The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old September 28, 2005, 02:40 PM   #76
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Do you want me to help you?..explain how civil law works? Im here to help...

WilditslawschoolstuffAlaska
Wildalaska is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 02:52 PM   #77
leadcounsel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2005
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,725
I'm all ears...
leadcounsel is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 03:10 PM   #78
Trip20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2005
Location: WI
Posts: 2,181
Place your bets gentlemen!

Attached Images
File Type: jpg peeing_contest.jpg (19.3 KB, 244 views)
Trip20 is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 03:22 PM   #79
Runsalone
Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2005
Posts: 54
I didnt read all of the responses but heres my meager contribution.

If possible I would wait for the BG,s to go into the room they are headed into, then sneak up the stairs in my socks as quietly as possible. There I would silently gather up my family into the pre-ordained room, where my wife would call the authorities on the cell phone that LIVES in that room, while I cover the entrance with the Mossy. Maybe thats not Navy Seal enough, but Im gonna play the percentages when my families involved.

Maybe, nobody has to get shot. Not until they breach the family room, then its all 12 ga. and 9mm's(my wife's glock)



I think I read one response where someone immediately questioned the intent of the intruders based on thier armed condition. I agree. If someone comes in my house armed, they advance immediately from burgaler to assasin in my mind, weather or not thats what there doing.

Gotta go read the rest now!
Runsalone is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 03:25 PM   #80
leadcounsel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2005
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,725
Well, since Wild Alaska has gone silent, I'll explain civil lawsuits.

First, a plaintiff must be harmed. In the case where a home invader with a gun is shot, he could allege being harmed. However, if he's dead his estate must filed the suit for him.

Second, a person must hire an attorney. Attorney's value $. Not the promise of money, but REAL HARD cash money, and lots of it. A civil suit of this nature would likely cost the plaintiff tens of thousands of dollars. BG's that are robbing you and their families are probably in short supply. Another option is a contingency fee, which means that the Attorney will work for some portion of the final settlement/judgement, generally about 1/3rd, PLUS the costs (which will amount to a large chunk of money, which again the BG doesn't have).

An attorney working for cash MIGHT take a loser case just for the $, but probably will not because attorney's like to win. An attorney will NEVER take a loser case on a contingency basis because he won't be paid for his years of work. Simple fact.

Now, given that his client was in my home uninvited or illegally, with a gun, wearing a ski mask, with clear intent to do harm and rob, and was shot (maybe killed) in the process, that's not a very good case. ON TOP OF THAT, Colorado statutes provide for complete immunity from civil liability in such defensive shootings and it doesn't matter if it was in the back or if I tickled him to death. Homeowners have the absolute right to use lethal force to confront lethal force.

Now, presented with these facts AND the immunity statute, NO LAWYER IN THE WORLD is going to take this loser of a case because the judge will read the complaint and then the answer and toss it out.
leadcounsel is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 03:35 PM   #81
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,498
The empirical test will be when you shoot the guy, he falls down and is not killed. Then a person stands over him and shoots him in the head while he is yelling I give up.

Unfortunately, little Billy has told the officer - Daddy shot the man when he said "I give up". Forensics determined that he was shot in the back, fell down and dropped his gun. Then, you stood over him and fired the fatal shot as he was unarmed at the time.

Criminal and civil risk - we will see.

I agree that if you shoot someone in the house with a gun who broke in - you will probably avoid legal and civil bullets.

However, dear friends - experts who I have heard speak on these topics suggest that you might spend $5000 just to get the no-bill.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 03:36 PM   #82
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
OK Hornbook law:

1. A civil action is commenced by filing a summons and complaint alleged that lead counsel (hereinafter reffered to as LC) intentionally, recklessly and negligently without justification caused the death of burglars by shooting them in the back.

2. Because it alleges intentional conduct, LCs insurance comapny disclaims, thereby casuing LC to hire atty ($5,000 retainer)

3. LC moves to dissmiss complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Automatically denied. All allegations in the compl,aint are for that motion treated as true LC answers complaint, alleges he has the protection of statute. LC gets his legal bill, pays another $5,000

4. LC moves for summary jusdgement, alleging immunity under the statute and that as a matter of law, there are NO TRIABLE ISSUES of fact. Plaintiff alleges discovery is necessary to rule on the motion. Court adjourns motion. Discovery begins. LC forks over another $5,000

5. At discovery both Plaintiff and insurance company gang up on LC...plaintiff wants to show he was negligent so as to trigger coverage, insurance company wants to show intent so as to disclaim coverage. Although LC testifies to facts to bring him under the statute, the cross examination casts some doubts. LC forks over another $5,000 for layers.

6. Motion for summary judgement renewed. Its LCs story against the forensic evidence. Court rules a triable issue of fact under the law,\. LC forks over another $5, 000 plus a trial retainer of $25,000

WildwantmetogoonAlaska
Wildalaska is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 03:41 PM   #83
roy reali
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 3,248
Try Again

Attorneys working for the complaintent work for a contingency fee. They only get paid if they win. If you are hit by another driver in traffic, the lawyer you get will get one-third of your recoveries if you win. If you loose, he will get nothing. If the the shooting takes place in a state without granted immunities, the BG or his family can hire an attorney for free. Their attorney will get his share if the family get theirs.

As I mentioned earlier, I used to work as an armed guard. During the gun certification course, our instructor, an ex DA, told us that almost one hundred percent of guard involved shooting end up in civil court. The person shot could have been the scum of the Earth with a mile long rap sheet. The guard will still have to face a civil case.
roy reali is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 03:43 PM   #84
Harley Quinn
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2005
Location: State of KALI
Posts: 1,531
Lead are you the OR guy or are you a lawyer today?

I was just curious if you are in the Emergency room or are you in the Court house?

I know there is the possibility that while you were working your way through law school you were in the OR or Emergency Room working on all those shooting victims with birdshot in them (at 10') and still surviving.

Every thread you are in is a pixxxxg contest. LOL

Give it up lead you are now known, change your name and state so we don't make you later for the same leaddude. LOL
Name calling is not nice.

Harley
Harley Quinn is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 03:55 PM   #85
Trip20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2005
Location: WI
Posts: 2,181
Jeez. I take the time to draw a hilarious picture and no one pats me on the back.

Bunch of unappreciative tactical-heads you all are.
Trip20 is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 04:04 PM   #86
Mongo the Mutterer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2005
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 12
Can we just shoot the lawyers, and let the intruder ninjas go?
__________________
Direct not Diplomatic.

Mutterings
Mongo the Mutterer is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 04:12 PM   #87
leadcounsel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2005
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,725
Quote:
1. A civil action is commenced by filing a summons and complaint alleged that lead counsel (hereinafter reffered to as LC) intentionally, recklessly and negligently without justification caused the death of burglars by shooting them in the back.
Could happen. Unlikely. As plaintiff, good luck finding a lawyer that will take this loser of a case without a $25,000 cash retainer. You won't find one that will do it on a contingency because EVEN IF THE SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IS DENIED, the homeowner will prevail on the statute and the weight of the evidence, and will LIKELY be granted a Directed Verdict, which means that after the plaintiff puts on his case (tough to do when he's dead) the plaintiff fails to meet the burden of proof. Case dismissed. No fees for lawyer. Any first year law student knows this and no lawyer worth his salt will take the case on continegency because it's a loser. You know what my lawyer will say on cross, IF IT EVEN GETS THAT FAR? Mr. BG, were you invited into LC's home? Answer, NO. Were you carrying a Gun? Answer, YES. Were you convicted of burglary and carrying an illegal gun. Answer YES. No further questions.

Quote:
2. Because it alleges intentional conduct, LCs insurance comapny disclaims, thereby casuing LC to hire atty ($5,000 retainer)
Doubtful. Insurance company will identify a spade as a spade. Anyone can allege anything in a complaint. If the insurance company failed to pony up the money I would absolutely sue them for breach of contract and bad faith. After the trial (which would never happen) I'd be collecting attorney's fees AND damages from the Insurance company. They'd pay.

Quote:
3. LC moves to dissmiss complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Automatically denied. All allegations in the complaint are for that motion treated as true LC answers complaint, alleges he has the protection of statute. LC gets his legal bill, pays another $5,000
Disagree. Case would get dismissed at this point based on the immunity statute (Immunity is different than a defense. A defense must be raised at trial whereas an immunity prevents the trial). At any point LC requests attorney fees from Plaintiff or his estate for frivolous lawsuit. Possibly granted.

Quote:
4. LC moves for summary jusdgement, alleging immunity under the statute and that as a matter of law, there are NO TRIABLE ISSUES of fact. Plaintiff alleges discovery is necessary to rule on the motion. Court adjourns motion. Discovery begins. LC forks over another $5,000
Again, disagree per above. If discovery is necessary, insurance company will be paying per above AND discovery will immediately state that plaintiffs were in home illegally with guns and were committing multiple felonies and threatenting the lives of the homeower and family with deadly weapons. Case dismissed.

Quote:
5. At discovery both Plaintiff and insurance company gang up on LC...plaintiff wants to show he was negligent so as to trigger coverage, insurance company wants to show intent so as to disclaim coverage. Although LC testifies to facts to bring him under the statute, the cross examination casts some doubts. LC forks over another $5,000 for lawyers.
Wrong. See above. Clear evidence of self defense, homeowners immunity statute AND basic self defense statute. Insurance company would sooner pay my attorney's fees for defending such civil suit than to pay it's own attorneys fees to defend a lawsuit for breach and bad faith against them, which they would certainly lose. I would also move to collect my attorney's fees from Insurance company.

Quote:
6. Motion for summary judgement renewed. Its LCs story against the forensic evidence. Court rules a triable issue of fact under the law,\. LC forks over another $5, 000 plus a trial retainer of $25,000
LC's story is likely the only story b/c he's the sole survivor. If there is a surviving BG, he's serving time. LC's story is further corroborated by the forenstic evidence and there are no inconsistencies. Cops and DA will take LC's side; cops will testify in LC's defense if necessary. BG's also likely to have rap sheet, whereas LC does not.

Forensic evidence: Two BG's entered home with stolen guns or guns licensed to them and wearing gloves, masks, etc. LC tactically takes cover. Outnumbered he realizes he needs to take tactical shots. Shoots BG 1 in the back twice at 10'. BG one dies on the spot. BG #2 turns as LC shoots him 3 times (shoulder, leg, hip) and BG #2 fires multiple wild shots as he falls over. BG #2 lives, is arrested, and is sentenced to prison for 5 years on the illegal gun charge and 3 years on the B&E.

BG 2 files lawsuit, or wants to but cannot find lawyer. Lots of evidence of burglary and gun wielding BGs, immunity statute, self defense statutes, VERY BAD plaintiff case. No evidence of any wrongdoing by LC. Shooting in back justified in LC's home where he is outnumbered by armed BGs intent on doing him/his family lethal harm.

I never said anything about capping a BG on the ground (although in Colorado I read a case where a love triangle ended up with shooter shooting other lover in shooters front doorway and then on the front porch as the victim layed on the porch -- immunity kept him from prosecution or lawsuits).

Finally, worst case scenario, I'd rather pay through the nose to BGs in the courtroom than have them brutalize and rape and kill my family as I stood around with my thumb in my @ss like some of you Ps.
Try again.
leadcounsel is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 04:25 PM   #88
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,149
Quote:
I'd rather pay through the nose to BGs in the courtroom than have them brutalize and rape and kill my family as I stood around with my thumb in my @ss like some of you Ps.
if there was ever a post that deserved to be reported to a moderator this would be it.

__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard
spacemanspiff is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 04:25 PM   #89
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
Good luck finding a lawyer that will take this loser of a case without a $25,000 cash retainer.
O trust me Im sure theres a lawyer who will...after all there is a potential recovery...maybe your insurance comapny will settle...YOU dont control that you know...simple economics....

Quote:
Mr. BG, were you invited into LC's home? Answer, NO. Were you carrying a Gun? Answer, YES. Were you convicted of burglary and carrying an illegal gun. Answer YES. No further questions.
Ah but heres the rub...you dont understand the statute or cross examination do you? Mr. BG..after entering Mr. LCs home to commit a crime, what did you do?
I heard him coming and figured Id better leave, I heard him say he had a gun, I screamed I give up and tried to run away and thats when he started laughing hysterically and shooting us in the back...

"and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant."

You lose.
You lose.
And based on the rest of your analysis, you either arent a lawyer or if you are, you have never run a civil suit.

This is getting silly

WildidlovetohaveyouonthestandasawitnessAlaska
Wildalaska is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 04:41 PM   #90
leadcounsel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2005
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,725
Wild:

I tend to respect your opinion on many things, but this is certainly not one of them.

1. BG's unlikely to live to testify.
2. Unlikely to sue or file suit from prison with no money and no lure of money from lawsuit victory. Why? CIVIL IMMUNITY OF HOMEOWNER. Lawyers, even scumbags, don't work for free.
3. Likely to get dismissed at the early stages due to immunity and self defense
4. if not dismissed on SJ, likely to get a directed verdict at trial;
5. In the unlikely event that it ever sees a courtroom, I ask is any reasonable jury going to believe a scumbag BG serving hard time for B&E and illegal gun possession, or a homeowner defending his family to the lawful maximum allowed by law? BG can say all day long that he was running scared, forensics will disagree and so will I, the upstanding citizen defending his castle. I suspect that means alot to jurors.

Quote:
heard him coming and figured Id better leave, I heard him say he had a gun, I screamed I give up and tried to run away and thats when he started laughing hysterically and shooting us in the back...
And when I give my version, who is the jury to believe? Homeowner or BG serving hard time?
leadcounsel is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 04:46 PM   #91
SomeKid
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 11, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 107
Quote:
our guns are but one option in our quest to defend ourselves. in some cases they can be the only option,
spiff, we always have our brains, which are more useful than any gun.

Something unmentioned, and yes, I know this involves going hypothetical, but here goes. If you end up shooting them in the back, a possible reasong (which may help in court, or wherever) is that it appeared they were about to head towards your children's room. True or not, $5 says that it makes doing a backshot legit. (And who knows, they may very well have been heading that way. Just pointing out a variable which cannot be set in stone in said scenario.)

Someone mentioned having your own kids forced to testify against you because they heard the BG begging, surrendering or whatever. If I start shooting, I don't see myself stopping until the magazine is empty. I doubt a kid is going to hear talking over that. 13 .40 rounds, quick reload, run to family. Sounds like a good defense to me.

Side note, that peeing pic was funny.
SomeKid is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 04:47 PM   #92
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,149
so when the plaintiffs attorney calls into evidence your posts on here, how do you think the jury will look at you? like a concerned homeowner? or a triggerhappy murderer who intended long before the fact to kill the next person who entered his home?

also, you should be considering that you are discussing laws of YOUR state, and you should be advocating that everyone else who reads/participates in this thread learn the laws of their individual states so they dont find themselves on the wrong end of a criminal charge or civil lawsuit because they read your interpretations of your states laws and took them for gospel truth.

you know, so it wouldnt appear like you are encouraging others to be as triggerhappy as you are.

civil lawsuits dont have to prove guilt, just the appearance of it.
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard
spacemanspiff is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 04:52 PM   #93
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
And when I give my version, who is the jury to believe? Homeowner or BG serving hard time?
Ya mean the 19 year old kid in the wheelchair with the colostomy bag and the crying mommy or the arrogant lawyer who wears body armor who thinks he does no wrong, and uses terms like "scumbag bg" while posting tactical posturing drivel on the internet.

Get real dude, a good lawyer will eat you up.

Ya'll want to defend yer homes and castles fine, you shoot someone in the back whip out your checkbook. You may win but your gonna pay.

WildunbeleivableAlaska
Wildalaska is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 04:58 PM   #94
leadcounsel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2005
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,725
whatever trever.


leadlookinghardthroughstatutesandcaselawtryingtofindanyindicationrequiringthathomeownermustgivewarningintimeforburglartoproperlyturnandgetfirstshotoffathimbeforehomeownercanshootinselfdefensecounsel
leadcounsel is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 05:00 PM   #95
leadcounsel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2005
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,725
Oh, and yes, the 19 year old punk that has a rap sheet three pages long for battery, assault, B&E, drug dealing, grand theft auto, and sexual assault, wearing the orange jumpsuit and handcuffs because he's a hardened felon at the front end of an 8 year prison sentence.
leadcounsel is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 05:01 PM   #96
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Dude you are the unbusiest lawyer I have ever seen

300 posts in a month.....

Business bad?

WildbacktoworkAlaska
Wildalaska is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 05:04 PM   #97
leadcounsel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2005
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,725
Business is great! I guess you could say I'm efficient.
leadcounsel is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 05:09 PM   #98
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Thats good efficiency can hide a less than adequate legal reasoning ability

WildttfnAlaska
Wildalaska is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12806 seconds with 8 queries