Yeah I was thinking the "vagueness" of the concept wouldn't lend itself to wordy, specific legislation.
Maybe we should draft a bill for a "what would you do" action. That way the jury has to answer, "what would you do?" if a BG had a gun to your wife/child's head and you were 50 ft away? Would you attempt the shot? Maybe that's already incorporated into the reasonable and prudent precedent.
I know I for one wouldn't sue if I was hit in a SD shooting if the shooter was somewhat trained.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Castle Doctrine and Requirement to Retreat”
- Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:38 pm
- Forum: Goals for 2007
- Topic: Castle Doctrine and Requirement to Retreat
- Replies: 7
- Views: 3024
- Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:09 am
- Forum: Goals for 2007
- Topic: Castle Doctrine and Requirement to Retreat
- Replies: 7
- Views: 3024
Is there anyway they could limit someones ability to sue if an innocent is injured in a crossfire?
Ex - the Lubys thing. If she had a gun, and used it, killed the bg, but injured a guy in the process, is there a way she could not be held liable since she was acting "reasonably and prudent" and was not negligent?
Maybe?
-nick
Ex - the Lubys thing. If she had a gun, and used it, killed the bg, but injured a guy in the process, is there a way she could not be held liable since she was acting "reasonably and prudent" and was not negligent?
Maybe?
-nick