IN: Woman kills officer's attacker, now getting sued

[MechAg94]

The rules are a bit different in civil cases. Also, just having to respond to the filing of the case means you have to get your own lawyer and you are out a certain amount of money. If it goes forward, it costs more. This is all if you win. If you lose, you are liable for the judgement and attorney fees.

As for the trial, I figure she would have the police officer testifying for her among other evidence so it would take a really bad lawyer, good plaintiff attorney, a bad judge, and/or a bad jury to lose.

This is why people sign up for concealed carry legal protection / insurance.

[Grundy1133]

The rules are a bit different in civil cases. Also, just having to respond to the filing of the case means you have to get your own lawyer and you are out a certain amount of money. If it goes forward, it costs more. This is all if you win. If you lose, you are liable for the judgement and attorney fees.

As for the trial, I figure she would have the police officer testifying for her among other evidence so it would take a really bad lawyer, good plaintiff attorney, a bad judge, and/or a bad jury to lose.

This is why people sign up for concealed carry legal protection / insurance.

Texas is a "Stand your ground" state. Is that not enough? (I know this incident happened in IN but i'm just referencing texas since thats where I live.)

[ELB]

What I don't understand is if the court found her within her legal rights of self defense (and defending the LEO) then how on Earth can the family of the criminal sue the woman who was protecting the LEO and herself? If I was the judge I'd just laugh and dismiss the case...

Texas is a "Stand your ground" state. Is that not enough? (I know this incident happened in IN but i'm just referencing texas since thats where I live.)

The "Stand your ground" law really doesn't have anything to do with it.

So far a court has not found her within or without her legal rights. The DA simply declined to prosecute her. Under the constitution her opponents can not be barred from filing suit, they deserve their time in court just like anyone else. BUT, in Texas under Texas's civil immunity clause she should not be not be held liable IF the civil court judge finds that she acted in self-defense/defense of another. If the suit were filed in Texas, a judge would have to make the determination, and I'm sure her attorney would press for this early, bringing up the DA's decision not to prosecute.

I think Indiana actually does have a similar civil immunity law, but am not sure, haven't had time to look it up.

There are more detailed discussions on Texas's civil immunity law on this forum, it may take some searching to find them. I don't think anyone on this forum has ever heard of a successful lawsuit against someone who defended themselves in accordance with Texas law.

[Grundy1133]

What I don't understand is if the court found her within her legal rights of self defense (and defending the LEO) then how on Earth can the family of the criminal sue the woman who was protecting the LEO and herself? If I was the judge I'd just laugh and dismiss the case...

Texas is a "Stand your ground" state. Is that not enough? (I know this incident happened in IN but i'm just referencing texas since thats where I live.)

The "Stand your ground" law really doesn't have anything to do with it.

So far a court has not found her within or without her legal rights. The DA simply declined to prosecute her. Under the constitution her opponents can not be barred from filing suit, they deserve their time in court just like anyone else. BUT, in Texas under Texas's civil immunity clause she should not be not be held liable IF the civil court judge finds that she acted in self-defense/defense of another. If the suit were filed in Texas, a judge would have to make the determination, and I'm sure her attorney would press for this early, bringing up the DA's decision not to prosecute.

I think Indiana actually does have a similar civil immunity law, but am not sure, haven't had time to look it up.

There are more detailed discussions on Texas's civil immunity law on this forum, it may take some searching to find them. I don't think anyone on this forum has ever heard of a successful lawsuit against someone who defended themselves in accordance with Texas law.

I guess that raises another question... would it be wise to invest in concealed carry insurance?

[ELB]

I guess that raises another question... would it be wise to invest in concealed carry insurance?

There are a lot of posts on that too. Heh. Good luck.

[Grundy1133]

I guess that raises another question... would it be wise to invest in concealed carry insurance?

There are a lot of posts on that too. Heh. Good luck.

I'm not exactly a rich fellow. I'm actually unemployed at the moment... So paying thousands of lawyer fees doesn't sound very fun to me.

[ELB]

I guess that raises another question... would it be wise to invest in concealed carry insurance?

There are a lot of posts on that too. Heh. Good luck.

I'm not exactly a rich fellow. I'm actually unemployed at the moment... So paying thousands of lawyer fees doesn't sound very fun to me.

Sorry to hear. The "heh" is because "concealed carry insurance" and similar products have been a...lively...topic of discussion in the past. More soe than 9mm vs .45ACP. If you search this forum you should find lots of discussion about it.

[Abraham]

"This is why people sign up for concealed carry legal protection / insurance."

Better be certain you understand 'what isn't covered' if you decide to buy this stuff.

You could be horribly surprised to find all the premiums you paid...don't cover much of your legal costs, while the rest of the fees involved not covered come directly out of YOUR pocket.

So those of you feel comfortably covered ...may actually not be

[ELB]

Updates and Scuttlebutt:

The plaintiff's initial filing can be found in an article at this link: https://www.eaglecountryonline.com/news ... n-officer/

What's interesting is that the plaintiff is not only contending unlawful death, but that the woman and the conservation officer actually conspired to deprive the deceased of his constitutional rights. (!) From the articles I read, the CO did not even know the woman was there until he heard the gun shot.

21. Defendant Michael C. Powell and Defendant Kystie Jaehnen reached an understanding.
engaged in a sequence of events or course of conduct, and otherwise agreed and conspired
together t0 violate the constitutional rights 0f the Plaintiff.

22. Each defendant did reach this understanding and agreement, and did engage in this course
of conduct with the mutual purpose, objective, and knowledge that it would deprive Justin
Holland of his rights. privileges and immunities, as guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of
the United States.

23. Further, said conspiracy/joint action violated Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights, under
color of law. in violation 0f 42 U.S.C. Section 1983‘ and was a direct and proximate cause 0f
their pain. suffering and mental anguish. Acting in Furtherance of this plan and conspiracy. each
0f the Defendants committed overt acts, including, but not limited to an unjustifiable beating and
false arrest as fully alleged in paragraphs

Amazing.

Indiana law does appear to have protection for people who defend themselves, according to the woman's lawyer:

"Where a person uses reasonable force in self-defense or the defense of a third person they cannot be held, quote, 'in any legal jeopardy whatsoever,' end quote. And any legal jeopardy whatsoever unquestionably includes civil liability or being a defendant in a civil lawsuit," said Relford.

...and he hopes to get the case dismissed early on.
http://www.wlwt.com/article/women-don-t ... c/19864383

Scuttlebutt on Indiana forum is that the family could not get a local lawyer to take the case so went to Cincinnati to find a firm that would.

Once again, the woman's GoFundMe page for legal costs is here, if you are so inclined: https://www.gofundme.com/kystie039s-best-defense

ETA: IC 35-41-3-2:

"No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

[MechAg94]

"This is why people sign up for concealed carry legal protection / insurance."

Better be certain you understand 'what isn't covered' if you decide to buy this stuff.

You could be horribly surprised to find all the premiums you paid...don't cover much of your legal costs, while the rest of the fees involved not covered come directly out of YOUR pocket.

So those of you feel comfortably covered ...may actually not be

The same issue applies to home insurance among other things in life. Buyer beware. Everyone has to make their own choices. There are different options with the carry insurance out there. There are also ways to prepare for your legal defense yourself.

I have heard people downplaying the concealed carry legal protection, but I haven't heard of any cases where someone had it, had a self defense incident, and then was left out in the cold by the company. I would like to hear about it if that comes up.

[TimLanders]

There was a court case recently covered by Andrew Branca where it was clear there was a "good shoot" but the DA decided to go ahead with the trial because in that state (don't recall state) a judge could give a bench ruling. As a result there was a very brief trial (no Jury), shooter was found not guilty (it was self defense) and therefore had civil immunity. Unfortunately that either wasn't an option or didn't happen in this case.

[rotor]

"This is why people sign up for concealed carry legal protection / insurance."

Better be certain you understand 'what isn't covered' if you decide to buy this stuff.

You could be horribly surprised to find all the premiums you paid...don't cover much of your legal costs, while the rest of the fees involved not covered come directly out of YOUR pocket.

So those of you feel comfortably covered ...may actually not be

I think that finding out what isn't covered is almost impossible. As a matter of fact, if you were smart enough to find out you would probably be a good attorney yourself and not need this coverage.

[The Annoyed Man]

As I said, the dead suspect's family is suing the woman and the police agency involved (in this case the Indiana Department of Natural Resources). Even without the state being involved, the woman may have liability insurance that the plaintiff's could tap, and I think this would not be known until the suit is initiated. Monetarily I think the DNR is the real target.

Also, no matter how violent/stupid/drug-addled/insane the person who ends up dead through his own criminal action is, almost invariably his family can't accept that he had any responsibility and has to find someone else to blame. So there is an ego issue involved, they can't accept reality that their child/sibling/parent/relative really was not a very good person, they have to warp the rest of reality to conform to their views and relieve the cognitive dissonance.

See also "multiple genders".

Almost invariably, that kind of family has more history of addiction than just the one person, and the entire family dynamic is one big swamp of codependency. This kind of fecklessness is just a symptom of it.

[warnmar10]

I guess that raises another question... would it be wise to invest in concealed carry insurance?

Did you ever see the Simpsons episode where Homer had removed from his cranium a crayon that had been lodged there since he shoved the crayon up his nose as a small child?

Removing the crayon changed his life almost immediately. It turned out Homer had a genius IQ. He was charming, sophisticated, athletic and handsome. But in the end every relationship Homer had in life changed for the worse and the decision was made to have the crayon reinserted, possibly restoring order to Homer's life.

Moe the bartender performed the reinsertion. As he worked he asked Homer a series of questions. Moe was satisfied the crayon was correctly inserted when Homer said in reply to Moe: "Yes I think concealed carry insurance is a wonderful idea!"