How to lessen the chances of prosecution following a self defense shooting.

[zxcvbob]

Originally Posted by Radny97

As has been mentioned previously, Good Samaritan’s statutes, which almost all states have, provide liability protection for just that scenario. So you can’t be sued if you screw something up when trying to help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you really are an attorney, you should know better than that. Good Samaritan laws don't apply in this scenario. In the parable, the Samaritan was a passerby, not one of the robbers that beat the poor victim and left him to die. The laws are typically (always?) written the same way.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Radny97

As has been mentioned previously, Good Samaritan’s statutes, which almost all states have, provide liability protection for just that scenario. So you can’t be sued if you screw something up when trying to help.

Here's the good Samaritan law for Pennsylvania. In a scenario in which the actor (which is language PA seems to like in its statutes) has just shot the person being treated, I see plenty of exceptions to allow an attorney for the person tthe actor shot (or the shootee's heirs) to get the case into court, or to append it to a case being filed as a negligence suit or some other pretext.

http://pehsc.org/wp-content/uploads/...LATED-ACTS.pdf

[Radny97]

Originally Posted by Mainah

That might be the worst legal advice I've ever heard.

Are you a lawyer? Are you qualified to say what constitutes good or bad legal advice?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rc]

1. Avoid bad places.
2. Retreat if possible.
3. Use a legal gun.

[Radny97]

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

If you really are an attorney, you should know better than that. Good Samaritan laws don't apply in this scenario. In the parable, the Samaritan was a passerby, not one of the robbers that beat the poor victim and left him to die. The laws are typically (always?) written the same way.

***sigh***
No, no they’re not. And yes, I am a practicing attorney. I just filed a new lawsuit in Federal court today in fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Radny97

As has been mentioned previously, Good Samaritan’s statutes, which almost all states have, provide liability protection for just that scenario. So you can’t be sued if you screw something up when trying to help.

Originally Posted by Radny97

***sigh***
No, no they’re not. And yes, I am a practicing attorney. I just filed a new lawsuit in Federal court today in fact.

No they aren't all written exactly the same. Some are little more than one paragraph, and some meander along for multiple pages. Some have laundry lists of exceptions. One thing most of them seem to have in common, though, is that the relief from liability is premised on the provided first aid being rendered in good faith.

First off, as an attorney you must know that it's incorrect to say that "you can't be sued." Of course you can be sued. A good Samaritan law, if applicable to your case, might enable you to have the case dismissed, or decided in your favor, but it's unlikely that it would prevent you from being sued.

In the case of a self-defense shooting, the "good faith" premise of the good Samaritan laws leaves a hole big enough to drive an aircraft carrier through. All the plaintiff has to do is allege that, since you shot the guy, your [totally inadequate and fumbling] attempt to render first aid was not done in good faith, and was only done for show. PRESTO! Your motion to dismiss just got denied, and now you move on to the trial phase, in which the plaintiff attempts to convince a judge or a jury that your [fumbling] attempts either weren't in good faith, and/or were so fumbling as to constitute negligence (which most good Samaritan laws don't protect against).

I think at this point all states have their statutes available on-line. I would encourage anyone who has stayed with this discussion up to now to Google up their state's Good Samaritan statute and read it -- carefully. Read it from the perspective of an attorney who is representing the family of a scumbag who was just shot and killed by someone who alleges that he was attacked and that he shot in self-defense. The shooter claims he tried to render first aid but he couldn't save the scumbag, so he's protected by the law you are now reading.

You need to get past that law in order to get the case to trial. How many arguments can you come up with to do that? (I respectfully submit that if you can't find at least three, you're probably not looking hard enough.)

[Double Naught Spy]

Haha classic logical fallacy = “you must prove the negative”

So, then the answer is NO. You cannot provide any actual court cases or other real world example to support your claims that rendering first aid will somehow gain you favor with the prosecution or the courts. Instead, you are just going to keep making your reflective appeal to authority and base all of your justification on "I am a lawyer."

As for being a lawyer, your claims like this one are just downright worthless and as much as I hate to correct a lawyer on the law, it needs to be done.

As has been mentioned previously, Good Samaritan’s statutes, which almost all states have, provide liability protection for just that scenario. So you can’t be sued if you screw something up when trying to help.

What I have put in bold is an outright fallacy. You can be sued "for trying to help."

I am sure you studied the case of Lisa Torti. She tried to help.
https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6498405&page=1
https://law.justia.com/cases/califor.../2008/s152360/

You see, many or most Good Sam laws do not cover gross negligence. So if you try to help and it is decided that you were, or possibly were grossly negligent, guess what? You can be sued. Funny how you left that out. Now why would you leave that out? Would that because it would weaken your argument for rendering aid or because you don't understand the law? This is a fair question because you, the lawyer, stated an absolute that isn't an absolute.

[Radny97]

Semantics, but yes i should have said “you generally can’t be successfully sued.”
Happy now? I’m guessing not, but at least i tried.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shane Tuttle]

Semantics is what separates poor advice and sound legal advice...

[zxcvbob]

Originally Posted by Radny97

***sigh***
No, no they’re not. And yes, I am a practicing attorney. I just filed a new lawsuit in Federal court today in fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe you. And I think you're trying to be helpful. But this must not be your field of specialty, because some of your advice is not very good.

I assume if I ever have to shoot someone in self-defense, I am screwed. Anything I do will be used against me, and if I don't do that same thing *that* will be used. We've seen too many cases recently where the law was obviously on the side of the shooter (in one case, the governor even weighed in and said so) and the prosecutor didn't care; she had political points to make with her criminal-class constituents.

I'll still try to do things right in the aftermath, mainly don't say anything stupid (say very little, in fact), and try to be the first one to call 911 if at all possible to establish myself as the default good guy. But criminals have learned the call 911 trick too, and they choose the time and place of their attack so they can be ready for it with their buddies watching the whole thing with their cell phones on speed dial.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Radny97

Semantics, but yes i should have said “you generally can’t be successfully sued.”

So that little distinction is, to you, "semantics"?

To most of us, I think, that's more than semantics. "You can't be sued" means you don't have to go to court to defend yourself, you don't even have to hire a lawyer, because no lawsuit can be filed. That's a very different affair from "You generally can't be sued successfully," because the later accepts that you can be sued -- and, once we accept that we can be sued, we know we're looking at hiring a lawyer and racking up thousands, probably tens to hundreds of thousands, of dollars in legal fees --- and that's if we win the lawsuit. That sort of "win" is pretty close to a textbook definition of a Pyrrhic victory.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...rhic%20victory

Pyrrhic victory noun

Definition of Pyrrhic victory

: a victory that is not worth winning because so much is lost to achieve it

I would venture to say that's more than just semantics.

[Mainah]

Are you a lawyer? Are you qualified to say what constitutes good or bad legal advice?

I am not a lawyer. But I know several who would jump at the chance to represent a paralyzed shooting victim who received medical aid from the guy who shot him.

[shurshot]

AB, valid point. Touche.

However... I think people are missing the point by focusing upon how he specifically worded his statement and quickly just dismissing his advice. Obviously in America anyone can sue anybody for any reason. Given his position and experience, I can see where he may say "you can't be sued", as he knows it would get tossed out based upon existing law, past precedents, etc.. He may have assumed the firing line members might know that, which obviously quite a few don't.

No different than when I stated to immediately call 911 in an earlier post, people began dismissing my advice with the "what if", and "I don't have cell service", all valid questions, IF you are unable to think what the next reasonable steps would be. I should have specified if one didn't have a phone or good service, to immediately try to render aid and or get to an area where a call could be placed. That was my mistake, not being specific, as I forgot that in an open forum, it's wrong to assume that all forum members would have the common sense to know they should take reasonable steps, act in good faith, render first aid, make every effort to summons help, authorities, etc., etc. Obviously some don't. My bad.

I'm hoping most are just arguing Semantics and enjoying open debate, poking the bear, etc. That I get.

But if people seriously don't understand how or why they should make every attempt to call 911 ASAP, or attempt to safely render first aid, get help, show compassion etc., after a use of force encounter, then perhaps they shouldn't be carrying a loaded weapon.

[Frisco]

Okay, I have to ask....now that I have finished my coffee...

Radny97

1. How long have you been practicing?
2. How many actual cases have YOU successfully taken to trial in defense of a man/woman who LEGALLY employed lethal force in defense of their own life or other innocents?
3. Of those (If any, because as of yet I remain unconvinced, based on your distinct lack of expertise in the field of lethal force and justification...not to mention actual self defense techniques), in what state(s)?

Since I retired from my career as an LEO, I get paid a not inconsiderable sum to advise, evaluate evidence for, and often testify for, by several attorneys who ACTUALLY do self defense work, and have written and presented CLEs with my attorney partner to other attorneys. I have taught at three different academies, private sector, and taught courtroom survival to armed civilians for over two decades. I have more than a little experience in this area.

You claim to have "just filed a suit in federal court this week". Cool, happy meal...but I "gots ta tell ya" that an attorney who splits his/her time between actual defense work, which should pay the bills if you're any good and "amberlampse chasing" and tort work is NOT the one I would want defending me against a traffic ticket, let alone a life and death matter where my freedom and the financial security of my family is at stake.

I'm just mentioning that my finely honed BS Detector as an LEO is going off like a fart alarm at a chili cook off.

[shurshot]

"Since I retired from my career as an LEO", 

"I'm just mentioning that my finely honed BS Detector as an LEO" (Frisco)

So which is it, alleged active or alleged retired LEO? Or, should we assume you meant your "BS detection skills" were honed during your active years? Semantics? Your claims of being an retired LEO are just as open to skepticism and doubt as the OP claiming to be an Attorney. Do you want to post your credentials? For all we know, you are a retired Mall cop. No disrespect intended (and I DO believe you, just making a point ), but this is the internet and the FL. Why should the OP be doubted? We either take each other at face value, or we don't.

[Radny97]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

So that little distinction is, to you, "semantics"?

To most of us, I think, that's more than semantics. "You can't be sued" means you don't have to go to court to defend yourself, you don't even have to hire a lawyer, because no lawsuit can be filed. That's a very different affair from "You generally can't be sued successfully," because the later accepts that you can be sued -- and, once we accept that we can be sued, we know we're looking at hiring a lawyer and racking up thousands, probably tens to hundreds of thousands, of dollars in legal fees --- and that's if we win the lawsuit. That sort of "win" is pretty close to a textbook definition of a Pyrrhic victory.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...rhic%20victory



I would venture to say that's more than just semantics.

This is America. You can literally be sued for anything, and no laws prohibit it. Someone could sue you for walking down the sidewalk. And you’d have to spend $20k defending yourself for a Pyrrhic victory. So yes, it is semantics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Radny97]

Originally Posted by shurshot

But if people seriously don't understand how or why they should make every attempt to call 911 ASAP, or attempt to safely render first aid, get help, show compassion etc., after a use of force encounter, then perhaps they shouldn't be carrying a loaded weapon.

Agreed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Radny97]

Originally Posted by Frisco

1. How long have you been practicing?
2. How many actual cases have YOU successfully taken to trial in defense of a man/woman who LEGALLY employed lethal force in defense of their own life or other innocents?
3. Of those (If any, because as of yet I remain unconvinced, based on your distinct lack of expertise in the field of lethal force and justification...not to mention actual self defense techniques), in what state(s)?

1. 15 years
2. None. As stated above it’s not my area of practice. I do civil rights in federal court, real property litigation, and fights with municipalities. I also do some personal injury and tort work.
3. See above.

So yes, I’m very aware of the risks of liability and what judges and juries in my state do. I’m in court all the time. I appreciate that you do CLEs regarding self defense scenarios. That is interesting. I’d be interested if you’ve ever acted as an expert witness in either a criminal or civil trial involving a self defense shooting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Frisco]

Started my career in Tucson, AZ, 1988. Tucson PD from which I retired in 2008. I then moved to a department in northern AZ for an additional 7 years, 10 months, 14 days when I finally "popped smoke" and retired fully. My oldest son works for Phoenix PD. My younger son works for a smaller department in the valley.

[Frisco]

Originally Posted by Radny97

1. 15 years
2. None. As stated above it’s not my area of practice. I do civil rights in federal court, real property litigation, and fights with municipalities. I also do some personal injury and tort work.
3. See above.

So yes, I’m very aware of the risks of liability and what judges and juries in my state do. I’m in court all the time. I appreciate that you do CLEs regarding self defense scenarios. That is interesting. I’d be interested if you’ve ever acted as an expert witness in either a criminal or civil trial involving a self defense shooting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since I retired from my career as an LEO, I get paid a not inconsiderable sum to advise, evaluate evidence for, and often testify for, by several attorneys who ACTUALLY do self defense work, and have written and presented CLEs with my attorney partner to other attorneys. I have taught at three different academies, private sector, and taught courtroom survival to armed civilians for over two decades. I have more than a little experience in this area.

[Frisco]

Originally Posted by shurshot

"Since I retired from my career as an LEO", 

"I'm just mentioning that my finely honed BS Detector as an LEO" (Frisco)

So which is it, alleged active or alleged retired LEO? Or, should we assume you meant your "BS detection skills" were honed during your active years? Semantics? Your claims of being an retired LEO are just as open to skepticism and doubt as the OP claiming to be an Attorney. Do you want to post your credentials? For all we know, you are a retired Mall cop. No disrespect intended (and I DO believe you, just making a point ), but this is the internet and the FL. Why should the OP be doubted? We either take each other at face value, or we don't.

Your BS detector doesn't "switch off" simply because you have retired. But, I have made it clear in this and other posts that I am RETIRED now. There is no "alleged about it".

[shurshot]

Relax Frisco, I was just trying to make a point. Not actually questioning your credibility, just drawing a comparison between you and the OP, pertaining to credentials.

[44 AMP]

I know there's a term for it, but I'm not looking it up now...

Whenever someone shifts from arguing the subject to attacking their opponent (and that includes "your just arguing semantics") to me it is an admission that they realize they have lost the argument.

Semantics is the study of what words mean and how we use them. This is how we communicate so that both parties clearly understand what the other means.

When one side makes a statement, and that statement, is pointed out that it is factually inaccurate, as stated, the proper response is either an apology and corrections (pardon me, I misspoke, what I meant was...) or a complete challenge demanding proof of inaccuracy.

The proper response should never be "now you're just arguing semantics" because that is just one small step from the childish "no fair! I gonna take my ball and go home!"

It does not win the argument. It is, in fact a sign they realize that they have lost the argument, and just don't want to admit it.

I think a lawyer should know this. ...

[Radny97]

I haven’t really disputed the concern that rendering aid may not be a good self defense tactical decision. I understand the concerns over continued personal safety in the moment etc. I’ll leave that there as I’m not an expert on self defense tactics, and don’t purport to be one. I’m talking about reducing the chance of being charged or successfully prosecuted. That’s it.

I AM an expert on the art of persuasion in litigation and in courtrooms. And my opinion on the effect of rendering aid upon the perception of investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury remains unchanged. Other than foolish claims that you could hurt more than help, or be accused of trying to finish the person off, I haven’t heard a single cogent argument as to how attempting to render aid would not tend to persuade an investigator, prosecutor, judge or jury that you aren’t a bad guy, that you care for human life, that you would only defend yourself with deadly force if you had no other choice, and that you haven’t committed a crime. I’m right in this. Period.

I’ve been attacked on the self defense tactics, my credentials have been questioned, some comments have attacked me personally, and some comments have been unworthy of a response. The fact remains, no one has presented a viable contrary opinion that reasonably rendering aid to your attacker after having to defend yourself from him/her will greatly reduce the chances of charges being brought or a conviction being attained.

So, the contrary commenters having spent all their breath blustering over something that may seem anathema to the natural sentiments one might have after being attacked (i.e. rendering aid to the attacker) no one has been able to say persuasively that I’m wrong. Only that they don’t like it.

Well, so be it. I hope none of us ever have to find out. But if you do get into a defense shooting, maybe someone reading will try to save their attackers life, and in doing so may not only help a person in a dark place, but may also save themselves a lot of heartache, money, and maybe even prison time.

I’m not coming back to this thread. I’ve said my piece. I wish all of you the best, even those who lacked civility in their responses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Double Naught Spy]

If you could have just come up with any sort of actual evidence to support your points beside repeatedly pointing out how you are a lawyer and challenging others as to whether or not they are lawyers, you might have gained some credibility. Your various really bad tactics, unrealistic assumptions, and outright incorrect statements did nothing to help your position.

You seemed to be of the impression that people should listen to your opinion solely on the basis of your profession, even if that isn't your specialty within the profession. That doesn't fly when you deal with people who have real world experience, and apparently, a better understanding of many of the matters on which you blustered.