related usage of deadly force.
EastSideRich
New member
If you find any stats you should post them up here.
Two things that "will happen" to you in the event of a legitimate self defense shooting that seem to get mentioned here frequently are:
1) A civil suit from the perpetrator's family
2) Computers confiscated by the police
My gut feel is these don't occur as often as people think. I would love to see some numbers on these.
Two things that "will happen" to you in the event of a legitimate self defense shooting that seem to get mentioned here frequently are:
1) A civil suit from the perpetrator's family
2) Computers confiscated by the police
My gut feel is these don't occur as often as people think. I would love to see some numbers on these.
It's important for us gun-toters to live in fear of civil litigation, or certain seminar-givers/gunrag-writers would be out of business.
My state also precludes civil suits in legitimate cases of s.d. Any lawsuit filed will be summarily dismissed by the judge, with no expense incurred by the "defendant".
My state also precludes civil suits in legitimate cases of s.d. Any lawsuit filed will be summarily dismissed by the judge, with no expense incurred by the "defendant".
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Thousands of civil suits are filed each day all across the county. A state suit is filed in a county and federal suits are filed in a Federal District Court, of which there's at least one, and in some cases several, in each state. There is no central data base. So keeping track of suits filed on a particular subject would require monitoring every county court and every Federal Judicial District in the United States and identifying, out of all the suits on other topics, the suits dealing with whatever you're interested in -- a daunting job indeed.
Occasionally, one may hit someone's radar screen and make the news. Once in a while there may be an appellate court decision relating to one, and it would be possible to search the various state-by-state data bases of appellate court decisions for those involving cases in which self defense is an issue. But otherwise, it's like finding a needle in a haystack.
Occasionally, one may hit someone's radar screen and make the news. Once in a while there may be an appellate court decision relating to one, and it would be possible to search the various state-by-state data bases of appellate court decisions for those involving cases in which self defense is an issue. But otherwise, it's like finding a needle in a haystack.
EastSideRich
New member
Although,
wouldn't it be possible to find instances of shootings, and then find out if a civil suit was filed in that particular case?
I would imagine the number of justifiable shootings is fairly small, so I bet someone somewhere has the stats.
wouldn't it be possible to find instances of shootings, and then find out if a civil suit was filed in that particular case?
I would imagine the number of justifiable shootings is fairly small, so I bet someone somewhere has the stats.
AirForceShooter
New member
in Florida law suits are prohibited in "good" shoots.
AFS
AFS
Frank Ettin
Administrator
[1] Of course if a self defense shooting hits the news and is recognized by someone who wants to then track whether a civil suit follows, that could be done. Of course, that will only pick up those self defense shootings that do hit the news or are otherwise identified, and that someone bothers to track. A civil suit in most jurisdictions can be filed for up to a year (or sometimes longer) after the event.
[2] It's true that some states preclude a civil suit following justified self defense. But that doesn't necessarily preclude litigating the question of whether it was a "good shoot." Remember that no one has to take your word that it was a good shoot; and depending on the details of the particular state's laws, a failure to prosecute, or a failure of a grand jury to indict, might not necessarily establish that it was a justified use of lethal force for the purposes of that immunity (it might or might not).
[2] It's true that some states preclude a civil suit following justified self defense. But that doesn't necessarily preclude litigating the question of whether it was a "good shoot." Remember that no one has to take your word that it was a good shoot; and depending on the details of the particular state's laws, a failure to prosecute, or a failure of a grand jury to indict, might not necessarily establish that it was a justified use of lethal force for the purposes of that immunity (it might or might not).
"Well, good luck with that. A person can file a lawsuit anywhere, anytime, for anything in the USA. They may not win because of some law on the books, but they can still sick their attorney on whomever they wish."
OK prosecutors usually do not take righteous shooting cases to the grand jury.
"3. F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant."
Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
Chapter 53 - Manufacture, Sale, and Wearing of Weapons
Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971
Section 1289.25 - Physical or Deadly Force Against Intruder
Cite as: O.S. §, __ __
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
B. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
C. The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section does not apply if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity.
D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle of another person is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.
G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section.
I. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Sections 1290.1 through 1290.26 of this title, shall not be construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.
OK prosecutors usually do not take righteous shooting cases to the grand jury.
"3. F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant."
Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
Chapter 53 - Manufacture, Sale, and Wearing of Weapons
Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971
Section 1289.25 - Physical or Deadly Force Against Intruder
Cite as: O.S. §, __ __
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
B. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
C. The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section does not apply if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity.
D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle of another person is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.
G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section.
I. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Sections 1290.1 through 1290.26 of this title, shall not be construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.
Garand Illusion
New member
Anybody can file a suit, it's true, but since from what I've seen the majority of suits are filed where the lawyer takes a cut of the winnings (can't remember the legal term) and gets nothing in a loss ... you won't find a lawyer to accept your case unless s/he feels you can win.
In Colorado, Castle doctrine gives you total protection in your home. And other laws give you pretty good protection anywhere in the state (basically, a person commiting a crime against someone can't sue that person for something that happens as a result of that criminal action -- a good protection, but not perfect).
Of course ... fill out the paper work and pay the small legal fee and anyone can file the papers, but it's unlikely to go far.
In the highly unlikely event that I have to use a weapon in self defense, though, having a lawsuit against me is the least of my problems. From the fact that I am being sued, I am still alive ... and from the fact I had to use a firearm on someone, I faced a situation where there was a good chance I would be killed.
In Colorado, Castle doctrine gives you total protection in your home. And other laws give you pretty good protection anywhere in the state (basically, a person commiting a crime against someone can't sue that person for something that happens as a result of that criminal action -- a good protection, but not perfect).
Of course ... fill out the paper work and pay the small legal fee and anyone can file the papers, but it's unlikely to go far.
In the highly unlikely event that I have to use a weapon in self defense, though, having a lawsuit against me is the least of my problems. From the fact that I am being sued, I am still alive ... and from the fact I had to use a firearm on someone, I faced a situation where there was a good chance I would be killed.
Whattacrockacrap!!Frank Ettin
Administrator
And Alleykat, what law school did you attend and on what basis do you characterize my comments as "Whattacrockacrap"? I don't think that you have a clue.
As if it's your business, I practiced law for over 30 years and retired last year. For the 15 years prior to my retirement, I was a senior lawyer and vice president of a Fortune 200 company. I was sufficiently successful at my profession to be able to retire before I turned 60.
As if it's your business, I practiced law for over 30 years and retired last year. For the 15 years prior to my retirement, I was a senior lawyer and vice president of a Fortune 200 company. I was sufficiently successful at my profession to be able to retire before I turned 60.
HoraceHogsnort
New member
We need laws that limit the liability of the shooter to $100 if the DA does not press charges.
As already occurred in Florida, it is still up to a DA to decide.
If he is not sympathetic and convinced he is liable to bring charge.
His next election may depend on it.
Some of the laws go one better and make the complainant completely responsible for costs if they sue and loose.
The question is STILL going to come up (even if a DA thinks he cannot win a criminal case of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’) if a complainant can win a civil case (‘preponderance of the evidence).
OJ won his criminal case.
He lost the civil case.
Laws that strictly forbid the filing of suites are often struck down.