Carry insurance

[OldMarksman]

Where there was a pre-trial hearing that held the shooters actions were found to be not unlawful and the civil case proceeded ahead anyway. I am saying there are not any. The existence of even one would invalidate my opinion.

Correct. There aren't any.

You seem to beleive that you can prove a negative.

I do not understand what it is that makes you believe that something that happens in the criminal justice system would impinge upon a case of tort law.

There is no such legal principle that gives a bar to trial.

The fundamental legal principle is that criminal matters and civil mattere are adjudicate in different courts.

Less than half the states even have SYG laws.

Neither immunity from prosecution nor immunity from civl liability has anything to do with SYG provisions.

[MTT TL]

Correct. There aren't any.

You seem to beleive that you can prove a negative.

I do not understand what it is that makes you believe that something that happens in the criminal justice system would impinge upon a case of tort law.

The way the criminal law is written and it's cited application by a civil court judge as noted in the civil case cited above. I guess you didn't read the case?

[OldMarksman]

The way the criminal law is written

...says nothing about how the law is carried out.

...its cited application by a civil court judge as noted in the civil case cited above.

The case you cited had to do solely with immunity from criminal prosecution.

The court was the Alabama Supreme Court.

The Florida law is written exactly the same way. The two kind of immunity come from pretrial hearings in different courts

[MTT TL]

The case you cited had to do solely with immunity from criminal prosecution.

Ah, so you did not read it. Or maybe you are looking at the wrong one. If you somehow think the Saban case is a criminal case then you misunderstood every aspect of it.

[OldMarksman]

Ah, so you did not read it. Or maybe you are looking at the wrong one. If you somehow think the Saban case is a criminal case then you misunderstood every aspect of it.

Wrong case.

But the appeal of the "Saban Case" was decided on its own merits and had nothing to do with the criminal procedure.

The Justia Opinion Summary said this:

The Stand Your Ground law does not confer civil liability immunity to a criminal defendant based upon an immunity determination in the criminal case.

Emphasis added.

They were, of course referring to immunity provisions, and not to SYG. The latter has only to do with a duty to retreat.

Odd to find such an authoritative source propogating that common error.

[MTT TL]

The Justia Opinion Summary said this:

Who cares what they think?

That isn't what the opinion stated or even implied. Emphasis added.

The ruling could not state that because there never was a criminal case at all.

And because there was no criminal case there was no ruling. Therefore the ASC tried to examine the actions to determine if Saban's actions were unlawful. They found issues and therefore remanded. They stated in the ruling they had no opinion on the immunity itself.

[hdwhit]

labnoti wrote:
If it is truly a clean shoot, you may not even be charged with anything.

Even in the case of the "cleanest" shooting imaginable with no resulting criminal charges, don't forget that you may still face a civil lawsuit.

[MrBot]

Years ago my neighbor's dogs attacked me numerous times. One time I chased the dog off my property. The neighbor then assaulted me. I beat him up. When the 1st officer arrived on the scene I asked if I'd done anything wrong & he assured me I had not. The assistant state's attorney I spoke with said I was the good guy & had done the right thing. Later the neighbor attempted to intimidate me by exiting his front door & walking to the edge of the walk every time I'd walk by his house, causing me to have to look over my shoulder as I passed to make sure he didn't jump me. I asked the police what to do should he ever block my path & was told to tell him to get out of the way once. If he didn't I was to pepper spray him & to do so without hesitation. I was told our county's state's attorney would never prosecute me in this situation. Fast forward: Recently while working in another jurisdiction a man assaulted me, violated my space & while right on top of me verbally threatened to beat me up. I sprayed him. The prosecutor treated both of us as criminals threatening to send my case to trial for battery. My attorney called her decision ridiculous saying I'd given the guy what he deserved. The rep @ the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network said the same. I would think that had that incident occurred in my home county the sa would have never done what this prosecutor did. ..different jurisdictions. ..different prosecutors. ..different mindsets. ACLDN gave me the option to choose an attorney or to allow them to do so. ACLDN paid the legal bill & agreed to do so without hesitation.

[URIT]

I don't like "carry insurance". It will lead to the insurance industry dictating carry policy and the politicians already owned by them will gladly go along with whatever is proposed.

Insurance is a good way to ensure your loss of 2A rights and burden you with unwanted restrictions.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by URIT

I don't like "carry insurance". It will lead to the insurance industry dictating carry policy and the politicians already owned by them will gladly go along with whatever is proposed.

Insurance is a good way to ensure your loss of 2A rights and burden you with unwanted restrictions.

It will only lead to it dictating carrying if it becomes mandatory. I don’t know anywhere where it is currently mandatory. If you don’t want it then you’re free to not get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk