[leadcounsel]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.