Philadelphia Student Shoots Armed Robber

[Phillip Gain]

You made some very good points but I don't think there is no grounds for any civil suit in this case. The victim shot the kid while trying to rob him. I hope the kid come out of this okay. Emotionally as well as physically.

Oh yeah, of course the civil suit is groundless. But anyone with $250 or so can file a civil suit, pretty much for any reason. And if the assailant's family does so, then the victim will have to hire legal counsel to defend against the suit. He'll win, but it will cost him a few grand most likely. Lawyers ain't cheap.

[Phillip Gain]

Phil Gain The only thing that will truly stop the civil suit I am happy to let you know is >>>>>
Our new Republican Governor recently signed a Castle Doctrine Bill. It went into effect the end of August!

Unless I mis-understand Castle Doctrine...that would relieve the defender of any criminal liability, because there is no "duty to retreat" which is GOOD to hear. But if there is no language about civil liability, it may not preclude the assailant's family from filing a frivolous lawsuit

[ironmike86]

I would rather get sued than let the kid shoot me and rob me then get away. Maybe the kid will change his ways after being shot and thinking maybe he could have lost his life? Or he may just be another piece of crap in and out of the jail system. Who knows?

[CapGun]

Unless I mis-understand Castle Doctrine...that would relieve the defender of any criminal liability, because there is no "duty to retreat" which is GOOD to hear. But if there is no language about civil liability, it may not preclude the assailant's family from filing a frivolous lawsuit

Language is included.

[rifleshooter474]

Some really good news.

[Terminal Lance]

In Indiana our castle doctrine (also no duty to retreat) clearly expresses that you will not be subjected to any legal or civil penalties. Obviously assuming you didn't make a mistake and shoot when you shouldnt have. However that's pretty hard to do here. Governor Daniels loves him some gun laws

[Providence Ranch]

So noted and thread tagged.

Ok, that's a little wierd. I'm new. What's going on here?

[BC1]

You made some very good points but I don't think there is no grounds for any civil suit in this case. The victim shot the kid while trying to rob him. I hope the kid come out of this okay. Emotionally as well as physically.

As frivilous as a law suit sounds, many states do not bar the civil action based on Castle Doctrine or stand your-grund laws if the suit meets certain criteria, such as use of excessive force. Castle doctrine will not bar the suit in certain circumstances. If the perp can show a tort was committed against him, that he sustained damages as a result and that there exists a "close causal connection" between the two, he has a suit. With any luck the defendant will be successful in filing a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgement in his favor. Many times the suit arises from the accusation that the victim used excessive force, above and beyond what was necessary to thwart the crime, and that such excessive harm caused the damages as defined in the Complaint and/or Bill of Particulars.

[mrjam2jab]

As frivilous as a law suit sounds, many states do not bar the civil action based on Castle Doctrine or stand your-grund laws if the suit meets certain criteria, such as use of excessive force. Castle doctrine will not bar the suit in certain circumstances. If the perp can show a tort was committed against him, that he sustained damages as a result and that there exists a "close causal connection" between the two, he has a suit. With any luck the defendant will be successful in filing a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgement in his favor. Many times the suit arises from the accusation that the victim used excessive force, above and beyond what was necessary to thwart the crime, and that such excessive harm caused the damages as defined in the Complaint and/or Bill of Particulars.

The wording of PA Act 10

§ 8340.2. Civil immunity for use of force.
(a) General rule.--An actor who uses force:
(1) in self-protection as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 505 (relating to use of force in self-protection);
(2) in the protection of other persons as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 506 (relating to use of force for the protection of other persons);
(3) for the protection of property as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 507 (relating to use of force for the protection of property);
(4) in law enforcement as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 508 (relating to use of force in law enforcement); or
(5) consistent with the actor's special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 509 (relating to use of force by persons with special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others)
is justified in using such force and shall be immune from civil liability for personal injuries sustained by a perpetrator which were caused by the acts or omissions of the actor as a result of the use of force.

[G50AE]

Ok, that's a little wierd. I'm new. What's going on here?

I had added the "internet rambos" and "Sheepdog" search tags to this thread because internet ramboism and sheepdoggery were mentioned. Other comman search tags to add to threads as the topics come up are, "fud", "pointless bickering", "concealed means concealed", and the very popular one of "CCW Badges".