Defense loads and the law

[netentity]

Originally Posted by Palmach

I didn't want to get back into this, but you seem to want to continue to use ridiculous argumentation to support your flawed argument. This is as silly as your OJ comment. Totally unrelated and irrelevant to concealed carry.

It deals with civil liability which is within the scope of this discussion. Doesn't matter if it's relevant to CCW or not, civil litigation is civil litigation.

Now we are getting somewhere. Perhaps instead of arguing here as to what would be an acceptable caliber to avoid civil liability, you should be putting your energies towards contacting the politicians in your area who could make a difference regarding this issue in your state.

The State legislature and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association know me quite well. Unfortunately we have one thorn on the Nevada Assembly Judiciary Committee we need to get rid of.

Complacency? What do you know? What you read on an internet forum. Spare me. You don't know me. You don't know my background, where I have lived, or my experiences with concealed carry.

The same could be said for your comments directed towards me, sir.

You think you understand Florida gun laws, but I assure you that these statutes have not been sufficiently tested to make one feel safe from civil liability in Florida.

Are you back peddling on your argument now? Are you saying you don't have civil suit immunity in your State? I produced a case where it was tested in Plantation Florida. Florida Statute 776 is pretty easy reading.

Bottom line now, as it has been from the beginning of our discussion is mindset. You either have it or you don't. The scenario you describe above is not going to change based on the caliber you use, and this has been my contention from the beginning.

Proper mind set also includes having enough knowledge and information of what could happen. It doesn't mean it will. Caliber isn't going to be a factor in Florida or any other State with blanket civil suit immunity for justiable use of force. Caliber may be a factor in a State where you don't have a blanket stand your ground law with civil suit immunity. Nevada only has a castle doctrine with civil suit immunity, we have no stand your ground statute yet.

If the sheriff, mayor, DA and judge want to make an example of you it would not matter if you used a sling shot with a pebble. Further, as you have noted several times in this thread, your argument is not about what the DA, judge, sheriff, or mayor does, but what is done by the family who sues because you killed their felonious relative.

What the sheriff, mayor, DA and judge do will have a bearing on the criminal case which will in turn have a bearing on the civil case. If criminal liability has been proven in Florida your civil suit immunity goes out the door with that guilty judgment. There's also a question of what happens if you lose the initial case but win on appeal. Do you get your assets back lost in the civil judgment that was filed on the basis of the initial guilty verdict? A good attorney defending you will request a motion for a continuance of the civil case pending the exhaustion of all appeals to protect your assets. There is nothing saying that judge hearing the civil case will grant such a motion.

I don't use phone books, and if I ever need an attorney related to a gun defense, I have just the guy living right in my city. Again, an irrelevant point.

The number of attorneys in your area has nothing to do with your defense counsel, it has plenty to do with how members of the State Bar have you in their sights. The term is best described as being the metaphorical goldfish in a tankful of piranha.

[tattedupboy]

Originally Posted by netentity

That's what is causing your complacency. T

Complacency? Please tell me that you're joking.

[Palmach]

Originally Posted by netentity

It deals with civil liability which is within the scope of this discussion. Doesn't matter if it's relevant to CCW or not, civil litigation is civil litigation.

Civil liability outside of the scope of concealed carry is irrelevant to the discussion and to concealed carry. Let me remind you that this is a concealed carry forum.

The State legislature and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association know me quite well. Unfortunately we have one thorn on the Nevada Assembly Judiciary Committee we need to get rid of.

I am sure they do.

The same could be said for your comments directed towards me, sir.

My comments have been towards your mindset. I have not considered you smug or self satisfied, but misinformed and misdirected. Of course, you believe the same to be true of me.

However, since this is a concealed carry forum and this is not the only one that I read or post on, I can honestly say that yours is a minority opinion. The only people that I normally see concerned with civil liability are those new to carry or guns.

Are you back peddling on your argument now? Are you saying you don't have civil suit immunity in your State? I produced a case where it was tested in Plantation Florida. Florida Statute 776 is pretty easy reading.

Back peddling? Please. This is start to get humorous.

What I am saying is that it is not cut and dry. You have to have a pretty strong case of justifiable use of deadly force. Gutmacher makes it clear in his book that it is not open season simply because of this statute, and does not believe that the statute has been sufficiently tested. I never said we did not have immunity.

You of all people should be ashamed to say that it is clearly written considering your scenarios in which you mention an out to get you attitude by sheriff, mayor, DA and the likes. There is nothing cut and dry when it comes to court room.

Proper mind set also includes having enough knowledge and information of what could happen. It doesn't mean it will. Caliber isn't going to be a factor in Florida or any other State with blanket civil suit immunity for justiable use of force. Caliber may be a factor in a State where you don't have a blanket stand your ground law with civil suit immunity. Nevada only has a castle doctrine with civil suit immunity, we have no stand your ground statute yet.

Until you produce test cases in which civil liabilities were imposed for certain calibers when a person was exonerated for criminal liability for justifiable use of force, I see your argument as moot and merely your personal opinion.

As I have said before, if there is a statute in said state that requires you to carry only up to a certain caliber, then it is a no brainer. However, when no such statute exists, until there are test cases that prove your case, you have no point.

What the sheriff, mayor, DA and judge do will have a bearing on the criminal case which will in turn have a bearing on the civil case. If criminal liability has been proven in Florida your civil suit immunity goes out the door with that guilty judgment.

We have never disputed this, and when I have said something similar, you in turn have told me that we are not discussing criminal but civil liability. So, who is back peddling, sir?

There's also a question of what happens if you lose the initial case but win on appeal. Do you get your assets back lost in the civil judgment that was filed on the basis of the initial guilty verdict? A good attorney defending you will request a motion for a continuance of the civil case pending the exhaustion of all appeals to protect your assets. There is nothing saying that judge hearing the civil case will grant such a motion.

If you lose your initial case, you either have a lousy attorney, or did not have a strong enough case for justifiable use of deadly force. If you live in an area where the mayor, sheriff, DA, and the like are out to get you, I might suggest that it is time to think about moving.

[The number of attorneys in your area has nothing to do with your defense counsel, it has plenty to do with how members of the State Bar have you in their sights. The term is best described as being the metaphorical goldfish in a tankful of piranha.[/QUOTE]

I don't see it, and quite frankly again see this as irrelevant to the discussion of justifiable use of deadly force and the proper caliber to stay clear of civil liability.

Will an attorney try to paint you as a bitter gun owner that clings to his guns and religion? Probably. Will he try to paint you as a terrible human being for carrying that S&W 500? Probably.

However, if the BG is laying in a pool of congealed blood clinging to a weapon that he tried to use against you in forcible felony, I don't see this being relevant. Any 2nd Amendment attorney who understands your states gun laws is going to make easy work of this case.

[netentity]

Originally Posted by Palmach

My comments have been towards your mindset. I have not considered you smug or self satisfied, but misinformed and misdirected. Of course, you believe the same to be true of me.

However, since this is a concealed carry forum and this is not the only one that I read or post on, I can honestly say that yours is a minority opinion. The only people that I normally see concerned with civil liability are those new to carry or guns.

Or States or situations where you do not have statutory civil suit immunity.

What I am saying is that it is not cut and dry. You have to have a pretty strong case of justifiable use of deadly force. Gutmacher makes it clear in his book that it is not open season simply because of this statute, and does not believe that the statute has been sufficiently tested. I never said we did not have immunity.

Exactly. It is not cut and dry when it comes to civil liability. Unless you have statutory civil suit immunity any facet of the incident can be used against you in civil court.

You of all people should be ashamed to say that it is clearly written considering your scenarios in which you mention an out to get you attitude by sheriff, mayor, DA and the likes. There is nothing cut and dry when it comes to court room.

Exactly nor is there nothing cut and dry when it comes to politics.

Until you produce test cases in which civil liabilities were imposed for certain calibers when a person was exonerated for criminal liability for justifiable use of force, I see your argument as moot and merely your personal opinion.

There already has been a case with respect to reloads being used.

If you lose your initial case, you either have a lousy attorney, or did not have a strong enough case for justifiable use of deadly force. If you live in an area where the mayor, sheriff, DA, and the like are out to get you, I might suggest that it is time to think about moving.

Or a lousy judge or a biased jury. It does happen. We have one in Clark County we're trying to get rid of. The DA in the next county was recently cited for DUI. He's also running for judge. I'm sure you have similar dirty laundry in Florida.

I don't see it, and quite frankly again see this as irrelevant to the discussion of justifiable use of deadly force and the proper caliber to stay clear of civil liability.

Anything that may happen in a court room that can affect the outcome is an item on the table for discussion.

Will an attorney try to paint you as a bitter gun owner that clings to his guns and religion? Probably. Will he try to paint you as a terrible human being for carrying that S&W 500? Probably.

Bingo!

However, if the BG is laying in a pool of congealed blood clinging to a weapon that he tried to use against you in forcible felony, I don't see this being relevant. Any 2nd Amendment attorney who understands your states gun laws is going to make easy work of this case.

It isn't your attorney that decides that outcome, it is a jury. While a good attorney does play an important role in your case and it's the only factor you do have control over, it's ultimately the jury. The value of a good attorney can again be said with the OJ case. If the plaintiff in the suit can convince the jury you are a bitter gun owner and a terrible human being you lose. What stopped Lovell from getting sued for WD or PI was FL statute 776. It was a cut and dry self defense shooting. You cannot tell me that the relatives of the subjects Lovell shot did not want to and quite possibly sought legal counsel. Every Florida attorney refused to take the case because there was no merit to the civil case because it was ruled a justifiable homicide by Plantation PD and the DA.

If I am carrying substantially similar to what the local LEOs in my area are carrying me being portrayed as a bitter gun owner and a wanna be Chuck Bronson or Dirty Harry won't even enter in the equation should I be taken to civil court in a self defense incident occurring outside of my home. Why give the plaintiff civil liability ammunition when I don't have to?

NRS 41.095 has withstood the test of time being twenty years old as of next year. I have never heard of any civil suits arising from justifiable homicide occurring in one's domicile here. I've been in southern Nevada since late summer 1992. We also know that civil suit caps and immunity have precedence in Nevada with medical malpractice suit caps and suits against the State or political subdivision of the State being capped at $50K.

[netentity]

Originally Posted by tattedupboy

Complacency? Please tell me that you're joking.

Complacency with respect to the legal system. The head in the sand approach doesn't just apply to self defense, it also applies to legal defense.

[tattedupboy]

Originally Posted by netentity

Complacency with respect to the legal system. The head in the sand approach doesn't just apply to self defense, it also applies to legal defense.

Complacency? Head in the sand? You really don't get it, do you? Because if you did, you wouldn't be making such ridiculous statements! Incredible!

[netentity]

Originally Posted by tattedupboy

Complacency? Head in the sand? You really don't get it, do you? Because if you did, you wouldn't be making such ridiculous statements! Incredible!

No you don't get it.

Earlier in this thread you posted;

As for netentity's arguments in support of the ridiculous reasons one can get sued for defending themselves using a caliber other than what the police use, I'll just take my chances. Any reasonable civil jury should be able to see past the caliber and type of ammo someone uses to defend themselves and release them from any and all liability as a result. That is if the suit doesn't get dismissed before it reaches the jury.

That statement is complacency. Same mindset of people who refused to leave who could leave N'awlins when Katrina hit. What is reasonable for you may not be reasonable to the twelve on the jury or the judge. This is especially a valid concern to travelers. All the plaintiff's counsel has to do is sway the jury in a civil suit. If you travel and CCW what is reasonable in FL, IN or MO may not be reasonable in OH. You may see some disparity within the State you're in. In Reno, people open carry all the time even on their "Strip". In Las Vegas, people do not open carry on the Strip. It is strongly discouraged. Same State, same laws, different venues. Change the venue of the incident or the trial and you change the reasonableness factor of the jury and the judge who often times is an elected official.

[tattedupboy]

Netentity, you claim that I'm the one who doesn't get it, but this latest post of yours (in addition to all the others) shows that you in fact are the one who doesn't get it. Listening to you, people are going to be afraid to defend themselves for fear that they could be sued for using too big a caliber, when in fact the laws of most states don't state that any particular caliber is too big for self defense.

One more thing, I'm not being complacent. I'm just conducting myself the way I and every other responsible, law abiding gun carrier should conduct themselves, and that is to hope for the best but to be prepared for the worst, using any means necessary, without fear of some wacko lawyer trying to get money for the criminal's family.

I ask you, how in the world does that make me complacent? If you want to live in fear of being sued for using too big a caliber, you go right ahead, but I honestly don't see myself being held liable for using too large a caliber when a smaller one would have done the job (at least according to your logic). If I have right on my side, then I'm confident I will prevail.

[netentity]

Originally Posted by tattedupboy

Netentity, you claim that I'm the one who doesn't get it, but this latest post of yours (in addition to all the others) shows that you in fact are the one who doesn't get it. Listening to you, people are going to be afraid to defend themselves for fear that they could be sued for using too big a caliber, when in fact the laws of most states don't state that any particular caliber is too big for self defense.

We're not talking about criminal statutes, we're talking civil liability. When it comes to civil liability, what the judge and jury says is the precedence.

One more thing, I'm not being complacent. I'm just conducting myself the way I and every other responsible, law abiding gun carrier should conduct themselves, and that is to hope for the best but to be prepared for the worst, using any means necessary, without fear of some wacko lawyer trying to get money for the criminal's family.

That is the only rational thing you have said with respect to this discussion. That is the way our court system works. I don't endorse it, it is what it is. Fortunately you have a better chance of hitting the lottery than getting into a self defense act and I tell my students that. But if you do, this may happen. Doesn't mean it will.

I ask you, how in the world does that make me complacent? If you want to live in fear of being sued for using too big a caliber, you go right ahead, but I honestly don't see myself being held liable for using too large a caliber when a smaller one would have done the job (at least according to your logic). If I have right on my side, then I'm confident I will prevail.

Refusing to acknowledge that it could happen to you. You have the "it can't happen to me" mentality. A good attorney will get that attitude out of you on the stand. Dodging the criminal bullet in a homicide investigation which is what all self defense acts are, a homicide, is only one part of the battle unless the incident occurs in a State where you have blanket civil suit immunity for justifiable use of force. It is not an issue in States where you have blanket civil suit immunity for a justifiable homicide unless a judge throws out the civil suit immunity statute. It is in an immediate issue in States where you don't have civil suit immunity or civil suit immunity is only part of the castle doctrine.

I sometimes carry original Winchester Black Talon in my firearms. I just haven't had the heart to shoot it downrange yet because of the collectors value. I lost the original boxes during a move so they do not have any resale value. I do know that if I get involved in a self defense act in an area where I do not have blanket civil suit immunity and I have a biased jury or judge I may lose the farm because of the negative media attention associated with that round. I also know that I have a good civil defense because the Winchester SXTs are the manufacturer's replacement for the Black Talon without the politically incorrect stigma created by the media. I have made that rational transaction for myself based on my own personal risk analysis of what may happen. When I travel, I leave the original Black Talons at home and carry a different round.

We have seen judges find some legal technicality to refuse to enforce or invalidate a statute. Two off of the top of my head were CCW endorsements being issued in St Louis MO County and the City of St Louis when MO went shall issue. The demand for FL and UT CCWs went way up in those areas until that was ironed out by the MO legislature and Governor. The other being the home rule challenge of the OH CHL law.

[tattedupboy]

Originally Posted by netentity

We're not talking about criminal statutes, we're talking civil liability. When it comes to civil liability, what the judge and jury says is the precedence.

That is the only rational thing you have said with respect to this discussion. That is the way our court system works. I don't endorse it, it is what it is. Fortunately you have a better chance of hitting the lottery than getting into a self defense act and I tell my students that. But if you do, this may happen. Doesn't mean it will.

Refusing to acknowledge that it could happen to you. You have the "it can't happen to me" mentality. A good attorney will get that attitude out of you on the stand. Dodging the criminal bullet in a homicide investigation which is what all self defense acts are, a homicide, is only one part of the battle unless the incident occurs in a State where you have blanket civil suit immunity for justifiable use of force. It is not an issue in States where you have blanket civil suit immunity for a justifiable homicide unless a judge throws out the civil suit immunity statute. It is in an immediate issue in States where you don't have civil suit immunity or civil suit immunity is only part of the castle doctrine.

I sometimes carry original Winchester Black Talon in my firearms. I just haven't had the heart to shoot it downrange yet because of the collectors value. I lost the original boxes during a move so they do not have any resale value. I do know that if I get involved in a self defense act in an area where I do not have blanket civil suit immunity and I have a biased jury or judge I may lose the farm because of the negative media attention associated with that round. I also know that I have a good civil defense because the Winchester SXTs are the manufacturer's replacement for the Black Talon without the politically incorrect stigma created by the media. I have made that rational transaction for myself based on my own personal risk analysis of what may happen. When I travel, I leave the original Black Talons at home and carry a different round.

We have seen judges find some legal technicality to refuse to enforce or invalidate a statute. Two off of the top of my head were CCW endorsements being issued in St Louis MO County and the City of St Louis when MO went shall issue. The demand for FL and UT CCWs went way up in those areas until that was ironed out by the MO legislature and Governor. The other being the home rule challenge of the OH CHL law.

The fact remains that no clear thinking juror in a civil case will allow something like choice of caliber to hold a person liable in a self defense shooting. If I am forced to defend myself against someone who either attacked me or broke into my home, regardless of what caliber I use to shoot the attacker, I would simply argue that I am not liable for what happens to the perp while in the commission of a crime; if he is breaking the law, then others should not be held liable for whatever happens to him during the commission of the crime. Simply put, if he did not want to get shot or injured, he should not have tried attacking me or breaking into my home. Getting shot, whether it's by a .22 caliber pistol or by a .50 caliber rifle, is one of the dangers of the job; if you lead a life of crime, then you should be constantly aware of your intended victims using whatever means available to prevent it.

Also, you're entitled to your opinion on what is or is not rational, but I find it quite humorous that of everything I've written on this thread thus far, my last comment where I said that we hope for the best but are prepared for the worst, was the only comment I've written that you believe has been rational. Sir, (if you're a ma'am, then I apologize) everything I have said thus far has been quite rational from the standpoint of reasonable people; only some crooked lawyer looking to make a quick buck would find your arguments in favor of civil liability for an "inappropriate" caliber to be rational.