The point is that since most criminals are indigent, the only way they can retain a lawyer is on contingency. With this law, the liklihood that a lawyer can win anything other than a summary judgement against them is severely reduced if it is a "good shoot." That means that very few lawyers will be willing to take it on contingency. Keep in mind that contingency means the lawyer will have to lay out thousands of $$$ for discovery and such before the actual trial even begins.inhouston wrote:As seamusTX wrote, "Most criminals are indigent and could not pay a lawyer upfront." I'm concerned that it will cost me a lot of money to make my case, and with nothing to recover from the criminal for it.srothstein wrote:That is what the proposed law says. the problem is that it takes a court case to determine if your force was justified before they can determine that he has no recourse against you. Thus, the addition you were questioning that says that if you are correct, not only does he get nothing, but he has to pay you for all court costs and legal fees. I love the part about paying you for the time you took off from work for the hearing also. Icing on the cake, IMHO.inhouston wrote:How about a law that when your self-defense is justified, your attacker and family members have no legal recourse against you, even in a civil case.
Would you be willing to lay out somewhere around $50K (or more) on the off chance that you'll get lucky and get past the initial motion for summary judgement so you can go to trial and spend MORE $$$ so that somewhere down the road you MIGHT be able to prove that the shooter was in some way negligent?
