Self Defense & Lawsuit Question

[Hoosier Gun Coat]

Lets say you are in a situation where your life or someone elses life could be in danger. Your last resort is to defend yourself or someone else. You pull your gun and fire _________ (insert quantity of shots here) shots into the bad guy, assuming you are a good shot. Do you shoot to maime or shoot to kill. Reason I ask is that I'd heard from some people say that you shoot to kiil that way there's only one side of the story to tell, yours. Ok fine. Lets say you were perfectly within your right to shoot the bad guy. What about the civil / wrongfull death lawsuits that could possibly come afterwards. "Well, if you were within your right, then the lawsuit has no basis" correct but you still have to pay to defend the lawsuit and could easily ruin you financially. I would like to hear some opinions and/or thoughts.

 

[Scutter01]

Here's the statute. Don't know how well it's tested by case law.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

(remainder of statute snipped)

 

[techres]

Shoot to stop/kill. If you shoot for non-lethal hits then you open yourself up to the counter argument that you did not "really feel like your life was at risk".

If you do kill someone and stop a forcible felony, then you cannot be sued in civil court in Indiana IIRC. Hopefully scutter01 can come along with some actual code.

 

[techres]

Here's the statute. Don't know how well it's tested by case law.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

(remainder of statute snipped)

He beat me to it!!! (he types faster than me)

 

[Scutter01]

If you do kill someone and stop a forcible felony, then you cannot be sued in civil court in Indiana IIRC. Hopefully scutter01 can come along with some actual code.

I thought I just did?

 

[Bigum1969]

Lets say you are in a situation where your life or someone elses life could be in danger. Your last resort is to defend yourself or someone else. You pull your gun and fire _________ (insert quantity of shots here) shots into the bad guy, assuming you are a good shot. Do you shoot to maime or shoot to kill. Reason I ask is that I'd heard from some people say that you shoot to kiil that way there's only one side of the story to tell, yours. Ok fine. Lets say you were perfectly within your right to shoot the bad guy. What about the civil / wrongfull death lawsuits that could possibly come afterwards. "Well, if you were within your right, then the lawsuit has no basis" correct but you still have to pay to defend the lawsuit and could easily ruin you financially. I would like to hear some opinions and/or thoughts.

I think you shoot to stop the confrontation, whether that person dies or not depends on a lot of factors (where they were shot, how many times, medical help, etc.). I think the concept of shooting to maim is more of a Hollywood type notion. Shoot to stop the threat.

 

[techres]

I thought I just did?

You hit "submit reply" 10 nano seconds before I did.

 

[Scutter01]

You hit "submit reply" 10 nano seconds before I did.

Don't hate the player. Hate the game.

 

[6birds]

Never draw unless you intend to fire, never aim at what you are not willing to destroy...

 

[Hammer]

We had a course recently at the sheriff dept in morgan county (thanks to a member on here) they had one of the prosecutors there and this came up.

This is what I got from the discussion.
If you are in a shooting.....plan on being scrutinized by the PD and prosecutors office to determine if you had a justifiable right to use deadly force. And also plan to be sued my the perps family members in civil court.

 

[AFA1CY]

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

So here is the question for the lawyers on the forum. Is there a difference between "legal jeopardy" and "civil jeopardy"? I can understand how you can not be prosecuted for defending yourself, but can you still be have a civil action brought against you?

 

[Hoosier Gun Coat]

We had a course recently at the sheriff dept in morgan county (thanks to a member on here) they had one of the prosecutors there and this came up.

This is what I got from the discussion.
If you are in a shooting.....plan on being scrutinized by the PD and prosecutors office to determine if you had a justifiable right to use deadly force. And also plan to be sued my the perps family members in civil court.

But who determins the definition of justifiable right? If the bad guy is DEAD then there's only your story. Thats where the whole civil court thing really pisses me off. If a person is shot hurting other people, and they were justified (by law) to get shot, then there should be no basis for a civil lawsuit.

 

[Hammer]

But who determins the definition of justifiable right? If the bad guy is DEAD then there's only your story. Thats where the whole civil court thing really pisses me off. If a person is shot hurting other people, and they were justified (by law) to get shot, then there should be no basis for a civil lawsuit.

The judge or jury will determine if you had Justifiable right to use deadly force.

I agree with you. The law sucks.

 

[Chefcook]

The golden rule as taught to me by my father at 5 years old. "Do not point a gun at anything unless you intend to kill it." In other words, there is no shooting to wound....

 

[Annie Oakley]

+1 for Techres and Scutter. If you are willing to shoot you have to be willing to kill. A wounded bad guy can still cause a problem and it does seem to show that you were unsure about the level of threat. If you are sued by the perps family and you were cleared by LE I would guess that your chance of winning would be pretty good. Could be wrong but I would take that chance.

 

[Hammer]

+1 for Techres and Scutter. If you are willing to shoot you have to be willing to kill. A wounded bad guy can still cause a problem and it does seem to show that you were unsure about the level of threat. If you are sued by the perps family and you were cleared by LE I would guess that your chance of winning would be pretty good. Could be wrong but I would take that chance.

Maybe true, but think of OJ. He was acquitted on charges but still sued and the family won. Not saying he was not guilty, but just stating this for reference.

 

[techres]

Maybe true, but think of OJ. He was acquitted on charges but still sued and the family won. Not saying he was not guilty, but just stating this for reference.

One word = California.

(and for once it worked out for the best!)

 

[indyjoe]

Do you shoot to maime or shoot to kill.

Neither. I shoot to stop. That means different things in different scenarios. If an attacker is running at me with a knife, I do a few center chest. If he still comes, I move down to pelvic shots for a skeletal stop. This could be called maiming, but it is removing the ability for him to harm me.

If the perp is going to shoot someone and I can't get them to stop and have limited time, I might go straight to the head shot. Is that shooting to kill? No, shooting to stop them from threatening others.

I don't have any thought that my response will be as well plained out as I think. I will be shooting until they stop. Dead or not. The goal isn't to kill them, but it is a real possibility.

 

[slamer283]

i will always live by what my father taught me. never pul your gun unless your going to shoot. and when i say shoot, i mean kill. like they said above, if you just injure him\her, there is a bigger chance of a law suit, because honestly boys, if someone came after my wife or kids, i would make sure they were dead. not just injured. maybe some of you agree?

 

[jmb79]

This post seems to rehash a lot of what was discussed in a similar post yesterday. Nonetheless...

First, if I were to be involved in a shooting (in which I shot someone) and I was asked what I was trying to accomplish or whether I was shooting to kill or wound, or any question of that nature, my response would be (assuming I had to answer (e.g., I was on the stand in a civil trial) that I shot the person to stop their unlawful action, which action I believed was an immanent threat to my safety or the safety of a third person.

Second, the quoted section from Indiana Code Title 35 is part of Indiana's criminal code and offers ZERO protection from civil suits. The code section uses the term "legal jeopardy." However, the operative term is "jeopardy", not "legal jeopardy" so there is nothing to distinguish between "legal jeopardy" and "civil jeopardy." In other words, there is no such thing as "civil jeopardy." Jeopardy (by itself) refers to the process of trial, confinement and punishment form criminal offenses. The term "civil jeopardy" is a contradiction.

Third, there is some discussion of how one can be cleared of criminal liability but still face civil liability. I believe Annie even stated something like, if you are cleared of criminal liability, the chances of winning a civil case are pretty good. This is an absolute fallacy.

The O.J. Simpson example is a good illustration of this point and the result has nothing to do with the fact that both trials occurred in California. To convict someone of a criminal offense, the prosecution must convince the jury that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." This is called the standard of proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt is usually interpreted as the 90% rule or the 99% rule. In other words, if a juror believes that there is even a 10% (or 1%) chance that the defendant is not guilty, the juror must vote to acquit.

In civil cases, the standard of proof is "a preponderance of the evidence." This term means that the jury (or, more often, the judge because you don't have a constitutional right to a jury in civil cases) must be convinced that the evidence in favor of finding the defendant liable is greater than the evidence in favor of finding the defendant not liable. This is sometimes described as the 51% rule.

As you can see, when comparing a civil wrongful death action with a criminal murder trial, the plaintiff in the wrongful death action carries a much easier burden of proof than the prosecution in the criminal action carries. Moreover, the defendant in the criminal trial has some protections that do not exist in the civil world. One obvious example is that a criminal defendant cannot be compelled to testify (Fifth Amendment) against himself or herself. In a civil case, this does not apply. A defendant in a wrongful death action will likely be deposed by the plaintiff before trial. This means that the defendant will have to answer questions under oath and "on the record," which questions will be posed by the plaintiff's attorney. If the case goes to trial, the defendant will likely have to testify again under oath in the courtroom.

I hope that helps clear up some of the confusion regarding these issues. I think it is a really good thing that the gun owning/carrying community takes the time to think through the after effects of a self defense shooting.

It just occurred to add the following suggestion, which is not to be construed as legal advice.

If you are involved in a shooting, I believe that the safest course of action when the police arrive and start trying to question you (and they will question you with the intent of getting you to implicate yourself in a crime) is to have a simple statement ready and repeat only that statement until you have the opportunity to consult with legal counsel. The statement could be something like: "That person (the person you shot) attacked me (pointed a gun at me/tried to stab me/etc.). I was afraid that I (or my family/etc) was going to be killed so I defended my self lawfully. I would now like to speak with my attorney."

Do not say anything else. Period!