Civil liability protection

[juggernaut]

Might be cheaper than your funeral though.

[hheremtp]

Chas. Cotton wrote: you will win and probably win early in the case

I would think that virtually 100 % of these cases would be dismissed on summary judgment once the defendant establishes the plaintiff was in violation.

Can we assume that the defendant's lawyer will expect to be paid for establishing that plaintiff was in violation?

Yes he will, and in that summary judgment you ask for the plaintiff to pay the legal fees of the defendant.

The person who broke into your "castle" that had to be protected with deadly force in all liklihood is not a model citizen with a comfortable bank account or an estate that can be attached by the court. Similarly, his relatives who are bringing the wrongful death suit have been told there is money to be had here. You win and the judge orders the broke plaintiffs to cough up what they never had in the first place - money. Your lawyer who beat the charge probably still wants to be paid.

I'm not being argumentative or contentious, I'm just sayin'...it's gonna' cost you, win, lose or draw.

I understand your point and agree with you, however, I would rather pay a lawyer than an undertaker.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Chas. Cotton wrote: you will win and probably win early in the case

I would think that virtually 100 % of these cases would be dismissed on summary judgment once the defendant establishes the plaintiff was in violation.

Can we assume that the defendant's lawyer will expect to be paid for establishing that plaintiff was in violation?

Yes he will, and in that summary judgment you ask for the plaintiff to pay the legal fees of the defendant.

The person who broke into your "castle" that had to be protected with deadly force in all liklihood is not a model citizen with a comfortable bank account or an estate that can be attached by the court. Similarly, his relatives who are bringing the wrongful death suit have been told there is money to be had here. You win and the judge orders the broke plaintiffs to cough up what they never had in the first place - money. Your lawyer who beat the charge probably still wants to be paid.

I'm not being argumentative or contentious, I'm just sayin'...it's gonna' cost you, win, lose or draw.

Yes, the defense attorney does want to get paid and unless he/she is new and inexperienced, he/she is going to get a retainer to cover the expected cost of the defense. I don't do that with regular clients I've represented for a while, but if a new client comes in the door, I'll be getting a retainer. It's amazing how many people lose interest in paying their attorney when their problems are solved.

That said, the chances of needing a civil defense attorney after a righteous shooting is extremely remote. If the case is truly frivolous, the Court has the authority to award sanctions against the attorney/law firm as well. That's another potential source of payment.

Chas.

[juggernaut]

That said, the chances of needing a civil defense attorney after a righteous shooting is extremely remote. If the case is truly frivolous, the Court has the authority to award sanctions against the attorney/law firm as well. That's another potential source of payment.

That's good news. They should have some skin in the game too.

[casingpoint]

Chas. Cotton wrote: I don't do that with regular clients I've represented for a while, but if a new client comes in the door, I'll be getting a retainer

And just how many shootings are required to become a regular customer whom you know is good for the money?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Chas. Cotton wrote: I don't do that with regular clients I've represented for a while, but if a new client comes in the door, I'll be getting a retainer

And just how many shootings are required to become a regular customer whom you know is good for the money?

Now that's funny!

Chas.

[esxmarkc]

Not to hijack the thread.....

Mr. Cotton, I would like to say "Thank You" for providing a forum in which we can interact on such matters. A really nice asset to the Texas CHL community.

Can we throw in a "what if"?

Suppose there is a justified shooting but in the process an innocent bystander is injured. What would your civil liabilities be in such a case if it is one of your stray bullets?

Just curious,
Mark C.

[sjfcontrol]

Suppose there is a justified shooting but in the process an innocent bystander is injured. What would your civil liabilities be in such a case if it is one of your stray bullets?

Just curious,
Mark C.

You might want to check out this insurance. http://www.mmdbrokers.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bdickens]

The liability belongs to the criminal actor, not to you.

[sjfcontrol]

The liability belongs to the criminal actor, not to you.

That's a nice theory, but probably would not stop an injured bystander from suing YOU, especially if you had deeper pockets than the "doer".

[hheremtp]

Not to hijack the thread.....

Mr. Cotton, I would like to say "Thank You" for providing a forum in which we can interact on such matters. A really nice asset to the Texas CHL community.

Can we throw in a "what if"?

Suppose there is a justified shooting but in the process an innocent bystander is injured. What would your civil liabilities be in such a case if it is one of your stray bullets?

Just curious,
Mark C.

Nope, in fact you would get off on shooting the perp but go to jail for the innocent bystander. and you bet you would have the pants sued off of you by the victim or his family.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Can we throw in a "what if"?

Suppose there is a justified shooting but in the process an innocent bystander is injured. What would your civil liabilities be in such a case if it is one of your stray bullets?

Just curious,
Mark C.

This is a great question! The immunity from civil liability provisions of the "Castle Doctrine" would not protect you in a suit by the innocent bystander, but it would protect you from the BG or his family.

If you were "reckless" in injuring the innocent third person, then you could be also be prosecuted.

Chas.

[esxmarkc]

Thanks for the responses! That is pretty much my interpretation as well. Bottom line is to always be aware that there could always be repercussions and never behave in a "reckless" manor.

Mark C.

[dac1842]

There is a case in progress on this very subject. Charles, as usual is absolutely right. In the rulings made so far, the courts have upheld the plaintiff's right to have a day in court. The downside to this is simple, while in the end the defendant will probably prevail, it will cost him tens of thousands of dollars to "win". As info before the questions get asked, the defendant was no billed by a grand jury, it is a case that happened in Montgomery County in 2007 about 2 weeks after the Joe Horn case in Houston. To make matters worse for the defendant in this case, a year after he shot and killed the subject on his doorstep, the defendant's daughter, who was a witness to the shooting, was killed by a drunk driver on FM 105 in Conroe.

[Oldgringo]

dac1842 wrote:

....In the rulings made so far, the courts have upheld the plaintiff's right to have a day in court. The downside to this is simple, while in the end the defendant will probably prevail, it will cost him tens of thousands of dollars to "win"....

On TV, this is where one of the lawyers says something like, "I rest my case", isn't it?