Civil prosecution

[redoregon]

True or false: ClVlL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or
deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune
from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the
defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

CHL course instructor warned that even if you're justified in using deadly force on the *criminal law* side of the house, his family could still come after you with a *civil* suit. But the above came from the last page of the booklet in the CHL package.

Recent law change or something?

[seamusTX]

Yes. This change took effect September 1, 2007.

Texans were never sued in justified self defense cases before that. Such suits are extremely rare in any state.

- Jim

[austin-tatious]

Yes. This change took effect September 1, 2007.

Texans were never sued in justified self defense cases before that. Such suits are extremely rare in any state.

- Jim

I checked the TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS AND SELECTED STATUTES (INSTRUCTOR'S PAMPHLET) for 2007 -2008 and the TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS AND SELECTED STATUTES 2007 - 2008 pamphlet that we CHL-ers get from the state. The Instructor's Pamphlet does NOT have the paragraph CPRC 83.001. ClVlL IMMUNITY quoted above, but the pamphlet they hand out to everyone else does. What's with that?

[dewayneward]

The wording has me confused. Are you saying that if I used justified deadly force against a bad guy that followed Chap 9 of the penal code after September 1, 2007, the family could NOT sue me?

I could read what was written and the response either way and I want to make sure. I have read a number of cases (like the pizza delivery guy one) where the family of the misguided kid sued the good guy.

[bayouhazard]

The wording has me confused. Are you saying that if I used justified deadly force against a bad guy that followed Chap 9 of the penal code after September 1, 2007, the family could NOT sue me?

They can sue but they can't win.

[seamusTX]

I checked the ... (INSTRUCTOR'S PAMPHLET) for 2007 -2008 and the ... pamphlet that we CHL-ers get from the state. The Instructor's Pamphlet does NOT have the paragraph CPRC 83.001. ClVlL IMMUNITY quoted above, but the pamphlet they hand out to everyone else does. What's with that?

I dunno. A bureaucrat might call it a regrettable oversight. I would call it a screw-up.

- Jim

[seamusTX]

The wording has me confused. Are you saying that if I used justified deadly force against a bad guy that followed Chap 9 of the penal code after September 1, 2007, the family could NOT sue me?

Yes. Bayouhazard beat me to it. Anyone can file a lawsuit, but this law would cause it to be dismissed on preliminary motion or something like that.

As a practical measure, no matchbook lawyer will take a case on commission that he can't win.

I have read a number of cases (like the pizza delivery guy one) where the family of the misguided kid sued the good guy.

Which state? Not every state has this protection. But very few juries will award damages to the family of an armed robber who was a convicted felon.

You hear about these cases in the news when they are filed -- often the Bradys piggyback on them for publicity -- but not when the case is dismissed.

There are a lot of stories circulating about people who were sued in self-defense shootings. Most of those cases were from the 1970s and 80s, when many states had a legal duty to retreat in the face of an attack. Most of those laws have been changed.

- Jim

[dewayneward]

Cool!! That was one of my concerns. Mind you, I would still be alive (the whole judged by 12 instead of carried by 6), but I would go batty to have to sit in a trial and then have to turn over my hard earned money to the family of some scumbag that tried to hurt me or mine. That is (almost) as bad as being robbed.

I think the pizza one was in Tenn. I read it a few months ago.

Like I said, it was one of the things that bugged me was that I could still be sued (and lose) by the family. There were some cases I read where a burglar broke into a house, was killed by the homeowner and the family of the burglar actually had the nerve to sue the homeowners. This is one of the many reasons why I carry 24/7. I live in a country where someone thinks "that mean ole guy "murdered" my <insert relative name here> and I think I have been wronged so I will sue him".

I love my country, and my state (still think we should secede), but this is one of those whacky scenarios that I dont get.

[seamusTX]

I live in a country where someone thinks "that mean ole guy "murdered" my <insert relative name here> and I think I have been wronged so I will sue him".

Do you know of a better country in this respect?

In nearly every other country, if you kill an attacker, you will be prosecuted for homicide. In most cases you will not have the right to an open trial before a jury or to confront your accuser.

- Jim

[joe817]

[I misread a-t original post. Sorry about that. Yes all student hand out booklets contain that.]

[ELB]

I used to read all of Ayoob's columns, and it seems he often referred to the possibility of lawsuits after a "righteous" shooting. I do bear in mind that his home turf (Massachusetts/Northeast) has not been particularly gun- or self-defense friendly for quite some time.

However, I have only read one account of a self-defense shooting that actually resulted in a lawsuit. Below are excerpts from some articles documenting it when it first arose. My best Google-fu has not been able to uncover any further news on it, altho it is almost a year old. If anyone else gets interested in it and can track it down, I would like to know the current status. The below accounts concentrate on the lawsuit -- a couple others I ran across mention that the assailant was a transient who had substance abuse issues. The defender had a concealed license permit from Indiana, which is honored by Utah.

Also -- this is the only account I have ever read where the business was sued for one of its employees being involved in a self-defense shooting.

http://extras.sltrib.com/thedead/Articl ... =57&ID=284" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Salt Lake Tribune
Published Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Man's family angered by self-defense ruling

Lindsay Whitehurst
The family of Mike J. Mays, who was slain by an off-duty security guard, said they are "very upset" by Salt Lake County prosecutors' decision not to press charges. "I totally think it was unjustifiable . . . at least they could have written him a ticket, something," said Mays' first wife, Holly Mays, 49. "I think now people think you can basically open fire in a residential area and say, 'I did it in self-defense.' "

Prosectors last week concluded that George Harrison, 59, shot Mays in self-defense in a July 9 confrontation between the two men that started when Mays was across the street from Mama's Southern Plantation restaurant, 1394 S. West Temple, according to a news release from the prosecutor's office.
Mays began shouting threats at Harrison, claiming, "You don't know who I am," and "I'm going to [expletive] you up."
When he was two or three feet from Harrison, Mays lifted his shirt and reached for his waistband.
Fearing Mays was reaching for a gun, Harrison drew his own .38 Special revolver and shot the other man once in the torso, killing him, according to prosecutors.
Mays was later found to be unarmed.
For Mays' son, the decision not to charge Harrison is heart-rending, especially because Harrison apparently gave no verbal warning.
"Man, when you kill someone you've got to pay the price . . . you've got to take responsibility," Mike Workman, 24, said. "[Harrison] needs to know [Mays] had loved ones."
Workman said the family is considering a civil lawsuit.
Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office spokeswoman Alicia Cook said Monday the facts of the case led prosecutors to believe a reasonable person would have had a reasonable belief, as Harrison did, that his or her life was in danger.
Cook added that prosecutors could not charge Harrison with a lesser crime because the self-defense statute doesn't allow for one when lethal force is used.
"With self-defense you are justified in using the force or you are not," Cook said.
Prosecutors said Harrison obtained a concealed-weapons permit for his gun in Indiana, and that Utah recognizes weapons permits issued in other states.
Attempts to contact Harrison for comment were unsuccessful.

http://extras.sltrib.com/thedead/Articl ... =56&ID=284" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Salt Lake Tribune
Published Thursday, December 18, 2008
Daughter files civil suit in father's shooting death
No charges » Authorities called it self-defense.

Jason Bergreen
The daughter of a man gunned down last summer outside a Salt Lake City restaurant filed a civil lawsuit Thursday claiming the shooter and the restaurant near where her father died were negligent.
The suit filed by Brooke Mays demands $20,000 and asks for funeral expenses and general damages after her father, Michael Mays, was killed by George R. Harrison in July outside Mama's Southern Plantation, 1394 S. West Temple.
Michael Mays and Harrison, who was a security guard at the restaurant, got into an argument near the diner's patio area on July 9. While the two were yelling, Mays dropped his backpack, lifted his shirt and began moving his left hand toward his waist band, police said. Harrison, who was carrying a concealed .38 special revolver, drew his gun and shot Mays once in the chest. The shooting was witnessed by several people and later determined by authorities to be a case of self-defense. The Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office did not file charges against Harrison.
Mays' daughter claims in her lawsuit that Harrison discharged his weapon without cause, did not conduct himself safely while working and because of his "wrongful acts, omissions, negligence and recklessness, Michael J. Mays was killed."
Mama's Southern Plantation is also liable, the suit claims, because Harrison was an employee of the restaurant.
The suit requests a trial to determine additional damages.

The Salt Lake Tribune keeps a database of homicides in Utah that they call "The Dead." You can find it here:
http://extras.sltrib.com/thedead/index.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[seamusTX]

A shooting by a security employee is different from a private citizen defending himself. The lawyers know that a business is probably going to have several million in liability insurance.

In Texas, so many of a private citizen's assets are shielded from liability, it's usually not worth suing.

When you find a news story about a lawsuit being filed, and no further news, it usually means that the case was dismissed or settled out of court. However, this case was initiated less than a year ago and may still be working its way through the system.

- Jim

[boomerang]

Does anybody have access to LexisNexis or another source that could tell us the status of the lawsuit? I looked on the Utah courts website but they only do searching through a fee-based system called XChange.

But anyhow that's Utah and the laws are different there. Like others said, in Texas we have immunity from civil liability but not from someone filing a nuisance suit.

[dewayneward]

I live in a country where someone thinks "that mean ole guy "murdered" my <insert relative name here> and I think I have been wronged so I will sue him".

Do you know of a better country in this respect?

In nearly every other country, if you kill an attacker, you will be prosecuted for homicide. In most cases you will not have the right to an open trial before a jury or to confront your accuser.

- Jim

I did wrestle with using the word "world" instead of "country". I should have wrestled harder. The point of my comment was that there are people out there think they are justified in sueing you because you stopped their relative from murdering you or something like that. Recommend de-caf

[seamusTX]

The point of my comment was that there are people out there think they are justified in sueing you because you stopped their relative from murdering you or something like that.

The right to sue for grievances is as basic as the right to free speech, etc. The fact that any right is sometimes abused is not a good reason to restrict the right.

Before there were lawsuits, there were duels and vendettas. That sort of thing still goes on in certain parts of the world and in certain subcultures, like the Mafia.

- Jim