Man who shot Alzheimer’s sufferer won’t be charged

[HeadHunter]

Bad choices, long consequences. Completely avoidable.

http://exm.nr/MCuFjO

[Tamara]

The right call from a legal standpoint, given the facts as presented. But, like you said, completely avoidable.

I wouldn't trade places with that man right now for all the money in the world (a goodly chunk of which he may yet need for any civil proceedings.)

[Alpha Sierra]

I wouldn't trade places with that man right now for all the money in the world (a goodly chunk of which he may yet need for any civil proceedings.)

In more and more states, being exonerated of criminal liability in a SD shooting serves as a shield to civil liability. It does in mine.

[Tamara]

In more and more states, being exonerated of criminal liability in a SD shooting serves as a shield to civil liability. It does in mine.

IA(totally)NAL, but Googling around, it looks like 2305.40 wouldn't have covered this guy because the shooter was not "inside a building or structure" and 2307.60 wouldn't have covered him because the deceased was not at the time engaged "in conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence and that conduct was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action". Unless I'm missing something, this guy could be hosed, were he in a Buckeye civil trial?

[HeadHunter]

IA(totally)NAL, but Googling around, it looks like 2305.40 wouldn't have covered this guy because the shooter was not "inside a building or structure" and 2307.60 wouldn't have covered him because the deceased was not at the time engaged "in conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence and that conduct was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action". Unless I'm missing something, this guy could be hosed, were he in a Buckeye civil trial?

I will have to review Georgia law to opine about it, but I think he's clean here, from the civil standpoint. We have a strong Castle doctrine going back over 100 years. When it was revised to codify case law a few years ago, the term 'curtilage' was removed, which is the only thing that gives me pause.

I wouldn't trade places with that man right now for all the money in the world

"I wouldn't trade places with Edmund Exley now for all the whiskey in Ireland." --Capt. Dudley Smith, LAPD.

Nor with Joe Hendrix, the shooter. How much do you want to bet his relationship goes down the tube (or doesn't) in short order?

[Alpha Sierra]

IA(totally)NAL, but Googling around, it looks like 2305.40 wouldn't have covered this guy because the shooter was not "inside a building or structure" and 2307.60 wouldn't have covered him because the deceased was not at the time engaged "in conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence and that conduct was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action". Unless I'm missing something, this guy could be hosed, were he in a Buckeye civil trial?

The fact that the shooter left the protection of the house would make it more difficult, but I think a good attorney could make 2307.60 B(2)(c) stick as a defense. IANAL either......

[TR675]

So whether you are protected from civil suit or not in the event of a justified self-defense shooting is a really interesting question and depends entirely on how your state's statutes are drafted.

In Texas, the law is that "[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." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Sec. 83.001 (emphasis added).

Note that the law says that you are immune from "liability", not suit. Texas case law says that this statute provides defendants with an affirmative defense to liability, but does not protect them from having to contest a lawsuit at all.

So, for example, let's say Sammy Shooter spots Barry the bad guy breaking into Sammy's car in the driveway at night. Barry has a screwdriver, and Sammy's testimony is that when he confronted Barry, Barry threated to shank Sammy. Sammy shoots Barry dead. The grand jury no-bills Sammy. Barry's family then files a wrongful death lawsuit against Sammy. In this civil lawsuit, Sammy has the burden of pleading and proof to show that his use of force against Barry was justified under Texas's use of force laws. If he meets this burden - and he probably can - he doesn't have to pay a dime to Barry's family.

However, he will have to pay a sh!tload of dimes to his attorneys, both criminal (initial consultation, hand-holding, to get to the no-bill) and civil (to answer the lawsuit, conduct discovery, file summary judgment, possibly try the case). Sammy's justified use of force potentially may cost him tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses alone.

So my take-away, both from the incident HH posted and more generally, is "don't get out of the boat." Shooting someone breaking into your house presents a much clearer picture to the police and to potential opposing counsel than a situation where you leave the safety of your home to needlessly confront someone.

[hufnagel]

“When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” A well prepared citizen should have a personal protection toolkit, both physical and mental, not just a single instrument.

that right there. so true. the "what if's" in this case are going to be huge and long.

it makes me think we should somehow convince people to WANT to be trained, not just in firearms use but also in other aspects of personal defense. but I quickly see the Slippery Slope problem that thinking leads to. I'm not smart enough to solve that problem... but I won't give up trying to find a solution.

[Chuck Haggard]

I tell people all the time if they are worried about their car to then call 911 and get the coppers headed that way. You would be stunned at how many people take that step last instead of first.

Stay inside. If it helps you feel like you are doing something then maybe video them, or use your new badass 8000 lumen light to communicate you see them, cockroaches and dirtnags both hate bright lights, maybe yell "I called the cop kittenhead" when you light them up. That normally encourages them to leave the area in a motivated manner. If they then want to come kick in the door to your house you are on much stronger legal footing if it turns into a shooting.

[Tamara]

Texas case law says that this statute provides defendants with an affirmative defense to liability, but does not protect them from having to contest a lawsuit at all.

So, for example, let's say Sammy Shooter spots Barry the bad guy breaking into Sammy's car in the driveway at night. Barry has a screwdriver, and Sammy's testimony is that when he confronted Barry, Barry threated to shank Sammy. Sammy shoots Barry dead. The grand jury no-bills Sammy. Barry's family then files a wrongful death lawsuit against Sammy.

But, but... I read on internet gun forums that in Texas you can shoot a man dead for picking up a penny off your lawn in the middle of the night and go back to sleep, safe in the knowledge that TEXAS! has your back, because your property is a free-fire zone after dark.