Castle Doctrine and Requirement to Retreat

[anygunanywhere]

The new Florida law removing the requirement to retreat and allow self defense anywhere you are legally allowed to be, and restrict lawsuits for persons who defend themslves is a must.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm sure this one will be on the list.

Chas.

[gigag04]

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

[Charles L. Cotton]

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

I don't know how this could be crafted to be constitutional. There is a misconception that a person who accidentally, but non-negligently, shoots and injures or kills someone is going to be held liable in a civil action. The "reasonable person" standard applies to civil actions, including this scenario. If you were justified in using deadly force against someone and employed deadly force in a non-negligent manner, then you should be okay. It doesn't mean you won't get sued, but you should win.

There are several examples I always give in my pistol classes and seminars. Here is one. You 1) are justified in using deadly force; 2) draw and fire your handgun; 3) miss, or the bullet penetrates the bad guy, and an innocent bystander is hit. You acted as would a "reasonable prudent person under the same or similar circumstances" so you should not be found negligent, thus not liable.

Take the same scenario, but this time you swing your H&K MP5 on its lanyard out from under your coat and empty a 32 round mag. on full auto, spraying the entire area. Even thought the use of deadly force was justified, you acted in a negligent manner by "doing something a reasonable prudent person would not have done under the same or similar circumstances," thus you were negligent and liable to the innocent victim and/or their family.

Please note in the first example, this presumes the shot you took was reasonable under the circumstances. What is a reasonable shot may well vary by the skill of the shooter and the surroundings. What is reasonable for me may well be unreasonable for someone who hadn't shot their handgun since they renewed their CHL 3 1/2 years ago. If the attacker is "up close and personal," say 5 feet away, then the relative skill levels will not be an issue. Place the assailant 50 feet away with bystanders in the area and skill levels are more likely to be a factor in a jury's decision whether you acted reasonably.

We can muddy the water even more. Let's say the CHL hasn't practiced much and is on the way back to his table from the restroom at a restaurant. When he's and is 50 feet away, an assailant points a pistol at his wife's or child's head. Would the increased danger to a family member change the jury's decision whether your actions were reasonable? Perhaps, perhaps not.

Immunity for injury to or the death of the bad guy is easy. However, these hypothetical situations show why it would be very difficult to craft an immunity statute that would shield liability to an innocent bystander.

Regards,
Chas.

[gigag04]

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.

[txinvestigator]

Civil actions are one thing, but chapter 9 states


§9.05. Reckless injury of innocent third person.

Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening
or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also
recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification
afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless
injury or killing of the innocent third person.

So if they can prove you were reckless then you can be charged criminally. But they must prove recklessness.

[stevie_d_64]

So if they can prove you were reckless then you can be charged criminally. But they must prove recklessness.

I agree...Recklessness is a subjective or difficult issue to prove...Or maybe not...

My attitude is one that willingly forces me to accept the responsibility and be equally accountable for my actions...period...

Will that force me to hesitate, or be lax in my ability to formulate a proper response to a credible threat??? No...

Will I be "reasonable" in my evaluation of that threat...Yes...

I don't see any way to improve that mindset...If there is, I can cetainly be open to evaluate that improvement and apply it...

If I can't be mindful of the basics of self-defense, and be that "reasonable" citizen/person, then I might as well sell my wares and hope for the best, for the rest of my life...

[dglockster]

This information about a Castle Doctrine law for Texas was posted at http://www.glocktalk.com

http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php ... did=466497

Well worth reading.