|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 12, 2013, 09:26 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2007
Posts: 245
|
Would I sue if I felt that my injury resulted from the negligent actions of the shooter?
If my competent lawyer felt the case had merit, then yes. Good guy, bad guy, whatever. I have a family I adore that I need to provide for. But I would heed the advice of my lawyer. |
November 13, 2013, 07:59 AM | #27 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
|
New Florida gun law(s)....
A few anti-gun & political activists in Florida want to modify a few laws to include holding license holders(W/armed citizens) if they use a firearm & a round/rounds hit a bystander or on-looker.
As it stands, a private citizen can not be sued or face civil action(s) if the use of force shooting who's considered justified. I'm not against a license holder being held liable for any "collaterial damage" but it's a tough call. Gun owners or license holders need to be prudent & cognizant of the gun/use of force laws but they shouldn't be risk adverse. CF |
November 13, 2013, 08:21 AM | #28 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Quote:
I asked Pax a question... His post made it sound like it was 'fine' that people were injured by LEO's indirect fire... Quote:
|
|||
November 13, 2013, 09:38 AM | #29 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Frank Ettin; November 13, 2013 at 09:59 AM. Reason: correct typo |
||||
November 13, 2013, 09:44 AM | #30 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
But there's no reason to conclude that the civil immunity law will be applied by the courts to insulate a private citizen from liability to bystanders if injured by his negligence in his use of force in self defense. That is unless you have a Florida appeals court ruling so providing.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
November 13, 2013, 10:53 AM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Quote:
My (apparently) poorly worded question was trying to clarify her stance... Again, I apologize to PAX... |
|
November 13, 2013, 11:38 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Salmoneye,
Thanks. I expressed no opinion about this case, simply pointed out that the details here include the fact that no innocent person was shot directly. Those who were harmed were hit with ricochets and fragments, not by direct hits from unaimed or wild shots. The material details do matter in cases like this, and that particular detail is an important one. As for how the negligence standards differ for non-LEOs, the one really critical factor is that law enforcement officers do have a duty to act -- to intervene -- in some situations where a non-LEO can simply walk away and let people die. That factor does change the rules at a very foundational level, but it does not mean that either the LEO or the non-LEO are held to a "higher" standard of care when they do act. It simply means that the LEO must act in some circumstances where the non-LEO has a choice not to do so. In this particular case, there were innocent civilians in the criminal's line of fire behind the officers as well as in front of them. That, too, may be a critical factor when the claim gets to court. Did the officers have any other way to protect the innocents behind them, other than to fire in this crowded environment? Were the innocents behind them at more risk from the criminal's deliberately murderous fire than the innocents in front of them would be from splatter and ricochet? Again and to be clear: I do not know the answers to these questions. I am not suggesting answers to these questions. I haven't expressed any opinions here. I'm simply pointing out some of the factors the court will consider. For those who would like to understand more about how LEO and non-LEO uses of force differ, or who want to understand more about the decision tree used by law enforcement officers, I can recommend no better reference than Rory Miller's excellent Force Decisions: A Citizen's Guide. It might help people avoid saying things like, "I don't know what the law is, I only know how I feel..." Hope this helps. pax PS You don't have to read every signature, but when you directly address someone in a thread, it's courteous to read theirs. But don't worry about it; after more than a decade on this forum, I'm used to people thinking I'm a guy. You're hardly the first! |
November 13, 2013, 11:43 AM | #33 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The fact that the injuries to bystanders arose from ricochets and fragments suggests that the bystanders were not directly in the line of fire and that the LEOs managed to avoid shooting at the bystanders. However, the trajectories of ricochets and fragments are unpredictable. That goes against a finding that the LEOs were negligent in their use of lethal force, as long as a use of lethal force was justified. In general, I would expect that a similar standard would apply to a private citizen appropriately using lethal force in self defense.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
November 13, 2013, 11:51 AM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Thank you for the response PAX, and also for letting me off the proverbial hook as pertaining to your gender...
You write: Quote:
No police or protective service has a 'duty' to protect anyone ('constitutionally' speaking)... Is my interpretation of this incorrect? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...otus.html?_r=0 |
|
November 13, 2013, 11:52 AM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Quote:
Thanks for the reply... |
|
November 13, 2013, 12:04 PM | #36 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
What the courts have ruled, and some statutes provide, is that an LEO and/or his/her agency has no duty to a particular person to act for the benefit of that particular person's safety. As a result, an LEO and/or his agency has no liability to that particular person if that person is injured as a result of the LEO's or his agency's failure to take some particular action.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
November 13, 2013, 12:18 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
I am going to have to ruminate on this for a bit...
|
November 13, 2013, 01:03 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Frank nailed it.
pax |
November 13, 2013, 04:42 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
|
Quote:
Even if you do everything right by doing nothing as a LEO in a legal sense, you may be in for a real case of dereliction of duty by the employing department and loose job, be open to suits personally due to loss of qualified immunity (operating outside of policy due to failing to or attempt to apprehend), etc. I just don't see a great, solid, "bright line type" answer either way for these types of cases. So one could possibly argue a duty to act in part due to discipline for inaction, even if policy doesn't specifically state needed actions or limits on those actions. Also, typically the classes I have been were about protecting society as a whole, meaning protecting the majority of society, instead of protecting society as a whole down to the individual person level. Last edited by Fishing_Cabin; November 13, 2013 at 05:10 PM. |
|
November 13, 2013, 05:16 PM | #40 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
On another note, one big difference is that even if CHLs got the exact same legal standards applied to them that are applied to police officers in terms of innocent bystanders, they still won't have the taxpayers to bankroll their legal fees in order to defeat the suit. From that perspective, a CHL is always going to have a disadvantage in that regard; though if you are in a life or death situation, that is the least of your problems. |
|
November 13, 2013, 06:13 PM | #41 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
The duty to act is not identical to the duty to shoot.
Failing to shoot does not mean going on break or heading home. |
November 13, 2013, 07:00 PM | #42 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Suing if shoot as a bystander
What will satisfy the LEO's duty to act in a particular situation will be first decided by his employer and his department's policy (if applicable).
|
November 13, 2013, 08:30 PM | #43 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
There's one other HUGE wrinkle that needs to be brought up. Even if the NY officers, or other police officers, were negligent in firing shots that struck bystanders, they may well be entitled to some form of immunity. I don't know about NY law, but under Arkansas law, municipalities and their officers are entitled to tort immunity, except to the extent that they have some kind of risk management or insurance coverage therefor.
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
November 14, 2013, 01:06 AM | #44 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Based on this report of a prior case in New York any statutory immunity might not be as broad as Arkansas'. I don't have time right now to do the research, but it's worth looking into.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
November 14, 2013, 07:22 AM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Quote:
Will a 'civilian' be accorded by law the same leeway if a person fires in a so called 'good shoot' self defence situation, if one or more of their bullets injure a bystander either directly, or indirectly? How does one's job title entitle them to more protection under the law? |
|
November 14, 2013, 08:10 AM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
|
Quote:
|
|
November 14, 2013, 09:21 AM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
|
"Negligence" and "Reasonable" have always been the standards, and there is no way to write black and white rules to define either, especially when different standards can be applied to different people. If you are a police officer you will likely be judged to a higher standard because of your training, and a jury will be less forgiving of your mistakes. My CCW instructor said "I cannot give you permission to shoot under any circumstances. If you do shoot, you will have the legal burden of obtaining permission to shoot after the fact. Your first objective is to survive in order to obtain that permission." In most cases, and in most states, deadly force is one of those few issues in which you are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Many of the "castle laws" and "stand your ground" laws are about shifting the burden of proof upon the state and to restore a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Anybody can sue for anything. A jury will decide if you were negligent or if your actions were "reasonable" under the circumstances. Sometimes taking shots that injure or kill bystanders are more reasonable than not taking that shot. I always think of those who opposed arming pilots because "they might hit innocent passengers", and thought it foolsih that the risk was not weighed against that of bad guys taking down an entire plane. Anybody can be sued. The outcome will be decided by a jury based on the circumstances of that case as presented in the courtroom. |
November 14, 2013, 09:29 AM | #48 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
November 14, 2013, 09:36 AM | #49 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Frank,
I haven't had time to research the issue of immunity across state statutes, but my hunch is that you are right in calling Arkansas' tort immunity statute "uncommonly broad." We're finally getting some help in our office, so I might be able to scrape some time together to take a look at NY and see what its statutes say. Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
November 14, 2013, 02:44 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma
Posts: 8,638
|
Wouldn't the liability be the same as for car chases?
When my mother-in-law's car was hit by a cop car,,,
Who was in active pursuit of a fleeing car,,, The town of Paradise, California said,,, "We have no responsibility to her". The courts backed the town,,, My M-I-L got nothing. This isn't right,,, But it's the way it is. My question is,,, Are the same laws in play here? Aarond .
__________________
Never ever give an enemy the advantage of a verbal threat. Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once. Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it? Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time) |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|