Is getting sued a myth?

[seamusTX]

I would expect that if the prosecutor decides that it was a good shoot and then I am sued in civil court, my lawyer would point out the fact that the shooting was ruled as justifiable by law enforcement and therefore the suit should be dismissed.

The problem is that you generally are not found by a court to be justified in your actions or not guilty.

When the DA does not press charges or the grand jury returns a no bill, it simply means they did not find probable cause of guilt.

You need a trial to determine that you are not guilty.

Also, FWIW, no one is found innocent under our system of law. The defendant is either guilty or not guilty.

- Jim

[mcub]

In the current world I think it is a good ideal to be prepared to be sued, or at least expect it.

[frankie_the_yankee]

In the current world I think it is a good ideal to be prepared to be sued, or at least expect it.

I don't disagree, but I think that if it really is a good shoot, here in TX the chances of being sued are pretty small.

It is very hard to win such a suit in TX. And lawyers do not like to work for nothing.

[boomerang]

They also don't like to be named in a counter suit.

[HankB]

IANAL, but over the years I've been told by attorneys and LEOs that in the aftermath of a "good" shooting you CAN be sued in civil court.

And if you are sued, it is MUCH more difficult for the next-of-kin of a deceased bad guy to prevail in court than it is for a wounded or crippled bad guy. (They had more to say in this regard, but draw your own conclusions.)

(This was before the "Castle Doctrine" law was enacted.)

[frankie_the_yankee]

IANAL, but over the years I've been told by attorneys and LEOs that in the aftermath of a "good" shooting you CAN be sued in civil court.

Of course you can. But the lack of a deep pocket reduces the likelihood of such suits in many cases. And a reluctance on the part of most juries to make a millionaire out of a dirtbag makes most such suits an uphill battle for the plaintiffs.

And if you are sued, it is MUCH more difficult for the next-of-kin of a deceased bad guy to prevail in court than it is for a wounded or crippled bad guy. (They had more to say in this regard, but draw your own conclusions.)

This may be true or may be a myth. I simply don't know.

(This was before the "Castle Doctrine" law was enacted.)

I figured that. And while IANAL either, I believe that the Castle Doctrine, as it was passed here in TX, will make already difficult lawsuits nearly impossible to win (on any kind of good shoot), such that very few attorneys will be willing to even try.

[Crash]

An acquaintance of ours was forced to shoot a home intruder earlier this year. He heard a noise in his garage about 4:00 AM, armed himself with a handgun, and went to the door that opens into the garage. When he opened it, he saw a young man, clothed only from the waist up, moving toward him. He warned the man to stop and when he did not, he fired once, killing the man.

I saw one article in the local newspaper about the incident, there may have been a second, and there was an obit in the newspaper because the intruder was from the local area.

The significant thing about this is that it happened before the Castle Doctrine became effective, our acquaintance was not sued, and he has very "deep pockets."

Crash

[frankie_the_yankee]

The significant thing about this is that it happened before the Castle Doctrine became effective, our acquaintance was not sued, and he has very "deep pockets."

Crash

Like I said, it's tough to win a suit like that in TX, as well it should be.

And with the Castle Doctrine it will be even tougher going forward.